Document Number: 1
 
                   The State Journal-Register (Springfield, IL)
                December 13, 1998, Friday, EARLY AND CITY EDITIONS
 Allergies could be problem with Bt in foods / No cases have been found but
 potential is there
 SECTION: BUSINESS, Pg. 52
 LENGTH: 452 words
 While studies of Bt crops and the chemistry of the caterpillar-killing protein
 indicate little or no food-safety risk to humans and livestock, there is one
 exception.
 Some individuals could develop allergies to Bt in foods.
 No cases of actual Bt allergies are known, but such an occurrence is at least
 theoretically possible.
 "All allergens are proteins," said molecular biologist Margaret Mellon, director
 of agricultural and biotechnology programs for the Union of Concerned
 Scientists.  "When you move proteins that are not in the food supply into the
 food supply, you have a possibility for allergies."
 Allergic reactions are actually hypersensitive reactions by the immune
 In harvested grain, levels of Bt protein are low or even nonexistent, depending
 on the variety.  That tiny residue -- if there is any at all -- might be
 insufficient exposure to provoke an immune system response, said Mellon. As a
 result, distinguishing a Bt allergy from a general allergy to corn could be
 extremely difficult.
 "We can't really predict allergens," said Mellon.  "These are the things that
 are being guessed at."
 A critic of some transgenic crops, she advocates labeling all products
 containing genetically modified organisms to provide consumer choice, as has
 been done in the European market.
 "We have nothing that would suggest that the relatively small risk of developing
 (Bt) allergy would be more or less than the risk of developing an allergy to the
 other proteins that are out there," said Marjorie Faust, an associate professor
 of animal science at Iowa State University.
 She suggested that if a small number of people develop allergies, it could
 support a niche market for products voluntarily labeled as non-Bt, "if it turns
 out that people develop specific food allergies to specific proteins in
 transgenic crops."
 For example, wheat-free products are sold for people with gluten allergies, and
 specialty processed foods are available for strict vegetarians or vegans who
 avoid all dairy and even animal protein-based gelatins.
 "The question is, do you not market something because there is a one in a
 trillion chance that someone will react to it?" Faust asked. "Have we stopped
 allowing people to buy peanuts in the grocery story?  Heavens, no.
 "Although (a Bt allergy) is a possibility, it's important to keep it in
 perspective.  Believe it or not, there are people who develop allergies to the
 vitamins they take.  It could be the binder in the vitamin, but here you are
 taking something that you think is good for your body -- my point being that you
 can't make a decision not to market something just because one human or 10
 humans might develop an allergy to it."
 LOAD-DATE: December 18, 1998
                    Copyright 1998 The State Journal-Register









Document Number: 2
 
                                  Inside Counsel
                                   August 2009
 Agricultural Investments in Latin America and the Caribbean;
 For U.S. and Canadian companies involved in the agricultural sector,
 advantageous opportunities exist south of the border
 Pg. 41
 LENGTH: 2780 words
 Many countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have well-developed and
 vibrant agricultural industries in the fields of farming, forestry and fishing
 among others. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the annual
 agricultural trade between Brazil and the United States alone exceeds $6.2
 billion, and the annual two-way trade of agricultural products between countries
 in the Dominican Republic-Central America-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA)
 is expected to meet or exceed $5.0 billion.
 There are many advantages to largescale agribusiness investments in Latin
 America and the Caribbean. There are also many challenges. Companies considering
 expansion into the region should carefully weigh the pros and the cons.
 "Every country in Latin America and the Caribbean has its own particular
 issues," says Carlos Umana Trujillo, a partner with Brigard & Urrutia, Lex
 Mundi's member firm for Colombia.
 These issues can be historical, cultural, geographic or legal in nature, and may
 require U.S. and Canadian in-house counsel to consider atypical factors. At the
 same time, bear in mind that many countries in the region are developing
 vibrant, stable economies.
 For example, Umana points to the unsafe conditions that once plagued Colombia
 because of the drug trade. Since 2002, that violence has been curbed
 dramatically. "That has allowed for an influx of investment," he says. "We are
 in the middle of a golden era in Colombia."
 The same is true in many other countries, according to Miguel I. Gomez,
 assistant professor of applied economics and management at Cornell University.
 "The macroeconomic stability brought by the independence of central banks, the
 professionalization of monetary policies and the liberalization of capital and
 foreign currency markets have facilitated foreign investments," he says.
 In addition, costs are often low. "The costs associated with environmental
 regulation tend to be lower in the region than in the United States and Canada,"
 says Gomez. Production costs for land and labor are significantly lower as well,
 he added.
 Nonetheless, in-house counsel should understand the issues of land regulation in
 the region, says Jos Setti Diaz, an attorney with Demarest e Almeida, Lex
 Mundi's member firm for Brazil.
 To understand those issues, it is important to be aware of some of the history
 of agriculture and land ownership in Latin America and the Caribbean. "Lawyers
 should look into the extent of reform in land tenure regimes," advises Carmen
 Diana Deere, director of the Center for Latin American Studies and a professor
 in food and resources economics at the University of Florida.
 In the 1960s, many governments in Latin America and the Caribbean set limits on
 the amount of land that a person or corporation could own--in some cases, this
 involved seizing land from foreign corporations. In the 1990s, most countries in
 the region passed agrarian reform as part of the neo-liberalism movement,
 according to Deere. However, some countries still retain strict limits on the
 amount of land that foreigners can own. These limits can greatly hamper
 agribusiness investment options for U.S. and Canadian companies that wish to
 pursue large-scale projects.
 Rather than purchasing land and resources outright, many foreign companies
 consider renting land or investing in contract farming. "They don't want to get
 embroiled in these situations again," she says.
 Financing is also an issue in agriculture, as it is in virtually every industry
 currently, according to Diaz. "Right now the markets are virtually closed, but
 we expect them to come back," he says.
 One area of agribusiness receiving increasing attention involves transgenic
 crops. Transgenics, or "GMOs," genetically modified organisms, have been
 modified in the laboratory through the introduction of genes from another
 species. They are intended to increase crop yields or to improve other
 characteristics, such as resistance to extreme climates, pests or herbicides.
 Believed by some to be the potential key to fighting hunger in the world,
 transgenics are, nevertheless, controversial. The contrarians argue that GMOs
 pose a threat to human health and the environment and may have other negative
 impacts. Many Latin American and Caribbean countries have now developed
 requirements and regulations related to transgenics that are important for
 in-house counsel to be aware of when considering agribusiness investments in
 this area.
 The Lex Mundi Agribusiness Practice Group recently published a related
 multi-jurisdictional survey that addresses the issues of commercialization,
 government regulation, importing, exporting and human consumption of GMOs in
 countries around the world including many in Latin America and the Caribbean.
 The survey entitled "Requirements to Sell, Manufacture or Commercialize
 Transgenics, Insecticides, Pesticides, Herbicides and Rodenticides" is available
 to view at www.lexmundi.com.
 The experts agree that, despite the challenges, Latin America and the Caribbean
 offer many opportunities for investments as long as companies do their homework
 and understand the pertinent issues. "Overall, the region is attractive for U.S.
 and Canadian investors interested in large-scale agricultural projects," says
 Gomez.
 C. R. & F. Rojas - Abogados
 Mario Kempff
 mario@rojas-lawfirm.com
 Patricio Rojas
 patricio@rojas-lawfirm.com
 Challenges and Opportunities of Agro-Industry Projects
 Last year, Bolivia's agro-industrial sector represented 10.44 percent of the
 Gross Domestic Product, the equivalent to $US 1,800,475,857. The country's
 cultivated surface is of 2,599,980 acres, covering 2.3 percent of its territory,
 while a vast portion of the country's land is still considered untouched.
 For many reasons such as relatively low property prices, extensive uncultivated
 land, cheap labor and a very lax tax system, Bolivia can be considered an
 attractive jurisdiction for foreign investors wishing to operate in the sector.
 The Bolivian government and the banking sector have implemented strong financial
 programs to support medium- and small-scale agricultural projects. However, due
 to the existing legal uncertainty and lack of regulation, many new investments
 could be considered as possibly high yield but also high risk.
 The new Constitution passed in January provides for a special agricultural
 regime and guarantees individual and collective private property, subject to the
 fulfillment of an economic and social purpose. The law limits private properties
 to 5,000 hectares but larger pre-existing properties will apparently not be
 affected. Foreign citizens may not acquire land owned by the State, thus, they
 may enter into exploitation joint venture agreements with the State, or acquire
 land from private owners.
 Overview of Firm's Agribusiness Practice
 C. R. & F. Rojas - Abogados, the oldest and one of the most prominent firms in
 Bolivia, with an office in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, the nations' agro-industry
 capital, has specialized lawyers providing advice to national and foreign
 agribusiness clients. The agricultural activities include the use of transgenic
 crops, agroindustrial services; sanitary product registration, use of
 pesticides, agro-machinery purchase, leasing and maintenance, genetic technology
 and cattle breeding.
 www.rojas-lawfirm.com
 Demarest e Almeida
 Rogrio Cruz Themudo Lessa
 rlessa@demarest.com.br
 Jos Setti Diaz
 jdiaz@demarest.com.br
 Challenges and Opportunities of Agro- Industry Projects
 Brazilian agribusiness became increasingly competitive worldwide and, nowadays,
 is a safe, profitable and affluent activity. Benefited by a diversified climate,
 Brazil is unparalleled globally in terms of land area potentially available for
 agriculture. Today, agribusiness is the main locomotive of Brazilian economy and
 accounts for approximately one third of national GDP. It is also responsible for
 the employment of 38 percent of the workforce, 36 percent of imports and 42
 percent of exports.
 Brazil is one of the global leaders in the export of agricultural products. In
 2007, the main products exported by Brazil were chicken (58.5 percent), ethanol
 (52.0 percent), sugar (41.0 percent) and soybean (36.33 percent). The most
 important companies operating in this area were Bunge Foods, Cargill, Unilever
 and Souza Cruz; and the main exporters were Bunge Foods, ADM Brazil, Ambev and
 M. Cargill.
 Among the main challenges impacting issues relevant to Brazilian agribusiness
 are the land ownership disputes, the uncertainty of genetically modified food
 and the search for procedures relating to the development of a sustainable
 environment capable of meeting the needs of the current generation without
 jeopardizing the future ones.
 Overview of Firm's Agribusiness Practice
 The agribusiness department of Demarest e Almeida, co-headed by Rogrio Cruz
 Themudo Lessa and Jos Setti Diaz, including lawyers from different areas of
 expertise, is able to render assistance on corporate, merger and acquisitions,
 real estate, contractual, environmental, litigation, regulatory (sanitary and
 phitosanitary regulations) and other issues related to the agribusiness.
 www.demarest.com.br
 Claro y Cia.
 Hernan Felipe Valdes
 hfvaldes@claro.cl
 Nicolas Eyzaguirre
 neyzaguirre@claro.cl
 Challenges and Opportunities of Agro-Industry Projects
 Agribusiness is one of Chile's main commercial activities, representing almost
 10 percent of our GDP. Political stability with no general restrictions to land
 ownership, several free trades with the most important economies in the world,
 and governmental support--like irrigation support and financing, benefits to
 forestry, bonus to recuperation of eroded land and other activities--are key
 components of our development. Our country has fruit exportations up to 3
 billion USD a year, with 324,000 hectares for growing fruit (number one exporter
 of table grapes and second in apples and avocados) and 160,000 hectares of
 vineyards (the fifth largest exporter of wine worldwide); we also export 25
 percent of our milk production and are the sixth largest exporter of pork.
 Our internal market is also strong. A recent law passed by Chilean Congress
 promotes non-conventional renewable and environmentally friendly energies,
 including biomass and biofuels, as privileged sources of electricity. This law
 requires that, beginning January 2010, electric companies will, each year,
 generate at least five percent more of their electricity using renewable
 energies. That percent of total electricity generated from non-conventional
 renewable energies will gradually increase until the electric companies meet a
 ceiling of 10 percent in 2024.
 Overview of Firm's Agribusiness Practice
 Founded in 1880, Claro y Cia. has always been active in the natural resources
 markets. Our clients are in energy, mining, fishing, forestry and agriculture.
 We represent clients, both in and out of court, with the most diverse interests
 connected with environmental and natural resources matters. Above all, our
 natural resources practice, like all work at the firm, has been designed to
 enable clients to accomplish their goals, minimize failures and stay out of
 trouble.
 www.claro.cl
 Pellerano & Herrera
 Marielle Garrigo
 m.garrigo@phlaw.com
 Isabel Andrickson
 i.andrickson@phlaw.com
 Challenges and Opportunities of Agro-Industry Projects
 The Dominican Republic has traditionally been an agricultural country and is the
 largest exporter in the Caribbean of agricultural products such as sugar, rice,
 beans, coffee, cocoa and tobacco. The country is also becoming a major producer
 and exporter of organic bananas to Europe and the United States.
 The advantages of pursuing an Agro-Industry project in the Dominican Republic
 include tax incentive laws for the development of renewable energy projects
 (biomass, ethanol, bio-fuels and others), special border zone development law
 and other incentive laws. The Dominican Republic has also entered into several
 key regional alliances and international treaties such as the Free Trade
 Agreement with the United States and Central America (DR-CAFTA) as well as the
 ACP-EC Cooperation with the European Community, which grants preferred access to
 these markets.
 The main challenges faced by investors in Agro-Industry projects in the
 Dominican Republic are a lack of competitive financing, interest rates and
 insurance for agricultural projects and barriers to agricultural exports to
 foreign markets in the form of tariff-base quotas.
 Overview of Firm's Agribusiness Practice
 Pellerano & Herrera is the leading law firm in the Dominican Republic with the
 best legal solutions to the business needs of our clients. Our Agribusiness
 practice advises in all matters related to permits, licenses and sanitary
 regulations; governmental relations; environmental law; financing, real estate
 and land acquisition or leasing; litigation; and international trade
 regulations; among others.
 www.phlaw.com
 Brigard & Urrutia
 Carlos Umana Trujillo
 cumana@bu.com.co
 571.540.5433 ext. 215
 Luis Alfredo Barragan
 lbarragan@bu.com.co
 571.540. 5433 ext. 262
 Challenges and Opportunities of Agro-Industry Projects
 Investment projects in the agriculture sector entitle the investor to obtain
 governmental soft loans and "Certificates of Incentive to Rural Capitalization,"
 which represent a subsidy in a way of a lower value of the debt. In the event of
 forestry projects, the government issues "Forestry Incentive Certificates-FIC,"
 which are subsidies to reimburse part of the investment. These benefits may be
 up to 75 percent of the loan or investment.
 Forestry projects not eligible for FICs may be exempt from income tax.
 Furthermore, forestry investments may provide investors with a 20 percent credit
 on corporate income tax. Agriculture projects may be developed within Free Trade
 Zones, reducing the income tax rate to 15 percent and avoiding import taxes on
 the introduction of assets to such zones.
 Foreign investors can execute Legal Stability Agreements with the Colombian
 Government in order to freeze certain rules for 20 years.
 Certain minor restrictions may apply on the area of land that an investor may
 acquire pursuant to land reform laws. The rapid growth of agribusiness projects
 may further push towards more flexible regulations.
 Overview of Firm's Agribusiness Practice
 Based on 75 years of experience, Brigard & Urrutia abogados provides legal
 advice to our clients with respect to all related matters in the energy and
 agriculture sector, such as obtaining permits and licenses, review of the
 regulations applicable to specific projects, and legal review of the
 environmental management and land acquisition, among others.
 www.bu.com.co
 Estudio Olaechea
 Jos Antonio Olaechea
 joseantonioolaechea@esola.com.pe
 Martin Serkovic
 martinserkovic@esola.com.pe
 Challenges and Opportunities of Agro-Industry Projects
 Peruvian climate and geographic location are two key aspects for Peruvian
 agriculture competitiveness in the international context. Out of the 108 types
 of climates existing in the world, Peru's territory shows up to 84 types, which
 permits the great diversity of crops, husbandry and forest species our fields
 offer.
 Peru's location in the southern hemisphere is also favorable because it permits
 us to export farming products to the large consumption market in the northern
 hemisphere, namely United States, Europe and Asia, taking advantage of the
 season contrast between hemispheres.
 In Peru, the land area suitable for clean and permanent cultivation is estimated
 in 8 million hectares, of which approximately 3 million are annually harvested.
 The Peruvian State has been executing irrigation projects such as Chavimochic
 project to improve irrigation and Olmos project that permits irrigation of at
 least 40,000 hectares of cultivation land with a high agribusiness potential.
 Regulations aimed at promoting investment in agriculture and agribusiness have
 eliminated all restrictions on land ownership, price fixing for agricultural
 products, and state monopolies for the marketing of foodstuffs. Foreign
 investment is protected and foreign investors may enter into stabilization
 agreements with the government which guarantee the stability of currency, tax,
 labor and export laws.
 Overview of Firm's Agribusiness Practice
 Estudio Olaechea's agribusiness department is prepared to provide integral
 advice on a number of matters, including agrarian law, water legislation, real
 rights (rights in rem), health and administrative authorizations, regulatory
 (sanitary and phitosanitary regulations) and foreign trade, among others.
 www.esola.com.pe
 LOAD-DATE: August 6, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Magazine
                           Copyright 2009 InsideCounsel
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 3
 
                          Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
                               May 31, 2009 Sunday
                                  Metro Edition
 Will the yield keep growing?;
 Corn yields seem to rise every year, along with demand. But the question is
 whether, even with genetic tinkering, the yields will continue to increase.
 BYLINE: MATT McKINNEY, STAFF WRITER
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. 1D
 LENGTH: 1338 words
 As farmers put the state's 2009 corn crop into the ground this month, they
 expect to grow more corn per acre than last year. And if history is any guide,
 they will.
 Farmers today harvest more corn than their parents did a generation ago from the
 same fields, a fact made evident in historical charts that show corn yield over
 the past several decades as a steadily rising line.
 So reliable is corn's growth of about 2 extra bushels per acre per year that
 government analysts folded it into their forecasts for this year's 12.1 billion
 bushel crop. It's just expected.
 And yet it's still not enough. The state's ubiquitous crop that's become a
 staple for feed, fuel, sugar and everything from drywall to shoe polish is in
 more demand than ever, with a third of the crop going to ethanol.
 Some say farmers will rise to the challenge, that corn yields will grow even
 faster in years to come.
 "We are projected to double corn yields in this nation in the next 20 years,"
 said Jeff Broin, CEO of ethanol refiner Poet, a South Dakota-based company that
 produces 1 billion gallons of ethanol a year.
 The reason for at least some of his optimism came last year when scientists
 cracked the corn genome, a string of 2.5 billion pairs of DNA bases, ushering in
 the promise of yet more genetic modification of a plant that since 1996 has
 become one of the world's largest transgenic crops. Seed companies are among
 those who, like Broin, predict a doubling of corn yields within a few decades.
 But the history and hype surrounding corn yields has one staggering asterisk:
 The very best farms, blessed with the best weather and land, have posted the
 same yields for at least 20 years -- suggesting they have reached the limit of
 what the corn plant can produce.
 "The odds, if we keep the status quo, of those yield trends slowing down is very
 high," said Roger Elmore, an Iowa State University professor of agronomy.
 Feeding the world
 Ethanol producers aren't the only ones banking on more corn. U.S. corn exports
 will rise 9 percent this year to help feed the world's growing population.
 Beyond food and fuel, corn also provides building blocks for a wide array of
 industrial products -- from plastics and foams engineered by Cargill to drywall,
 shoe polish and firecrackers. For all those reasons, the United States will
 consume 3 percent more corn this year than it did last year, according to the
 latest estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
 How long farmers can continue to produce more corn on the same amount of land
 remains an ongoing experiment, but each year farmers eager to compare notes
 compete in a contest sponsored by the National Corn Growers Association.
 Last year's winner, a farmer in Texas, grew 368 bushels of corn per acre. (In
 Minnesota, a farmer in St. Cloud grew 272 bushels per acre to win the state
 competition. The state's late spring makes it less likely that a Minnesota
 farmer would ever win the national contest.)
 The Texas farmer's crop was more than double this year's forecast national
 average of 155 bushels per acre, but it's roughly the same amount that contest
 winners have grown since the mid-1980s.
 That's why scientists such as Elmore remain skeptical.
 "The guys that are making 350 to 380 (bushels per acre), why aren't they making
 450 to 480?" he said. "That's the frontier we need to work on."
 A history of tinkering
 From its earliest beginnings as one of a family of tall grasses grown in Mexico
 and Central America, corn has held up to human tinkering. Patient cross-breeding
 over thousands of years turned teosinte, a species of tall grass, into today's
 maize, as early farmers sought to grow plants with larger ears and more kernels.
 As the genetic understanding of corn developed in the 1930s and 1940s, scientist
 Barbara McClintock produced the first genetic map for corn. That work laid the
 foundation for modern DNA analysis which, beginning in 1996, produced the first
 genetically modified corn seed, one that produced a toxin fatal to the corn
 borer worm, an age-old pest.
 Today, the business of selling genetically modified corn seeds is booming as
 companies unveil new seeds that fight insects, survive on less water and in
 poorer soils and withstand stronger herbicides. Yet for all of the defenses the
 transgenic seeds create, none has dramatically increased yields.
 "Despite a lot of efforts, there have been no genes of any kind that have
 increased the yield potential of these crops," said Doug Gurian-Sherman, a
 senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists and author of a report out
 last month that doubts the pro-genetically-modified claims of seed companies.
 The problem with gene research has been that introduction of a new gene often
 creates unintended consequences, said Gurian-Sherman, pointing to an example
 where a gene that looked promising for drought tolerance turned out to make the
 plant more susceptible to disease. "We shouldn't really hold our breath that the
 technology is going to do a lot," he said.
 Yet hopes have run high since, as a result of ongoing work unveiled last year at
 Washington University in St. Louis, where scientists said they were close to
 mapping the corn genome -- a string of 2.5 billion characters that represent the
 genome's double helix. The work took three years and about $30 million in
 federal funding. It's only the second cereal crop sequenced; rice, in 2005, was
 the first.
 True believers such as Gerald Tumbleson, a Martin County farmer and former
 president of the National Corn Growers Association, say research on the corn
 genome will make the plant a key piece of a new economy to replace petroleum.
 "We're just beginning to exploit the carbohydrate economy," he said.
 Working the land
 Scientific controversies aside, farmers say they'll get more corn from something
 much simpler: precise farming.
 "We are farming the land better," said Randall Thalmann, a corn farmer who farms
 west of Eden Prairie.
 Even the seed companies resist the idea that a seed alone can boost yields. It's
 about the management of the land, said Roy Luedtke, research director at the
 Marshall, Minn., office of Pioneer Hi-Bred. The company creates a GPS map of
 farmer's land and then helps match the best seeds to each acre.
 And the traditional factors in corn yield -- rainfall, temperature, planting
 date and frost -- still play a major role.
 "A big driver for corn is planting date, and that's determined by weather more
 than anything," said Jeff Coulter, an extension agronomist with the University
 of Minnesota.
 Earlier planting dates have accounted for as much as 53 percent of the yield
 gains found in the northern Corn Belt, a study found last year. New seeds that
 can withstand cooler, wetter conditions allow farmers to plant earlier, adding
 about two weeks to the Iowa corn growing season since the late 1970s, for
 example.
 The search for a `yield gene'
 Still, it's early in the history of genome mapping. The corn genome contains
 55,000 to 60,000 genes. A "yield gene," if such a thing exists, could add 25
 percent to farmer's harvests, said Iowa State professor Elmore.
 "Yield is a very complex trait," he said. "A single gene is probably not the
 answer. We've learned that over time, if you look at the yield increases we have
 seen, it's been from a multiple of things."
 His forecast says farmers are more likely to slowly add more corn to their
 harvests, climbing toward a national average of 280 to 300 bushels per acre by
 the middle of the 21st century.
 "It's just mathematical, and that will take another 40 to 50 years to happen at
 current trends," he said.
 Matt McKinney - 612-673-7329
 InthenorthernCorn Belt,astudylast yearfoundthatearlier
 plantingdatesaccountedforasmuchas53percentoftheyield gains
 AveragecornyieldinMinnesota
 Inbushelsper acre
 1980s1990s2000s
 (SeemicrofilmorPDFforcompletechart.)
 Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture
 National Agricultural Statistics Service
 ALCOHOL MFG (72%); DNA (70%); COLLEGE & UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS (50%) agriculture;
 farm
 LOAD-DATE: June 4, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                           Copyright 2009 Star Tribune
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 4
 
                                The New York Times
                             February 20, 2009 Friday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research
 BYLINE: By ANDREW POLLACK
 SECTION: Section B; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 3
 LENGTH: 1038 words
 Biotechnology companies are keeping university scientists from fully researching
 the effectiveness and environmental impact of the industry's genetically
 modified crops, according to an unusual complaint issued by a group of those
 scientists.
 ''No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical
 questions,'' the scientists wrote in a statement  submitted to the Environmental
 Protection Agency. The E.P.A. is seeking public comments for scientific meetings
 it will hold next week on biotech crops.
 The statement will probably give support to critics of biotech crops, like
 environmental groups, who have long complained that the crops have not been
 studied thoroughly enough and could have unintended health and environmental
 consequences.
 The researchers, 26 corn-insect specialists, withheld their names because they
 feared being cut off from research by the companies. But several of them agreed
 in interviews to have their names used.
 The problem, the scientists say, is that farmers and other buyers of genetically
 engineered seeds have to sign an agreement meant to ensure that growers honor
 company patent rights and environmental regulations. But the agreements also
 prohibit growing the crops for research purposes.
 So while university scientists can freely buy pesticides or conventional seeds
 for their research, they cannot do that with genetically engineered seeds.
 Instead, they must seek permission from the seed companies. And sometimes that
 permission is denied or the company insists on reviewing any findings before
 they can be published, they say.
 Such agreements have long been a problem, the scientists said, but they are
 going public now because frustration has been building.
 ''If a company can control the research that appears in the public domain, they
 can reduce the potential negatives that can come out of any research,'' said Ken
 Ostlie, an entomologist at the University of Minnesota, who was one of the
 scientists who had signed the statement.
 What is striking is that the scientists issuing the protest, who are mainly from
 land-grant universities with big agricultural programs, say they are not opposed
 to the technology.  Rather, they say, the industry's chokehold on research means
 that they cannot supply some information to farmers about how best to grow the
 crops. And, they say, the data being provided to government regulators is being
 ''unduly limited.''
 The companies ''have the potential to launder the data, the information that is
 submitted to E.P.A.,'' said Elson J. Shields, a professor of entomology at
 Cornell.
 William S. Niebur, the vice president in charge of crop research for DuPont,
 which owns the big seed company Pioneer Hi-Bred, defended his company's
 policies. He said that because genetically engineered crops were regulated by
 the government, companies must carefully police how they are grown.
 ''We have to protect our relationship with governmental agencies by having very
 strict control measures on that technology,'' he said.
 But he added that he would welcome a chance to talk to the scientists about
 their concerns.
 Monsanto and Syngenta, two other  biotech seed companies, said Thursday that
 they supported university research. But as did Pioneer, they said their
 contracts with seed buyers were meant to protect their intellectual property and
 meet their regulatory obligations.
 But an E.P.A. spokesman, Dale Kemery, said Thursday that the government required
 only management of the crops' insect resistance and that any other contractual
 restrictions were put in place by the companies.
 The growers' agreement from Syngenta not only prohibits research in general but
 specifically says a seed buyer cannot compare Syngenta's product with any rival
 crop.
 Dr. Ostlie, at the University of Minnesota, said he had permission from three
 companies in 2007 to compare how well their insect-resistant corn varieties
 fared against the rootworms found in his state. But in 2008, Syngenta, one of
 the three companies, withdrew its permission and the study had to stop.
 ''The company just decided it was not in its best interest to let it continue,''
 Dr. Ostlie said.
 Mark A. Boetel, associate professor of entomology at North Dakota State
 University, said that before genetically engineered sugar beet seeds were sold
 to farmers for the first time last year, he wanted to test how the crop would
 react to an insecticide treatment. But the university could not come to an
 agreement with the companies responsible, Monsanto and Syngenta, over publishing
 and intellectual property rights.
 Chris DiFonzo, an entomologist at Michigan State University, said that when she
 conducted surveys of insects, she avoided fields with transgenic crops because
 her presence would put the farmer in violation of the grower's agreement.
 An E.P.A. scientific advisory panel plans to hold two meetings next week. One
 will consider a request from Pioneer Hi-Bred for a new method that would reduce
 how much of a farmer's field must be set aside as a refuge aimed at preventing
 insects from becoming resistant to its insect-resistant corn.
 The other meeting will look more broadly at insect-resistant biotech crops.
 Christian Krupke, an assistant professor at Purdue, said that because outside
 scientists could not study Pioneer's strategy, ''I don't think the potential
 drawbacks have been critically evaluated by as many people as they should have
 been.''
 Dr. Krupke is  chairman of the committee that drafted the statement, but he
 would not say whether he had signed it.
 Dr. Niebur of Pioneer said the company had collaborated in preparing its data
 with universities in Illinois, Iowa and Nebraska, the states most affected by
 the particular pest.
 Dr. Shields of Cornell said financing for agricultural research had gradually
 shifted from the public sector to the private sector. That makes many scientists
 at universities dependent on financing or technical cooperation from the big
 seed companies.
 ''People are afraid of being blacklisted,'' he said. ''If your sole job is to
 work on corn insects and you need the latest corn varieties and the companies
 decide not to give it to you, you can't do your job.''
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: February 20, 2009
 GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: Insect-resistant corn varieties are bred to repel rootworms.
  Ken Ostlie, an entomologist, said Syngenta had withdrawn its permission and a
 study about corn and rootworms had to stop.(PHOTOGRAPHS BY CRAIG LASSIG FOR THE
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 5
 
                         The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon)
                            November 1, 2008 Saturday
                                 Sunrise Edition
 Organic farmers fear what's in the wind
 BYLINE: SCOTT LEARN, The Oregonian
 SECTION: Local News; Pg. A01
 LENGTH: 1248 words
 SUMMARY: Genetics   | Willamette Valley activists contend that Roundup Ready
 sugar beets will cross-fertilize and taint their crops
 PHILOMATH --Critics of genetically modified crops have warned about
 "frankenfood" and "superweeds" for years. But today, more than four-fifths of
 the nation's corn, cotton and soybean crops are altered to resist pesticides and
 insects.
 Now Frank Morton, a 53-year-old organic seed farmer in Philomath, and other
 activists are plowing new legal ground in the battle, charging that genetically
 modified crops will spread and contaminate organic crops.
 Morton's beef is with sugar beet seeds that scientists with agricultural giant
 Monsanto have tweaked to resist Roundup, the company's most popular weed killer.
 Oregon doesn't grow many sugar beets, which supply half of the nation's sugar.
 But it turns out the Willamette Valley is nearly the sole supplier of U.S. sugar
 beet seeds.
 In the past two years, the humble commodity crop has quietly become the valley's
 first to incorporate genetic engineering wholesale.
 Morton worries that sugar beet pollen can cross-fertilize table beet and Swiss
 chard plants, both of which he grows for seed. Each sugar beet flower contains
 thousands of pollen granules, and researchers have found the windblown pollen
 miles in the air and miles away from its home field.
 "Who's responsible if it isn't on a leash?" says Morton, sunburned, earnest and
 blunt. "I'm a certified organic seed grower, and if (his crops) were to get
 contaminated with any detectable amount of transgenic sugar beet pollen, my
 product becomes worthless."
 Earlier this year, activists including Morton filed suit against the U.S.
 Department of Agriculture to stop Roundup Ready sugar beets. A similar suit that
 included an eastern Oregon alfalfa grower among its plaintiffs has stopped
 Roundup Ready alfalfa in its tracks.
 Morton began organic farming in the Willamette Valley 20 years ago, growing
 lettuce varieties for restaurants. He considers it a moral obligation to keep
 his seeds free of contamination from transgenic crops.
 That's why he was stunned to learn in December 2006 that sugar beet seeds with a
 protein inserted to resist Roundup were coming to the Willamette Valley.
 The Department of Agriculture restricts the spread of genetically modified crops
 when they're being tested. Oregon has witnessed that: The department's Animal
 and Plant Health Inspection Service fined The Scotts Co. $500,000 last November
 after Roundup Ready creeping bentgrass spread during field trials in Jefferson
 County.
 Limited tracking
 But once the service declares a transgenic crop safe, granting it "unregulated
 status," it treats the crop as identical to any other plant. No one tracks
 whether it's spreading into conventional or organic crops, said John Cordts, a
 biotechnologist with the inspection service who wrote the environmental
 assessment for deregulating Roundup Ready sugar beets in 2005.
 Cordts noted that U.S. organic standards don't require organic farmers to test
 for the presence of genetically modified strains --only to make good-faith
 efforts to avoid them.
 The valley has long used "isolation distances" between crops to prevent
 cross-pollination, and Morton says testing indicates that his crops haven't been
 contaminated yet.
 But the contamination of organics and other nongenetically modified crops is a
 tough issue, Cordts said --one the service isn't set up to address.
 "Our regulatory authority focuses on plant pest risk or the potential for
 environmental damage," he said. "We understand the issues associated with
 organic protection, but with our regulatory authority there's not a whole lot we
 can do."
 Alfalfa case
 U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer was sympathetic to organic and conventional
 farmers' arguments in the alfalfa case, whose plaintiffs included Geertson Seed
 Farms of Adrian. Last year, Breyer ordered the USDA to upgrade its environmental
 analysis.
 Eliminating the ability to grow nontransgenic crops --or to eat them --is an
 "undesirable consequence," Breyer wrote.
 The USDA needs to analyze "whether there is some risk to engineering all of
 America's crops to include the gene that confers resistance to glyphosate," the
 active ingredient in Roundup, the judge said.
 Monsanto and sugar beet farmers say the concerns are overwrought. The company
 tried a decade ago to market a Roundup Ready variety, but Hershey's and other
 big customers balked, fearing a consumer backlash.
 This time U.S. sugar refiners and their customers are on board, said Tom
 Schwartz, executive vice president of the Beet Sugar Development Foundation.
 (Monsanto referred questions to Schwartz.)
 A change of heart
 In part, the change of heart is because the sugar crystal itself contains no
 remnants of the genetically modified protein or DNA and poses no dietary risk,
 Schwartz said.
 In part it's because most U.S. consumers have put up little fuss as genetically
 modified crops have expanded. Critics blame that on weaker disclosure laws than
 in Europe and Japan, where concern about GMO crops is greater.
 "Many of our customers' products contain corn, soy or cotton oil," Schwartz
 said. "They've already got a transgenic product in them."
 Roundup use soars on Roundup Ready crops, growers concede. But use of more
 environmentally damaging herbicides drops. And frequent crop rotation, including
 rotation to non-Roundup Ready crops, can help prevent weeds from developing
 resistance to Roundup.
 Growers raised small amounts of Roundup Ready sugar beets in 2006 and 2007. But
 the big switchover came this year, when about 60 percent of sugar beet growers
 chose transgenic seed, said Luther Markwart, vice president of the American
 Sugarbeet Growers Association.
 No organic sugar beets are grown in the United States, and the two-year cycle of
 the plant, with the sugar beet root harvested before the plant flowers, makes
 contamination unlikely, supporters of GM crops say.
 But preventing contamination is tougher when growing seeds. Some advocates say
 small amounts of contamination --less than 1 percent --are likely and organic
 standards should allow for that.
 Schwartz said his group is "totally confident that GM and non-GM varieties can
 coexist in the Willamette Valley." He declined to give specifics because of the
 lawsuit.
 Opponents acknowledge short-term advantages of the modified crop. But they say
 experience with corn crops indicates that weeds will become more resistant as
 farmers rely more on Roundup, requiring heavier doses of herbicides to control
 the "superweeds."
 Roundup less harmful
 In its application to deregulate Roundup Ready sugar beets, Monsanto said four
 glyphosate-resistant weeds had been identified. The company said it worked with
 local scientists to control them.
 Roundup is less harmful to wildlife and fish than many other herbicides. But
 critics say farmers are using far more herbicides than in the past, and the
 long-term effects are unclear.
 In 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency granted Monsanto's request to
 increase allowable glyphosate residues 50-fold on sugar beet roots, to 10 parts
 per million. The agency said that was still well below unsafe levels.
 Willamette Valley sugar beet seed growers contacted by The Oregonian declined to
 talk on the record. Bart Edwards, president of Specialty Seed Growers of Western
 Oregon, said the group has members on both sides of the issue: Regulators are
 "going to need the wisdom of Solomon to solve this problem."
 Scott Learn: 503-294-7657; scottlearn@news.oregonian.com
 LOAD-DATE: November 5, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                           Copyright 2008 The Oregonian
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 6
 
                               The Washington Post
                              July 17, 2008 Thursday
                                 Regional Edition
 The Great Global Schemer
 BYLINE: Daniel W. Drezner,; who is professor of international politics at the
 Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University
 SECTION: STYLE; Pg. C12
 LENGTH: 950 words
 Economics for a Crowded Planet
 By Jeffrey D. Sachs
 Penguin Press. 386 pp. $27.95
 One cannot fault Jeffrey D. Sachs for lack of ambition. In his last book, "The
 End of Poverty" (2005), the Columbia University professor and director of the
 (modestly named) Earth Institute offered a plan to eliminate extreme poverty by
 the year 2025. In his latest book, Sachs ups the ante. He argues in "Common
 Wealth" that the problems of global warming, biodiversity, water scarcity,
 overpopulation and global poverty all can be solved in an affordable manner.
 In laying out this case, Sachs makes a significant contribution to a peculiar
 genre of nonfiction: the Great Global Scheme. Economists ranging from Hernando
 de Soto to Joseph Stiglitz have written in this genre, in which (typically) a
 great economist diagnoses the world's ills, then proposes sweeping policies to
 cure them. Political scientists often read the prescriptions with amusement
 because the author almost always relies on the "political will" of leaders.
 Indeed, by Page 11, Sachs has already declared, "We don't need to break the
 bank, we only need common goodwill." This is a polite way of hoping that
 powerful politicians will ignore powerful political incentives.
 To be fair, Sachs deploys a number of gambits to make the case for the political
 viability of his plans. The first is to stress past examples of international
 cooperation. As he repeatedly observes, there have been successes: the so-called
 green revolution in crop yields, the eradication of smallpox and the protection
 of stratospheric ozone, for example.
 The second gambit is to embrace technological optimism. Sachs is a big fan of
 carbon capture and sequestration and other innovations that could reduce the
 emission of greenhouse gases. He also thinks genetically modified crops could
 help reduce the use of water in agriculture.
 The third tactic is to stress the relative affordability of his plans. Sure,
 trillions of dollars might sound like a lot of money, but Sachs stresses that
 his proposals would cost only about 2 percent of global income per year.
 Yet his book's argumentation is open to question. On international cooperation,
 Sachs tends to highlight past successes rather than failures. Still, he cannot
 help but note some dismal outcomes, such as that the United Nations biodiversity
 convention "has now disappeared from the world's radar screen entirely" and that
 global population policy "has been hijacked by shortsighted ideology."
 Sachs's technological optimism is refreshing, but it is unclear whether even his
 ideological allies -- environmentalists, U.N. enthusiasts, the rock star Bono
 (who wrote the foreword for his last book) -- would concur. The transgenic crops
 that "Common Wealth" touts are a big no-no in the European Union, for example.
 More generally, many environmentalists reject the idea that technology alone can
 cure man's sins. "Common Wealth" echoes their moralistic outlook: "Our own
 species' hunger for resources," Sachs writes, "has led us to become the single
 most destructive force on Earth for the rest of life." That does not inspire
 much confidence in technological solutions.
 On the price of curbing global warming, Sachs asserts that, "Yes, there will be
 a fight over allocating costs, but it need not be a huge battle." To appreciate
 the cognitive dissonance required for that statement, consider that the
 so-called Doha round of world trade talks has lasted seven years so far, with no
 resolution in sight. Trade liberalization is a negotiating process that
 countries ostensibly view as having a win-win outcome. If the great powers
 cannot agree to reduce agricultural subsidies, is it realistic to think they
 will easily agree on how to tackle global warming, when the costs are higher and
 the benefits more ambiguous and long-term?
 There are times in "Common Wealth" when this reader began to wonder if Sachs's
 plan to generate political momentum for his solutions was to bore his critics to
 death. The problem is not excessive economics jargon; Sachs makes the economics
 of his argument accessible to everyone. No, the problem is that he feels the
 need to explain the relevant science in as pedantic a manner as possible. We
 learn about the wonders of the triple bond that holds two nitrogen atoms
 together, the significance of the Earth's albedo and the stunning fact that
 "without drinking water there is no survival beyond a few days."
 Still, Sachs identifies problems that range from serious to grave, and some of
 his solutions might well be achievable. His proposals on population, for
 example, include reducing infant mortality, increasing education for girls,
 fostering another green revolution and promoting urbanization. A few of his
 other ideas, such as a global version of the National Institutes of Health, are
 worth pondering.
 The book's biggest flaw is that it does not seriously address the question of
 global governance. At the outset, Sachs acknowledges the problem of "outdated
 institutions." This matters a lot, given the necessity of effective multilateral
 institutions to implement all of his grand schemes. In the end, "Common Wealth"
 blithely assumes that the United Nations system will be capable of running the
 show. Instead of addressing the knotty question of how to improve global
 governance structures, Sachs detours into superfluous and unoriginal critiques
 of U.S. foreign policy.
 "Common Wealth" is likely to go the way of other Great Global Schemes: dismissed
 as unrealistic and quickly overtaken by events. Economists like Sachs need to
 acquire a better feel for the politics that underlie the status quo they detest,
 or the rest of us will be buried under these ineffectual tomes.
 LOAD-DATE: July 17, 2008
 DISTRIBUTION: Maryland
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2008 The Washington Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 7
 
                              Voice of America News
                                   May 19, 2008
 Technology Key to Producing More Food
 LENGTH: 902  words
 DATELINE: Washington
 The Green Revolution is a good example of how technological advances can have a
 dramatic effect on economic development - in this case on food production. Other
 technological innovations are helping to improve agricultural production, from
 empowering farmers in India to an international effort to breed food staples
 fortified with nutritional vitamins. VOA's Bill Rodgers has more in this fourth
 in our series on the impact of technology on the developing world, with
 additional reporting by Rosyla Kalden and Steve Herman in India, and Luis
 Ramirez in Thailand.
 When farmers in northern India's Uttar Pradesh state harvested their wheat in
 the past, they usually had to sell to local middlemen at whatever price was
 offered. Now, thanks to the Internet, they can get higher prices for their
 crops.
 In villages in Uttar Pradesh and eight other states, farmers can go to an
 Internet kiosk where they have access to a network set up by the India Tobacco
 Company. On the network, known as e-Choupal, they can check prices and sell
 their crops online.
 In the village of Hathras, the local e-Choupal hub coordinator, Raj Kumar
 Sharma, says the Internet has all kinds of uses. He says the benefits of
 e-Choupal are that they not only get price information but weather forecasts as
 well. So farmers know in advance when the weather is right to apply pesticides.
 More than 6,000 Indian villages are now connected to the e-Choupal network, an
 example of how technology is changing the lives of farmers.
 The Green Revolution, which got underway in the 1960s, is the most well-known
 example of how technological advances led to the development of high-yield crops
 that dramatically boosted farm production. Harvests of rice, wheat and corn
 increased substantially because of improved seed varieties and the use of
 fertilizer and pesticides.
 "The Green Revolution had an overwhelmingly positive impact in terms of huge
 increase production in Asia and to some extent in Latin America, significant
 increases in farmer incomes and contributing to a rapid reduction in poverty and
 food insecurity in Asia in particular," says Mark Rosegrant, who heads the
 Environment and Production Technology Division at the International Food Policy
 Research Institute in Washington. "It has had some negative side effects, such
 as increased runoff from fertilizer and pesticides, some overuse of water for
 irrigation in some areas, but those are much counterbalanced by the positive
 benefits of the Green Revolution."
 Rosegrant says that by the 1990s, productivity gains began to wane. He says a
 decline in investment in agriculture also has hurt.
 "What you've seen now is more maintenance research and trying to adapt to new
 pest varieties that come along, new insects that come and attack the varieties,"
 adds Rosegrant. "So there's a lot going on in research, but the investment
 hasn't been high enough to generate another round of very rapid productivity
 growth."
 However, one promising area of research is the effort to develop "biofortified"
 crops - varieties bred for increased mineral and vitamin content to help reduce
 malnutrition.
 The International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines is breeding strains
 of rice with high iron and zinc concentrations. The edible root cassava is being
 fortified with beta-carotene at the Tropical Agriculture Research Center in
 Cali, Colombia. Scientists at other research centers are experimenting with
 breeding varieties of wheat and corn with iron and other vitamins.
 The goal of this international research effort, organized under a coalition
 called Harvest Plus, is to improve the nutritional quality of staple foods.
 Bonnie McClafferty, a Harvest Plus communications coordinator, says these
 biofortified staples will help millions of people in developing countries who do
 not get enough vitamins in their diet.
 "You've got a situation in the developing world where you have millions, if not
 billions, of people who are micronutrient deficient," says McClafferty. "We
 often think of hunger and malnutrition in terms of energy or calories, but in
 truth there are several times the number of people who have micronutrient
 malnutrition and what that leads to are problems with growth, problems with
 immune systems, problems with cognitive development. It's a hidden hunger and
 it's quite insidious. So, what we're attempting to do is to breed the nutrients
 directly into staple foods."
 Soaring food prices and grain shortages - which have recently been causing
 unrest around the globe - have created a new urgency for growing more food.
 Resistance to genetically-modified crops, which contain genes from other
 organisms, no longer seems to trigger as many protests as in the past.
 Experts say reliance on these transgenic crops is likely to grow as the need
 increases for crops bred to withstand drought and other effects of climate
 change.
 "You're really going to have to target things like heat tolerance, drought
 tolerance, and also salinity or salt tolerance, to make up for some of those
 negative consequences but also to address the future challenges," says
 Rosegrant. "To do that, some of that is still going to come through conventional
 plant breeding, but also I think you're also going to have to see a greater
 reliance on genetic modification or transgenics in the future, to get these
 kinds of traits tailored to the difficult environments that we're going to see,"
 he adds.
 LOAD-DATE: May 19, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Journal
            Copyright 2008 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 8
 
                                 University Wire
                              March 17, 2008 Monday
 Hawaii Legislature considering ban on genetically modified kalo
 BYLINE: By Blane Benevedes, Ka Leo O Hawaii; SOURCE: U. Hawaii
 LENGTH: 1137 words
 Tuesday, Hawaii state representatives will hear public testimony in support of a
 bill intended to ban the genetic engineering of the kalo plant, a Hawaiian
 cultural foundation, for the next 10 years.
 Senate Bill 958 was first introduced in January 2007 and is designed to place a
 moratorium (a legislative ban) on all genetic modification, development, raising
 and cultivation of all varieties of the plant, which is currently done by
 various biotechnological companies in Hawaii, until July 17, 2017. Its next step
 in the legislature is through the House Committee on Agriculture.
 "We would like a total ban, but that's not being responsible. This is a cooling
 off period," said Jerry Konanui, a Native Hawaiian kalo farmer whose family has
 grown the plant in the Puna district of Hawaii for the past eight generations.
 "The message from the people is simple: Haloa is family, kalo is life, being in
 the lo'i is living," said Bryna Storch of Kahea, a Hawaiian cultural and
 environmental advocacy group that organized the testimonies in support of the
 measure. "It is not appropriate, necessary nor acceptable to engineer kalo into
 a genetically modified organism."
 Genetic engineering, the process of inserting genes from one species into
 another resulting in the creation of GMOs, has been conducted in Hawaii for over
 a decade. Statistically, over 2,000 field tests of genetically engineered crops
 have been coordinated in the islands thus far, making Hawaii the most
 genetically tested agricultural region in the world, according to Earthjustice,
 an environmental advocacy group.
 "For classical breeding to be able to happen, the two parent crops have to be
 related and able to produce," said Ania Wieczorek of the University of Hawaii
 College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources. "For genetic engineering,
 the two DNA donor parents do not have to be related."
 Spearheading the genetic engineering market in Hawaii is Monsanto Company, a St.
 Louis-based multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation. The company,
 which is the world's largest supplier of the herbicide Roundup, acquired 2,300
 acres of land in Kunia from the James Campbell Company, where it plans to
 replace the land's current pineapple fields with genetically engineered corn.
 The University of Hawaii at Manoa, once a primary research center for GMO kalo,
 shut down its kalo operations in 2006 after heavy protesting by kalo farmers,
 professors and university students. Ka Leo was unable to contact UH Manoa's lead
 kalo researcher, Dr. Susan Miyasaka, on the matter.
 "Everything in life has its benefits and risks, and genetic modification is no
 exception," Wieczorek said. However, she noted that some of the benefits of
 genetic engineering include increased crop productivity, enhanced crop
 protection and improvements in food processing.
 But along with the agricultural benefits of genetic engineering come
 health-related issues.
 "A major safety concern raised with regard to genetic modification technology is
 the risk of introducing allergens and toxins into otherwise safe foods. The Food
 and Drug Administration checks to ensure that the levels of naturally occurring
 allergens in foods made from transgenic crops have not significantly increased
 above the natural range found in conventional foods," Wieczorek said.
 Opponents of genetic engineering note that the FDA only reviews natural allergen
 levels of GMO products that will enter the market, and not those being tested in
 the field, which may cross-pollinate with other organisms in the wild.
 Proponents of the ban feel that it is necessary not only for the continuance of
 traditional Hawaiian agricultural and customary practices, but for the
 environmental integrity of the islands as well.
 "If kalo's not sacred in Hawaii, then nothing is," Storch said.
 The push for a moratorium on the genetic engineering of the kalo plant began at
 UH Manoa in 2006, when controversy surrounded the school's three kalo patents
 and a faculty member's creation of new kalo breeds. Some Hawaiians took this act
 as a direct blow to the traditional beliefs and practices of kalo farmers and
 other traditionalists, many of whom believe that the kalo is their older sibling
 who must be cared for and cannot be owned in the traditional Western sense.
 "For generations ... everyone shared the huli (the planting part of the taro);
 it was a community and cultural thing," Konanui said.
 He hopes the moratorium will provide ample time for gathering information on the
 impact of genetic engineering.
 Active in the kalo-growing community, Konanui said that most farmers are in
 support of the ban. "If you look at what has driven the taro genetic
 engineering, it didn't come from the farmers," he added.
 Although he was once an advocate of genetic engineering on behalf of the
 university, Konanui now sees the situation differently.
 "For many years, I thought genetic engineering would save the world," he said,
 because he initially believed it would provide never-before-seen breakthroughs
 in the fight against world hunger. However, as he became more familiar with the
 subject through active research, which included trips to GMO conferences as far
 away as Italy, Konanui began to see the matter differently.
 "Basically, there's quite a lot of problems with genetic engineering," he said.
 "There's no data on human impact; there's nothing about the impact of
 genetically engineered food on the food we eat or consume."
 Because of the lack of data associated with genetic engineering, 30 nations have
 banned GMO products in some form, according to Voice of the Environment, an
 environmental organization. However, the United States has not taken similar
 action. Earthjustice estimates that approximately 70 percent to 75 percent of
 all produce currently sold at American grocery stores is genetically modified to
 some extent.
 From an ecological standpoint, Konanui feels that genetic engineering is
 potentially hazardous to the entire kalo community because GMOs, which may
 contain unwanted proteins and bacteria. GMOs have the ability to cross-pollinate
 with natural varieties across long distances, when animals and insects spread
 pollen over large land areas.
 "Once you get it out in the field, you can never recall it. It's a living
 organism. It'll go and contaminate other taros," Konanui said.
 Over 300 varieties of kalo were believed to have been cultivated at the time of
 James Cook's first arrival in Hawaii in 1778. Currently, approximately 70 types
 are grown in farms throughout the islands. While most varieties are distinctly
 native to Hawaii, the greater kalo family extends to many agricultural societies
 found throughout Oceania, Asia and even as far as Egypt.
 The hearing before the House Committee on Agriculture will begin Tuesday at 9
 a.m. at the Hawaii State Capitol.
 (C) 2008 Ka Leo O Hawaii via U-WIRE
 LOAD-DATE: March 17, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2008 Ka Leo O Hawaii via U-Wire









Document Number: 9
 
                         The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon)
                            October 17, 2007 Wednesday
                                 Sunrise Edition
 Science lectures and events
 BYLINE: Richard L. Hill, The Oregonian
 SECTION: Science; Pg. C03
 LENGTH: 510 words
 Get the latest scoop
 on pyramid discoveries
 Stephen Harvey, an archaeologist, will talk about "Recent Discoveries at Abydos:
 Egypt's Last Royal Pyramids" at 7:30 p.m. Oct. 24 in Room 238 of Smith Memorial
 Student Union at Portland State University.
 Harvey will discuss his 2006 discoveries at the last known royal pyramid complex
 in Egypt, that of King Ahmose at Abydos. He is director of the excavation.
 Harvey received his doctorate in Egyptian archaeology in 1998 from the
 University of Pennsylvania. He has appeared in television documentaries for the
 History Channel and National Geographic.
 The free lecture, which is open to the public, is sponsored by the Oregon
 chapter of the American Research Center in Egypt. Call 503-725-4074 for
 information.
 Talk explores how
 amphibians function
 Stanley Hillman, a professor of biology at Portland State University, will speak
 on "Lymph and the Ecology of Amphibians" at 7:30 p.m. Oct. 25 in Room 298 of
 PSU's Smith Memorial Student Union.
 His free public lecture will discuss how an understanding of lymph is important
 in learning how amphibians function. Hillman, who received his doctorate at the
 University of California at Los Angeles, is the author of "Environmental
 Physiology of the Amphibia."
 The lecture is sponsored by the Columbia-Willamette Chapter of Sigma Xi, the
 Scientific Research Society. For information, go to
 http://web.pdx.edu/3/8bath/sxcwc/index.htm.
 Learn about 'Saving
 the Willamette Valley'
 John Lombard, an author and environmental consultant, will discuss "Saving the
 Willamette Valley" at 7 p.m. Saturday in Room 107 of Science Building 1 at
 Portland State University.
 Lombard, a policy analyst with an environmental consulting company in Snohomish,
 Wash., is the author of "Saving Puget Sound: A Conservation Strategy for the
 21st Century."
 His free presentation, sponsored by Oregonians for Rationality, is open to the
 public. For information, go to www.o4r.org/events/events.html.
 Biocrop expert offers
 more food for thought
 Roger Beachy, a geneticist and president of the Donald Danforth Plant Science
 Center in St. Louis, will speak about "Fulfilling the Promise of Crop
 Biotechnology for the Poor in Africa: Challenges for Science and Society" at 7
 p.m. Monday in the LaSells Stewart Center C&E Auditorium at Oregon State
 University.
 Beachy is a pioneer in research on developing virus-resistant plants through
 biotechnology. His research led to the first genetically modified food crop, a
 virus-resistant tomato.
 He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and was the recipient of the
 2001 International Wolf Prize in Agriculture. His lecture will address
 scientific, political and ethical issues in the use of transgenic crops.
 His free public lecture is the first in the OSU Horning Endowment in the
 Humanities Lecture Series, which will bring six other speakers to campus to
 address the theme "Food for Thought: History, Technology, Gastronomy."
 For information about the series, call 541-737-3421 or check
 http://oregonstate.edu/cla/history/lectures/horning/07_08.php.
 -- Richard L. Hill
 LOAD-DATE: October 18, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                           Copyright 2007 The Oregonian
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 10
 
                               The Washington Times
                              August 19, 2007 Sunday
 Natural farming beats biotech
 BYLINE: By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
 LENGTH: 137 words
 I refer to Henry Miller's Aug. 12 Commentary column, "Biotech to bring home the
 bacon?": Wake up everyone - these improvements to livestock are already
 attainable by natural farming and breeding methods.
 It boils down to nutrition and genetics, not transgenics. Healthy soil equals
 healthy environment (water and plants) equals healthy animals and healthy
 humans, all achieving their potential. We do not need patented irreversible
 transgenic technology, which only serves to improve the bottom line of
 patent-holding multinational corporations.
 Take a stand and demand real nutrition in the form of untweaked natural foods,
 which need to be labeled accordingly. Do your own homework, too, and research
 just how poorly transgenic crops and foods have been tested in the most
 unscientific manner.
 Bendigo, Australia
 CORPORATIONS (53%) letters-natural-farming-beats-biotech-35
 LOAD-DATE: August 19, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                     Copyright 2007 The Washington Times LLC
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 11
 
                            Bangor Daily News (Maine)
                               May 1, 2007 Tuesday
                                   All Editions
 Bill protects farmers
 SECTION: Pg. A8
 LENGTH: 267 words
 I grew up on a 1,500-acre conventional, no-till corn and soy farm in Indiana
 and, while I have chosen to operate my farm differently than they do, I respect
 my parents greatly.
 My partner and I are part of a new generation of farmers, a generation that is
 choosing to farm and market organically and is helping to make Maine one of the
 handful of states where the average age of farmers is declining.
 We all make different choices about how to operate our farms, and my parents are
 no different. Along with most conventional farmers, they have chosen to utilize
 transgenic crops because of the efficiencies they feel these crops will help
 them realize in their operation.
 Interestingly, the conventional, commodity markets upon which their grain is
 sold now demands the use of these gene-altered plants simply by offering prices
 which make it difficult or impossible for them to grow anything but genetically
 engineered crops.  At the same time, the markets upon which I and every other
 organic farmer depend, have no tolerance for these unnaturally altered genetics.
 And therein lies the rub: They depend upon these organisms and we depend on not
 having any of them.
 As things stand, we are left to fight with each other - with our neighbors, with
 our community, even with our family - to deal with issues of genetic trespass.
 Perhaps it's a simplistic view, but I feel that anything that could drive a
 wedge between neighbors and divide communities or families seems like a bad
 thing. I believe that LD 1650 will help to keep Maine's farmers all of Maine's
 farmers - united and protected.
 Clayton Carter
 Unity
 LOAD-DATE: May 1, 2007
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Letter
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                         Copyright 2007 Bangor Daily News









Document Number: 12
 
                           Sacramento Bee (California)
                            February 20, 2007 Tuesday
 Valley rice farmers take a hard line;
 Group wants ban on all bioengineered plantings
 BYLINE: Jim Downing Bee Staff Writer
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. D1
 LENGTH: 764 words
 A splinter group of more than 200 Sacramento Valley rice farmers is claiming
 that even experimental plantings of genetically modified rice jeopardize key
 export markets.
 The group, Rice Producers of California, plans to release today a market study
 that documents the powerful opposition to such technology in several key export
 destinations: Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Turkey.
 While the study generally reinforces conventional wisdom about these markets,
 the fact that the group saw fit to commission a study at all illustrates the
 anxiety that many export-dependent farmers continue to feel about genetically
 modified crops.
 The DNA of such crops has been altered to yield traits such as herbicide
 resistance or enhanced nutritional content.
 Greg Massa, who farms rice near Chico and is the group's co-chairman, said he
 wants a ban on any outdoor planting of genetically modified rice.
 Due in large part to export concerns, transgenic rice, as it is known, has not
 been planted by commercial farmers in the United States or in most other
 countries in the world.
 But it has been planted in experimental plots, and last summer traces of a rice
 variety containing the herbicide-tolerance "Liberty Link" gene were found to
 have contaminated commercial rice in several Southern states.
 Futures prices for long-grain rice plunged as European importers reacted by
 demanding that each shipment be tested, and some other countries banned imports.
 Suits seeking classaction status have been filed on behalf of farmers against
 the German company that developed the rice, Bayer CropScience AG.
 The U.S. Department of Agriculture has yet to determine the source of that
 contamination. Bayer did not respond to a request for comment.
 California farmers grow short- and medium-grain rice varieties, not long-grain,
 and were not affected by the Liberty Link incident. But the event reinforced for
 some farmers the fragility of export markets.
 "We have customers that want a very specific product," said Placer County rice
 farmer Nick Greco. And, he said, the risk to that product presented by outdoor
 test plots of transgenic rice -- however small -- is unacceptable.
 Only one small test plot of transgenic rice was planted statewide last year,
 said Kent McKenzie, who directs the grower-funded California Rice Experiment
 Station in Butte County and is on the state board that oversees the introduction
 of new rice varieties.
 As much as 40 percent of California's $200 million to $400 million rice harvest
 is sent overseas. Nearly all of the rice grows in the Sacramento Valley. Rice is
 the region's most widely planted crop.
 Massa said his group commissioned the study being released today to bolster its
 position in a simmering dispute with the California Rice Commission over
 transgenic crop policies. "They have been too willing to be accommodating (to
 biotech crop interests), and not willing enough to protect the farmers," he
 said.
 Massa's members are all farmers, while the rice commission represents both firms
 that mill and sell rice, as well as the state's roughly 1,000 rice farmers.
 Tim Johnson, president of the California Rice Commission, said that his group is
 in the process of reviewing its policy on genetic engineering. That review, he
 said, would address the issue of contamination arising from test plantings.
 Johnson also noted that the rice commission pushed state legislation in 2000
 that created a board with the authority to regulate the introduction of new rice
 seed varieties, genetically modified or otherwise. No other crop in the state is
 subject to such state-level oversight.
 "The California Rice Commission has been very proactive in addressing
 biotechnology and other issues in the industry," he said.
 For the study, a consulting firm interviewed dozens of rice importers in the
 four countries that represent the leading markets for California rice. The
 conclusion: Buyers in Japan and South Korea would reject genetically modified
 rice, and buyers in Taiwan and Turkey have strong objections as well.
 Last week, farmers and activists seeking more thorough federal review of any new
 genetically modified crop won a significant court victory.
 A federal judge in San Francisco held that the U.S. Department of Agriculture
 had not properly considered the potential environmental and market impact of the
 introduction of a new variety of alfalfa developed by Monsanto Corp. The ruling
 could lead to a mandatory and far more exhaustive review of new genetically
 modified crops than has previously been required.
 The Bee's Jim Downing can be reached at (916) 321-1065 or jdowning@sacbee.com
 LOAD-DATE: May 27, 2008
 GRAPHIC: Sacramento Bee / Nam Nguyen
 California rice exports to key nations Up to 40 percent of California rice,
 nearly all of which is grown in the Sacramento Valley, is exported. A study
 being released today says Turkey, Korea, Taiwan and Japan are opposed to even
 experimental plantings of genetically modified rice. The study's backers, more
 than 200 area rice farmers, want a ban on all such rice in California.
 Notes: Tonnages reflect average annual exports. Turkey has recently blocked rice
 imports - the figure shown is an annual average for 2001-2003.
 Locator map of Asia with key countries of export highlighted
 Turkey 48,510 tons
 South Korea 72,600 tons
 Taiwan 78,870 tons
 Japan 298,100 tons
 Sources: Rice Producers of California; illustration using Bee file photos
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2007 McClatchy Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 13
 
                                 University Wire
                             January 16, 2007 Tuesday
 FDA declares cloned animals safe for humans to eat
 BYLINE: By Thomas E. Nelson & Shelby Leonard, Iowa State Daily; SOURCE: Iowa
 State U.
 LENGTH: 601 words
 DATELINE: AMES, Iowa
 Cloned meat is no longer a thing of the future and may be available for
 consumption within the next few years, as the Food and Drug Administration
 recently announced that cloned meat is safe to eat.
 "My understanding is the FDA has approved them as a class," said Chris Tuggle,
 professor of animal science. "[My impression is] those animals could be sold and
 there is nothing that could stop that type of animal from being sold."
 Tuggle said the reason he believes the FDA made the decision was because they
 couldn't come up with any reason why cloned animals would be hazardous.
 "I agree with the FDA in that I can't identify a reason why animals that are
 generated from cloning would be hazardous to eat or use," Tuggle said.
 Animals are cloned through a biological process that involves the delicate
 handling of the microscopic contents of living cells.
 "[Scientists] take embryonic cells, freeze them and then they grow up," said
 Paul Kapke, associate scientist in biotechnology.
 Researchers take the genetic material of the animal to be cloned and put those
 genes into a donor egg cell that has been emptied of its own genetic material.
 The egg cell is allowed to grow into an embryo, which is then implanted into and
 birthed by a surrogate mother animal. The resulting baby animal has the same
 genetic makeup as the animal that donated the genes.
 "Scientists usually take [embryonic cells] while the animals are in utero,"
 Kapke said. "The FDA says there is no difference between the two [cloned meat
 and non-cloned meat]."
 Some members of the public remain concerned that the meat and milk will be
 different in some way from the original animal, despite the FDA's conclusions.
 The findings suggest the only differences in meat quality would come from
 individual outside factors, since the animal produced through cloning is a new
 animal and can be raised under different conditions than the original.
 James Reecy, associate professor of animal science, agreed with the FDA's
 findings.
 "The cloned animals -- it's a new animal but genetically it's the same as what
 it was cloned from," Reecy said. "Unlike transgenic crops that are grown, these
 animals are not genetically modified."
 The controversy over cloned meat has frequently been compared to the debate over
 genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, but many scientists have stated that
 the processes are fundamentally different and cannot be likened to one another.
 "There are cloned animals that have not been approved for consumption," Reecy
 said. "There are animals that have been cloned that have genetic modifications,
 but these animals are not approved for consumption."
 Reecy said, essentially, these animals would be similar to the transgenic crops
 that we consume, but they are not yet approved for consumption.
 Animals that are cloned can be shown ethically at events such as fairs, said
 Tuggle. He added that it is very important that a cloned animal be identified as
 such before the showing.
 "I think it would be ethical as long as it was clearly defined," Tuggle said.
 "You have to represent that an animal was cloned from a highly desired animal so
 that everyone knows the origin of an animal."
 Tuggle said it is important to make the distinction between the founder -- the
 first cloned animal -- and the animals that would be bred from the founder
 animal. Some people's concern stems from the actual animal created from cloning.
 "The initial animal is distinct from anything else you would breed from that,"
 Tuggle said. "The point is, all animals that would be bred from cloned animals
 should be very normal."
 (C) 2007 Iowa State Daily via U-WIRE
 LOAD-DATE: January 16, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2007 Iowa State Daily via U-Wire









Document Number: 14
 
                            The Philadelphia Inquirer
                            September 17, 2006 Sunday
 A Growth Industry
 BYLINE: Harold Brubaker, Inquirer Staff Writer
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. E01
 LENGTH: 1150 words
 American farmers have adopted genetically modified crops with a vengeance since
 their introduction 10 years ago.
 Biotech seeds - available since 1996 - already account for 61 percent of the
 corn, 83 percent of the cotton, and 89 percent of the soybeans planted in the
 United States.
 "From a farmer's perspective, it was basically a pretty wonderful invention,"
 said Abram Bakker, who farms 600 acres in Cumberland County, N.J., and uses
 herbicide-tolerant soybeans in crop rotations. "It's made it a lot simpler, more
 cost-effective, and you're putting less chemicals into the environment," he
 said.
 Plants genetically engineered to resist insects and withstand herbicides
 dominate the market now, but DuPont Co.'s Pioneer subsidiary and other
 biotechnology companies have bigger plans: for plants that tolerate drought,
 soybeans that contain healthier oils, and plants that produce drugs and
 industrial chemicals more efficiently than factories.
 In a laboratory called "The Bean Scene" at DuPont's Experimental Station in
 Wilmington, for example, researchers have engineered soybeans to produce high
 levels of oleic acid and are working on beans with enhanced omega-3 oil content.
 Both are considered healthy fats.
 Yet, despite its momentum, agricultural biotechnology keeps stumbling in ways
 that raise doubts about how carefully government regulators and industry are
 handling the relatively new technology.
 Consider last month's report from Bayer Cropscience that it had found traces of
 an unapproved genetically modified rice - which Bayer had stopped field-testing
 in 2001 - in American long-grain rice.
 Such incidents "contribute to what is ultimately slowing down the industry, and
 that is a public concern about biotechnology that is translated into market
 restrictions," said Gregory Conko, a senior fellow at Competitive Enterprise
 Institute in Washington.
 The United States Department of Agriculture said the rice - which contains a
 protein that allows it to tolerate a herbicide - poses no danger to humans and
 has put it on a fast track for approval.
 "This isn't the tomato that ate Cleveland," said Norman C. Ellstrand, a
 professor of genetics at the University of California, Riverside.
 "What matters to me largely is that it sets a bad precedent. There will be
 transgenic crops coming down the pike that we will want to have contained," said
 Ellstrand, who studies the movement of genes from cultivated to wild plants.
 Cindy Smith, the USDA's deputy administrator for Biotechnology Regulatory
 Services, said the unit was modifying its regulations to keep pace with the
 "very complex, very rapidly evolving technology."
 She said the agency's "focus is to ensure that the technology moves forward, but
 does so in a safe manner."
 Critics of agricultural biotechnology worry about the USDA's dual role as
 promoter and regulator of biotechnology. "It's not a good combination," said
 Jane Rissler, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists in
 Washington.
 The public reaction to last month's rice incident has been muted, especially
 compared with the discovery six years ago that genetically engineered corn
 approved only for animal consumption slipped into the human food supply.
 The concern in 2000 was that the corn could cause an allergic reaction in some
 people. In the rice case, the protein in question has been approved for human
 consumption in 12 other countries.
 The rice discovery turned into a headache for U.S. rice exporters, who now have
 to certify their crop as nontransgenic before it can be shipped to the European
 Union and Japan. But other parts of the food industry remained unfazed.
 "This is not a food-safety issue, but rather a question of regulatory
 permissibility in certain markets outside of North America," Kris Charles, a
 Kellogg Co. representative, said.
 "Here in the U.S., most consumers are not concerned about biotechnology, and we
 receive very few contacts on the subject from either the public or our retail
 customers," Charles said.
 Indeed, genetically modified crops are not a top-of-the-mind issue for most
 Americans, according to the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology at the
 University of Richmond. Still, opponents of the technology have persisted in
 trying to block its spread.
 "Until USDA gets its act together," in its efforts to keep genetically modified
 plants from mixing with natural plants, "we recommend a moratorium on all new
 permits for open-air field-testing of genetically engineered crops not permitted
 in the food supply," said Bill Freese, a science policy analyst at the Center
 for Food Safety in Washington.
 Michael Fernandez, executive director the Pew biotech center, said it was not
 realistic to "expect 100 percent purity in any biological system growing out in
 the open... . In traditional agriculture there is no expectation that there will
 100 percent purity in seed."
 Some scientists said they were not worried by the escape of genes that provided
 herbicide tolerance and insect resistance but were troubled by the potential
 entry of genes that caused plants to produce drugs or chemicals into food
 plants.
 Smith, head of Biotechnology Regulatory Services, said the government had
 instituted stricter regulations on the field-testing of such crops. Under the
 old regimen, each test field was inspected once. Now each is inspected seven
 times: five times during the growing season and twice in the year after, Smith
 said.
 This year, 181 acres in eight states were planted with crops that produce
 pharmaceuticals or industrial chemicals, according to Rachel Iadicicco, a
 spokeswoman for the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
 While the U.S. food industry is generally supportive of agricultural
 biotechnology, it is wary of "biopharming." For example, Anheuser-Busch Cos.
 Inc. threatened last year to stop buying rice from Missouri if a California
 biotech company planted rice there enhanced with synthetic human genes.
 Such concerns have slowed down the expansion of this area of biotechnology.
 "I think people both within the industry... and neutral observers of the
 industry thought we would be in an entirely different place 10 years on," said
 Conko, the Competitive Enterprise Institute fellow.
 Some of the science has turned out to be more difficult than initially expected,
 and market acceptance - especially overseas - has not been achieved for some
 crops.
 For example, government regulators have cleared genetically engineered rice,
 potatoes and wheat, but they are not commercially available now because the
 industry made a decision that the market was not ready for them, said Michael
 Phillips, vice president of food and agriculture at the Biotechnology Industry
 Organization in Washington.
 Genetically modified crops have been adopted at a phenomenal pace, but "if those
 areas had been opened up, it could be much bigger."
 Contact staff writer Harold Brubaker at 215-854-4651 or
 hbrubaker@phillynews.com.
 LOAD-DATE: September 17, 2006
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2006 Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 15
 
                       Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News
                                September 5, 2006
 Gene-tweaked grass on loose in Oregon.
 BYLINE: Alex Pulaski
 LENGTH: 689 words
 Sep. 5--Discovery of genetically modified bentgrass in the wild in Central
 Oregon -- the first known transgenic crop escape in the United States -- has
 fulfilled critics' warnings and raised the threat of contaminating the state's
 nation-leading grass seed crop.
 Environmentalists and some conventional seed growers had predicted that humans
 couldn't hope to rein in movement of the plant's pollen and seeds, so tiny they
 number 6 million a pound. Although backers of the modified grass seed hope to
 revolutionize golf course maintenance, opponents say the revolution comes at the
 risk of creating a superweed resistant to a relatively benign herbicide.
 Corvallis scientists discovered two years ago that the experimental Madras crop
 had sent pollen more than a dozen miles away. Their latest finding that the
 modified plants had crossed with wild grasses outside a buffer area is due out
 in the October issue of Molecular Ecology.
 Although discounted by the company hoping to win federal approval of the grass
 strain, the discovery is prompting "I told you so" responses from conventional
 grass seed growers and environmentalists who oppose its commercialization.
 "Exactly the things we were most worried about seem to be true," said Jim
 Diamond, former chairman of the Sierra Club's Genetic Engineering Committee.
 In Oregon, which has $373.5 million in annual grass seed sales, conventional
 growers fear transgenic seeds will contaminate their crops. That could curtail
 export markets -- roughly 30 percent of sales -- because some countries refuse
 to accept genetically modified strains.
 The creeping bentgrass strain, developed in partnership between Scotts
 Miracle-Gro Co. and Monsanto Co., is designed to resist the herbicide Roundup,
 the world's most widely used plant-killer. Golf courses could plant the seed and
 keep other grass varieties in check by spraying Roundup.
 Jim King, a Scotts spokesman, said the study's conclusions weren't surprising.
 "The fact that nature kind of took its course was exactly what you would have
 expected to happen," King said.
 Scotts has waited more than two years for an arm of the U.S. Department of
 Agriculture to decide whether to deregulate the crop, opening the door to seed
 sales. A seed crop was harvested in Madras and bagged, but the fields were
 cleared and Scotts attempted to eradicate plants that escaped by applying
 herbicides other than Roundup.
 King said he was unsure how the new study would affect federal review of the
 grass strain.
 He noted points that the company has made before: Trimmed grass on golf courses
 is highly unlikely to reach heights to produce seed or pollen, and even if it
 were to spread, bentgrass should not be considered an invasive species.
 But for grass seed growers such as Donald Wirth of Tangent, an invasion of
 hard-to-kill bentgrass in his ryegrass or fescue fields could spell catastrophe.
 Wirth worries that bentgrass, unlike Roundup-resistant strains of corn or
 soybeans, can remain dormant in soil for more than a decade and spring up.
 "These cultivated crops will quit growing after a year or two, but bentgrass
 would be there forever," he said.
 The study, led by Jay Reichman, an Environmental Protection Agency toxicologist,
 found that nine genetically modified plants were discovered among 20,400 samples
 taken. The samples were found as far as three miles outside the control area
 established for the crop's cultivation -- in other words, well outside a buffer
 designed to prevent the escape of seeds and pollen.
 Of the nine plants, two were found in the Crooked River National Grassland area.
 A study abstract did not detail how many of the nine plants were the result of
 seeds drifting or from cross-breeding with wild grass.
 To see more of The Oregonian, or to subscribe the newspaper, go to
 http://www.oregonian.com.
 Copyright (c) 2006, The Oregonian, Portland, Ore.
 Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News.
 For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or
 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group
 Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.
 GOLF (89%) All company; All market information; Pollution; Sales; Trends
 FERTILIZERS (66%) Food; Snack foods
 PRODUCT: 018136 (Seeds and bulbs); 206800 (Salted and roasted nuts and seeds)
 GEOGRAPHIC: OREGON, USA (94%) UNITED STATES (95%); NORTH AMERICA (79%) United
 States North America (NOAX); United States (USA)
 LOAD-DATE: September 18, 2006
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Fulltext
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Regional Newspaper
                         Copyright 2006 Gale Group, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved
                              Business and Industry
          Copyright 2006 provided by Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News









Document Number: 16
 
                         The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
                               May 14, 2006 Sunday
                                   Main Edition
 Modified crops' usage grows
 SECTION: @ISSUE; Pg. 1D
 LENGTH: 1867 words
 A decade ago, as the greening wave of spring crept northward across the country,
 American farmers were sowing the seeds of change.
 At the time, the prospect of 4 million acres of genetically modified crops ---
 the first widespread commercial plantings --- seemed a bold step into the brave
 new world of green genes, bio-pharming and terminator technology.
 What a difference a decade makes. And sometimes doesn't.
 This year, U.S. farmers will plant approximately 120 million acres of transgenic
 crops --- an area three times the size of Georgia. Worldwide, 8 million farmers
 will grow GM crops. And by harvest time, nearly one quarter of a billion acres
 of cultivated land in 21 countries will bear the fruits of genetic engineering.
 Only three GM crops --- soybeans, corn and cotton --- have been widely planted,
 and you won't find many genetically engineered foods in the produce section. But
 the Grocery Manufacturers Association of America estimates that 75 percent of
 processed food in the country now contains genetically modified ingredients.
 "This technology is here to stay," says Sean Darragh, executive vice president
 of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, which represents more than 1,000
 biotech companies and related institutions. "And I think the rate of adoption
 shows that people are very comfortable with it."
 Ten years of familiarity with engineered crops, however, has not eliminated the
 controversies over its promise and potential pitfalls --- or proved that public
 institutions can balance the two. Current controversies extend well beyond the
 supermarket.
 Environmental groups, for instance, are suing the U.S. Department of Agriculture
 over its approval of genetically engineered alfalfa, which despite its status as
 forage is the fourth most valuable crop in the country. Critics contend that
 Monsanto's new Roundup Ready alfalfa will encourage the use of the company's
 widely used herbicide on 21 million acres of crops --- 80 percent of which are
 now grown without herbicides --- threaten the wildlife that eats it and hasten
 the spread of "superweeds."
 Tests outlined
 Since trials of genetically modified crops began 20 years ago, there have been
 more than 47,000 field tests of genetically modified crops in the United States
 alone. A National Academy of Sciences study found that only 3.5 percent of
 industry's requests have been turned down by the U.S. Department of
 Agriculture--- and only about 10 percent of the tests have ever been inspected.
 Assuring that exotic genes from such tests don't blow into a nearby field, get
 carried there by birds or get mixed with conventional crops during post-harvest
 processing has been the job of the USDA.
 Even the USDA acknowledges that it hasn't done a very good job. A recent audit
 by the agency's inspector general found "deficiencies" in 15 percent of the
 field tests the agency supervised. In some cases, the agency didn't even know
 where the test was being conducted.
 Cross-contamination can have costly consequences. In 2002, Texas-based Prodigene
 Inc. was ordered to destroy $3 million worth of soybeans in Nebraska after they
 were tainted by genetically modified pharmaceutical-producing corn. Lesser known
 incidents of GM contamination have been reported in corn, canola and sugar
 beets.
 The controversy transcends national boundaries. Since 1998, most European
 countries have banned the sale and importation of genetically modified crops and
 foods, although that may be changing.
 In a victory for the United States, Canada and Argentina --- big growers of GM
 crops ---the World Trade Organization this year rejected the European Union's
 ban. The WTO stopped short of saying GM crops were safe, but held that the ban
 had not been scientifically justified.
 The impact of the ruling is unclear. European Union officials say each country
 still has the right to make its own choices. And the EU environment commissioner
 insists that safety assessments of GM foods rely too heavily on industry data.
 As swift as the spread of biotech crops has been, however, the revolution may be
 most remarkable for what hasn't happened.
 Acceptance not universal
 Despite concerns about the health risks of transgenic food products, proponents
 assert that no human illnesses have been linked to GM foods. Critics reply that
 because the Food and Drug Administration doesn't require such ingredients in
 food to be labeled, there is no way to link GM foods to adverse health effects
 if they did occur.
 Despite American consumers' seeming acceptance of transgenic soy and corn
 ingredients, and the GM papayas and crookneck yellow squash that have been on
 the market for several years, signs of uneasiness with the technology are not
 far below the surface.
 Opposition from fast-food restaurants, for instance, played a role in heading
 off plans to commercialize GM potatoes. McDonalds didn't want them in its french
 fries. Opposition from wheat growers, fearful of restrictions on their exports
 to GM-conscious countries, coincided with a decision to table the introduction
 of herbicide-resistant wheat. Similar fears helped scotch GM sugar beets.
 Intervention by St. Louis-based beer maker Anheuser-Busch last year forced tiny
 Ventria Bioscience to move its planned field tests of a GM rice to a distant
 corner of Missouri.
 The brewer didn't want to run the risk of having the rice it uses for brewing
 Budweiser and other beers contaminated with strains of rice producing human
 proteins for pharmaceuticals.
 The industry sees the advent of "bio-pharming" --- the use of engineered crops
 to produce vaccines, drugs, hormones and even industrial chemicals --- as one of
 the brightest lights in the biotech's future.
 So far, however, most of the tangible benefits of the biotech revolution have
 been kept down on the farm. Early industry promises of better-tasting,
 longer-lasting, nutritionally superior foods have yet to become a reality.
 The very first GM crop, Calgene Inc.'s "fuller flavored" Flavr-Savr tomato, was
 a commercial flop. Transgenic papayas and squash are engineered for virus
 resistance in the field, not for taste or appearance.
 "Virtually all of the millions of acres of genetically modified crops being
 grown today really only involve three crops --- soybeans, corn and cotton ---and
 two traits, the ability to produce pesticides and herbicide resistance," says
 Jane Rissler, senior scientist in food and agriculture for the Union of
 Concerned Scientists.
 Although she and the organization are frequent critics of the agricultural
 biotechnology, Rissler herself is surprised that environmental consequences of
 the rapid adoption of biotech crops have --- based on what is known so far ---
 been relatively muted.
 Areas of concern
 Herbicide-resistant weeds --- noxious plants that acquire herbicide-resistant
 traits from the pollen of GM crops --- have appeared in a few areas, but Rissler
 says the specter of "superweeds" running amok in the wild has not yet to come to
 pass.
 She is concerned that the increased use of herbicide-resistant crops, which
 withstand the chemicals used to combat weeds, has promoted the use of more
 herbicides, especially Monsanto's Roundup, which the crops are genetically
 tailored to tolerate.
 But Rissler says there is little evidence, even after 10 years of widespread
 use, that insects are becoming resistant to plant-based pesticides --- something
 industry critics warned was likely to happen swiftly when crops were engineered
 to manufacture their own pesticides as they grow.
 "One of the great success stories in the cotton industry has been the reduction
 in pesticide use that genetically modified crops have made possible," she says.
 Overall, 8.5 million farmers have enthusiastically embraced GM crops ---
 sometimes a little too enthusiastically. Monsanto, the largest U.S. biotech crop
 company, regularly defends its rights to the GM traits it has developed by suing
 farmers who dare to save the seeds from last year's crop and plant them without
 paying the annual licensing fee.
 But Monsanto and other companies are working on a more effective way to defend
 their legal interests --- like "terminator technology," a genetic modification
 that renders GM seeds sterile and useless for subsequent plantings.
 Concern about such "suicide seeds" has prompted the United Nations to call for a
 global moratorium on testing of the technology and spurred a campaign by farmers
 and environmental activists to permanently ban it.
 A political quagmire
 Biotech proponents regularly promote genetic engineering as the key to feeding a
 hungry world with a bounty of drought-resistant, salt-tolerant, pest-resistant,
 nutritionally superior crops.
 But for six years now, one such crop has languished in a curious geo-political
 limbo.
 Rice, of course, is one of the most widely grown crops in the world, and Swiss
 researchers realized over a decade ago that if it could somehow be engineered to
 produce more vitamin A, it could be a boon to people in Africa and Asia who
 suffer from vitamin A deficiency, which causes 2 million deaths a year and
 500,000 cases of childhood blindness.
 So the researchers added the beta-carotene producing genes from a daffodil to
 conventional rice and got a vitamin A-enriched golden rice. In July 2000, the
 cover of Time magazine hailed it as the rice that "could save a million kids a
 year."
 But there were tests. And more tests. And there was public dispute over the
 concept of genetically altered food, doubts that such little more vitamin A
 would really make a difference, and international politics. Greenpeace opposed
 golden rice as a "Trojan horse" for other biotech foods. Zimbabwe, Malawi,
 Mozambique and Lesotho, where food shortages are chronic, banned importation of
 any GM grains.
 So far, no country has approved commercial plantings of golden rice, but
 meanwhile British scientists last year developed a second generation of golden
 rice that contains 20 times more beta carotene. More tests are likely. The
 future of second-generation golden rice is uncertain.
 Beneficial traits for rice farmers are another story. Iran last year became the
 first country in the world to approve commercial production of genetically
 modified rice. But not golden rice, Iran's homegrown variety that produced its
 own pesticide. China this year may also harvest its first commercial quantities
 of GM rice. It, too, is a pest-resistant strain that farmers like.
 Research successes in the last decade have helped make the promise of GM crops
 --- from vitamin-enriched vegetables to hepatitis vaccines in a potato --- even
 more alluring than it was a decade ago. For the consumer, however, they are
 still promises in search of reality.
 "It's true that some of these products aren't getting to market as fast as we
 had hoped," says Darragh. "But there are a lot of regulatory hurdles that we
 need to clear. Once people see tangible benefits, I think it will change the
 calculus. Then I think you'll see this technology really take off."
 "There's definitely a huge pipeline of genetically engineered products in the
 industry pipeline," says Rissler. "But so far, we've only seen a dribble of
 products from the pipeline actually make it to market. It makes you wonder
 whether we'll see any of them in the next 10 years."
 LOAD-DATE: May 14, 2006
 GRAPHIC: Photo: LAURENT GILLIERON / Associated PressA Greenpeace activist rolls
 over a map of Europe made of non-genetic food products in front of the World
 Trade Organization headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, in 2005. Activists were
 protesting the Bush administration's decision to sue the European Union for
 restricting genetically modified crops.
 Photo: RICH PEDRONCELLI / Associated PressA harvester works through a field of
 genetically modified corn on a farm near Santa Rosa, Calif. Biotech proponents
 regularly promote genetic engineering as the key to feeding a hungry world with
 a bounty of drought-resistant, salt-tolerant, pest-resistant, nutritionally
 superior crops. Only three GM crops --- soybeans, corn and cotton --- have been
 widely planted in the United States.
 Graphic: SHANNON PEAVY / Staff2005 GLOBAL STATUS OF BIOTECH CROPSIn 2005, the
 global area of biotech crops reached 222 million acres, representing an increase
 of 11% from 2004, equivalent to 22 million acres.Countries with 125,000 acres or
 more1. United States....123 million2. Argentina ........42 million3.
 Brazil............23 million4. Canada............14 million5.
 China..............8 million6. Paraguay ........4.4 million7.
 India............3.2 million8. South Africa ....1.2 million9. Uruguay.........
 .74 million10.Australia....... .74 million11.Mexico.......... .25
 million12.Romania......... .25 million13.Philippines..... .25
 million14.Spain........... .25 millionCountries with less than 125,000
 acres15.Colombia16.Iran17.Honduras18.Portugal19.Germany20.France21.Czech
 RepublicSource: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
 ApplicationsGraphic includes a numbered global mapping of the countries that
 utilize biotech crops.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspapers
                 Copyright 2006 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution









Document Number: 17
 
                      Aberdeen American News (South Dakota)
                             November 8, 2005 Tuesday
 Confined corn: First step in pharming
 SECTION: FF; Pg. 14
 LENGTH: 1208 words
 Special to the Farm Forum Used with permission from the Farm and Home Research
 publication of South Dakota State University
 Tomorrow's transgenic crops will be "biopharmaceuticals," say those who envision
 plants that produce, among other things, vaccines, medical proteins, antibodies,
 and industrial enzymes.
 Their crop of choice to produce some of these biopharmaceuticals is corn.
 Corn is popular with biotechnology companies because the companies have
 developed the skills to manipulate its genome and because corn can produce large
 amounts of designer proteins in the kernels. Proponents of the technology say
 that production of biopharmaceuticals from renewable resources such as corn
 would be cheaper and the response to public need would be faster than building
 or enlarging a manufacturing facility.
 The USDA has initiated stringent measures to prevent plant-made pharmaceuticals
 (PMPs) from comingling with crops grown for food, feed, and fiber, says Kevin
 Kephart, director of the South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station.
 "APHIS [Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service] reviews all plans for seed
 production, timing of pollination, harvest, shipment, and the storage and use of
 equipment before permitting a PMP field trial," Kephart says. "And the corn will
 never outgrow the oversight. If a PMP corn becomes commercially available, it
 will still be under regulation by the USDA, every step of the way to actual
 user.
 "The operative word is 'isolation,'" Kephart adds, "That is both spatial
 isolation and temporal separation. Corn would appear to present an isolation
 problem because its pollen is known to drift beyond the field in which it is
 planted. However, an updated 2003 guideline stipulates that no conventional corn
 can be grown within one mile of a field test that involves open-pollinated
 pharmaceutical corn. If the PMPs are detasseled or the tassels are bagged, the
 spatial requirement is reduced to a half mile.
 "In addition, the PMP corn must be planted either 28 days before or 28 days
 after planting or harvesting of any other corn growing within a half mile of the
 test plot. That further reduces the possibility of pollen drift to non-test
 fields during the period of fertilization."
 In 2002, the last year for which data has been released, APHIS granted 20
 permits for 34 field sites for a total of 130 acres. None was in South Dakota.
 Iowa and Nebraska were the closest states with PMP permits.
 PMP corn holds the possibility of a lucrative niche market for a few corn
 producers in South Dakota. The corn would command a high price for its designer
 compounds.
 Confinement - separation from food and feed corn - could be overcome if the corn
 were truly confined, in a greenhouse.
 Not just any greenhouse.
 "We were asked by the South Dakota Corn Utilization Council [CUC] if growing
 corn under controlled
 indoor conditions, following APHIS regulations and FDA good manufacturing
 practices, could be done and if we could work out the production kinks," says
 Neil Reese, South Dakota State University biologist. "We said we'd try, and the
 CUC funded the project. The corn we used had no inserted genes that could be
 termed pharmaceutical."
 He enlisted Michelle Hays, agronomy major from Volga. All she had to do was
 figure out how to grow corn under glass-and without soil-in a self-contained
 greenhouse.
 The greenhouse was a BL3, Biosecurity Level 3, on the SDSU campus, with an air
 lock. "After I entered the first door, I couldn't open the next one for 5
 minutes, because in that time the air recirculated and filtered out any pollen
 that would have escaped from inside the room or entered from the outside," Hayes
 explains.
 "The water was recycled, and at the end of the experiment it was autoclaved
 before it left the greenhouse. All of the plant material was also autoclaved at
 the end."
 There was no soil to sterilize.
 "The plants were suspended in chambers where the entire root system was exposed
 to air at all times. At timed intervals the roots were sprayed with water that
 contained a nutrient solution," Hayes explains. "We picked aeroponics instead of
 hydroponics because there was less water to sterilize at the end of the
 experiment."
 She started the corn from seed, and 82 days later the plants had completed
 pollination.
 "I turned the system off to allow the corn to dry down after 105 days and
 harvested at 135 days."
 The rapid and complete adaptation of the corn to this procedure led to the
 biggest problem Hayes and Reese faced.
 "Give corn everything it wants and it goes to town," Hayes says. "Corn never did
 too well in hydroponics-when roots are totally submerged in water - but in
 aeroponics the roots appeared strong, healthy, and much more numerous."
 With extra root surface to absorb the nutrients, the corn grew at an average
 rate of 9 inches per week. By the time the leaves were rubbing the underside of
 the greenhouse roof, Hayes and Reese had run out of lighting options.
 Iron chlorosis was another problem. Hayes solved that by experimenting with
 various forms of chelated iron and the leaves lost their striped appearance
 almost overnight. If they continue the project, she says she would like to
 optimize the air temperatures in the greenhouse.
 Commercially available aeroponics units are designed primarily for the
 horticultural trade, and the equipment was not well suited for corn.
 "The plants pushed the equipment to its limits. I'm sure we could grow them
 faster, harvest in a shorter period of time, and increase potential for profit
 if the units were modified," Hays says.
 "We had a couple of crop failures because pumps went out or spray controllers
 didn't function, but when things got ironed out and the first tassels appeared
 on our first complete crop, we were pretty happy scientists."
 Next time, "I'd like to have these units built locally and tailor made for corn
 and other agronomic species. The framework would need to be sturdier to hold the
 plants better, and the pumps and nozzles and piping should be available from a
 local supplier. I always had to order parts from Colorado.
 Reese has plans, also.
 " This project is finished. We turned the data over to the Experiment Station
 for inclusion in the July report to the Corn Utilization Council.
 "The whole idea was to grow corn that can be genetically modified to produce
 high-value pharmaceuticals and other biochemicals. If we grew the corn in a
 greenhouse, one big enough to produce an economical crop - but given the value
 of biopharmaceutical corn it wouldn't have to be exceptionally big - we could
 use the excess carbon dioxide plants need that was generated in the next-door
 ethanol plant."
 "The CUC recognized the advantage of utilizing the carbon dioxide and steam
 given off in ethanol production to increase profitability of the ethanol plants.
 The biggest cost in running a greenhouse in South Dakota is heating it. An
 associated greenhouse could convert corn, steam, and carbon dioxide into
 valuable biopharmaceuticals and be another source of income for farmer
 cooperatives or corporations running the ethanol plants."
 Meanwhile, Hayes says that "both Dr. Reese and I were impressed with many
 aspects of the aeroponics method for growing plants and we feel that this is the
 best method for continuing research in this area."
 LOAD-DATE: November 8, 2005
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2005 Aberdeen American News
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 18
 
                              June 19, 2005, Sunday
 Biotech blowing in the wind Organic farmers worry contamination could check
 surging market.
 BYLINE: Jon Rutter
 SECTION: D, Pg. 01
 LENGTH: 1981 words
 Jon RutterA puff of wind could bring an unwanted visitor to David Martins
 fields. Pollen. The pollen from genetically modified corn, to be exact. Martin,
 an organic farmer from East Petersburg, milks 110 cows and grows his own corn
 for feed. He does not sow the genetically modified seeds developed and patented
 by biotechnology companies. But some of his neighbors do. The powdery, yellow
 pollen released by the tassels of GM plants can drift for miles, said Martin,
 the president of the 25-member Lancaster Organic Farmers Cooperative. Biotech
 corn is on the rise, Martin said, and, no matter where you farm, at least a
 small amount of cross-pollination is now a given. He recently planted buffers to
 safeguard his crop. For me, he said, it is really difficult to grow corn
 organically. To be sure, said Penny Sandoval of Pennsylvania Certified Organics
 in Centre Hall, GM contamination does not automatically impact a farmers organic
 status. However, she said, because many organic buyers screen for evidence of
 biotech, farmers who sell organic grain as a commodity might face significant
 economic losses. The challenge comes at a time when organic market share is
 leaping. Organic cropland expanded nearly 75 percent in this country between
 1997 and 2001, and consumer demand for organic food grew at least 20 percent
 annually through the 1990s, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
 Simultaneously, over the past decade, biotech agriculture, popular with many
 farmers, has taken root throughout the world. According to the Pennsylvania
 Agricultural Statistics Service, 85 percent of the 2004 U.S. corn crop and 45
 percent of the soybean crop were genetically changed to tolerate pesticides or
 stave off disease. As much as 70 percent of the processed food on grocery store
 shelves contains GM products, such as soybean and cottonseed oils, according to
 the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. The state is surveying farmers
 about their crop choices, and local data is expected later this month, said
 Lancaster County extension director Leon Ressler. GM soybean varieties in
 particular have apparently caught on like wildfire here, said Ressler, who noted
 that soybeans pose much less cross-pollination risk than corn. Jennifer Garrett,
 a spokeswoman for the St. Louis biotech giant Monsanto, said the growers who buy
 its seeds understand the importance of containing GM pollen. They feel very
 confident they can manage pollen flow, she said. The biotech industry says GM
 foods are healthful and vital to feed mushrooming Third World populations beset
 by hunger and drought. But biotech remains a thorny issue for some sustainable
 farming advocates, and for consumers who prefer foods free of synthetic
 pesticides and genetic manipulation. Cheryl Desmond, a Millersville University
 education professor and challenger for the 41st House District seat last fall,
 counts herself among both groups. Theres a huge homogenization of the market
 that occurs when large corporations own the seed stocks traditionally controlled
 by farmers, Desmond asserted. That bodes ill for crop diversity and farm
 autonomy, according to Desmond, who said also that GM food is so new there are
 no long-term studies to guarantee its safety. To call attention to biotechnology
 issues, she planned to attend the BioDemocracy Conference in Philadelphia that
 runs through Tuesday. The grassroots gathering will unfold in conjunction with
 Bio 2005, the annual meeting of the international Biotechnology Industry
 Organization. Roman Stoltzfoos, an organic dairyman from Gap, said the future of
 organic farming might depend on a movement to require GM food labeling. Should
 the GM phenomenon continue to grow, he contends, it might crowd out heirloom
 species. Its just going to destroy a lot of good, old, traditional plants,
 Stoltzfoos said. But new technology is old news down on the farm. The so-called
 green revolution industrialized post-World War II agriculture through the use of
 chemical pesticides and fertilizers. Then, in the 1990s, geneticists began
 routinely splicing DNA from various plant and animal species. Companies such as
 Monsanto, Dow and Cargill unveiled a new era of miracle foods billed as hardier
 and more nutritious. Supporters say GM crops can nourish the developing world.
 As of 2004, Monsanto alone claimed more than 175 million acres planted to its GM
 seeds worldwide. Farmers the world over have embraced GM crops, said John
 Flanagan, a territory manager for the agribusiness trade group PennAg Industries
 Association. Things dont take off in the marketplace like this has if there
 arent some tremendous benefits to the end user, he said. Flanagan, who also
 represents the Basel, Switzerland-based agribusiness and biotech company
 Syngenta International, added that GM technology has probably saved the
 environment millions of pounds of insecticide from being put on the ground.
 Critics have branded GM products Frankenfood. They argue that tinkering with
 lifes fundamental genetic code poses a grave and permanent risk to human health
 and the environment. Excepting cotton, they also dispute industry claims that GM
 crops cut pesticide use. Steve Groff, a well-known sustainable farming proponent
 from Holtwood, occupies the middle ground. He raises Monsantos Roundup Ready
 soybeans, engineered to thrive when sprayed with pest killer. Growing seasons
 vary, Groff said as a caveat, but GM seeds have cut my soybean herbicide costs
 in half. He said hes seen similar results testing Monsanto Bt sweet corn over
 four years. Bt is a naturally occurring soil bacteria that organic farmers
 employ as an insecticide; Monsanto has genetically inserted the material into
 each corn plant cell. Groff was skeptical of claims that widespread use of Bt
 corn would spawn pesticide resistant superbugs and superweeds. Resistance takes
 time to develop, he said, and farmers juggle pest-killing strategies to break
 the cycle. Still, Groff said, despite the tangible benefits of the science,
 biotechnology companies have not focused adequately on isolating GM pollen.
 Moreover, he said, the jury is still out on yields. GM crops hold promise, he
 said, but I do not think biotechnology has all the answers. ... I think we need
 to pursue it carefully. Though controversial in Europe, where England has been
 debating the safety of marketing GM corn without more research, biotechnology
 companies are plowing ahead. GM corn, soybeans and, in the South, cotton, still
 constitute the the bulk of the U.S. market. But the biotech pipeline contains
 many more foods, including next generation biopharmaceutical products like rice
 containing human liver genes. Monsanto expects to introduce Roundup Ready
 alfalfa this summer, said company spokeswoman Garrett. Farther down the road,
 she said, the company will debut vegetables developed by molecular breeding, a
 process in which scientists scrutinize plants at the molecular level to pick out
 the best stock for conventional hybridization. California has OKd test fields of
 rice, rapeseed, wheat, onions and other foods, according to a widely screened
 2004 documentary, The Future of Food by filmmaker Deborah Koons Garcia. In
 Pennsylvania in recent years, said U.S. Department of Agriculture spokeswoman
 Corey Slavitt, seed companies have applied for permits to try out GM alfalfa,
 Kentucky bluegrass and Kentucky bent grass, among other plants. The whole issue
 is controversial, said Dave Bingaman of the Pennsylvania Department of
 Agriculture. The reality of it is, its a very controlled process. But natural
 food advocates have persistently questioned the safety of transgenic crops.
 These things are not stable when theyre out there in the field, said Garcia, who
 delved into the complexities of DNA splicing for her documentary. Scientists use
 powerful promoter genes to forcibly switch on the foreign genes they insert,
 noted Garcia, a long-time filmmaker who is the widow of Grateful Dead guitarist
 Jerry Garcia. She contends that such alterations make GM strains more aggressive
 and that the GM strains bully traditional crops. I see this technology as a kind
 of metaphor for industrial agriculture, she said by phone from her home in
 California. I dont think farmers are aware of how this stuff is made. ... I dont
 think its the wise way to farm, but farmers are being squeezed now. GM crops
 have indeed made significant inroads in the states $45 billion agriculture
 industry. In southeastern Pennsylvania, said Leon Ressler, the extension
 director, virtually 100 percent of the customers of one major seed company now
 raise GM soybeans. Ressler said 60 percent of the companys clients grow biotech
 corn, with Bt corn accounting for 55 percent of the total. GM crops have
 advantages and disadvantages, Ressler said. One of the big downsides is you cant
 protect the organic guys from pollen blowing in. Of course, the chances of
 cross-pollination happening varies greatly depending on the crop, said Shepherd
 Ogden, founder of The Cooks Garden mail-order seed supplier in Londonderry, Vt.,
 and the author of five books on agriculture. GM vegetables are still in the
 development stage and are not a cross-pollination threat to conventionally grown
 crops at the moment, Ogden said. The chances of GM and conventional soybeans
 inadvertently mixing together in the field is also low because the plants
 self-pollinate, he said. Most Lancaster County organic dairy farmers do not grow
 their own corn, said C. Arden Landis, who milks 100 cows on an organic dairy in
 Kirkwood. However, he said, any Lancaster County farmer who buys or raises corn
 may run a larger spill-over pollination risk because the properties here are
 small and close together. It could be hard to have enough buffering. And its up
 to growers who do not raise GM crops to defend against GM pollen, said Martin,
 the dairy farmer from East Petersburg. My main pet peeve is these companies get
 licenses to sell their seeds and then their pollen contaminating our crop is our
 problem. Courts in this country and Canada have ordered some unintended
 recipients of GM pollen to pay royalties on the technology, said Ellen Kittredge
 of the Center for Food Safety in Washington, D.C. According to a study released
 last winter by the Center for Food Safety, Monsanto has filed more than 90
 lawsuits for patent infringement and won more than $90 million in judgments. Its
 absolutely outrageous, said Kittredge, who added that she was not aware of any
 cases in Pennsylvania. Other conflicts with farmers have been settled out of
 court, Kittredge said. Proposals that would have shifted the liability for GM
 seed-related losses to the companies that hold the patents were defeated last
 winter in Montana and North Dakota . A proposed seed liability law is still
 pending in Vermont, Kittredge said. Harrisburg is not currently working on any
 biotech bills, according to Jake Smeltz, the policy director for state Sen. Noah
 W. Wenger But last year, he noted, Pennsylvania lawmakers approved a preemptive
 measure that prohibits municipalities from banning the use of GM seeds. Many
 states now have such bans in place. To counter them, right-to-know proponents
 are encouraging communities to pass nonbinding resolutions urging mandatory
 labeling of GM ingredients. Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a candidate for the 2004
 Democratic presidential nomination, has introduced labeling proposals in recent
 years. All were really asking them to do is to safety test these crops and label
 them, said Craig Winters of The Campaign to label GM foods, in Seattle, Wash.
 But he predicts that labeling would have a chilling effect on the planting and
 consumption of biotech foods. He considers that to be a boon to farmers worried
 by GM cross-pollination. Right now the level of contamination is relatively low,
 Winters said. But if we dont stop it, ... it wont stay low for long.
 SUBJECT: Business; FARM ENVIRONMENT AGRICULTURE LANCASTER COUNTY GENETIC
 LOAD-DATE: July 12, 2005
 GRAPHIC: Organic farmer David Martin in a field on his East Petersburg farm.
 Blaine T. Shahan/Sunday News
 Copyright 2005 Lancaster Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 19
 
                              Voice of America News
                                   May 1, 2005
 Study Finds Benefits of Growing Genetically Modified Rice
 LENGTH: 597 words
 DATELINE: Washington
 A new study has found that farmers in China who grew genetically modified rice
 had higher crop yields, used fewer pesticides and, therefore, had fewer health
 complaints than farmers who grew regular varieties. The results of the study are
 the latest development in a continuing debate over the wisdom of growing
 genetically modified foods.
 Experts say China developed genetically modified varieties of rice in the
 mid-1990s. The hybrid rice contains genes from a number of different varieties
 that are resistant to disease and pests.
 Before selling the modified rice commercially, the Chinese government wanted to
 find out how well it performed. The modified rice has not been licensed for
 sale.
 Carl Pray is an agriculture professor at Rutgers University in New Brunswick,
 New Jersey. Professor Pray said he and his colleagues began studying genetically
 modified crops in 1999 at the start of the controversy over the potential health
 and environmental risks of the technology.
 "I had already been working in China with these colleagues of mine for five or
 six years already, at that time, on other issues with regard to science policy.
 And we said, 'Well, it is time we stop doing all this arguing, and we actually
 get some serious numbers from farmers about what that impact is,'" he said.
 In a study published in the journal Science, researchers compared the modified
 rice, also called transgenic rice, to regular rice varieties in two areas of
 China in 2002 and again in 2003.
 In one group, farmers devoted all or part of their fields to genetically
 modified rice strains. They made their own decisions about whether or not to use
 pesticides. The other group of farmers only planted non-transgenic rice.
 The scientists found rice yields were up to nine percent higher among farmers
 using one genetically modified grain, compared to a conventional variety. The
 survey data also show that farmers using genetically modified rice applied less
 than one pesticide treatment per season, compared to farmers growing
 conventional rice, who applied pesticide almost four times per year.
 Professor Pray said farmers who grew genetically modified crops reported no
 health complaints, such as headaches, nausea and skin irritation, compared to
 rice growers exposed to greater amounts of pesticides.
 "And, so, I think that what we feel is that, based on the survey that we have
 done, and based on the evidence that is available to us, that these varieties
 can have important economic benefits in areas where these pests are a major
 problem," he said.
 Christof Then, of Greenpeace Germany, says pesticides should be eliminated from
 the environment using a number of natural strategies, including crop rotation,
 in which farmers vary their crops from one season to the next to avoid
 particular pests.
 But he said genetically engineered foods are not the way to go. Mr. Then says he
 does not know whether genetically modified crops are safe to eat.
 "There were some experiments being done with mice, and the mice showed clearly
 some immune reactions to this kind of toxins that are produced in the rice. So,
 we think it should not be grown and it should not be consumed," he said.
 Published surveys show that only four countries, including the United States,
 account for 99 percent of the world's transgenic crop production.
 Even if governments deem genetically modified foods, like rice, to be healthy
 and environmentally safe, there is a strong public bias that will have to be
 overcome before modified foods become a global mealtime staple.
 LOAD-DATE: May 2, 2005
            Copyright 2005 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 20
 
                              Voice of America News
                                  April 30, 2005
 LENGTH: 634 words
 HEADLINE: Study Finds Benefits of Growing Genetically Modified Rice
 INTRO: A new study has found that farmers in China who grew genetically modified
 rice had higher crop yields, used fewer pesticides and, therefore, had fewer
 health complaints than farmers who grew regular varieties. The results of the
 study are the latest development in a continuing debate over the wisdom of
 growing genetically modified foods. VOA's Jessica Berman reports.
 Experts say China developed genetically modified varieties of rice in the
 mid-1990's. The hybrid rice contains genes from a number of different varieties
 that are resistant to disease and pests.
 Before selling the modified rice commercially, the Chinese government wanted to
 find out how well it performed. The modified rice has not been licensed for
 sale.
 Carl Pray is an agriculture professor at Rutgers University in New Brunswick,
 New Jersey. Professor Pray says he and his colleagues began studying genetically
 modified crops in 1999 at the start of the controversy over the potential health
 and environmental risks of the technology.
 "I had already been working in China with these colleagues of mine for five or
 six years already, at that time, on other issues with regard to science policy.
 And we said, 'Well, it is time we stop doing all this arguing, and we actually
 get some serious numbers from farmers about what that impact is."
 In a study published in the journal Science, researchers compared the modified
 rice, also called transgenic rice, to regular rice varieties in two areas of
 China in 2002 and again in 2003.
 [OPT] In one group, farmers devoted all or part of their fields to genetically
 modified rice strains. They made their own decisions about whether or not to use
 pesticides. The other group of farmers only planted non-transgenic rice. [END
 The scientists found rice yields were up to nine-percent higher among farmers
 using one genetically modified grain, compared to a conventional variety. The
 survey data also show that farmers using genetically modified rice applied less
 than one pesticide treatment per season, compared to farmers growing
 conventional rice, who applied pesticide almost four times per year.
 Professor Pray says farmers who grew genetically modified crops reported no
 health complaints, such as headaches, nausea and skin irritation, compared to
 rice growers exposed to greater amounts of pesticides.
 "And, so, I think that what we feel is that, based on the survey that we have
 done, and based on the evidence that is available to us, that these varieties
 can have important economic benefits in areas where these pests are a major
 problem."
 Christof Then (TEN), of Greenpeace Germany, says pesticides should be eliminated
 from the environment using a number of natural strategies, including crop
 rotation, in which farmers vary their crops from one season to the next to avoid
 particular pests.
 But he says genetically engineered foods are not the way to go. Mr. Then says he
 does not know whether genetically modified crops are safe to eat.
 "There were some experiments being done with mice, and the mice showed clearly
 some immune reactions to this kind of toxins that are produced in the rice. So,
 we think it should not be grown and it should not be consumed."
 [OPT] Published surveys show that only four countries, including the United
 States, account for 99 percent of the world's transgenic crop production. [END
 Even if governments deem genetically modified foods, like rice, to be healthy
 and environmentally safe, there is a strong public bias that will have to be
 overcome before modified foods become a global mealtime staple. (SIGNED)
 LOAD-DATE: May 2, 2005
            Copyright 2005 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 21
 
                         The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
                       April 14, 2005 Thursday Home Edition
 Altered rice abounds in China;
 Genetically modified crop found in food supply
 SECTION: News; Pg. 4A;
 LENGTH: 436 words
 Chinese farmers are apparently planting and marketing genetically modified rice
 without waiting for government approval of the crop for human consumption ---
 the second report of the illegal introduction of a transgenic crop into the
 world's food supply in the last month.
 Only last Friday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture fined the Swiss biotech
 company Syngenta $375,000 for allowing an unapproved variety of genetically
 modified corn called Bt10 to enter the U.S. food supply over the last four
 years. The company acknowledged its "regrettable mistake," but maintained that
 the error posed no danger to consumers.
 In China, samples of rice gathered from seed companies, farmers, millers and
 retail outlets suggest that transgenic rice has been circulating there for at
 least two years, the environmental organization Greenpeace reported Wednesday.
 Tests by GeneScan, an internationally recognized laboratory in New Orleans,
 found transgenic contamination in 19 samples from China's Hubei province. In
 recent years, Hubei has been the scene of numerous field tests of rice that is
 genetically modified to produce its own insecticide.
 The Chinese government is expected to approve the first commercial plantings of
 genetically modified rice in 2006, but local interests apparently jumped the
 gun.
 "A small group of rogue scientists have taken the world's most important staple
 food crop into their own hands and are subjecting the Chinese public to a
 totally unacceptable experiment," said Greenpeace's China representative, Sze
 Pang Cheung, who estimated that more than 1,000 tons of rice could have entered
 the market after last year's harvest.
 Although one of the toxins produced by the genetically modified rice is a
 potential food allergen, no health effects have been reported. But the
 development could raise questions about China's chief food export. A number of
 countries, including Japan, Korea and the European Union, require imports to be
 free of any transgenic contamination.
 In 2001, U.S. food companies recalled more than $1 billion worth of corn chips,
 tortillas and other corn after it was learned they might contain an unauthorized
 variety of corn called Starlink.
 Consumers International, a federation of 250 consumer rights organizations,
 called the latest disclosures from China and the United States a cause for
 renewed concern.
 "The release of untested genetically modified organisms into the environment . .
 . is unacceptable," said a spokesman, David Cuming. "People need to know what
 they are eating, have a choice, and know that their food is safe."
 LOAD-DATE: May 19, 2005
                 Copyright 2005 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution









Document Number: 22
 
                                The New York Times
                              March 27, 2005 Sunday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Science vs. Culture in Mexico's Corn Staple
 BYLINE: By ELISABETH MALKIN
 SECTION: Section 1; Column 1; Foreign Desk; Pg. 10
 LENGTH: 1018 words
 DATELINE: CAPULALPAM DE MENDEZ, Mexico
 This ancient Zapotec Indian town of whitewashed adobe houses and tiled roofs
 perched on a verdant slope of the western Sierra Madre could not be farther from
 the American laboratories where white-coated scientists create strains of
 genetically altered corn.
 This is the birthplace of maize, where people took thousands of years to
 domesticate its wild ancestor, where pre-Hispanic myths describe it as a gift
 from the gods, and where cooks prepare it in dozens of ways to be served at
 every meal. So the discovery of genetically modified corn in the tiny plots here
 set off a national furor over what many here see as an assault by American
 agribusiness on the crop that is at the core of Mexico's identity.
 ''For us, maize is in everything: tamales, tacos, tortillas, pozole,'' said
 Miguel Ramirez, a local teacher who is active in community affairs. ''For us
 it's sacred.''
 Then, radiating distrust of government assurances after a decade of free trade
 that has all but depopulated the Mexican countryside, he asked a familiar
 question here: ''What is the government doing to make us self-sufficient?''
 The response was a controversial biosecurity law passed by the Mexican Congress
 in February, a step that has divided Mexico's scientists. The issue has also put
 Washington on alert, making it wary of any threat to the 5.5 million tons of
 corn that American farmers export to Mexico each year, more than to any other
 country except Japan.
 After several years of study, a panel of international experts found that the
 risks to health, the environment and biodiversity from genetically modified corn
 were so far very limited. But after a public forum here in Oaxaca State, the
 panel gave special weight to social and cultural arguments about protecting
 corn. It recommended that Mexico reduce corn imports, clearly label transgenic
 corn and mill genetically modified corn as soon as it enters the country, to
 prevent farmers from planting it.
 In the end, the Mexican government set aside the milling recommendation as too
 expensive, but the new law requires still unspecified labeling. Over all,
 imports of American corn, mostly for animal feed, have stayed steady.
 The United States' response to the report was immediate and blistering. It
 called the report ''fundamentally flawed'' and argued that the recommendations
 did not flow from the panel's scientific conclusions and undercut provisions of
 the North American Free Trade Agreement. ''If implemented, these recommendations
 would unnecessarily limit Nafta farmers' access to high-quality U.S. corn
 exports, as well as the environmental benefits that biotech corn provides,'' a
 statement read.
 The argument has exposed deeper chords that have been resonating here for two
 decades. At its center is a dispute over whether Mexico's embrace of free trade
 can coexist with age-old farming practices that form the fabric of rural life.
 Like everyone here, Mr. Ramirez farms a small plot to put corn on his table.
 Following tradition, each household plants grain selected and saved from the
 previous year's crop. The practice has created a diversity of corn varieties,
 reflected in a palette of kernels from nearly white to wine red to blue-black,
 making Mexico a corn seed bank for the world.
 One argument against the introduction of genetically altered corn here is the
 fear that cross-pollination with native varieties could alter the purity of
 those crops.
 To many in Oaxaca, the transgenic corn that seeped in from the United States was
 the final insult from successive governments that have dismantled supports for
 uncompetitive peasant farming and embraced free trade. The impact has been
 enormous over the past generation, driving hundreds of thousands of Mexicans
 from rural areas, many of them to the United States for work. ''There is a
 systematic strategy to finish off the countryside,'' said Aldo Gonzalez, an
 advocate on farm issues from the town of Guelatao.
 Scientists have echoed those concerns, saying the threat to the crop and to the
 rural population cannot be separated. ''The most important cause of the loss of
 genetic diversity to the maize varieties is the loss of people, their departure
 from the countryside for California, New York and Texas,'' said Jose Sarukhan, a
 respected professor of ecology at the National Autonomous University of Mexico
 who led the panel.
 As Congress debated the biosecurity law, opposing sides marshaled their own
 evidence to support contradictory conclusions. The potential danger to corn --
 and its special place in Mexican society -- remain a centerpiece of opposition
 to the law.
 The law's supporters say genetically modified strains could increase yields for
 Mexico's flagging corn production. They argue that the law sets up safeguards to
 introduce genetically modified crops cautiously and monitor their effects.
 But such promises carry little weight in Oaxaca.
 After scientists found transgenic corn in the fields of these mountains in 2001,
 despite a 1998 ban on commercial planting, Mr. Ramirez, the local activist, and
 others here asked for a study of the issue. That led to formation of the study
 panel, which was set up by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, a
 government-financed group that monitors the environmental effects of Nafta, and
 was made up of experts from Mexico, the United States, Canada and Britain.
 The study concluded that the alien corn found here probably came from American
 food imports distributed in government stores for the poor and planted by local
 farmers.
 One such farmer, Olga Toro Maldonado, said the new corn produced well the first
 year. But the grain she saved and planted the following year produced ''tiny,
 ugly little things.'' That is because she planted corn developed for the Great
 Plains. In the end, she said, ''we realized that it is better to have our own
 maize.''
 The new law promises special rules to protect corn, gives the environmental
 ministry new power over whether to approve any transgenic crops and allows
 communities to set up zones that are free of transgenics. The ban on commercial
 planting is still in effect.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 AGREEMENTS (60%); ENVIRONMENT & NATURAL RESOURCES (68%) Terms not available from
 NYTimes
 LOAD-DATE: March 27, 2005
 GRAPHIC: Map of Mexico highlighting Capulalpam de Mendez: Transgenic corn has
 found its way to Capulalpam de Mendez.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 23
 
                         The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
                      February 15, 2005 Tuesday Home Edition
 Biotech potato provides hepatitis vaccine
 SECTION: News; Pg. 3A;
 LENGTH: 648 words
 Researchers reported Monday that potatoes genetically modified to carry a
 vaccine against hepatitis B have been successfully tested in humans.
 More than 60 percent of the volunteers tested showed signs of increased immunity
 roughly equivalent to a standard vaccination after eating a single 4-ounce
 portion of raw transgenic potatoes. Two helpings of bite-sized potato bits
 produced even higher immunity levels.
 University of Arizona biologist Charles Arntzen said the findings provide
 "compelling evidence" that plant-derived hepatitis B vaccines could help combat
 a disease that infects 115 million people worldwide and kills more than 1
 million a year.
 There are already two conventional vaccines for hepatitis B, but high costs and
 distribution problems keep them from reaching more than half the people in
 underdeveloped countries who would benefit from them. In the United States, all
 newborn children are supposed to be routinely vaccinated for hepatitis B, a
 serious viral disease of the liver that can cause liver cancer, liver failure
 and death.
 Arntzen's goal is not to find a way to slip vaccines into everyone's french
 fries. Cooking, in fact, would destroy the active ingredient. Instead, he wants
 to use the potatoes to "grow" vaccines that could be ground up, freeze-dried,
 incorporated in capsules and easily dispensed as an oral vaccine.
 "We don't want people thinking that vaccines are going to start showing up on
 the supermarket shelf," Arntzen said. "These plant-based vaccines would be grown
 in greenhouses under controlled conditions, and the products would be regulated
 as strictly as any other drug."
 The latest results, reported in the current issue of Proceedings of the National
 Academy of Sciences, do, however, underscore some of the dramatic advances in
 the fledgling field of "bio-pharming" --- the use of genetically modified crops
 as vehicles for the production of drugs, vaccines and industrial chemicals.
 Arntzen has previously modified potatoes to produce small batches of vaccine for
 Norwalk virus, which is frequently blamed for outbreaks of food-borne illness on
 cruise ships and for travelers' diarrhea. He says that initial human trials of
 that vaccine have also successfully induced immunity.
 Other researchers have tinkered with the genetic makeup of tomatoes, tobacco,
 corn and other crops to produce promising compounds for the treatment of cystic
 fibrosis and non-Hodgkins lymphoma, as well as plant-based growth hormones,
 contraceptives and blood thinners.
 Environmental and food safety groups have been sharply critical of federal and
 state efforts to regulate such developments. Arntzen himself worries that the
 absence of any regulatory authority for plant-based pharmaceuticals could delay
 commercialization of his vaccines.
 Unlike Arntzen's potatoes, which were grown in greenhouses in Ithaca, N.Y., many
 experimental transgenic crops are grown in open fields, where there is a greater
 risk of contaminating food crops during planting, harvesting or processing.
 In once recent case, Texas-based ProdiGene failed to eliminate bio-pharm corn
 plants from a soybean crop planted in the same field. The company was fined
 $250,000 and required to pay $3 million for expenses related to destruction of
 500,000 bushels of potentially contaminated soybeans.
 Only last week, a federal court in Hawaii ordered the U.S. Department of
 Agriculture to disclose the location of previously secret open-air tests of all
 bio-pharm crops being grown in that state.
 "No one wants to accidentally get contraceptives in their cornflakes," says Paul
 Achitoff, an attorney for Earthjustice, representing several environmental and
 food groups. "Given the potentially disastrous effects these experiments could
 have on human health and the environment, we hope this ruling will result in
 lifting the veil of secrecy."
 LOAD-DATE: February 15, 2005
 GRAPHIC: Biologist Charles Arntzen calls the potato findings "compelling
 evidence."
                 Copyright 2005 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution









Document Number: 24
 
                                      Agweek
                            February 1, 2005, Tuesday
 University officials say greenhouse project 'critical' to state's ag future
 BYLINE: By Mikkel Pates
 LENGTH: 964 words
 FARGO, N.D. -- Officials at North Dakota State University's Agricultural
 Experiment Station are taking another run at getting state funding toward a $ 20
 million expansion in greenhouse. While not as high profile as some other
 measures many measures facing the Legislature, it is a top priority for the
 university's research competitiveness for decades, and it is a cost item.
 Ken Grafton, director of the experiment station, spoke during a Jan. 12 hearing
 of the Senate Appropriations Committee, saying that the project is "critical to
 remaining at the forefront of agronomic, genetic, pathological and entomological
 research."
 About half of the money would come from federal and private sources, and the
 other half would come from the state over three biennial installments.
 Phase I would authorize $ 9 million in spending during the next two years. Of
 that, only $ 4 million would come from the state, while $ 5 million would come
 from federal sources and companies. Phase I would involve about 56,000 square
 feet, while Phase II would be about 17,000 square feet and Phase III would be
 another 43,600 square feet.
 The project would be located next to 18th Street North and just south of 15th
 Avenue in Fargo. The proposed layout includes 15 460-square-foot and four
 390-square-foot transgenic research rooms; disease inoculation-plant science
 rooms; a spray chamber; clean soil storage; plant and soil disposal; autoclave
 rooms; dryer facilities; growth chambers; threshing room; and seed cleaning for
 transgenic crops and others.
 Ed Goerger of Wyndmere, N.D., is an organic farmer and a member of the State
 Board of Agricultural Research and Education, which has named the project the
 No. 1 priority, followed immediately by a new headquarters for the Central
 Grasslands Research and Extension Center in Streeter, N.D.
 Grafton says current facilities are "useful for a number of research activities"
 but simply aren't approved for "new, state-of-the-art techniques."
 They don't maintain consistent temperatures in the winter, he says. They are
 "not widely used in the summer months because they cannot be adequately cooled."
 And there is the problem of total space.
 He says the university is in a "zero-sum" situation for space.
 "If our soybean breeder begins to screen for resistance to soybean rust (which
 will happen as the rust probably will continue to spread northward from southern
 states), he will either be forced to reduce another component of his (breeding)
 program or acquire space from another commodity such as wheat or barley."
 Graft on says the addition of "restricted-access Level 2 containment facilities"
 would give NDSU scientists the opportunity to conduct research on "transgenic
 and novel crops, exotic pathogens and insect pests, invasive species and other
 research areas."
 Greenhouse containment facilities also would be used when issues such as food
 security, food safety and other biosecurity needs come up.
 "It is imperative that North Dakota remains a trusted provider of safe,
 wholesome food to the nation and the world," he says.
 "Simply put, our scientists do not have the facilities to research current and
 future needs and cannot keep current in their research, " Grafton says.
 "Failure to achieve this goal will result in a continual decline in research
 productivity, as our best scientists leave for other universities that can
 provide such facilities, and our eventual inability to attract gifted young
 scientists."
 Typically, new crop varieties released by NDSU genera te an average of more than
 $ 15 million in "new income" annually, Grafton says.
 The state typically sees a tenfold to twofold return on investment for
 agricultural research at North Dakota State University in Fargo, Grafton says.
 "As new technologies are adopted for variety improvement, such examples will
 become rare if facilities are not available to use those technologies."
 Alsen, the hard red spring wheat variety developed for resistance to Fusarium
 head blight, is conservatively estimated to provide $ 100 million in annual
 benefit, based only on improvements over the "2375" variety.
 That's a "very conservative estimate" without economic "multipliers."
 It also doesn't calculate the savings for farmers by not needing to spray
 fungicides to control Fusarium head blight or the higher prices paid because of
 improved quality.
 "Cost of fungicide and application is approaching $ 20 an acre," Grafton says.
 "Alsen, grown on 37 percent of the acreage in 2003 and 30 percent in 2004, saved
 tens of millions of dollars for the state's wheat farmers."
 Steele-ND wheat combines higher yield potential still, with resistance to
 Fusarium and leaf rust.
 New improved varieties provide income for farmers and the state not only through
 increased yields, but also increase market value and expand national and
 international trade, NDSU officials say.
 "New advances in genetics, plant breeding and plant pathology will allow even
 greater advances in crop variety development," they say.
 Examples of accomplishments include:
 --Increased durum wheat value because of higher yields and better quality.
 --High-quality malting barley varieties (Drummond, Conlin) have been approved as
 malting barley cultivars.
 --High-protein barley for livestock feed.
 --Oat variety with higher Beta-Glucan levels, which reduce cancer risks, result
 in improved human nutrition.
 --Flax variety, "Carter," has high levels of Omega-3 fatty acid, important for
 human nutrition.
 --New varieties of beans, potatoes and soybeans have improved disease- and
 insect-resistance and agronomic traits.
 To see more of Agweek, or to subscribe to the magazine, go to
 http://www.agweek.com.
 INDUSTRY: Agriculture/Food
 LOAD-DATE: February 2, 2005
                Copyright 2005Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News
                              Copyright 2005Agweek









Document Number: 25
 
                     Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock)
                            January 29, 2005 Saturday
 Growers leery of modified rice Farm group is concerned; don't be hasty, UAMS
 warns
 LENGTH: 1101 words
 BRINKLEY - The specter of genetically engineered rice contaminating one of
 Arkansas' premier crops has some farmers worried. And at least one state senator
 plans to introduce legislation during the current session of the Arkansas
 General Assembly to regulate the cultivation of pharmaceutical-producing plants.
 Members of the Arkansas Rice Growers Association passed a resolution Tuesday
 calling for restrictions on the cultivation of "pharm" crops. Greg Yielding,
 executive director of the association, said plans in Missouri to grow rice
 "engineered with human genes" prompted the concern.
 Timothy O'Brien, director of the Biomedical Biotechnology Center at the
 University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, said poorly designed
 biopharmaceutical legislation would "put Arkansas back another 20 years."
 The UAMS center plans eventually to produce vaccines in self-pollinating,
 nonfood plants, which would be less likely to endanger the food supply, O'Brien
 said.
 Ventria Bioscience, a biopharmaceutical company based in Sacramento, Calif., has
 three permit requests pending with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
 Biotechnology Regulatory Services to grow about 200 acres of pharmaceutical rice
 in south Missouri this year.
 Missouri's immediate neighbor to the south, Arkansas, is the No. 1 rice-growing
 state, producing more than $661 million worth of rice in 2003, according to the
 USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service.
 Although the commercial and health benefits of pharm crops could be substantial,
 their commercial production poses potential contamination risks, via seed or
 pollen, to the food supply and the environment.
 State Sen. Jerry Taylor, DPine Bluff, said he's just begun researching the
 issue.
 "We're either going to try to have a ban on it in Arkansas or at least have a
 controlled-environment requirement," Taylor said. Similar legislation being
 proposed in Oregon, by Physicians for Social Responsibility, will be reviewed,
 he said.
 Rick North, who directs the Oregon group's Campaign for Safe Food, said its bill
 calls for a ban on any biopharm food crop.
 No state has passed a biopharm law, but efforts have been made in Colorado,
 Hawaii, Massachusetts, Texas and Vermont, North said.
 Rice exports from Arkansas to several countries, including many in the European
 Union, require certification from the Arkansas State Plant Board "that no GMO
 rice is in commercial production in Arkansas," said Director Darryl Little. GMO
 stands for genetically modified organism.
 "We've always been able to check that box and just say, `We don't produce any,
 so it's not an issue,' " Little said.
 Soon Missouri may not be able to say that.
 Ventria Bioscience's requests, dated Oct. 28, Nov. 4 and Jan. 4, involve 204.5
 acres.
 The January request, covering 4.5 acres, lists three human genes - lactoferrin,
 lysozyme and serum albumin - that Ventria proposes to splice into rice. All
 three are proteins. Lactoferrin and lysozyme, which are commonly found in human
 milk, tears and saliva, have antibacterial and anti-viral properties and could
 be used to treat stomach infections or diarrhea. Serum albumin is the principal
 protein in blood plasma.
 These proteins can be produced "in bacteria or animals or sometimes in cell
 cultures," said UAMS' O'Brien, but "all of these have significant disadvantages,
 like cost and also the potential to transmit disease from animals to humans."
 In a Dec. 22 news release, Ventria said its "2005 permits would authorize
 production in Cape Girardeau, Scott and Mississippi counties in Missouri."
 Ranking last among the six U.S. rice-producing states, Missouri grew a $68
 million crop in 2003. Just seven counties in southeast Missouri - Butler,
 Dunklin, New Madrid, Pemiscot, Ripley, Scott and Stoddard - accounted for more
 than 99 percent of the state's rice crop that year.
 On Nov. 18, Northwest Missouri State University in Maryville announced that an
 agreement had been reached with Ventria to create "a center of excellence for
 plant-made pharmaceuticals," and President Dean Hubbard said Ventria would serve
 as the anchor tenant.
 Neither Hubbard nor Ventria's president and chief executive officer, Scott
 Deeter, responded to phone messages.
 Many observers believe Ventria's planned departure from California was prompted
 by resistance it encountered there last year. The California Rice Commission
 stipulated that Ventria's fields be at least 300 miles from the core of rice
 country and at least 100 miles from any existing paddy, and the state Secretary
 of Food and Agriculture refused to grant "emergency" authorization for the
 company to plant.
 In July, Friends of the Earth, the Center for Food Safety, Consumers Union and
 Environment California released a 19-page report about the risks of
 pharmaceutical rice to consumers, the environment and the California rice
 industry. Concluding that contamination was "inevitable," the authors urged
 California to consider a moratorium on the cultivation of pharm crops.
 Contamination involving two genetically engineered food crops already has
 occurred. In 2000, StarLink corn, which was approved only for animal
 consumption, was detected in taco shells, triggering a recall that depressed
 corn prices worldwide. In 2002, 500,000 bushels of soybeans were ordered
 destroyed because they contained traces of a pharmaceutical corn produced by
 ProdiGene.
 In December the Union of Concerned Scientists released a 132-page report about
 pharmaceutical and industrial crops and called on the USDA to "halt the outdoor
 production of genetically engineered pharma and industrial crops immediately
 until a system is put in place that can produce drugs and industrial substances
 without putting our food system and food industry at risk."
 In its December press release, Ventria said it was committed to "sound
 stewardship." The company said its field production would be separated from the
 nearest conventional crop production by more than five miles, only dedicated
 equipment would be employed with its transgenic crops, and extensive training
 would be provided to its employees and contractors.
 UAMS' O'Brien said Ventria visited Arkansas about six months ago "looking for a
 better home."
 Neil Rutger, director of the Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center near
 Stuttgart, said he attended Ventria's presentation and was favorably impressed
 by its production safeguards.
 But when he learned the company was moving to northwest Missouri instead of
 Arkansas, Rutger said, he concluded, "That's a wonderful place for them, several
 hundred miles away from [commercial] rice production."
 This article was published 1/29/2005
 LOAD-DATE: January 31, 2005
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2005 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 26
 
                      Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA)
                            November 29, 2004, Monday
 The impact of test-tube trees on the woods
 BYLINE: By Patrik Jonsson Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
 SECTION: USA; Pg. 03
 LENGTH: 996 words
 HIGHLIGHT: By altering genes, scientists create quick-growing fruit and pulp
 trees; but critics see 'Frankenforests.'
 After one of his famous walks, the bearded naturalist John Muir wrote in 1896,
 "Few are altogether deaf to the preaching of pine trees."
 But if today's trees could tell their stories, some American branches would be
 whispering new tales of origin: epics of genetic engineering in 150 groves from
 Puget Sound to the palmetto flats of South Carolina. Scientists are increasingly
 tweaking the genetics of trees in the laboratory to enable them to do such
 things as live at higher altitudes, produce more fruit, convert more easily into
 pulp for paper products, and grow faster for timber harvesting.
 Moreover, advocates point to ways the new population could help the old. In some
 cases, harvest of the newfangled trees would save older ones from being cut
 down. And had the technology been available when the American chestnut blight
 broke out in the early 1900s, say some, it might have saved the US chestnut tree
 from near extinction.
 To critics, however, these newest members of the sylvan society are Frankentrees
 - potentially toxic mutants and harbingers of an age when Muir's "lordly
 monarchs" might be superseded by megatrees from the lab. And as China and Brazil
 experiment with genetically engineered pine cones and apple blossoms, the debate
 in America is spreading beyond the laboratory, the Ivory Tower, and the confines
 of experimental groves.
 "We're looking at a very dramatic impact on the ground here in the US, and
 especially the South," says Alyx Perry, director of the Southern Forests Network
 in Asheville, N.C. "There are inevitable risks that can irreversibly alter
 native systems."
 Watchdogs with leaves?
 Commercial use of "transgenic" crops began here in the South when the first
 genetically engineered tobacco plant was planted in 1986, barely a decade after
 American scientists figured out how to cut and paste DNA segments to create
 everything from spider silk to glow-in-the-dark guppies.
 Now, as the tinkerers take on the forests, the big question is less how to do it
 than whether it should be done. The South - America's fastest-growing pulp
 producer - is the most likely region for commercial use of the experimental
 trees. The US Department of Agriculture has received more than 100 applications
 for use of the trees. And even as some heavy paper users, such as Kinko's,
 pledge not to use their products, the technology is taking root:
 * The UN has approved use of genetically engineered trees that take in more
 carbon than normal trees, and so help to offset industrial emissions.
 * Hawaiian officials have approved pest-resistant papaya trees in response to
 infestations that nearly wiped out native populations. The new class of trees
 has already provided a critical economic boost.
 * The Department of Defense has ordered research into arboreal warning systems -
 for instance, trees with foliage designed to change color in reaction to a
 biochemical attack.
 Blowing in the wind
 Unlike altered crops such as soybean and wheat, genetically engineered trees are
 surrounded by their wild cousins.
 One worry is that the seeds of the experimental trees will take root amid wild
 populations, changing the aesthetics of the woods. But scientists caution that
 doesn't mean a slow incursion of the new breed: Trees, the ultimate
 survivalists, will express only those genes that are necessary for their
 longevity. "When they escape, the [new genetic material] may act differently or
 it may not express at all," says Jim Hemrick, a tree-genetics expert at the
 University of Georgia in Athens.
 That's small comfort to critics, who say industry representatives seem more
 concerned with addressing public-relations issues - key to approval of the
 technology for commercial use - than confronting the ethical side of tampering
 with the lungs of the world. Many were outraged when scientists began keeping
 the locations of their experimental groves secret, in response to activists'
 attacks on genetically engineered plots in Oregon a few years ago.
 Conservation and recycling of paper products, these environmentalists say, are
 the safest routes to protecting forests.
 "Regardless of all the problems with agri-crops, [tree geneticists are] saying,
 let's do this with trees, which live for hundreds of years. What are they
 thinking?" asks Anne Petermann, codirector of the Global Justice Ecology Project
 in Hinesburg, Vt.
 Hey - that's not your pollen
 Aside from the potential environmental impact, the trees could also have an
 impact on commercial uses of the wood.
 If some of the softer trees, bred for pulp production, were to show up on timber
 lands, for instance, saw mills could cut them unwittingly for use as lumber,
 then find out they're too soft to be turned into usable boards.
 But perhaps a more essential question is this: Who owns the trees, and who can
 claim the products of engineered seeds that drift into the wild? As companies
 produce the trees and use their products, they want to make sure that drifting
 seeds don't get used by other interests. Already, more than 100 "gene drift"
 lawsuits have been brought over various farm crops by companies such as
 Monsanto, and a similar phenomenon is expected with engineered trees.
 "This brings up the issue of intellectual property rights of life forms, and
 that gets into a whole other can of worms," says Brad Hash, a board member at
 the Native Forest Network in Missoula, Mont. "You could have loggers and private
 landowners who would not have ownership to the organisms on their own property."
 To opponents of the engineered trees, it's not just the world's forests, but the
 marvel and culture surrounding them, that hang in the balance - and many on both
 sides are recommending caution.
 "It's good to be conservative," says Mr. Hemrick at the University of Georgia.
 "It's good to have people reminding us that a worst-case scenario could happen.
 But it's fairly unrealistic that we'll get a disaster."
 (c) Copyright 2004. The Christian Science Monitor
 LOAD-DATE: November 28, 2004
             Copyright 2004 The Christian Science Publishing Society









Document Number: 27
 
                                 University Wire
                             November 8, 2004 Monday
 BYU professor to speak on genetically modified crops
 BYLINE: By Marc Fehlberg, The Daily Universe; SOURCE: Brigham Young U.
 LENGTH: 471 words
 DATELINE: PROVO, Utah
 The Korean government has invited a Brigham Young University professor to speak
 in Gyeongju, Korea, this month on the development and management of insect
 resistance against genetically modified crops.
 Steven Peck, assistant professor of integrative biology at BYU, will be one of
 several guest lecturers speaking on the subject of genetically modified crops or
 transgenic crops at the agricultural conference.
 "I think I'm most excited about this conference because it's good to see my work
 being used to bless people's lives," Peck said. "It's not very often that I get
 to see my work as a mathematical modeler make a difference in the way people do
 things."
 The use of transgenic crops has become increasingly popular in the United States
 since the first genetic crops appeared in the U.S. in the early '90s, Peck said.
 The most recent development in genetically modified crops is the use of a gene
 found in bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis, he said. Scientists found that
 a gene in this bacteria is highly poisonous to insects, but not to humans or
 animals.
 "Scientists took the gene from the bacteria and inserted it into many kinds of
 crops," Peck said. "It made a marvelous insecticide."
 Farmers have typically used conventional insecticides to protect their crops.
 The problem with most insecticides is they are extremely expensive and have
 harmful effects on the environment.
 "It really is an amazing thing," Peck said. "We've essentially made a plant that
 is poisonous to insects but not to animals or people."
 Peck said in addition to being safe for humans and animals, transgenic plants
 are also environmentally safe because the insecticides do not escape into the
 environment.
 At the conference, Peck will speak specifically on how to keep insects from
 developing resistance to genetically modified plants.
 "The key to the long-term success of using transgenic crops will be proper
 resistance management," Peck said. "Insects can become resistant to insecticides
 very quickly."
 More than 400 species of insects have developed insecticide resistance, and
 although transgenic crops hold great promise in controlling pests, the
 possibility of insects developing resistance to transgenic plants is always a
 threat.
 Peck has developed mathematical computer models that show the most effective
 ways to use transgenic crops in order to control insect resistance.
 In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency has used his models to determine
 its regulations regarding the use of the new genetic crop technology.
 Finding ways to control insect resistance while the technology is relatively new
 is important in order to sustain genetically modified crops, Peck said.
 "Once resistance is observed in the field, it is likely too late to control its
 spread and the technology will be lost," he said.
 (C) 2003 The Daily Universe via U-WIRE
 LOAD-DATE: November 9, 2004
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2004 The Daily Universe via U-Wire









Document Number: 28
 
                         Lewiston Morning Tribune (Idaho)
                           September 29, 2004 Wednesday
 Are there downsides to plant gene tinkering?
 BYLINE: Dorothy Nichols
 SECTION: Pg. 1C
 LENGTH: 1058 words
 With all the improvements produced by genetic engineering, why are some people
 violently against it? Well, some are violently against anything new and some are
 fearful of messing around with Mother Nature but others have legitimate
 concerns.
 Besides the pharmaceutical companies' dislike of losing some of their "pill
 power," others are concerned by the development of genetically modified plants.
 What effect will the altered plants have on the environment? Are plants with
 pest resistance safe for human consumption? Could we spawn undesirable plants
 with "runaway genes"? (Watching science fiction movies can give you the
 heebie-jeebies in this area.)
 Cleaning up our environment
 Oddly enough, this desirable aim gives ammunition to those opposed to genetic
 engineering, even though it cuts down on the use of chemicals in agriculture.
 For example, new cantaloupe and squash varieties are being developed with a
 built-in vaccine to resist viruses. (See "Leaders of the Race Two Case
 Studies.")
 The worm-killing gene of bacillus thuringiensis (BT) has been introduced into
 such plants as cotton and corn, giving them continuous protection, which can
 reduce the spraying of insecticides, according to Robert Lee Holz, Los Angeles
 Times science writer. Cotton resistant to lepidoptera has reduced chemical
 spraying of insecticide by 6 million pounds already, and more than 100 different
 crops are being studied to try to provide environmentally safe alternatives to
 using chemicals.
 But some are worried because pests adapt and become resistant to many
 pesticides. Bob Zemetra, professor of plant breeding and genetics at the
 University of Idaho in Moscow, says, "One way to minimize risks is with our
 plant-ing design, giving refuge to insects that would be susceptible, so
 resistance never gets fixed in populations. BT has been used for many years
 before transgenic BT crops and we've never seen resistance to it in insects."
 Another safeguard is to confine the genetic resistance only to the plant parts
 needing protection, such as the buds of cotton and the ears of corn.
 Others are concerned that we could develop a "super race" of weeds resistant to
 herbicides. (Now that scares me. I have enough trouble with nonsuper weeds.)
 Transgenic technology
 Transgenic technology allows the transfer of genetic material between totally
 incompatible species, such as crossing a plant with a fungus, bacterium, virus
 or even animal genes.
 Italian and German scientists have produced transgenic eggplants that set
 seedless fruit. The genes they used were from a bacterium and a snapdragon.
 Think what this development could mean some day: pitless peaches and avocados?
 According to the Biotechnical Information Series of North Central Regional
 Extension, the "antifreeze" gene in the Arctic flounder may soon help
 strawberries and other plants withstand frost in the field and not turn mushy
 after they are frozen. (The strawberries, not the fish.)
 A variety of rice that is super-high in Vitamin A has been developed that can
 prevent Xerophthalmia, an eye disease that blinds a quarter of a million people
 a year and afflicts 5 million children. This transgenic rice uses a bacterium
 and a daffodil.
 Concerns about transgenic technology
 Some are concerned that the protective genes produced with transgenics could
 escape into other plants through pollen transfer and seed dispersal, and so
 cross with relatives in the wild with unknown results.
 Tom Leustek, associate professor of biotechnology at Rutgers University,
 counters this objection: "In nature, genes are regularly transferred between
 sexually incompatible organisms ... . Genetic engineering just exploits the
 natural selection of traits to benefit humans."
 An important safeguard is that genetically engineered foods are tested
 rigorously by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental
 Protection Agency, according to Zemetra. The USDA requires protocols that
 prevent environmental damage and other possible dangers, and decides whether
 field-testing of genetically altered plants is permitted and if and when these
 plants can be released to the public.
 Approval by them is also necessary when specific safety issues are raised. For
 example, if a peanut protein is inserted into a tomato, it must be labeled with
 this information, since many people are allergic to peanuts.
 Vegetarians and other groups that forbid eating meat object to the practice of
 adding animal genes to plants. Again, the USDA requires specific labeling,
 though some people worry that labeling foods as genetically altered could be
 seen as a warning that would cause the general population to avoid them.
 The battle rages on. Large food producers in Europe and Asia don't accept
 transgenic crops from fear that they may not be safe and could harm the
 environment. In effect, they're throwing out the baby with the bath water by
 saying all of these engineered plant modifications are dangerous.
 I have a concern that I haven't seen addressed in my research. If these advances
 eliminate diseases like cholera, E. coli, hepatitis B and Xerophthalmia, think
 of the possible consequences. Now in Third World countries, perhaps six out of
 eight children in a family die. If these advancements mean that all eight of the
 children live, could the whole family starve as the world's population exceeds
 the ability to feed them?
 Perhaps scientists should also work on producing plants that would limit
 conception so that parents would only produce two children, who would then be
 healthy and better fed. But, of course, this approach would undoubtedly raise
 violent objections in others.
 These few facts about genetic engineering are only the tip of the iceberg. If
 you want more information, do a Web search on "genetic" and "food."
 An apple a day or -- dare I say it -- a beer a day may some day actually keep
 the doctor away.
 Vaccinations can give way to eating a slice of bread or a piece of fruit.
 Genetic engineering is a bold forward step precisely because it does "mess with
 Mother Nature." But we must be careful and consider the possible consequences as
 well as the benefits of this burgeoning technology!
 "Oh, brave new world that has such people in it!" --William Shakespeare
 Nichols may be contacted at dotnik2@moscow.com
 LOAD-DATE: September 29, 2004
 GRAPHIC: No Caption; Bob Zemetra, professor of plant breeding and genetics at
 the University of Idaho, works with an air shotgun that shoots gold pellets with
 DNA on them into tissue-cultured plant material.
                      Copyright 2004 Tribune Publishing Co.









Document Number: 29
 
                            The San Francisco Chronicle
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. E4; LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
 LENGTH: 1192 words
 Assessments of Nixon too kind
 Editor -- While Michael Taylor's article on Richard Nixon is neither send-up nor
 screed, how curious it is that he didn't mention Tricky Dick's dubious debut as
 a freshman senator from our fair state ("Disagreement on how history will view
 Nixon," Aug. 8).
 Nixon's political leitmotif was forged in the blinding heat of the hate-ridden
 red-baiting of Sen. Joe McCarthy. How is that not seminal to any reading of
 Nixon or his dubious career, which was transparently built on the twin
 foundations of fear and hate?
 The legacy of that poisoned well led to the domino theory of global communist
 hegemony, which contaminated American foreign policy for more than a generation
 and was a disaster almost regardless of how it's sliced and diced.
 San Francisco
 Editor -- The article about Richard Nixon's legacy was thought-provoking.
 Richard Reeves is quoted on Watergate: "This was an attempt to politically use
 intelligence agencies, law enforcement, the military and these ex-government
 people, the Gordon Liddys, to overthrow the government as it was
 constitutionally structured."
 This echoes a thought I have long held, that Nixon would have, if possible, set
 aside the Constitution to remain in power. To do so he would have needed the
 support of the CIA, the FBI and the military. The Supreme Court and Congress
 would have been helpless.
 Only a right-wing president could hope to get those agencies to ignore the
 Constitution. He would, of course, need a pretext that he was "saving the
 country" from some left-wing threat.
 What would stand in his way? Only the teeth of the Constitution, the enforcement
 clause: the Second Amendment. It is quite clear from the contemporary writings
 of the authors of the Bill of Rights that this (the right to "keep and bear
 arms") was intended as the ultimate check on government run amok. What is
 strange is that it is the liberals, who stand to need it most, who are the most
 eager to eliminate or emasculate it! And for those liberals who say it has
 outlived its purpose, I have two words: Bush and Ashcroft.
 Walnut Creek
 UC sellout of poor
 Editor -- Chronicle staff writer Tanya Schevitz prepared a balanced and
 important story on the deal the University of California and the California
 State University chief executives cut with the governor ("Why UC, CSU chiefs
 kept quiet on cuts," Aug. 10). Shame on both systems, especially UC.
 UC was quick to offer up reductions in its outreach programs. Perhaps it did so
 with the expectation such cuts would be so onerous and unpopular that the
 Legislature and the public would object strenuously and demand restoration of
 this funding. If so, UC should be ashamed of such a callous ploy.
 It appears UC officials are too quick to sacrifice programs for underrepresented
 groups whenever fiscal problems arise. However, they have no compunctions about
 taking tax dollars from low-income and minority folks and using the money for
 pet projects that benefit entrenched, privileged groups.
 Larkspur
 Biotech and critics
 Editor -- Henry I. Miller is a clever biotech industry flack ("Biggest pests of
 all -- agricultural biotech opponents," Open Forum, Aug. 8). He claims federal
 and local regulatory policies "have been condemned repeatedly as unscientific,
 anti-farmer and anti-consumer." Of course: He has done lots of the repeating.
 The idea that stringent regulations hamstring the scientifically precise biotech
 industry is wrong. Federal agencies give almost no oversight to genetically
 altered organisms.
 Genetic engineering is far from precise and benign. Gene-spliced salmon have
 deformed organs. Unstable genes cause mass failure of pesticide-resistant crops.
 Cows treated with genetically altered growth hormone develop multiple diseases.
 Infant allergies to soy formula have risen by 50 percent since widespread use of
 genetically engineered soy.
 We pesky opponents call for restraint and independent study of a novel
 technology that alters the basic structure of life forms.
 Miller apparently prefers a green light for quick fixes and quick profits -- and
 let the future be damned.
 Ukiah
 Editor -- By promoting false promises of what agricultural biotechnology can
 deliver, Henry Miller fails to analyze how the glassy-winged sharpshooter pest
 problem (from an insect that transmits bacteria causing Pierce's disease in
 grapes) has been exacerbated by the advance of vineyard monocultures at the
 expense of native vegetation in Napa and other areas.
 The sharpshooter feeds on many plants of the riparian forest, and when this food
 source is massively removed by monocultures, it has no option but to move to
 grapes that have taken over the landscape.
 So really the problem is not so much the sharpshooter but the way conventional
 grapes are grown.
 By designing organic and biodiverse vineyards, we can restructure agricultural
 systems in ways that maximize the "built-in" preventive strengths, with
 therapeutic tactics serving strictly as backups of natural regulator processes.
 Keeping transgenic crops that negatively affect biodiversity patterns out of
 California is the only hope for harnessing the inherent strengths within
 agroecosystems, thus bringing pest populations within acceptable bounds.
 Professor of agroecology
 UC Berkeley
 For '05 start on Bush 'Liberry'
 Editor -- After laughing all the way through the wonderful piece by Jaime
 O'Neill, "Crayons ready? It's the G.W. Bush Liberry" (Insight section, Aug. 8),
 I was suddenly jolted back to reality when I realized I may have been
 "misunderestimating" the impact of the United States being saddled with such a
 clueless president.
 Let's hope the G.W. Bush Liberry, in whatever way, shape or form, begins
 construction in 2005.
 Millbrae
 Editor -- As a retired academic, I find unduly supercilious the article about
 the G.W. Bush "Liberry" by Jaime O'Neill, who teaches English at Butte Community
 College.
 I wonder if O'Neill would be able to graduate from the rigorous MBA program at
 Harvard as Bush did.
 WILLIAM McKILLOP
 Walnut Creek
 Time and distance
 Editor -- The subtitle of your article, "Interstellar travel is just an
 antimatter of time" (Aug. 8), reads, "Energy from particle annihilation could
 cut voyages by light years."
 That mistakenly uses "light years" as a unit of time. A light year is the
 distance light travels in a vacuum in one year -- approximately 5.88 trillion
 miles.
 Cutting light years from an interstellar voyage would require altering the
 distance between stars!
 But beyond that, your article inspired patriotic pride that someday our military
 might spy on our enemies using robotic drones containing the most explosive
 material in the known universe.
 I feel safer already!
 Foster City
 LOAD-DATE: August 15, 2004
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO (2), (1) Richard Nixon in 1968. / Handout / Associated Press Wire
 Photo, (2) President Bush spoke with reporters as his wife, Laura, listens at a
 school library in Bakersfield. / Reed Saxon / Associated Press
                   Copyright 2004 The Chronicle Publishing Co.









Document Number: 30
 
                          Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
                       June 8, 2004, Tuesday, Metro Edition
 Crop science;
 Better genes without splicing
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 14A
 LENGTH: 617 words
 From Wired magazine, of all places, comes an intriguing look at new agricultural
 technologies that could deliver all the benefits of genetically modified foods
 while avoiding their objectionable aspects.
 Despite their significant advantages and widespread use, it seems unlikely
 that plants and other organisms created through gene-splicing will ever shake
 their "Frankenfoods" image. No amount of science will persuade those who believe
 GM foods are inherently risky to human health. Even if those fears could somehow
 be put to rest, thornier issues would remain: potential environmental harm,
 inadequate regulatory review, enlarged corporate control of food supplies, the
 risks of increasing reliance on single strains of important crops. Thus Monsanto
 Co.'s recent decision against releasing a pesticide-resistant strain of wheat,
 bowing to the reality that the world marketplace would reject it.
 But the same genetic knowledge that has allowed some scientists to cut and
 paste bits of DNA from one species to another also allows other researchers to
 pursue older forms of plant modification - hybridization, grafting, selective
 breeding - with vastly greater efficiency. And these techniques, argues author
 Richard Manning, sidestep pretty much all of the objections, fair or unfair,
 that gene-splicing has provoked.
 Manning, a longtime environmental journalist, has complicated views on
 transgenic foods. He's a sharp critic of modern agricultural practices, which he
 sees as generally destructive to cropland, the environment and the quality of
 the foods themselves. But he readily acknowledges the potential of GM crops to
 alleviate some of those insults - for example, by reducing the use of noxious
 chemicals and scarce water, and by increasing yields.
 An organic farmer himself, Manning looks to a future of "superorganic"
 foods, "nutritious, delicious, safe, abundant crops that require less pesticide,
 fertilizer and irrigation - a new generation of food that will please the
 consumer, the producer, the activist and the FDA."
 His article, in Wired's May issue, describes an interesting array of
 achievements in the young field of "transgenomic," as opposed to transgenic,
 crop development. In China, a scientist has cross-bred the country's most
 popular strain of hybrid rice with a wild cousin, boosting yields by 30 percent.
 In West Africa, a hybrid of Asian and African varieties of dryland rice grows so
 fast that it outcompetes the weeds - while resisting drought and disease, and
 delivering more protein. In Australia, a researcher has developed a form of
 "sentinel" corn that turns red when it needs watering, signaling growers to
 water the rest of the crop. His next project: developing self-cloning crops that
 spread like dandelions.
 The key to all of these efforts is simplicity itself. Using knowledge of
 plant genomes, and the ability to "tag" critical genes with dye, lab-bench
 hybridizers can create and test new crop varieties in a fraction of the time
 once required by generations of trial-and-error field testing. In some cases,
 they can simply coax a plant to start using a desirable but dormant trait it
 possessed all along.
 Best of all, much of this research is being funded by philanthropies that
 pledge to make the results freely available, especially in the developing world.
 Among these is the McKnight Foundation of St. Paul, whose Robert Goodman told
 Manning, "The public argument about genetically modified organisms, I think,
 will soon be a thing of the past. The science has moved on." What an encouraging
 thought - that advances in genomics might ultimately do more to feed the world
 than frighten it.
 SUBJECT: agriculture; science; food; technology; editorial GENETICALLY MODIFIED
 LOAD-DATE: June 9, 2004
                           Copyright 2004 Star Tribune









Document Number: 31
 
                          Portland Press Herald (Maine)
                      May 19, 2004 Wednesday, FINAL Edition
 U.N. report recognizes potential of transgenic foods to help poor;
 A bias against corporate farming shouldn't hold back hope for the hungry. 1/2
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. 10A
 LENGTH: 287 words
 For more than a decade the world has been debating the risks and benefits of
 genetically modified food. Now the United Nations has stepped into the debate
 with a strong endorsement of transgenic foods as a means for combating world
 hunger.
 The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization said that the safety and
 environmental impact of genetically modified foods should be evaluated, but it
 stated clearly that these products hold the potential to aid poor farmers.
 Genetically modified food involves splicing genes from one species onto another.
 It can lead to the creation of crops that resist certain diseases, grow under
 harsher conditions or yield more per acre. As the U.N. report noted, genetically
 modified crops can benefit the environment by reducing pesticide use. The report
 said, for instance, that reduced pesticide use in China had a positive effect on
 farm workers there thanks to transgenic crops.
 Critics worry that genetically engineered plants will crowd out natural species
 and that there could be unintended consequences.
 Those are legitimate concerns, but they can be managed with careful research.
 What is not legitimate is a political agenda that says biotech crops are bad
 because they are developed and marketed by corporations. Nor is it fair to
 starving people to put a halt to this technology because it often is most
 helpful to large farms.
 The report did contain some criticism of the biotech industry, however. It said
 not enough research has been put into improving the crops that poor people use
 most, including cassava, potatoes, rice and wheat. Governments should put action
 behind the U.N. report and encourage research into products that will help poor
 farmers grow more.
 LOAD-DATE: May 19, 2004
                  Copyright 2004 Blethen Maine Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 32
 
                           The Herald-Sun (Durham, NC)
                               May 18, 2004 Tuesday
                                  Final Edition
 International news briefs
 SECTION: INSIDE FRONT; Pg. A3
 LENGTH: 516  words
 Stocks plummet in political panic
 NEW DELHI -- Angry investors chanted "Down with Sonia Gandhi" outside India's
 stock exchange Monday, blaming the country's prime minister-in-waiting for a
 panic that led to the biggest one-day plunge in the market's 129-year history.
 With the financial community unsettled about the possibility of a
 communist-backed ruling coalition, Gandhi's government is in deep trouble even
 before it takes office Wednesday.
 Since Thursday, when Parliament election results showed Gandhi's Congress Party
 would be able to govern only with support from pro-labor, anti-privatization
 communists, India's capital markets have bled some $45 billion, brokers
 estimate.
 U.N. report backs biotech crops
 ROME -- Genetically modified crops are helping poor farmers and have posed no
 adverse health or environmental effects so far, the U.N. food agency said Monday
 in a report on how biotechnology can help feed the world's hungry.
 The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization called for greater government
 regulation and monitoring of genetically modified, or transgenic, products to
 ensure they are safely used and said more research is needed on their long-term
 health and environmental impacts.
 In a positive report likely to fuel the biotech debate, the agency said the
 biggest problem with GM technology is that it has not spread fast enough to
 small farmers and has focused on crops mostly of use to big commercial
 interests.
 Transgenic crops have spread widely in recent years, accounting for 5 percent of
 the world's crop area and increasing by about 15 percent a year, the agency
 said. The use of GM crops is widespread in the United States, but GM foods face
 public opposition in parts of Europe and Africa.
 State Dept. touts U.S. rights efforts
 WASHINGTON -- Facing international criticism for American abuse of Iraqi
 prisoners, the Bush administration is highlighting its efforts to advance human
 rights and democracy in 101 countries, Iraq included.
 The State Department on Monday released its second annual report on the U.S.
 government's activities to promote freedom of the press and religion, foster
 vibrant, stable democracies, and halt torture and child labor, among other
 abuses.
 The report was to have been released May 5, during the same week when much of
 the world was reacting to the disclosure that Iraqi prisoners in U.S. custody
 were being mistreated.
 Honduran fire kills 103 inmates
 SAN PEDRO SULA, Honduras -- An early-morning fire at an overcrowded prison in
 northern Honduras on Monday consumed a cellblock housing gang members, killing
 103, many as they slept, and injuring 25 others.
 The 1:30 a.m. fire was sparked by an air conditioner short-circuit in a
 cellblock occupied by 186 prisoners, Police Commissioner Wilmer Torres said.
 Some prisoners burned to death while others died from smoke inhalation.
 Firefighters brought the blaze under control quickly, but it already consumed a
 large part of the prison in San Pedro Sula, 110 miles north of the capital,
 Tegucigalpa, by the time they arrived. There were no reports of any escapes,
 Torres said.
 -- From wire reports
 LOAD-DATE: August 17, 2004
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2004 The Durham Herald Co.









Document Number: 33
 
                               The Washington Post
                               May 18, 2004 Tuesday
                                  Final Edition
 U.N. Touts Biotech to Boost Global Food Supply
 BYLINE: Justin Gillis, Washington Post Staff Writer
 SECTION: A Section; A02
 LENGTH: 1058 words
 Genetic engineering and other forms of agricultural biotechnology are benefiting
 poor farmers in a handful of countries and hold clear promise to alleviate
 global hunger and help millions of people achieve better lives, according to a
 new U.N. report.
 But the report, by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
 says that promise is still more theory than reality, largely because far too
 little money is being spent to use the new techniques in ways likely to benefit
 subsistence farmers.
 "Barring a few initiatives here and there, there are no major public- or
 private-sector programs to tackle the critical problems of the poor or targeting
 crops and animals that they rely on," the report says. "Concerted international
 efforts are required to ensure that the technology needs of the poor are
 addressed and that barriers to access are overcome."
 The 200-page report was released yesterday in Rome, where the Food and
 Agriculture Organization is based, and in Washington. The FAO is the major
 international body dealing with long-term issues of food supply and is an
 influential voice in setting global food policy.
 The report is the FAO's most detailed analysis  of the controversy swirling
 around the use of genetic engineering in agriculture. For the first time it puts
 that body squarely in the camp of those who believe genetic engineering can
 benefit the world's poorest people.
 The report explicitly rejects as too extreme the position embraced by many
 environmental and advocacy groups that have called for bans on genetic
 engineering of plants and animals. Many of these groups are opposed in principle
 to a technology in which genes are deliberately transferred from one species to
 another to confer new traits.
 "Thus far, in those countries where transgenic crops have been grown, there have
 been no verifiable reports of them causing any significant health or
 environmental harm," the report says. "On the contrary, some important
 environmental and social benefits are emerging."
 The report cites as examples the sharply reduced use of chemical pesticides to
 grow gene-altered, pest-resistant cotton, and the rising incomes of small cotton
 farmers in countries, such as China and South Africa, that have embraced the
 technology.
 The report cautions that the technology is no panacea, however, and it does not
 dismiss potential risks. While there is broad scientific consensus that current
 biotech crops are safe to eat, the report says, there is less consensus about
 their likely environmental effects over the long term, and that issue will
 require careful monitoring. The report notes that few poor countries have the
 technical ability to analyze biotech crops -- and that they aren't getting much
 outside help.
 It adds that "science cannot declare any technology completely risk free" and
 that it is unrealistic to demand  certainty about the effects of a technology
 before deciding whether to use it.
 Opposition to genetic engineering in agriculture has been particularly strong in
 Europe, where many countries have imposed de facto moratoriums on such crops.
 There are signs that opposition may be weakening, with the European Commission
 scheduled to approve a type of genetically altered corn this week.
 But the corn is slated to be approved only for import, not for growing in
 Europe, and it remains unclear how many European countries will comply with the
 EC's  ruling. The United States has sued Europe in the World Trade Organization,
 claiming the moratoriums violate trade rules.
 William Freese, an analyst at Friends of the Earth in Washington, criticized the
 U.N. report yesterday on the ground the FAO is too eager  to embrace a
 high-tech solution to a low-tech problem. Instead of advocating biotechnology,
 he said, the agency should push for more funds for conventional crop research.
 Biotechnology for poor countries "would be like introducing an SUV plant to a
 country where people don't even have bicycles," he said. "There are other,
 cheaper solutions that desperately need research funds."
 The new report, "The State of Food and Agriculture," is the latest in a string
 of reports on the world food system that the United Nations has published
 annually since 1947, and the first to deal in depth with biotechnology. In the
 report, the FAO rejects both extremes of the ideological argument over genetic
 engineering.
 "It is not appropriate to be either 'for' or 'against' biotechnology," Prabhu
 Pingali, director of agricultural and development economics for the FAO, said at
 a briefing yesterday  in Washington. "Biotechnology is a tool, nothing more and
 nothing less. The impact . . .  depends on how it is used."
 Poor farmers have yet to benefit from the technology on a broad scale, the
 report said. Most of the benefits  have gone to the Western companies working on
 the new crops and to farmers in wealthy countries with  ready access to them.
 Money and research effort are going mainly into crops such as soybeans and corn
 that are grown in the rich countries, the report says.
 Genetic engineering could be used to improve crops such as bananas, cassava,
 sorghum, cowpeas and rice on which billions of poor people depend, the report
 says, but those efforts have been scattered and poorly funded. That is
 especially alarming given that global population is projected to hit 10 billion
 by 2050, up from 6.3 billion today, the report said.
 Corporations are spending 10 times as much money, about $3 billion a year, to
 improve crops for wealthy countries as governments and other donors are spending
 to fund  research  that focuses on crops important to the poor, the report says.
 But it says  it is unrealistic to expect corporations to spend large sums on
 crops offering little hope of profit. Such research is a public responsibility,
 the report says -- but public spending on agricultural research meant to benefit
 the poor has been falling in recent years.
 In a companion essay to the report, Norman Borlaug,  who won the Nobel Peace
 Prize in 1970 for leading the "Green Revolution" that used conventional
 technologies to improve crop yields in many parts of the world, calls for more
 investment and a sharper focus.
 "The world has the technology . . . to feed on a sustainable basis a population
 of 10 billion people," he writes. "However, access to such technology is not
 assured."
 LOAD-DATE: May 18, 2004
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2004 The Washington Post









Document Number: 34
 
                         The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
                      February 24, 2004 Tuesday Home Edition
 Genetically modified DNA taints 3 crops, report says
 SECTION: News; Pg. 7A
 LENGTH: 701 words
 Traditional varieties of three major U.S. food crops --- corn, soybeans and
 canola --- are "pervasively contaminated" with low levels of genetically
 modified material, new research shows.
 The Union of Concerned Scientists says the spread of bits of genetically
 engineered DNA in the seed supply, if unchecked, could disrupt global
 agricultural trade and allow material from so-called transgenic crops engineered
 to produce drugs, vaccines and plastics to seep into the food supply.
 "This study shatters the presumption that at least one portion of the seed
 supply --- traditional varieties of crops --- is truly free of genetically
 engineered elements," said Margaret Mellon, director of the group's food and
 environment program.
 "Seed contamination is the back door to the food supply," she warned. "And that
 door is wide open, and any of the hundreds of genetic varieties that are being
 grown or tested can move through it --- right to the breakfast table. No one
 wants this kind of contamination in their corn flakes."
 Genetically modified crops have spread rapidly in recent years. U.S. farmers
 last year planted more than 100 million acres of genetically modified corn,
 soybeans, canola and cotton. With wheat and rice poised for approval in the next
 few years, worldwide plantings of genetically engineered crops are expected to
 soar to 250 million acres in the next five years.
 Various small crops
 Although the most widely planted crops are engineered to produce pesticides or
 resist herbicides, thousands of smaller field tests are growing crops with
 everything from designer chemicals to human birth-control hormones.
 Under existing regulations, plants with exotic genes are supposed to be
 segregated from conventional crops. In recent years, however, enforcement
 efforts have shown that engineered traits are hard to contain, either spreading
 by pollen to nearby fields, or mixing after harvesting with conventional crops.
 The latest study is the first effort to gauge how pervasive the problem is. Two
 separate DNA testing laboratories hired by the Union of Concerned Scientists
 sampled 18 varieties of "traditional" crop seed submitted by the environmental
 policy group.
 Although the percentages varied, the labs found traces of contamination in more
 than half of all the sample lots. And because lab tests can detect only a few of
 the hundreds of transgenic traits already in use, the researchers said, it is
 likely that other engineered traits are diffusing, undetected, through the food
 supply.
 "Export markets to countries that demand transgene-free seeds or food are going
 to be particularly vulnerable," says Frederick Kirschenmann, director of the
 Iowa State University Center for Sustainable Agriculture.
 "It is going to work a tremendous hardship on organic growers who have to assure
 their customers that their products are transgene-free," he said.
 Wider spread feared
 The scientists also warned that continued spread of transgenic traits could
 contaminate the pool of traditional plant varieties, obstructing efforts to tap
 "pure" strains for future plant development if the genetic engineering
 revolution should go awry,
 The researchers called for a full investigation of the problem by the U.S.
 Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the
 Environmental Protection Agency, which regulate genetically modified crops.
 They also urged tighter controls on the use of pharmaceutical and industrial
 genes in plants and the creation of a secure reservoir for traditional seeds
 that would be protected from contamination.
 In the eight years that genetically modified crops have been grown commercially
 in the United States, there have been no documented health effects from
 genetically modified material in foods.
 Several widely publicized incidents, however, have made it clear that the
 barrier between conventional and transgenic crops is a porous one.
 In 2002, the discovery that Texas-based ProdiGene Inc. had allowed corn
 engineered to produce a pig vaccine to mingle with Nebraska soybeans destined
 for human food forced the company to destroy a half-million bushels of the crop
 and pay farmers $3 million.
 LOAD-DATE: February 24, 2004
                 Copyright 2004 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution









Document Number: 35
 
                              The Houston Chronicle
                     February 22, 2004, Sunday 4 STAR EDITION
 Seeds of discontent;
 Corn has been cultivated in Oaxaca state for 5,000 years, but Mexican growers
 today worry that genetically altered plants threaten their tradition, their
 culture and possibly their health. Despite a 1998 ban, traces of genetically
 altered corn have been detected so far in 14 villages.
 SOURCE: Staff
 BYLINE: DINA CAPPIELLO, Houston Chronicle Environment Writer
 SECTION: A; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 1927 words
 DATELINE: CAPULALPAN, Mexico
 CAPULALPAN, Mexico - The villagers knew that the corn stalk growing in Olga
 Maldonado's garden was different. It stood taller than a man, and the husks
 holding the ears dangled in bunches, like bananas.
 "The way it grew, it was amazing," said her brother, Javier Toro Maldonado.
 Many of the people who stopped to gawk had grown corn in this mountainous
 community for generations, swapping seeds and fine-tuning the genes so the crop
 would flourish on the steep slopes.
 But they hadn't seen anything like this.
 "People were curious," Javier Maldonado recalled. "They would say, 'Olga has
 such big corn, and she doesn't even take care of it.' But Olga never told
 anybody where she got the seed from."
 The corn growing in Olga Maldonado's back yard was not some quirk of nature but
 a laboratory mutant - a relative of the genetically modified crops that have
 been banned in Europe because of health and environmental concerns and that once
 caused food to be taken off American store shelves when corn approved only for
 animals turned up in taco shells and tortilla chips.
 But its detection in the peasant fields of Mexico, where all the corn varieties
 in the world had their origins 5,000 years ago, has farmers fearing that the
 altered gene could infect native plants, creating strange but beneficial traits
 like the ones that caused villagers to line up along Maldonado's fence six years
 ago.
 Over time, these traits could be preferentially selected by local farmers,
 slowly phasing out the corn diversity that their culture has nurtured for
 millennia and that the world has depended on to restock corn fields wiped out by
 disaster or disease.
 In Mexico, some corn varieties grow in drought, another can grow on frigid
 slopes near mountain summits, and others can be sustained in the dry heat of
 valleys.
 "It's a hot spot for biodiversity. For every little patch of land there, you
 have different conditions," said Ignacio Chapela, a University of California
 microbial ecologist who first discovered that Maldonado's plant was genetically
 modified, containing DNA from bacteria that enables the plant to produce a toxin
 that kills the European corn borer - a pest that does not exist in Mexico.
 Since his discovery was made public in 2001 in the journal Nature, Mexico's
 environmental agency has detected traces of genetically altered corn in native
 plants in 14 villages in the Sierra Juarez mountains, despite a 1998 ban on the
 planting of such corn in Mexico to protect native genes.
 Mexico's agriculture department acknowledged the contamination for the first
 time just last week, although it said the problem was diminishing and did not
 pose a threat to traditional corn, public health or the country's seed banks. It
 said genetically modified corn will continue to be imported for food.
 Local farmers fear this genetic "pollution."
 "What worries us is that it is an unknown word," said Reinaldo Ruiz Vasquez, 50,
 a farmer from the village of La Trinidad, referring to "transgenics," another
 word for genetically altered food. "We worry that our seed will be polluted, and
 if it is, how it arrived."
 Despite the agriculture department's statement, some scientists and local
 activists say that unless Mexico halts the importation of corn containing
 transgenics, it puts at risk not only the 50 or so corn varieties unique to the
 country - including teosinte, the weedy ancient ancestor of corn - but also a
 way of life.
 Nowhere is the discovery more unsettling to corn experts and local farmers than
 in the southern state of Oaxaca, home of Maldonado's village. Indigenous people
 there have cultivated maize organically, and in isolation, for 5,000 years,
 creating a diversity unparalleled in any other part of the world - evident in
 the seeds, which come in every color of the rainbow.
 A foreign gene is viewed as a trespasser.
 "At the level of the region, we are worried," said Fausto Martinez, the head of
 La Trinidad, a hillside village whose 180 farmers grow four separate varieties
 of corn - yellow, white, red, and mixed red and white.
 "We use what we farm," he said. "We never get corn from outside."
 Ruiz Vasquez, who had his corn tested, added: "We like the corn here because it
 is organic. We don't need chemistry here. The corn is a guarantee because it
 lasts."
 The discovery also has implications for the world outside Oaxaca.
 For corn growers the world over, Mexican corn is like a genetic safe-deposit
 box, tapped when crops are wiped out by storms or disease. Even the country's
 seed stock could be contaminated by modified genes, Chapela said, because it has
 to be replaced every six years with seed from the fields.
 "Corn is the base of this country," said Aldo Gonzalez, an activist for
 indigenous rights and the newly appointed leader of Guelatao, another village in
 the Sierra Norte, about 60 miles north of the city of Oaxaca. "Our towns are
 made of corn. Without it we are nothing."
 Gonzalez gathered recently with about 30 other local leaders and rural farmers
 in the public library in Ixtlan to discuss the latest chapter in the controversy
 - a report due out next month by the Commission on Environmental Cooperation, a
 group set up by NAFTA and comprising Mexico, Canada and the United States.
 Although the meeting was supposed to start at 9 a.m., farmers from nearby
 villages wandered into the building until 11. Their sun-baked faces studied a
 screen projecting images from a laptop computer, including a diagram of corn's
 genetic map.
 "It's not going to be easy for them to digest," said Jorge Larson, the biologist
 leading the meeting, one of five that was scheduled in the region before the
 NAFTA report is released at a five-star hotel in Oaxaca on March 11. "They are
 experts in maize. They may not be experts in genetics, although they know a lot
 about corn."
 The paper, written and peer-reviewed by a group of world-class scientists,
 promises to be the first to recommend actions for the Mexican government, its
 supporters say.
 "Right now, you have environmentalists saying that genetically modified crops
 are going to kill everyone and everything, then you have industry saying it will
 solve all the problems in the world," said Chantal Line, head of the
 environment, economy and trade program for the Commission on Environmental
 Cooperation in Montreal, which commissioned the report at the request of local
 community leaders. She compared the report to others about global environmental
 topics, such as climate change.
 "It's the first time we will have consensus," she said.
 But Gonzalez and others who got a preview in Ixtlan were not happy with what
 they saw.
 "We are not convinced about the information in this report," said Miguel Ramirez
 Dominguez, head of the village of Capulalpan, where Olga Maldonado lives. The
 villages have banded together to form their own lab, which has thus far tested
 90 corn varieties from around Mexico. So far, 25 percent have come back positive
 for altered genes.
 "We want answers," he said.
 What remains unclear is how the genetically modified corn arrived. Some, like
 Javier Maldonado, think that when roads were built in the 1980s and trucks
 started bringing in cheap corn grown in industrial-size fields in other
 countries, some spilled onto the streets and grew along roadsides. Others
 believe the genes escaped from experiments that took place in Mexico before the
 ban on planting genetically altered crops.
 Since corn is pollinated by wind, all it takes is a gust to mix the genes of a
 native plant with the genes of one that is geneti cally altered.
 The new seeds will contain some of the foreign genetic material. But unlike
 other grains, corn needs human assistance to reproduce. It has tough husks that
 prevent it from dispersing seeds.
 "It's an artificial plant," said Jodie Randall, an expert in corn history at the
 Ethnobotanical Garden in downtown Oaxaca. "It can't reproduce itself without
 human help. Even if the seeds did get out, competition would make it nearly
 impossible for them to survive."
 For Randall, the most likely explanation for how transgenic corn took root in
 Oaxaca is that peasants faced with the high cost of harvesting their own seeds
 have been purchasing the cheap seed intended only for animal feed and tortillas
 that sells in local stores.
 Biotech companies, when asked how the genes escaped, say that corn was not
 supposed to be planted in the first place.
 "This is a commodity intended for food and feed, not for planting, not for
 releasing into the environment," said Sylvia Llorens, director of regulatory and
 government affairs for Monsanto Latin America in Mexico City. The company
 produces Bt corn, the one found in Olga Maldonado's garden.
 "The government is planning to inform the peasants that this is not intended to
 release into the environment," she said.
 But some say it is impossible to keep grain and seeds separate in the hills of
 Oaxaca, where ecology can take a back seat to economics. While many villagers
 used to sell their corn, imports from the United States now are cheaper to buy
 and supply much of the demand for tortillas, the cornerstone of Mexicans'
 corn-based diet.
 Most peasants grow barely enough to feed themselves and are forced to subsidize
 their diet with store-bought corn.
 "If you keep bringing the plant in, how can it ever go away?" said Chapela, the
 University of California microbial ecologist, referring to the transgenic corn
 varieties. "It's very simple biologically. The thing is we don't need them,
 especially in Mexico," where the corn borer doesn't exist.
 But for Javier Maldonado, who spends 130 pesos (about $ 11) on a 50-kilogram bag
 of corn that is consumed in about 90 days, the choice is difficult.
 "Securing genetic diversity may be right, but you have to recognize the social
 problem," he said. "People need food to eat."
 And in Mexico, a great majority of that food is corn. It is used for tortillas
 and tostadas, or toasted tortillas. A drink called tejate is made of corn, cocoa
 and sugar. People even eat the cheese-like corn fungus that grows on the corn
 husk.
 And most people go where corn is the cheapest.
 Alberto Jimenez Martinez works at La Asuncion, a take-out tortilla shop in
 Ixtlan. Here the tortillas are made, pressed and baked in one room using corn
 purchased from local farmers. With 1 kilogram, Martinez can make about 24
 tortillas, which he sells for six pesos, or a profit of 25 cents.
 But he worries about the effect of transgenic crops on his business. People in
 these parts like their tortillas pure, sprinkled with a little salt.
 "You see the corn here, it's safe," he said. In the city, where the corn that
 feeds tortillerias comes from the government, "God knows."
 Acres of corn growing in Mexico*:
 17.5 million
 Tons of corn produced*:
 18.6 million
 Percentage of agricultural workforce growing corn:
 40% (3 million people)
 Corn crops consumed by humans:
 Varieties of corn in country:
 50 (at least)
 Varieties of corn identified in Oaxaca state:
 The discovery of corn containing the gene of a bacterium in remote Mexican
 fields has researchers and local farmers worried that the gene could potentially
 spread to the natural crop, contaminating the diverse gene pool that exists in
 the country. HereOs how it could happen:
 1.Natural corn pollenates Bt corn by wind.
 2.Pollenation results in hybrid plants.
 3. Natural corn pollenates hybrid corn by wind.
 Result: Natural corn with transgene
 LOAD-DATE: February 22, 2004
 GRAPHIC: Photos: 1. Fabiola Casaos Salazar, who studies corn in the state of
 Oaxaca, Mexico, looks at jars containing an array of Oaxaca corn seeds, which
 come in every color of the rainbow (color); 2. Genetically modified corn
 concerns Ernestina Acevedo Santiago, 80, who has been making and selling corn
 tortillas in Oaxaca, Mexico, for income all her life (color); Graph: 3. CORN
 FACTS AND FIGURES (color, text); Photos: 4. Adrian Vasquez Juarez grows organic
 corn for his family, and he dries it on the tin roof of his home in the southern
 Mexican state of Oaxaca (color, p. 16); 5. Aldo Gonzalez, an activist for
 indigenous rights and the newly appointed leader of the village of Guelatao,
 calls corn "the base of this country" (color, p. 16); 6. Enrique Jimenez
 Martinez with La Asuncion in Ixtlan, Mexico corn to make tortillas (color); 7.
 Adrian Vasquez Juarez takes a look at some of the organic corn he grows for his
 family in Oaxaca. Juarez and other local farmers are worried about the
 appearance of genetically modified corn in southern Mexico (color);Graph,
 Drawing: 6. GENE CROSSOVER (color, text); 1-2, 4-5-7. Carlos Antonio Rios /
 Chronicle, 3. Sources: Commission for Environmental Cooperation; Union of
 Zapotec-Chinantec Communities, 8. Robert Dibrell / Chronicle, Source: University
 of California Berkeley
             Copyright 2004 The Houston Chronicle Publishing Company









Document Number: 36
 
                                 State Department
                                 January 20, 2004
 Advisers Recommend More Research of Methods to Confine GMO Traits; National
 Academies of Sciences group wants more methods developed
 LENGTH: 1355 words
 Scientists developing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) should consider how
 traits could escape into natural ecosystems, according to a new report from an
 advisory group to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
 In a January 20 press release, NAS said its National Research Council recommends
 that scientists develop additional biological confinement --- or
 "bioconfinement" -- methods and do more research to understand how well specific
 methods work.
 The council said no single bioconfinement method is likely to be 100 percent
 effective. It said the purpose of bioconfinement is to prevent transgenic plants
 and animals from breeding or competing with their wild relatives, or passing
 engineered traits to other species.
 Ensuring confinement of new organisms "may become one of the requirements for
 regulatory approval" of new biotechnology products, the council said.
 The report was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which in
 2003 established a separate unit to regulate the importation and interstate
 movement of foods derived from biotechnology.
 The National Research Council is a private, nonprofit institution that provides
 science and technology advice under a congressional charter.
 Following is the text of the NAS press release:
 (begin text)
 The National Academies of Sciences
 Jan. 20, 2004
 Integrated, Redundant Approach Best Way to Biologically Confine Genetically
 Engineered Organisms
 WASHINGTON -- Developers of genetically engineered organisms need to consider
 how biological techniques such as induced sterility can prevent transgenic
 animals and plants from escaping into natural ecosystems and breeding or
 competing with their wild relatives, or passing engineered traits to other
 species, says a new report from the National Academies' National Research
 Council. The committee that wrote the report used the term "bioconfinement" to
 describe such techniques.
 "Deciding whether and how to confine a genetically engineered organism cannot be
 an afterthought," said committee chair T. Kent Kirk, professor emeritus,
 department of bacteriology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, and a former
 microbiologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. "Confinement won't be
 warranted in most cases, but when it is, worst-case scenarios and their
 probabilities should be considered. Also, progress in research aimed at
 developing new biological confinement methods will further minimize risks and
 boost the public's confidence in biotechnology."
 Because no single bioconfinement method is likely to be 100 percent effective,
 the committee recommended that developers of genetically engineered organisms
 use more than one method to lower the chance of a failure. It was also clear to
 the committee that scientists need to do more research to understand how well
 specific methods work, and that planned combinations of confinement methods will
 need to be tested in organisms with representative genetic profiles and in a
 wide variety of field environments.
 The report was requested by USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture], which is
 considering how to regulate a number of genetically engineered organisms that
 had not yet been developed when the federal government's original 1986
 "Coordinated Framework" for regulation of biotechnology products was enacted.
 Ensuring confinement for some of these new organisms may become one of the
 requirements for regulatory approval, the committee noted.
 Ecological studies have shown that some genetically engineered organisms are
 viable in natural ecosystems and can breed with wild relatives. The most
 publicized environmental danger is that invasive weeds could be created if
 transgenic crops engineered to tolerate herbicides or to resist diseases and
 pests pass these resistant genes to weedy relatives. Plants also can be
 engineered with traits that allow them to grow faster, reproduce more, and live
 in new types of habitats. An additional risk is that transgenic fish or
 shellfish could escape and mate with their wild counterparts or out-compete them
 for food. Another concern is that plants and animals engineered to produce
 pharmaceuticals could harm humans or other species who may accidentally consume
 them.
 The efficacy of bioconfinement methods will vary depending on the organism and
 the environment in which it will be released. Other factors include how long
 confinement needs to last, and the size of the area affected. Confinement is
 expected to work best over short time scales and small geographic areas, the
 committee said, emphasizing that no one method can achieve complete confinement.
 Where confinement is deemed desirable, techniques are needed to monitor any
 escape of genetically engineered organisms or the flow of transgenes; mitigating
 a confinement failure will be far easier if it is discovered quickly.
 The committee paid particular attention to transgenic fish, shellfish, trees,
 grasses, and microbes, because many of these organisms have been engineered
 successfully and currently are undergoing regulatory evaluation. Genetically
 engineered aquatic species can be confined by physical barriers, by disrupting
 sexual reproduction, or by methods that prevent their survival in the wild. For
 example, a technique called triploidization can sterilize some fish and
 shellfish by adding an extra set of chromosomes to the animal's cellular makeup,
 although the technique cannot guarantee 100 percent sterility. Fish also can be
 engineered to rely on a man-made substance for survival, so that they would die
 if they escaped into the wild. For plants, bioconfinement methods include
 inserting genes that induce sterility, or engineering plants not to produce
 pollen, which can help close this avenue of gene flow.
 There are two major bioconfinement methods for microbes, the report says. One
 method involves engineering bacteria or fungi to use so much energy or nutrients
 that they do not compete well with native bacteria and fungi. Because of the
 rapid adaptability of microbes, the effectiveness of this bioconfinement method
 remains unclear, the committee cautioned. The second method is to use a chemical
 to trigger "suicide" genes in bacteria or fungi if they escape confinement and
 pose a risk, though this method has never been field tested. Little research has
 been done on bioconfinement of genetically engineered insects, the committee
 noted. Confining genetically engineered insects can be particularly challenging
 because the typically large number of insects in any population makes even a
 small confinement failure problematic.
 The committee also said that when bioconfinement methods are needed, an
 "Integrated Confinement System," or ICS, should be used. ICS is a systematic
 approach that includes a commitment to confinement by senior decision-makers
 within the institutions developing genetically engineered organisms, written
 plans for confinement and for mitigation of failures, employee training,
 periodic outside review, and reporting to an appropriate regulatory body. The
 committee was not asked to evaluate current government practices or policy, but
 it said that "for ICS to work, it must be supported by a rigorous and
 comprehensive regulatory regime empowered with inspection and enforcement."
 Government regulators also need to consider the effects that a confinement
 failure could have on other nations.
 The study was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The National
 Research Council is the principal operating arm of the National Academy of
 Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. It is a private, nonprofit
 institution that provides science and technology advice under a congressional
 charter.
 Copies of Biological Confinement of Genetically Engineered Organisms will be
 available later this winter from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313
 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at  http://www.nap.edu.
 (end text)
 (Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S.
 Department of State.)
 LOAD-DATE: January 21, 2004
            Copyright 2004 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 37
 
                                The New York Times
                             December 1, 2003 Monday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Brazil to Weigh Modified Crops
 SECTION: Section C; Column 2; Outlook; Pg. 15
 LENGTH: 114 words
 The fate of genetically modified crops in Brazil, one of the world's
 fastest-growing agricultural superpowers, will hang in the balance in 2004.
 Permanent legislation on whether Brazil should commercialize transgenic crops is
 set to go before lawmakers. Opponents of the technology contend such crops
 present a potential long-term threat to public health and the country's rich
 biodiversity. Yet Brazil's increasingly powerful farming lobby, which says
 transgenic crops will generate 20 percent more revenue, looks likely to gain the
 upper hand. In 2003, agriculture generated nearly 30 percent of Brazil's growth,
 and Brazil overtook the United States as the biggest soy exporter.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: December 1, 2003
 GRAPHIC: Photo (Photo by Agence France-Presse -- Getty Images)
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 38
 
                                 State Department
                                 October 22, 2003
 Jonathan Rauch article from The Atlantic Monthly
 BYLINE: Jonathan Rauch, Washington File Staff Writer
 LENGTH: 1736 words
 The following article by Jonathan Rauch was adapted from a longer version that
 first appeared in The Atlantic Monthly. The State Department has obtained
 permission to translate, distribute and excerpt article. The author retains
 nonexclusive rights to authorize reprints/republication.
 (begin byliner)
 Will Frankenfood Save the Planet?, By Jonathan Rauch
 In Virginia, not far from the city of Richmond, farmers are demonstrating what
 may be the future of agriculture"and of environmentalism. They are farming their
 fields without ploughing, for years at a stretch.
 Ploughing is one of farming's most ancient practices, and also one of its most
 environmentally destructive. Ploughing causes runoff that pollutes rivers and
 erosion that silts waterways. It kills the earthworms and microbes that
 naturally till and nourish the soil. It burns diesel fuel that pollutes the air.
 But now farmers are discovering they can learn to do without it"thanks in large
 part to biotechnology.
 The purpose of ploughing is to kill weeds. Some new crop varieties have been
 genetically engineered to resist Roundup, a leading herbicide that kills many
 weed types and the quickly breaks down into harmless components. Instead of
 ploughing, farmers can spray a few times a year. The result: healthier fields
 and cleaner water.
 The soil and water conservation authorities in Virginia are full of excitement
 over no-till farming. Their job is to clean up the James and York Rivers and the
 rest of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. According to Brian Noyes, the local
 conservation-district manager, continuous no-till methods could "revolutionize"
 the area's water quality by all but eliminating agricultural erosion and runoff.
 No-till farming is just one example of how biotechnology can reduce the
 environmental harms of agriculture. Genetic engineering may, indeed, be the most
 environmentally beneficial technology to have emerged in decades, or possibly
 centuries.
 The prize is large. Of all the human activities that shape the environment,
 agriculture is easily the most important. Today about 38 percent of the earth's
 land area is cropland or pasture"a total that has crept upward over the past few
 decades as global population has grown.
 To farm is to make war upon millions of plants (weeds, so-called) and animals
 (pests, so-called) that in the ordinary course of things would crowd out or eat
 or infest whatever it is a farmer is growing. Crop monocultures, as whole fields
 of only wheat or corn or any other single plant are called, make poor habitat
 and are vulnerable to disease and disaster. Fertilizer runs off and pollutes
 water. Pesticides can harm the health of human beings and kill desirable or
 harmless bugs along with pests. Irrigation leaves behind trace elements that can
 accumulate and poison the soil. And so on.
 The point is not that farming is an environmental crime"it is not"but that there
 is no escaping the environmental pressure it puts on the planet. And in the next
 half century the pressure will intensify.
 The United Nations estimates that the earth's human population will grow by more
 than 40 percent, from 6.3 billion people today to 8.9 billion in 2050. Feeding
 all those people, and providing the increasingly protein-rich diets that an
 increasingly wealthy world will expect, will require food output to at least
 double, and possibly triple.
 But then the story will change. According to the UN's midrange projections,
 around 2050 the world's population will more or less level off. After that
 point, the human species may at long last be able to feed itself, year in and
 year out, without putting any additional net stress on the environment. In other
 words, human agriculture might be placed on a sustainable footing forever. It is
 a breathtaking prospect.
 The great problem, then, is to get through the next four or five decades with as
 little environmental damage as possible. That is where biotechnology comes in.
 In 2001 a group of scientists announced that they had engineered a transgenic
 tomato plant able to thrive in salty soil. Moreover, they said the same process
 might work for many other crops. Every year the world loses about 25 million
 acres"an area equivalent to a fifth of California"to salinity that builds up
 from irrigation; 40 percent of the world's irrigated land, and 25 percent of
 America's, has been hurt to some degree. Salt-tolerant crops might bring many
 acres of wounded or crippled farmland back into production. And every acre of
 old farmland that is resuscitated reduces the pressure to plow up virgin
 rainforests and grasslands.
 Or consider insecticide. As any environmentalist can tell you, insecticide is
 not very nice stuff"especially if you breathe it, which many Third World farmers
 do as they walk through their fields with backpack sprayers.
 One of the first biotech crops to reach the market, in the mid-1990s, was a
 cotton plant that makes its own pesticide. With Bt cotton, as it is called,
 farmers can spray much less, and the poison contained in the plant is delivered
 only to bugs that actually eat the crop.
 Transgenic cotton reduced pesticide use by more than two million pounds in the
 United States from 1996 to 2000, and it has reduced pesticide sprayings in parts
 of China by more than half. More pest-resistant crops are on the way.
 Above all, biotechnology may save precious land by increasing farm productivity.
 That may be the most important environmental benefit of all.
 Habitat destruction is among the world's most serious environmental threats. The
 savannahs and tropical forests of Central and South America, Asia, and Africa by
 and large make poor farmland, but they are the earth's storehouses of
 biodiversity, and the forests are the earth's lungs.
 Since 1972, about 200,000 square miles of Amazon rain forest have been cleared
 for crops and pasture; from 1966 to 1994 all but three of the Central American
 countries cleared more forest than they left standing. Mexico is losing more
 than 4,000 square miles of forest a year to peasant farms; sub-Saharan Africa is
 losing more than 19,000.
 The great challenge of the next four or five decades is not to feed an
 additional three billion people but to do so without converting much of the
 world's prime habitat into second- or third-rate farmland. Most agronomists
 agree that some substantial yield improvements are still to be had from advances
 in conventional methods. But it seems pretty clear that biotechnology holds more
 promise"probably much more. If properly developed and disseminated, genetically
 modified crops might well be the best hope the planet has got.
 That "if" turns out to be important, and it brings the environmental community
 squarely, and at the moment rather jarringly, into the picture.
 Biotech companies are in business to make money, but developing and testing new
 transgenic crops is expensive and risky, to say nothing of politically
 controversial. When they decide how to invest their research-and-development
 money, biotech companies will naturally seek products for which farmers and
 consumers in the developed world will pay top dollar. Creating, say,
 salt-tolerant cassava suitable for growing on hardscrabble African farms might
 save habitat as well as lives "but commercial enterprises are not likely to fall
 over one another in a rush to do it.
 If earth-friendly transgenics are developed, a second problem is disseminating
 them. Switching to an unfamiliar new technology"something like no-till"is not
 easy, especially in the Third World, where the learning curve is steeper and
 capital cushions are thin to nonexistent. Just handing a peasant farmer a bag of
 newfangled seed is not enough. In many cases farmers will need one-on-one
 attention. Many will need help to pay for the seed, too.
 Who is the natural constituency for earth-friendly biotechnology? Who cares
 enough to lobby governments to underwrite frequently unprofitable research on
 transgenic crops that might restore soils or cut down on pesticides in poor
 countries? Who cares enough to teach Asian or African farmers, one by one, how
 to farm without ploughing? Who cares enough to help poor farmers afford
 high-tech, earth-friendly seed? The natural constituency for such investment is,
 of course, environmentalists.
 But environmentalists are not acting as such a constituency today. Most are
 doing the opposite. For example, the Sierra Club calls for a moratorium on the
 planting of all genetically engineered crops, including those now approved.
 Under this policy the cleaner water and healthier soil that continuous no-till
 farming has already brought to Virginia's Chesapeake Bay watershed would be
 undone, and countless tons of polluted runoff and eroded topsoil would
 accumulate in Virginia rivers and streams while debaters debated and researchers
 researched.
 Still, some environmentalists are beginning to take note of biotech's green
 potential. At the World Wildlife Fund, David Sandalow speaks of biotech as
 having "huge potential benefits and huge risks." He calls for moving ahead,
 though with caution. At the World Resources Institute, an environmental think
 tank in Washington, the molecular biologist Don Doering envisions transgenic
 crops designed specifically to solve environmental problems. "Suddenly you might
 find yourself with a virtually chemical-free agriculture, where your cropland
 itself is filtering the water, it's protecting the watershed, it's providing
 habitat," Doering says.
 Here's a prediction: In ten years, most American environmentalists will regard
 genetic modification as one of their most powerful tools. In only the past ten
 years or so, after all, environmentalists have reversed field and embraced
 market mechanisms -" tradable emissions permits and the like "- as useful in the
 fight against pollution. The environmental logic of biotechnology is, if
 anything, even more compelling. The potential upside of genetic modification is
 simply too large to ignore "- and therefore environmentalists will not ignore
 it. Biotechnology will transform agriculture, and in doing so will transform
 American environmentalism.
 Jonathan Rauch is a correspondent for The Atlantic, in which a longer version of
 this article was originally published.
 (c) 2003 Jonathan Rauch
 (end byliner)
 (Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S.
 Department of State. Web site: usinfo.state.gov)
 LOAD-DATE: October 22, 2003
            Copyright 2003 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 39
 
                                The New York Times
                           September 25, 2003 Thursday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Brazil to Lift Ban on Crops With Genetic Modification
 BYLINE:  By TONY SMITH
 SECTION: Section W; Column 5; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 538 words
 DATELINE: PORTO ALEGRE, Brazil, Sept. 24
 Brazilian farmers, the world's No.2 producers of soybeans, got the go-ahead
 today to plant genetically modified seeds this season after the country's vice
 president said he would lift a ban on transgenic crops.
 Vice President Jose Alencar, standing in for President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva
 who is visiting the United States, Cuba and Mexico, said that he would sign a
 decree ending the ban, despite resistance from environmental advocates and their
 supporters in the government.
 The decree effectively extends a temporary decree legalizing the sale of
 genetically modified soy from this year's harvest, but officials said they
 expected it to pave the way for legislation that would be sent to Congress this
 year. The extension comesjust in time for the October planting.
 Until last year, Brazil was one of the world's last main exporters of farm goods
 to ban the planting or sale of genetically altered crops or foods, although an
 increasing number of farmers, especially in the southern farming states Rio
 Grande do Sul and Parana, have flouted the ban in recent years by planting
 transgenic seeds smuggled in from neighboring Argentina.
 "This decree essentially legalizes what was already happening, but it is
 important," said Amaryllis Romano, agribusiness analyst at Tendencias, a
 consultant in Sao Paulo.
 Analysts estimate that 30 percent of Brazil's soy is grown from smuggled
 genetically modified seeds, and in Rio Grande do Sul, which borders Argentina
 and where most of Brazil's transgenic soy has been planted, the figure is closer
 to 70 percent.
 Even under the ban, Brazil produces more than a quarter of the world's soy and
 has been closing the gap with the United States, the top producer and exporter.
 Brazil's oilseeds association says soy exports should top $8 billion this year,
 34 percent more than in 2002. This year's harvest produced 52 million tons,
 nearly 60 percent more than five years ago and only 20 million tons behind
 estimates for this year's American harvest.
 "Sooner or later, Brazil will overtake the United States, with or without
 transgenics," Ms. Romano said.
 While the agriculture minister, Roberto Rodrigues, and other members of Mr. da
 Silva's pro-business economic team have advocated lifting the ban, it was
 opposed by the environment minister, Marina Silva, and by environmental
 advocates. Court rulings have overturned, then upheld the ban in recent months.
 On Tuesday, a group of landless rural workers stormed the agriculture ministry
 to protest the expected lifting of the ban.
 "The technicians tell me there are no risks, the environmentalists tell me there
 are," Mr. Alencar said at a function in Brasilia. "But really I must sign this
 decree."
 The lifting of the ban is good news for the Monsanto Company, which last week
 ran notices in several newspapers here, asking soybean farmers to pay royalties
 on future use of its Roundup Ready soybeans.
 But smaller farmers were also happy.
 "We did all our sums and we found that we had lost 28 percent of our income by
 not planting transgenic seeds last year," said Amauri Miotto, treasurer of Rio
 Grandes family farmers federation who farms 120 acres near the Argentine border.
 "That's about $1,500 -- a lot of money for a farmer like me."
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: September 25, 2003
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 40
 
                             Saint Paul Pioneer Press
                           September 13, 2003, Saturday
 U.S. use of genetically modified crops sparks international food fight
 BYLINE: By Amy Becker and Lee Egerstrom
 LENGTH: 1819 words
 BRUSSELS, Belgium _ America's trade dispute with the European Union over
 importing genetically engineered foods has implications far beyond the dinner
 table.
 After a U.S.-European split over the war in Iraq, the stage was set for a
 particularly contentious trade dispute. And, in August, the divisions deepened.
 The United States, Canada and Argentina formally asked the World Trade
 Organization to outlaw a European Union prohibition on importing GMOs _
 genetically modified organisms.
 The Brussels-based E.U. has refused to import genetically engineered foods
 unless they have specific GMO labels, and it says its policies are in line with
 WTO rules.
 U.S. trade officials contend that's nonsense. They argue that Europe is erecting
 a barrier to protect its advantage of nearly $1.2 billion in annual food and
 agriculture trade with the United States. Furthermore, they say the ban has cost
 U.S. farmers $1 billion in sales since 1998, when six E.U. countries, led by
 France, called for a moratorium on GMOs.
 Under international trade laws, the E.U. regulations could be set aside if a WTO
 panel concludes they constitute a trade barrier not supported by scientific
 evidence.
 In part, the dispute is a food fight over what rights consumers should have to
 know what's in their groceries. It's also a trade war over whose products will
 be purchased in Europe and elsewhere. Finally, it's a cultural war, observers
 say, and people trying to understand the issue need to look at all three
 aspects.
 "This is a fairly deep and complex cultural phenomenon," said C. Ford Runge,
 distinguished McKnight professor of applied economics and law at the University
 of Minnesota.
 Most Americans eat genetically modified foods without knowing which ones have
 altered genes. Despite a push by some producers and grocers, as well as U.S.
 citizens and lawmakers, no labeling requirement has ever passed the U.S.
 Congress.
 Modified foods are so deeply embedded in the U.S. food supply that Whole Foods
 grocery stores reformulated some recipes to exclude corn syrup because, the
 company said, it could not otherwise prevent GMOs from getting into store
 brands.
 Farmers say they use GMO seeds to reduce their use of pesticides and to prevent
 crop diseases. GMOs are made by injecting genetic material from other organisms,
 including bacteria, into crops.
 Many European consumers are skeptical of eating altered foods. Europeans see it
 simply as Americans trying to tell them what they should eat, said Rudolph
 Strohmeier, who is with the directorate general of agriculture for the European
 Commission, part of the E.U.
 Charlotte Antonsen, a Liberal Party member of the Danish Parliament, described
 Danes as unanimous in wanting to know what is in their food.
 "In Denmark, we all want it to be labeled _ all of us. So the people can decide
 if they want it," Antonsen said. "I'm personally not against GMOs, but I think
 it's up to every citizen to choose what they want to eat. It's much more
 politically sensitive in this part of the world."
 Milos Ruzicka operates a food-buying club on the outskirts of Prague that offers
 organic foods produced by several farmers across the Czech Republic. He knows
 which farmers make which goat cheese, yogurt or butter, an idea in keeping with
 his attitude about food.
 "It is our right to know what is in the food and where it came from," Ruzicka
 said.
 Similar skepticism can also be found in Minnesota.
 University of Minnesota ecology Professor Philip Regal said the U.S.-E.U. debate
 matters to him as a taxpayer "because a lot of money is going into promoting
 biotech in the state of Minnesota. There's not a proportionate amount (of money)
 going into looking at the downside of it.
 "They're encouraging Minnesota farmers to make personal investments in a farm
 product they may have trouble selling abroad," Regal said.
 The United States' case against the E.U. at the World Trade Organization
 underscores the value of genetically engineered crops.
 The global market value of such altered crops was estimated at $4.25 billion in
 2002, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
 Applications.
 The financial stakes are rising: Some 4.3 million acres of such crops were
 cultivated in 1996; by last year, 145 million acres were being cultivated,
 according to the most recent report by the service.
 More than half of the soybeans grown worldwide in 2002 were genetically
 modified. The lead producer is the United States, which grows 66 percent of the
 world's GMO crops. Argentina has 23 percent, Canada 6 percent and China 4
 percent, the service reported. Minnesota growers said this year 69 percent of
 their soybean crops would come from GMO seeds; Wisconsin said 71 percent of its
 crops would be biotech.
 European politicians want to be able to trace GMOs to their sources. U.S. food
 and agribusiness advocates say Europe's rules on tracing and labeling will
 burden the entire industry.
 Danes and the Dutch are mystified why tracing GMOs in food would be a burden for
 U.S. or Canadian farmers when they can now chase any quality flaws in cheese,
 for instance, back to herds and individual cows within two days.
 Trade in GMO products affects European farmers as well, said Strohmeier, with
 the directorate general of agriculture for the European Commission. Farmers
 would privately argue that if they have to compete with a cheaper, modified
 product, they want the same technology, he said.
 European skepticism has deep roots.
 Karl Erik Olsson, a member of the European Parliament from Sweden's Labor Party,
 sat in a cafe at the European Parliament building in March, sporting a tie
 depicting grains. The tie, from a Swedish seed company, is a nod to his farming
 background. He's a member of Sweden's seed board and a former agricultural
 minister.
 "This is a basic difference in cultural values in Europe and in the United
 States, where you have a larger trust in the science and in new developments,"
 Olsson said. "In Europe, we have become more and more careful. We have been
 through many more disasters at different times in history."
 In the old agricultural society, Olsson said, "food never moved far away. You
 normally knew the producer, the store, everything. If somebody got sick, you
 could trace it back."
 Recent scares, such as the widespread slaughter of cattle to prevent the spread
 of mad cow disease, encourage a conservative approach to food safety.
 "We have had scandals," Olsson said. "We have now a very, very careful
 attitude."
 That approach _ called the precautionary principle _ is prevalent in Europe,
 observers say. Runge, with the University of Minnesota, explained it this way:
 Under the principle, a technology essentially has to prove itself innocent.
 Under U.S. rules, technology is essentially presumed innocent, Runge said.
 Strong currents in the river of European history have elevated the role of the
 precautionary principle to Europeans.
 "Their whole history with science and technology has been much more demonic,"
 Runge said. For example, World War I in Europe marked the first major
 application of technology to warfare, an experience that left an entire
 continent haunted.
 "The problem is this whole issue is embedded in a culture war between the U.S.
 and Europe," Runge said. GMOs are "one in a set of questions arising in European
 capitals because of their unease with the idea of American hegemony."
 Europeans say they also feel blindsided by the Americans. Even though much of
 the biotechnology for GMOs is owned and was developed by European companies, the
 use of GMOs developed so quickly in the United States that, "before anyone knew
 anything about it, it was here," said Olsson of Sweden.
 He thinks the often-stated goal of GMOs is legitimate: "We need to use this
 knowledge if people in the future would be able to feed a growing world
 population in sustainable agriculture."
 Olsson also said it would be hard to persuade Europeans to embrace altered
 foods.
 "The mistrust to food and to GM food is enormous," Olsson said. "I think we are
 forced to label, even down to very small percentages. We should also label food
 that originates from GM crops even if you cannot detect genetically modified
 organisms in the food."
 If the United States and its partners win the WTO dispute, they could still lose
 by failing to understand or address European consumers' culture, Runge said. He
 cited a WTO case from the late 1990s, in which the United States and Canada
 sought to force the EU to lift its ban on beef treated with bovine growth
 hormone.
 "We beat the Europeans squarely on the hormone dispute and we haven't increased
 sales in Europe one whit," Runge said.
 Regardless of what the WTO decides, other issues involving genetically altered
 foods must still be addressed, experts say.
 Who should decide how the world manages and monitors such products?
 In Berlin, one expert predicts the stakes are higher than many people realize.
 Benedickt Haerlin helped mastermind Greenpeace's European resistance to GMOs in
 the 1990s. A former Green Party member of the European Parliament, Haerlin was
 deeply involved in Greenpeace's opposition to GMOs, beginning in 1996, when the
 first Roundup Ready soybeans were shipped from the United States to Europe. It
 was the first major farm product to hit the European market and set off the wave
 of protest in Europe that led to the E.U.'s restrictions on GMOs.
 Haerlin still does contract work for Greenpeace, but his primary job is with the
 Foundation on Future Farming in Berlin where he lobbies on farming issues. Much
 of the foundation's annual budget goes to develop new organic seeds.
 He sees a need for non-GMO production to continue to preserve evolutionary
 diversity. He asks: Who will guarantee that non-GMO production will continue?
 Who will test to make sure non-GMO production is continuing?
 "We believe it's a major future threat to evolutionary diversity," Haerlin said.
 "We need to have a public debate about this. It shouldn't be left up to
 scientists and their employers. Who is going to decide how the world is going to
 look?"
 Runge pointed out that transgenic crops are an unusual technology that rocketed
 out of obscurity in the 1990s and accumulated political, trade, health and
 cultural baggage along the way.
 Few technologies have been criticized as much or saddled with such symbolic
 baggage, he said. "And, it may be that it's justified."
 Yet altered foods are being eaten, and altered seeds are germinating worldwide.
 "The genie is escaping slowly, but surely, from the bottle, and this technology
 is being disseminated," Runge said. "Before long, people will accept it and
 realize it's part of the landscape."
 (c) 2003, Saint Paul Pioneer Press (St. Paul, Minn.).
 Visit the World Wide Web site of the Pioneer Press at
 http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/
 LOAD-DATE: September 13, 2003
                Copyright 2003 Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service
                        Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service









Document Number: 41
 
                        The Chronicle of Higher Education
                              July 18, 2003, Friday
 A New Johnny Appleseed: Some Universities and Research Centers Band Together to
 Make Agricultural-Biotechnology Tools More Widely Available
 SECTION: MONEY & MANAGEMENT; Pg. 25
 LENGTH: 1819 words
 A dozen of the most important land-grant universities and plant-research centers
 have joined forces to try to knock down the intellectual-property barriers
 blocking the use of genetic-engineering tools that might help feed millions of
 people in the developing world.
 Although agricultural biotechnology remains undeniably controversial, many
 academic researchers and institutions are eager to exploit its promise by
 creating new disease-resistant strains of crops like rice and cassava,
 overcoming crop failures that can lead to shortages and starvation in many
 countries. Many, especially those at institutions with the mission of helping
 agriculture in their state, also want to provide improved varieties of specialty
 crops to their local farmers.
 But legal and financial roadblocks stand in their way. Some of the most
 fundamental genetic-engineering tools needed to create these crops, such as
 techniques for introducing genes into plants to make them resistant to insects
 or viruses, were patented and licensed exclusively to companies -- sometimes by
 the very universities that today want to use the techniques.
 With about $400,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation, the institutions are
 forming an organization that will establish new principles for commercializing
 agricultural technologies, with licensing terms that would ensure that the
 universities don't sell off the rights to use the inventions for endeavors that
 benefit the public. For example, participants might make a practice of including
 a "humanitarian use" clause in all licenses, which could ensure that they retain
 the rights to the inventions when creating new strains of crops for developing
 countries.
 "We're trying to make sure that the public sector maintains the ability to serve
 the poor farmers" around the world, says Gary Toenniessen, director of
 food-security programming at Rockefeller.
 The new organization, Public-Sector Intellectual Property Resource for
 Agriculture -- they call it "Pipra" -- will also create a public database for
 researchers, with information from participating institutions that will detail
 which genes and techniques for using them are patented and licensed, and which
 are still in the public domain.
 While many of the key tools are covered by patents and licenses, and many of
 those licenses are confidential, developers of the database "will try to figure
 out what hasn't been licensed away," so that academic researchers will know the
 kinds of techniques that offer the greatest freedom to operate, says Mr.
 Toenniessen.
 The members may also pool their patents and offer them for license, as a package
 deal, to one another or to commercial partners, in order to promote the
 development of crops to be used for humanitarian purposes.
 The presidents and chancellors of the participating institutions announced the
 venture in a paper published in the July 11 issue of Science, saying they hoped
 it would yield "significant benefits both for U.S. agriculture and for the
 world's food security."
 The initial 12 participants include six land-grant institutions that are among
 the largest owners of active patents in agricultural biotechnology: Cornell,
 North Carolina State, and Rutgers Universities, the University of California
 system, and the Universities of Florida and Wisconsin at Madison. Michigan State
 and Ohio State Universities are also involved, as is the Donald Danforth Plant
 Science Center, in St. Louis, and the Cornell-affiliated Boyce Thompson
 Institute for Plant Research. Along with the president of the UC system, the
 chancellors of its Davis and Riverside campuses have expressly committed their
 institutions to the collaboration. Organizers say other land-grant institutions
 are considering joining but haven't yet signed on. Eventually, the group hopes
 to include major private institutions as well.
 "It helps to restore the commitment of the universities to public-goods
 research," says Roger N. Beachy, a renowned plant researcher and president of
 the Danforth plant center.
 Marye Anne Fox, chancellor at North Carolina State, says the collaboration will
 also help the institutions make better use of the agricultural research that
 they have spent years developing. "We have a vested interest in transgenic
 crops," she says.
 No Cure-All
 Some skeptics may say that the effort comes too late, because so many of the
 most important technologies have already been licensed away. "To some extent,
 that's true," acknowledges Alan B. Bennett, director of technology transfer for
 the University of California system. But "over the next 10 years there will be
 entirely new platforms of technology developed." He says universities erred in
 the past because agricultural biotechnology was a new phenomenon. Today, he
 says, "we know where it is headed."
 And while some critics praise the foundations and universities for taking steps
 to place some limits on the licensing of agricultural patents, several say the
 effort won't go very far toward solving the world's food problems. Of all the
 causes of hunger in large parts of Africa, "lack of biotech crops is very low on
 the list," says Jean Halloran, director of the Consumer Policy Institute, an arm
 of the Consumers Union that also works with international consumer
 organizations. Armed conflict, drought, disparities in land distribution, and
 poverty are all more compelling factors, she notes.
 Mr. Toenniessen doesn't dispute that assertion. That, he says, is why
 Rockefeller continues to support other kinds of programs in agriculture. The
 $120-million that the foundation has given toward projects to apply agricultural
 biotechnology to crops in developing countries in the past 20 years represents
 about 30 percent of the foundation's total investment in agricultural
 development for poor countries over that period.
 Proliferating Patents
 Organizers of Pipra say the effort is necessary because agriculture patents have
 proliferated, as have the licenses that restrict their use.
 Universities are part of the problem. In the 1980s, as biotechnology was just
 emerging, universities licensed away some key technologies. Two of the major
 techniques for introducing genes into plants, for example, were developed by
 researchers at Cornell and at Washington University in St. Louis. The Cornell
 invention is now controlled by DuPont. Washington University's is controlled by
 Syngenta, a multinational agriculture company.
 And while those companies and a few others control many of the key
 genetic-engineering technologies, they are only using them on crops like corn
 and soybeans, which have the largest markets. Few, if any, of the companies are
 using the technologies for so-called subsistence crops, like rice, cassava,
 millet, chickpeas, or sweet potatoes, which are of greater importance to the
 developing world.
 While debate rages over use of genetically engineered crops in Canada, Europe,
 and even the United States, some universities that have traditionally worked
 with agricultural ministries and research institutes in poor regions of Africa
 and Asia say their overseas colleagues are interested in certain
 biotech-enhanced crops, particularly those that might be developed to resist
 insects or disease.
 The demand for the biotech crops "is selectively high" says Robert M. Goodman, a
 professor of plant pathology at the University of Wisconsin at Madison who
 oversees a program financed by the McKnight Foundation, which brings together
 scientists from developing nations with those from the United States and Europe.
 He says that a grantee in Uganda is interested in introducing insect-resistant
 sweet potatoes, but getting the rights has been complicated because Monsanto
 owns the genes and other companies own the promoters -- biotechnology tools that
 turn on the gene that expresses a particular trait.
 Once Pipra is active, and developers of the crop can see that there is an
 alternative way to create the variety, it "could dramatically reduce the
 transaction costs," he says. McKnight is also backing Pipra.
 Companies like Monsanto that hold broad rights are sometimes reluctant to
 surrender them, even if they are to be used for crops that the companies are not
 interested in marketing, for fear that they will be held liable in the event
 something goes wrong when other parties use the techniques. But Pipra organizers
 say the companies likely would go along if they were only given limited rights
 to begin with.
 A spokeswoman for Monsanto, Shannon Troughton, says the company has already
 agreed to provide some of its technology for humanitarian purposes, and welcomes
 Pipra as a vote of confidence in genetically engineered crops. "It recognizes
 that plant biology is an important tool" for dealing with problems like world
 hunger, she says.
 Helping Local Farmers
 Organizers say the venture could also help land-grant institutions fulfill their
 public-service missions in their own states. At North Carolina State, for
 example, plant scientists have been developing genetically engineered strains of
 cucumbers, melons, strawberries, and other crops with research support from
 growers' associations.
 But these efforts remain in the experimental stages, says Steven A. Lommel,
 assistant vice chancellor for research, because both the university and the
 growers' groups eventually found that they would have a hard time obtaining all
 the intellectual-property rights to the underlying technologies they'd use to
 develop the strains for commercial use.
 This is not what the growers' groups paid for, says Mr. Lommel. "They want more
 than just an intellectual demonstration," he says.
 Mr. Bennett, the California system's technology-transfer director, says its
 universities have developed a number of genes that convey particular traits to
 many of the crops that are important to California's economy, like tomatoes and
 strawberries.
 But, he says, "a lot of our trait-technology genes are not being licensed,"
 because the small start-up companies that would be likely partners for
 commercializing these varieties don't have the rights to the basic underlying
 technologies that University of California researchers used in developing them.
 Nor do they have the legal or financial wherewithal to get them.
 Mr. Bennett, who is overseeing the Pipra database, says it could help ease that
 logjam. Even if a researcher found that the technique she wanted was covered by
 a license, "at least you'd know where to go" to try to get the rights, he says.
 Or, a researcher might use the database to learn about an alternative technique.
 For example, UC-Davis has developed a gene promoter that might work as well as
 one that Monsanto has commercialized. "Some people have used it. Most people
 aren't aware of it," says Kent Bradford, director of the Seed Biotech Center
 there. But once it's in the database, they might use it and save themselves some
 hassles later.
 LOAD-DATE: August 18, 2003
                 Copyright 2003 The Chronicle of Higher Education









Document Number: 42
 
                         Alameda Times-Star (Alameda, CA)
                              June 26, 2003 Thursday
 The monarch is dead? Long live the monarch
 LENGTH: 848 words
 THE MONARCH BUTTERFLY is alive and well, flying proudly over Midwest cornfields.
 But that hasn't stopped the beautiful black and orange insect from becoming the
 poster child of the movement to stop the spread of genetically modified
 agriculture. Go anywhere near downtown Sacramento this week and you will see the
 butterfly's image hoisted high among the demonstrators gathered to protest
 outside a conference of farm ministers from governments across the globe.
 In a sense, the monarch is the perfect symbol for the protesters, an apt
 metaphor for their movement: Fears about its future were based on the misreading
 of a single, narrow study. Those fears were spread far and wide by people who
 had never read the science but who wanted to believe the worst. And when later,
 more exhaustive research proved them wrong, few noticed or cared. And so the
 myth persists.
 You might remember the details of the story. Perhaps you have only a vague sense
 that something about genetically modified farming is supposed to be bad for
 monarch butterflies. Chances are you never heard that the technology might
 actually be, on balance, good for the monarch.
 That's why a quick review of the story might be in order. The facts suggest that
 we ought to be as skeptical of the claims made by demonstrators as we are of
 those advanced by the government and industrial agriculture.
 The plight of the monarch first burst into the public conscience in 1999, when a
 pair of Cornell University researchers studied the effects in the lab of
 force-feeding pollen from a new kind of corn to the monarch caterpillar. The
 pollen came from corn plants in a line modified to produce a natural toxin
 deadly to the European corn borer, one of the most damaging pests of corn in
 North America.
 By way of background, the corn borer causes more than $1 billion in crop damage
 annually. It also can leave the plant vulnerable to highly toxic fungi which, if
 ingested by humans or animals, can cause the brain to liquefy. Farmers used to
 spray their fields with all kinds of chemicals to rid them of the corn borer.
 Now a protein that kills the worm but is harmless to humans is bred straight
 into the plant. This genetically engineered product is known as Bt-corn.
 Monarch caterpillars don't eat corn, but they love to munch on the milkweed that
 grows nearby and can be coated for brief periods by pollen dust drifting from
 the corn field. The Cornell study examined whether monarchs fed nothing but
 milkweed covered with this pollen suffered any damage. They did. But the authors
 cautioned readers not to draw any hasty conclusions.
 "We need to look at the big picture here," John Losey, one of the researchers,
 said at the time. "Pollen from Bt-corn could represent a serious risk to
 populations of monarchs and other butterflies, but we can't predict how serious
 the risk is until we have a lot more data. And we can't forget that Bt-corn and
 other transgenic crops have a huge potential for reducing pesticide use and
 increasing yields. This study is just the first step, we need to do more
 research and then objectively weigh the risks versus the benefits of this new
 technology."
 Right. Despite his warning, Losey's initial results were picked up by the media
 and exaggerated by opponents of genetic engineering to try to scare the public.
 Protesters dressed as monarchs became a staple of demonstrations against the
 technology. "Give Butterflies a Chance!" read a common banner.
 The furor prompted other researchers to try to replicate the Cornell results,
 both in the lab and, more importantly, in the field. But several studies
 completed since the original work and compiled by the National Academy of
 Sciences have concluded that Bt corn poses no danger to the monarch.
 The later studies placed the butterflies on milkweed that had been coated with
 pollen naturally -- and thus contained far lower concentrations of the offending
 compound. The caterpillars in the field also were able to choose to eat the
 coated leaves or others nearby. The research generally concluded that the
 monarchs were all but unaffected by the stuff.
 And when you consider that Bt-corn replaces corn that must be sprayed with
 pesticides that can kill not only monarchs but also many other critters that are
 minding their own business among the cornstalks, it's likely that the
 butterflies are actually coming out ahead in the deal.
 This is not to say that we should welcome genetic engineering uncritically. Some
 data suggest that the dreaded corn borer is adapting to Bt-corn the same way
 bugs build immunity to chemical pesticides, only more quickly. If that's true,
 it could be a problem not only for mega-agriculture, but for organic farmers who
 use Bt more sparingly. This is a valid concern.
 But suggesting that the new technology isn't deadly enough doesn't have quite
 the same ring to it. It's not exactly the stuff of protest banners. Those
 monarchs are just so cute and innocent, their story is impossible to resist.
 Even if it's not true.
 Daniel Weintraub writes for the Sacramento Bee.
 LOAD-DATE: July 18, 2003
             Copyright 2003 MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers









Document Number: 43
 
                                 State Department
                                February 19, 2003
 More Biotech Research Needed for Poor, U.N. Official Says; Research gap between
 rich, poor widening, she adds
 LENGTH: 860 words
 More funding is needed to research agricultural technologies -- including
 biotechnology -- that will benefit poor countries, says an official of the U.N.
 Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO).
 The research and technology transfer gap between rich and poor countries is
 widening, said Louise Fresco, assistant FAO director-general, in a February 18
 press release.
 Noting that most current biotechnology research is focused on reducing
 production costs in large-scale systems, Fresco said "biotechnology must be
 redirected" to address the food quality and quantity needs of the poor.
 Fresco added that more research is needed to improve varieties of sorghum,
 millet, pigeon pea, chickpea and groundnut -- the five most important crops in
 semi-arid areas -- and for cassava and small ruminants.
 But she called biotechnology "only one way to increase food quality and quantity
 in a sustainable way."
 "Biotechnology may add new dimensions to the existing integrated approaches, but
 not replace them," she said.
 Biotechnology research should address key problems of developing countries such
 as drought, soil erosion and salinity, Fresco said.
 Following is the text of the FAO press release:
 (begin text)
 FAO warns of 'molecular divide' between North and South Biotechnology -- the gap
 between poor and rich countries is widening
 18 February 2003, Rome -- The promises and potential of biotechnology are not
 equally shared between developed and developing countries, the FAO Assistant
 Director-General, Louise Fresco, said in a statement issued today.
 She warned of a "molecular divide", saying that "the gap between rich and poor
 farmers, between research priorities and needs, and between technology
 development and actual technology transfer, is widening."
 To bridge the molecular divide, "biotechnology must be redirected to address the
 pressing needs of the poor and the new requirements for food quality and
 quantity and new agricultural products."
 An open dialogue should be ensured on the benefits and risks of biotechnologies.
 Poor countries and farmers should have access to genetic resources and to the
 technologies and means to use them.
 Neglected crops
 "There are currently no serious investments in any of the five most important
 crops in the semi-arid tropics - sorghum, millet, pigeon pea, chickpea and
 groundnut," said Louise Fresco, who heads FAO's Agriculture Department.
 "This is largely because 70 percent of the agricultural biotechnology
 investments are by multinational private sector research, mostly in developed or
 advanced developing countries."
 "Today 85 percent of all plantings of transgenic crops globally are
 herbicide-resistant soybean, insect-resistant maize and genetically improved
 cotton varieties, designed to reduce input and labour costs in large scale
 production systems, not to feed the developing world or increase food quality,"
 Louise Fresco said.
 "There are no major public sector programmes to tackle more critical problems of
 the poor and the environment or targeting crops such as cassava or small
 ruminants."
 Choosing the best option
 Biotechnology is only one way to increase food quality and quantity in a
 sustainable way, Ms Fresco said. Choosing the best options to address specific
 production problems in developing countries should be based on economic,
 technical, social, trade and safety considerations.
 "Biotechnology may add new dimensions to the existing integrated approaches, but
 not replace them."
 "Perhaps the greatest potential of biotechnologies does not come from
 genetically modified organisms (GMOs), but from genetic markers, genomics and
 proteomics which can complement conventional breeding strategies and enhance
 their efficiency," Ms Fresco said.
 "Vaccines and virus-free plant materials hold great potential.
 Biotechnology-based diagnostic tools can be of great help to quickly identify
 many viral, fungal, and bacterial pathogens. Biotechnological research should
 focus on key challenges facing developing countries such as drought, soil
 erosion and salinity. The point is harnessing genetic resources through
 biotechnology, and not just manipulating them," Ms Fresco added.
 Research needs to be reversed
 "I am most concerned that agronomic research is becoming increasingly
 specialized and exclusively focused on the plant or cellular levels."
 "Pressures on research institutes to obtain external funding may lead to
 over-emphasizing biotech-related research. Already, the perceived profit
 potential of GMOs has changed the direction of investment away from
 systems-based approaches to pest management and toward a greater reliance on
 monocultures: the possible long-term environmental and economic costs of such
 strategies should not be overlooked," Ms. Fresco warned.
 The key for reorienting research for the benefit of developing countries is a
 funding issue, Ms Fresco stressed.
 "I would like to call urgently for reversing the decline in funding to public
 research, and creating incentives to harness private/public sector
 partnerships."
 (end text)
 (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
 Department of State.)
 LOAD-DATE: February 20, 2003
            Copyright 2003 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 44
 
                          Omaha World Herald (Nebraska)
                     January 19, 2003, Sunday SUNRISE EDITION
                               Correction Appended
 The road back ProdiGene and other biotech companies are moving ahead in an
 environment of increasing fear of crop contamination.
 BYLINE: By Bill Hord
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. 1d;
 LENGTH: 1563 words
 Companies in an industry dubbed "biopharming" are chasing a dream that someday
 crops will replace multimillion-dollar buildings as the factories where many
 drugs are made.
 The companies, big and small, race to get a foothold in the emerging industry,
 competing for investor dollars or venture capital to operate.
 The pot at the end of the rainbow could be huge for these biotech companies and
 for the future of rural America.
 But, last fall, errors by a biotech company in College Station, Texas, called
 ProdiGene Inc., led to the destruction of crops in Nebraska and Iowa and called
 into question the concept of growing drugs in food crops. The mistakes, which
 resulted in fines for ProdiGene, seemed to give validity to years of warnings
 from environmental groups and more recent concerns from big food companies.
 Today, the biopharming industry is relatively small. At least 16 companies are
 known to be testing drugs in plants. Only four of those are publicly traded
 companies - Dow Chemical Co., Large Scale Biology Corp., Monsanto Protein
 Technologies Inc. and Syngenta.
 ProdiGene had been considered the industry's golden boy. It was the only company
 currently selling a product that was manufactured by inserting a new gene into
 plants.
 That product is an enzyme called Trypsin. Genetically inserted and then grown in
 corn, it is used in laboratories to help speed up the manufacture of insulin.
 But ProdiGene's image took a blow last fall when growers for ProdiGene in
 Nebraska and Iowa allowed leftover plants from last year's corn crop to remain -
 or sprout anew - in this year's soybean crop.
 This would not have happened if government guidelines were followed, according
 to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA inspectors detected the ProdiGene
 contamination and fined the company $ 250,000.
 In the Iowa case, the surrounding cornfields were burned. In Nebraska, the small
 batch of soybeans was mixed with a larger batch at the Aurora Cooperative
 elevator and 500,000 bushels were destroyed.
 After paying the USDA fine for violating government growing restrictions and
 nearly $ 3million to clean up crop contamination, ProdiGene continues to do
 business in a world now more suspicious of its open-field experiments.
 "It (the contamination) never should have happened," ProdiGene President Tony
 Laos said. "Hopefully, people can look beyond the mistakes that were made. We
 have those corrected."
 Laos said ProdiGene is financially stable but declined to discuss the sources of
 funding or reveal who owns the company, except to say he is a small stockholder.
 "We have lived off of venture capital and angel (private individual) financing,"
 Laos said.
 In this industry, most of the companies operate on venture capital and private
 investments. Nearly all have collaboration agreements with other companies,
 research universities and research institutes.
 ProdiGene, founded in 1996, operates from 23,000 square feet of offices,
 laboratories and greenhouses in College Station.
 In 1991 in Aurora, Neb., Laos founded Stauffer Seed Inc., a company he still
 owns. Stauffer, which has a wide range of seed products for farmers, also
 arranges contract growers for ProdiGene's new "transgenic" plants.
 "Transgenic" means the plants have been given at least one new gene.
 With Trypsin, Laos said, ProdiGene plans to recover its financial losses and
 more. At the same time, it is testing gene-altered plants that could make drugs
 to combat human disease.
 "You always have to look for a silver lining," Laos said. "In all of the news
 (about the contamination), it was confirmed that we are the undisputed leaders
 in this industry. Unfortunately, we hiccuped. But we are going to have millions
 of dollars in sales."
 Laos also declines to talk about how residue from one year's experimental corn
 crop got into the soybean crop grown on the same field or to talk about the
 steps taken to make sure it doesn't happen again.
 "We have instituted a complete new system," Laos said. "We had a thorough
 procedure before, but we have increased our efforts. We've added personnel and
 are working very closely with (government regulators). Hopefully, we are setting
 the standard."
 News of ProdiGene's problems swept through the still-small biopharming industry,
 raising the public's awareness and concern about how gene-altered plants might
 be affecting the environment or food.
 Companies around the world involved in the research had to defend their
 practices. They were grateful that ProdiGene's wayward tests did not get into
 food.
 Dow Chemical Co. announced it will seek isolated locations outside of the Corn
 Belt for testing pharmaceutical corn, hopefully avoiding cross-pollination and
 contamination.
 Different agencies of the U.S. government - the USDA, the Food and Drug
 Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency - are reviewing their
 guidelines for open-field testing of pharmaceutical crops.
 The ProdiGene contamination brought renewed focus to the governmental review
 that was already under way.
 "Our view is that the regulatory system needs to be greatly improved to
 safeguard health and the environment," said Greg Jaffe of the Center for Science
 in the Public Interest.
 Although some larger companies could stand the cost of correcting problems with
 their open-field experiments, others might not have the resources, Jaffe said.
 "We are worried about all of these small companies and just how accountable they
 are," Jaffe said.
 The biopharming industry also is taking criticism from its biggest customers,
 food companies.
 The National Food Processors Association, which represents food companies such
 as Omaha-based ConAgra Foods Inc., is prodding regulators to stiffen their
 growing restrictions on transgenic crops.
 "This is a great concern of ours," said Tim Willard, vice president of the food
 processors group. "What you are doing is using food crops for this production.
 We want reassurances that the experts ... can basically guarantee that there
 will not be an escape of residues into the food supply."
 But biopharming industry leaders are confident that safeguards will be adequate
 to avoid having plantmade drugs escape into food.
 "I'm quite confident that companies can operate safely in this field, but now
 the public perceives it as a question," said Robert Erwin, president and chief
 executive officer of Large Scale Biology Corp. of Vacaville, Calif.
 Large Scale Biology, founded in 1987, is testing a plantmade cancer vaccine.
 Although ProdiGene has the first transgenic crop product on the market, no firm
 has yet gotten a plant-produced human drug through all stages of clinical
 testing and on the market.
 Inserting the genes of proteins into plants has great potential, not only for
 medicines but for industrial compounds, animal feed supplements or renewable
 sources of fuel.
 Abnormal proteins, as one company put it, are at the root of nearly all
 diseases. And nearly all drugs work by modifying proteins.
 "All of these companies would love to have a large-scale way to produce cheaper
 recombinant (gene-altered) proteins, and plants are an ideal answer," said
 Jennifer Van Brunt, editor of Signals, a biotech industry magazine.
 Currently, the need for drug manufacturing outstrips the available facilities.
 New laboratory buildings cost hundreds of millions of dollars to build.
 By some estimates, crop-produced drugs could cut costs by 90 percent,
 potentially making some life-changing treatments available at affordable costs.
 Plants, such as corn, tobacco, rice and alfalfa, have proved to be excellent
 vehicles for growing the proteins - or drugs - needed to combat many diseases.
 More than 300 open-field test plots for such plants have been approved by the
 USDA, many in Nebraska and Iowa.
 A few of the companies, whose experiments are with nonfood crops or are confined
 to greenhouses, could benefit from ProdiGene's missteps.
 Biolex Inc. of Pittsboro, N.C., for example, uses a green, aquatic plant called
 Lemna, a duckweed,(SEE CORRECTION) to develop therapeutic proteins.
 PlanetBiotechnology Inc. of Hayward, Calif., is using tobacco to test an
 antibody that wards off tooth decay.
 "Part of our decision to use tobacco has been a desire to avoid some of the
 fears that the public possibly could have," said Elliott Fineman, president of
 PlanetBiotechnology.
 All of the companies grovel for investors to keep the experiments going until
 someday - maybe years, maybe a decade - their product hits the market with
 approval from the Food and Drug Administration.
 "I would say it's hard to find investors for almost anything in biotech right
 now," said Erwin of Large Scale Biology.
 In the meantime, the industry functions on alliances, product development
 agreements and joint ventures. The main players are chemical companies,
 pharmaceutical companies and biotech companies.
 The industry anxiously awaits the day when a drug from plants emerges from
 testing and makes a significant difference in health care costs.
 "That would send a great deal of confidence through the whole sector," Erwin
 said. "I would guess we are maybe a couple years away."
 SUBJECT: Crop; Technology; Environment; PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRY(90%);
 LOAD-DATE: January 23, 2003
 CORRECTION-DATE: January 23, 2003
 CORRECTION: CORRECTION. The published version listed the plant as a milkweed
 which was incorrect. The online version has been corrected.
 GRAPHIC: Color Photos/3 Young transgenic corn plants grow indoors at the
 ProdiGene greenhouse in College Station, Texas. Color Mug/1 Tony Laos
                  Copyright 2003 The Omaha World-Herald Company









Document Number: 45
 
                                 State Department
                                 January 15, 2003
 Agriculture Department Fact Sheet Addresses Biotechnology; Cites biotech's
 advantages to consumers, farmers
 LENGTH: 1845 words
 The following information about agricultural biotechnology was recently
 published on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) biotechnology web site.
 The fact sheet states that biotechnology can help both consumers and farmers and
 fight hunger.
 Following is the text of the fact sheet:
 (begin fact sheet)
 The following information about agricultural biotechnology was recently
 published in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) biotechnology web site: (
 http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/biotech/index.html).
 Biotechnology Questions and Answers
 What is biotechnology?
 Agricultural biotechnology is a collection of scientific techniques, including
 genetic engineering, that are used to create, improve, or modify plants,
 animals, and microorganisms. Using conventional techniques, such as selective
 breeding, scientists have been working to improve plants and animals for human
 benefit for hundreds of years. Modern techniques now enable scientists to move
 genes (and therefore desirable traits) in ways they could not before -- and with
 greater ease and precision.
 How can biotechnology help farmers and consumers?
 Combating human diseases -- The first biotechnology products were medicines
 designed to address human diseases. Insulin, used to treat diabetics, and blood
 clot-busting enzymes for heart attack victims are now produced easily and
 cheaply as a result of biotechnology. New research by USDA's Agricultural
 Research Service (ARS) finds that transgenic animals may be a new source of
 valuable hormones and drugs to treat emphysema and infections in babies.
 Promoting human health -- Researchers are creating ways to boost the nutritional
 value of foods using biotechnology.
 Combating animal diseases -- Biotechnology helped produce a vaccine that
 protects animals in the wild against rabies and a vaccine for "shipping fever"
 of cattle, the biggest killer of beef cattle in feedlots.
 Fighting hunger by resisting plant diseases and increasing crop yields --
 Biotechnology can help farmers increase crop yields and feed even more people.
 For example, an ARS scientist used biotechnology to pinpoint a gene that could
 help wheat, a major food staple, grow on millions of acres worldwide that are
 now hostile to the crop. ARS scientists have also developed an experimental
 potato hybrid that contains genes to resist a new, more virulent strain of the
 so-called "late blight," the disease that caused the Irish potato famine in the
 1840s.
 Helping the environment by reducing pesticide use -- Biotechnology can help
 farmers reduce their reliance on insecticides and herbicides. For example, Bt
 cotton, a widely grown biotech crop, kills several important cotton pests.
 Which Federal agencies regulate agricultural biotechnology?
 The Federal government has a well-coordinated system to ensure that new
 agricultural biotechnology products are safe for the environment and to animal
 and human health. While these agencies act independently, they have a close
 working relationship.
 -- USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for
 protecting American agriculture against pests and diseases. The agency regulates
 the field testing of genetically engineered plants and certain microorganisms.
 APHIS also approves and licenses veterinary biological substances, including
 animal vaccines, that may be the product of biotechnology.
 -- USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) ensures the safety of meat
 and poultry consumed as food.
 -- The Department of Health and Human Service's Food and Drug Administration
 (FDA) governs the safety and labeling of drugs and the nation's food and feed
 supply, excluding meat and poultry.
 -- The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ensures the safety and safe use of
 pesticidal and herbicidal substances in the environment and for certain
 industrial uses of microbes in the environment.
 -- The Department of Health and Human Service's National Institutes of Health
 have developed guidelines for the laboratory use of genetically engineered
 organisms. While these guidelines are generally voluntary, they are mandatory
 for any research conducted under Federal grants and they are widely followed by
 academic and industrial scientists around the world.
 What is APHIS's role in regulating biotechnology?
 APHIS is the government's lead agency regulating the safe testing, under
 controlled circumstances, of biotechnology-derived, new plant varieties. A
 company, academic or research institution, non-profit organization or public
 sector scientist wishing to field test or move (via importation or interstate
 movement) a biotechnology-derived plant must generally obtain APHIS approval
 before proceeding.
 If someone wants to test a biotechnology-derived plant? What do they do?
 Applicants ask APHIS for permission to allow field testing (environmental
 release). They provide information about the plant, including all new genes and
 gene products, their origin, the purpose of the test, how the test will be
 conducted, and specific precautions to be taken to prevent the escape of pollen,
 plants, or plant parts from the field test site. An APHIS scientific reviewer
 evaluates the possible environmental impacts of the proposed field test. The
 possible impact of new plant varieties on endangered or threatened species is
 considered. Non-target species, those not meant to be directly impacted by the
 new plant, are also taken into account.
 In an effort to streamline the permit process, most applicants can now use a
 simplified procedure in which they notify APHIS before they plan to move or
 field test a biotech crop. APHIS then has 30 days to review the notification
 prior to any testing. These field tests are still required to meet all the same
 safety standards as trials that are approved through the permit process.
 Are other precautions taken if testing is approved?
 If testing is approved, APHIS personnel and state agriculture officials may
 inspect the field test site before, during, or after the test to ensure that is
 conducted and managed safely.
 What is necessary for commercial production of a biotech plant?
 Generally, before a genetically engineered crop can be produced on a wider scale
 and sold commercially, its creators must petition APHIS for a "determination of
 non-regulated status," which requires the submission of more information than a
 field test permit request. APHIS must be provided scientific details about the
 genetics of the plant, the nature and origin of the genetic material used,
 information about indirect effects on other plants, field test reports, and even
 information unfavorable to the petition. All petitions are published in the
 Federal Register and the public is given time to comment. APHIS grants the
 petition only if it determines that the plant poses no significant risk to other
 plants in the environment and is as safe to use as more traditional varieties.
 What does "determination of non-regulated status" mean?
 This is a determination by APHIS that the new plant should be treated like any
 other plant and, therefore, may be grown, tested, or used for traditional crop
 breeding without any additional APHIS action. Essentially, this determination
 permits the plant to be widely grown and commercialized.
 Does APHIS regulate other actions with biotechnology-derived plants?
 Authorizations are also required for the movement into the United States or
 between states of any genetically engineered organism that is a potential plant
 pest. And, some developers of the very few biotech plants that are not regulated
 by APHIS may seek a voluntary courtesy permit, which may make it easier to move
 or field test the plant.
 How widespread are biotech crops?
 With APHIS approval, over 5,000 field trials have been safely conducted since
 1987. About 40 new agricultural products have completed all the federal
 regulatory requirements (from all relevant agencies) and may be sold
 commercially. They range from longer-lasting tomatoes to pest-resistant corn.
 USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) maintains statistics for
 all crops in the United States, including biotech crops. Statistics for crops
 can be found at  http://www.usda.gov/nass. As of June 2002, NASS data indicate
 that of all U.S. corn, cotton, and soybeans planted, 34 percent, 71 percent, and
 75 percent, respectively, are biotechnology varieties.
 A report from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
 Applications (ISAAA) estimates total acres of transgenic crops by country.
 According to the ISAAA, in 2001, the United States grew an estimated 88 million
 acres of transgenic crops. Estimated globally, the number of acres of transgenic
 crops in 2001 was 130 million acres.
 What is the role of the EPA?
 EPA approves new herbicidal and pesticidal substances. EPA also issues permits
 for large scale testing of herbicides and biotechnology-derived plants
 containing new pesticidal substances. In deciding whether to register a new
 pesticide, EPA considers human safety, the fate of the substance in the
 environment, the safety for humans, its effectiveness on the target pest, and
 any effects on other, so-called "non-target" species.
 What is the role of the FDA?
 FDA ensures that foods derived from new plant varieties are safe to eat, holding
 them to the same high standard of safety as any more traditional food product.
 Why has biotechnology become a trade issue?
 Some people may not feel comfortable with new technology. They may worry about
 environmental, social and economic consequences -- real or simply feared.
 Particularly in Europe, these consumer concerns have led to a resistance toward
 biotechnology-derived plants and food, though not medicine. European consumer
 concerns may also be bolstered by a historic distrust in their governments'
 ability to ensure the safety of the food supply after the "mad cow" scare and
 more recent dioxin contamination. Consequently, European governments have been
 slow to approve and permit the importation of biotechnology-derived products,
 even if they have been proven safe to human and animal health and the
 environment. This has created friction with the United States and other trading
 partners, who believe sound science should be the basis of regulatory systems.
 The failure of other countries to develop consistent and science-based
 regulatory processes governing biotechnology has the potential to constrain
 scientific innovation and disrupt trade. USDA recognizes and appreciates
 differences in the political, social, and cultural situations in countries
 around the world. However, regulatory processes must be predictable and
 transparent if they are to be understood and trusted by industry and the public.
 (end fact sheet)
 (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
 Department of State.)
 LOAD-DATE: January 15, 2003
            Copyright 2003 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 46
 
                          Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
                     December 9, 2002, Monday, Metro Edition
 Complicated fare;
 Minnesota farmers aren't alone in their concern about Europe's stand on genetic
 modification. Its isolation on the issue has consequences for food production
 and consumption worldwide.
 Sharon Schmickle; Staff Writer
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. 1D
 LENGTH: 1452 words
 DATELINE: Rural Mecklenburg, Germany
 Karl-Heinrich Niehoff's farm is a model of modern international methods.
 The bulls are from prime Canadian lines. The soybean meal that helps
 nourish the cows was imported through Rotterdam and Hamburg. The irrigation
 system soaking the potato fields is from Idaho.
 The one technology that Niehoff can't import is genetic engineering. It is
 effectively barred by government rules and consumer fear.
 That worries Gisbert Kley, a visitor at Niehoff's farm. European farmers
 face a bleak future as a lonely island of resistance in a biotech world, said
 Kley, who formerly directed a German seed company that shifted its canola
 breeding to Canada, where it is creating biotech varieties.
 "I escaped from the problems we have in Europe," Kley said.
 But no farmer, plant breeder or food exporter fully escapes the
 complications of a world in which a good share of the growers use technology
 that certain buyers won't accept. That's why, with billions of dollars in trade
 at stake, Minnesota farmers and companies are watching developments in Europe.
 A dramatic example of the complications is playing out in famine-stricken
 Zambia, where officials have refused to distribute thousands of tons of U.S.
 corn because it includes biotech varieties. The corn is locked in warehouses
 until it can be removed from the country.
 U.N. agencies and scientific panels have declared the corn safe for
 consumption. Indeed, well-fed Americans routinely eat similar fare.
 But Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa said the corn hasn't been proven safe
 to eat. Another fear is that families will plant some of the corn, release the
 inserted genes into the wild and jeopardize Zambia's exports to Europe.
 European officials have urged Zambia to give the corn to its starving
 masses. Still, Europeans must take some blame for the debacle, said Norval
 Francis of the U.S. mission to the European Union (E.U.) in Brussels, Belgium.
 "The impact of European policies is spilling over into a lot of other
 countries," he said.
 A hard place
 In Germany, there is no real choice. Niehoff has field-tested genetically
 modified potatoes, but European and German rules bar him from growing the
 varieties commercially.
 The E.U. approved 18 biotech farm products during the early 1990s, but
 individual nations withheld approval for most of them. The chief exception is
 Spain, where farmers grow corn fortified with a gene that kills borers; they
 feed the harvest to livestock.
 In 1998, the E.U. responded to public fear of the crops with rules that
 effectively banned new biotech varieties. The ban has cost U.S. farmers $200
 million a year in corn sales to Spain and Portugal, U.S. officials said.
 E.U. officials moved in October toward lifting the ban by setting standards
 for growing and importing the crops. But the United States dismissed the action
 as a baby step. Member nations of the E.U. have veto power over approvals, and
 only they can end the moratorium, said Richard Mills, a spokesman for the U.S.
 trade representative.
 Niehoff understands both sides in the transatlantic debate. Biotechnology
 could give him new markets for potato starch and new weapons for the perennial
 battle with diseases, he said. But it would be pointless to produce food that
 German consumers don't want.
 "I'm neutral," he said.
 Global perspective
 Depending on your view of the controversy, the world soon will be half-full
 of biotech crops or half-empty. The crops were widely commercialized in 1996. By
 the end of last year, the acreage devoted to them had grown thirtyfold. The
 highest recent annual growth was in China, which has opened the door to planting
 certain biotech crops but remains cautious about importing them.
 Nearly half of the soybeans planted worldwide last year, one-fifth of the
 cotton and one-tenth of the corn were of biotech varieties, said Clive James,
 chairman of the board of the International Service for the Acquisition of
 Agri-biotech Applications. Those are the official plantings; there are rampant
 reports of a black market in the seeds, especially in Brazil, where farmers
 aren't supposed to use them but can buy them in neighboring Argentina.
 For Europe, the commodity to watch has been soybeans. Europe grows very
 little of the crop and imports tons of soybean products for animal feed,
 including genetically modified beans. European consumers tell pollsters in
 overwhelming numbers that they don't want to eat biotech beans or even meat from
 animals fed the beans.
 Consumer resolve hasn't been tested, though, by the higher prices that it
 eventually will take to deliver specialty, non-biotech beans, Ruth Rawling,
 spokeswoman in Europe for Minnetonka-based Cargill Inc., said over a dinner
 discussion of biotech crops in Brussels in October. Despite Europe's uproar over
 biotechnology, Cargill's customers still opt for the lowest-priced soybeans even
 when that means buying biotech varieties, Rawling said.
 "I am constantly astounded by the difference between what you see in food
 surveys and what we see in the marketplace," she said.
 Those were fighting words for Geert Ritsema, who sat at the other end of
 the table. As a spokesman for Friends of the Earth Europe, he helps lead the
 campaign against the crops.
 "We never asked for this," he retorted. "You put it in the food chain. You
 put it in the ships and brought it to Amsterdam. . . . You think that additional
 cost should be put on the bill of the consumers? There is no market in Europe
 for genetically modified food unless you force it."
 Addressing objections
 Environmental groups argue that genetic diversity would shrink as farmers
 plant biotech varieties, that engineered plants might cross with wild relatives,
 and that the safety of eating the crops hasn't been fully established.
 Scientific panels in several European countries have said the food is as safe as
 conventional fare.
 Research that could address the critics' environmental questions has been
 stymied in Europe because protesters have destroyed many experimental plots. In
 the French state of Brittany, for example, vandals halted a canola experiment 15
 days before harvest time last year.
 "We cannot evaluate the risk if we do not do the research," said Pierre
 Thivend, director of the studies for the Institut National de la Recherche
 Agronomique in Rennes, France. "It's very disagreeable to worry every day, May
 to September, whether the crop has been destroyed overnight or not."
 The prevailing view in Europe is that no one needs biotech crops, said
 Isabelle Garzon a trade official with the European Commission, the E.U.'s
 executive body. The lure elsewhere has been primarily to farmers who grow
 cotton, corn and soybeans. But those are minor crops in Europe.
 The resistance is greater than the sum of the rational arguments, Garzon
 said. "It has more to do with a societal issue than with an agricultural,
 environmental, science or trade issue," she said.
 With emotion riding so high, America's smartest business and trade strategy
 might be patience, she said, because pushing too hard could backfire. That
 mindset seems to have taken hold with some U.S. companies.
 "We hope one day to have a biotech seed business in Europe," said Thomas
 McDermott, a spokesman in Europe for Monsanto Co. "But certain things have to
 happen first . . . It's not something we are planning for next year or the year
 after."
 _ Sharon Schmickle is at sschmickle@startribune.com.
 A biotech seminar
 Some of the reporting for this article was done on a tour of Europe by nine
 U.S. journalists sponsored by the German Marshall Fund of the United States. The
 nonpartisan, independent foundation was created in 1972 to stimulate the
 exchange of ideas and promote cooperation between the United States and Europe
 in the spirit of the postwar Marshall Plan.
 The world's largest producers of biotech crops
 Dark-shaded countries grow significant quantities of crops that have been
 fortified with genes to help farmers fight insects, disease and weeds. (See
 microfilm for map.)
 Percent of global total, 2001:
 Argentina: 22%
 Canada: 6%
 China: 3%
 All others: less than 1%
 The rise of transgenic crops (in millions of acres)
 '01: Soybeans 82.3%
 Corn: 24.2%
 Cotton: 16.8%
 Canola: 6.7%
 Potatoes, squash, papaya: less than 1%
 - Sources: Clive James; International Service for the Acquisition of
 Agri-biotech Applications.
 (See microfilm for complete chart.)
 SUBJECT: agriculture; foreign; trade; technology; food; law; statistics
 LOAD-DATE: December 10, 2002
                           Copyright 2002 Star Tribune









Document Number: 47
 
                            The San Francisco Chronicle
 Altered fish in a battle for survival;
 Regulation measures face tough obstacles
 SOURCE: Chronicle Environment Writer
 BYLINE: Jane Kay
 SECTION: BAY AREA; Pg. A15
 LENGTH: 809 words
 A pair of bills that aim to make California the first state in the nation to
 regulate transgenic fish in food markets and the environment face deadly battles
 in the Legislature this week.
 On Monday, the Senate passed a consumers' right-to-know bill that would require
 the labeling of unpackaged bioengineered fish and seafood sold in California
 retail stores. The bill must clear the Assembly by Saturday, the session's end,
 to survive.
 Prompted by a new scientific report warning that biotech fish could escape and
 taint wild populations, Assemblywoman Virginia Strom-Martin, D-Duncan Hills,
 author of the labeling bill, also helped Sen. Byron Sher, D-Palo Alto, resurrect
 his own all-but-dead bill designed to keep live gene-altered fish out of the
 state.
 Both bills are opposed by the powerful biotechnology, grocery and agriculture
 industries and still face immense hurdles. The labeling bill, for example, was
 dealt a last-minute blow in the Assembly on Tuesday when referred to both a
 hostile Agriculture Committee as well as a more receptive panel on environmental
 safety and toxic materials.
 "The chairman of the Agriculture Committee wanted it, and we know why. We
 thought we had this all finessed," said Strom-Martin. "I'm very sad, but I'm not
 giving up."
 The labeling bill passed the Senate 22-14 on Monday but must be approved by both
 committees before it can be subject to a vote by the full Assembly.
 The other bill, which in its previous form also passed the Senate but was
 amended Monday, may go directly to the floor of the Assembly. Strom-Martin is
 waiting to see if the California Fish and Game Commission passes a two-year
 moratorium on transgenic species in a meeting Thursday. If the commission
 doesn't act, she intends to take Sher's amended bill to the Assembly floor for a
 vote.
 If either bill passes, California would be the first state to require labeling
 of transgenic fish for consumers or to prohibit outright the sale of
 bioengineered fish in the state. An exception would be allowed for research
 purposes.
 On Monday, Sher pulled off a classic "gut and amend" move that revived his own
 bill after preliminary committee hearings effectively had blocked the original
 measure.
 The bill would create a two-year ban on the import, possession or production of
 live transgenic fish. The state Department of Fish and Game would report by
 March 2004 whether California should allow commercialization of such fish after
 the moratorium.
 Last week, the National Research Council released the first comprehensive
 assessment of environmental and health risks of using cloning and gene-splicing
 to create new animals. The report concluded that current regulations might not
 be adequate to prevent escapes and the tainting of genetic lines in the wild.
 The bills are supported by the Ocean Conservancy, the Natural Resources Defense
 Council, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations and Defenders
 of Wildlife and Sierra Club.
 Opponents include the Biotechnology Industry Organization, California Chamber of
 Commerce, California Farm Bureau, Grocery Manufacturers of America, National
 Food Processors Association, California Retailers Association and other trade
 groups.
 Joe McGonigle, vice president of Aqua Bounty -- a biotech company based in
 Waltham, Mass., that was the first to request approval of a transgenic fish, a
 Northern Atlantic salmon, from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration -- said he
 opposed any new regulation of genetically altered fish.
 "We intend entirely to label our fish, but we intend to do it with our own
 language," McGonigle said.
 "The problem with mandatory labeling is that the language being used is
 basically written by a bureaucracy, and taken by the consumer as a health
 warning," he said. "It immediately raises red flags in people."
 George Gough, a Sacramento lobbyist for Monsanto, a leader in developing
 FDA-approved bioengineered crops, said the industry relied on federal guidelines
 and didn't believe states should have a role in labeling.
 "Just because it's biotech doesn't mean it has to have a label," Gough said.
 The FDA's policy is that transgenic crops are "substantially equivalent" to
 traditional crops and don't need labeling if they don't modify the nutritional
 value, composition or capacity to cause allergic reactions.
 Kate Wing, a Natural Resources Defense Council analyst, said the industry
 lobbying had been unrelenting.
 "The opponents have been clear the whole time that they'd rather see business
 move ahead at the expense of environmental protection," Wing said. "The National
 Research Council makes it clear that the FDA isn't doing enough to protect the
 environment from bioengineered animals. Clearly, California needs to step up its
 protection of native species."
 Copyright 2002 The San Francisco Chronicle
 LOAD-DATE: August 28, 2002
                   Copyright 2002 The Chronicle Publishing Co.









Document Number: 48
 
                        Austin American-Statesman (Texas)
                              July 29, 2002, Monday
 Farmers' marketer
 Firm hoping to hook up small farms, big biotechs
 BYLINE: Cara Anna, AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
 SECTION: Tech Monday; Pg. E1
 LENGTH: 1169 words
 Ben Allen is betting the farms on biotech.
 Allen, a 29-year-old Austin entrepreneur whose father runs a farm consultancy
 here, wants to be a middleman between family farms and large agriculture
 corporations, arranging contract farming for traditional crops and, soon, more
 high-tech ones.
 Allen's New American Farm Ventures is approaching companies such as Monsanto Co.
 and DuPont & Co., plus smaller limited partnerships. In the future, Allen
 expects his team of farmers to be growing the next generation of genetically
 modified corn or other crops.
 The biotech industry has stumbled in developing crops -- most notably, in a
 massive recall of corn products three years ago -- but Allen says the industry
 is poised for growth. He has only three employees but recently raised $1.1
 million in investment from a group that includes a retired Dell Computer Corp.
 executive, Ron McDowell.
 NAF Ventures owns 540 acres in Kansas and Iowa, and Allen says that, with about
 450 farmers committed to opening up their land, he has access to about 800,000
 acres in eight states across the Midwest, including Texas.
 Allen says he hopes NAF Ventures can take advantage of the coming fusion of
 farming and pharmaceuticals. For now, genetically modified crops grow on nearly
 a third of all U.S. cropland, or 90 million acres.
 This year, about 71 percent of the U.S. cotton crop is genetically modified,
 along with 32 percent of corn and 61 percent of canola-producing plants. About
 80 percent of soybeans grown in the United States today are biotech beans.
 Still, the industry remains a flash point in a global debate over food safety,
 which Allen acknowledges. In the early days of biotech, "corporate America
 really screwed up the PR for biotech crops," he says. "The difficulty in
 previous years was that the technology was ahead of the regulations. But the
 Food and Drug Administration has caught up and issued some rather stringent
 guidelines for growth and handling, and they are being very successful at
 calming people's nerves."
 The industry has made some missteps. Three years ago, for instance, U.S. food
 companies were forced to issue a massive recall of corn chips, tortillas and
 other corn products when it was discovered that an errant, potentially
 allergenic protein from genetically engineered corn not approved for human
 consumption had contaminated corn throughout the Midwest.
 Some people see opportunity for biotech outside of food crops. In the fall, the
 first field of "farmaceutical" corn in the United States was harvested in Iowa.
 The corn was engineered to make a protein that might be used in a drug to fight
 some symptoms of cystic fibrosis. The advance is seen as a cheaper way to
 produce proteins -- at about 7 percent of the cost of making them in a factory,
 according to the Center for the Study of Rural America.
 'Biopharming' debate
 Global corporations and entrepreneurs alike face big hurdles in developing
 biotech crops.
 Even though the United States grows 80 percent of genetically modified crops
 worldwide, farming for pharmaceutical uses hasn't yet taken off. About 90
 percent of the genetically engineered, or transgenic, crops being planted this
 year are designed with a single trait: the ability to resist herbicides,
 enabling farmers to kill weeds without hurting their crops.
 While corporations prepare to cultivate crops for producing prescription drugs
 or industrial chemicals, environmental and scientific groups continue to ask the
 government to scale back development of genetically engineered crops.
 Supporters of "biopharming" say genetically engineered plants, especially corn,
 could be efficient producers of a host of important products, such as industrial
 chemicals, antibodies for the treatment of herpes and influenza, growth
 hormones, blood clotting agents and even contraceptives.
 Critics say the risks outweigh the benefits. Earlier this year, a committee of
 the National Academy of Sciences warned that "crops transformed to produce
 pharmaceutical or industrial compounds might mate with plantations grown for
 human consumption" and introduce novel chemicals into the food supply. The panel
 also concluded that the U.S. Department of Agriculture came up short in its
 oversight of such crops.
 Seeking backers
 Allen expects NAF's first revenue to come this September from a nonbiotech crop
 in Iowa. Equipped with vials of Iowa soil as gifts, he makes the rounds of large
 agriculture companies and potential investors, looking for more backers.
 McDowell, who left Dell in 1998, says he invested in the plan to "diversify out
 of the stock market." His father was a soybean farmer in South Carolina, he
 says. "This is more back-to-the-earth."
 Although contract farming by large corporations isn't new, Allen hopes to bridge
 a gap of traditional mistrust. Small farmers usually are wary of large
 corporations and feel like they're treated like "tractor jockeys," he says. On
 the other hand, corporations find it hard to judge a farmer's professional
 background.
 Allen's competition is the corporations themselves. But many states bar
 corporations from owning farmland, giving corporations another hurdle in putting
 together projects, he says. He hopes to land his first corporate deal in 18
 months.
 Allen is depending on his family's contacts to succeed.
 His father, Randy, has run Austin-based RWA Financial Services Inc. for more
 than 20 years, providing marketing and other business assistance to farmers. The
 company has about 700 clients holding more than 1 million acres in 27 states.
 Randy Allen is also chairman of NAF Ventures. For now, Ben Allen is recruiting
 his first farmers from his father's clients.
 Farmers work their own land or land that NAF Ventures owns in return for
 management fees of $85 to $185 an acre -- more if the crop is biotech. The
 corporations provide the seeds and chemicals and own the crops, and the
 corporations will take responsibility for a bad harvest and pay the farmers
 regardless of results. Crop insurance also covers some weather risk, but there
 is no crop insurance on biotech crops, Allen says. Contracts are year to year.
 "I would think there would be a market for that, certainly a need," says Tim
 Brackman, director of corporate communications for the American Soybean
 Association, which has 30,000 members. Farmers just need to know that the crop
 being tested is no "snake-oil operation," and that they'll be reasonably paid,
 he adds.
 In Lewis, Iowa, Val Sothman is being watched by his neighbors. A tenant farmer,
 he persuaded his landlord to sell 192 acres to NAF Ventures, and this year he's
 growing soybeans and corn and making about the same amount of money he has made
 in an average year before.
 The advantage, he says, is that he doesn't have to worry about his landlords
 changing and his access to land disappearing.
 "The other way, my future is limited, so that's why I'm willing to try," Sothman
 says.
 canna@statesman.com; 445-3639
 LOAD-DATE: July 30, 2002
 GRAPHIC: Ben Allen, the founder and chief executive officer of Austin-based New
 American Farm Ventures, sees opportunity for small farmers in the coming fusion
 of farming and pharmaceuticals. // U.S. biotech boom // New wave farming
                   Copyright 2002 The Austin American Statesman









Document Number: 49
 
                         The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
                        May 19, 2002 Sunday, Home Edition
 Genetically engineered crops spur agricultural revolution
 SECTION: @issue; Pg. 1F
 LENGTH: 2707 words
 Billy Sanders' family has grown cotton in the fertile loam of Dooly County for
 more than a century. His great grandfather planted cotton behind a mule. Sanders
 plants 12 rows at a time from the air-conditioned cab of a new John Deere ---
 sowing the seeds of an agricultural revolution that would have left his
 granddaddy dumbstruck.
 In 1996, Sanders was among the first growers in the world to plant commercial
 quantities of genetically modified cotton. He wasn't sure what to expect.
 Critics predicted an agricultural Armageddon of new superweeds and destructive
 genes run amok --- polluting nature's gene pool just as wastes pollute the
 environment.
 Seed and chemical companies claimed instead it was the beginning of a new green
 revolution that would boost yields and make farming more profitable.
 Six years later, genetically modified crops grow on nearly a third of all U.S.
 cropland with uncertain --- but not yet dire --- results. American farmers have
 embraced the new technology --- like plants that fight insects --- in a big way,
 but it isn't clear they're making a lot more money because of it.
 "We just kind of eased into it and saw right off that it was working," Sanders
 says. Every seed that Sanders plants this season is engineered to make its own
 pesticide or to withstand herbicides that ordinarily kill anything that's green.
 In Dooly County, which leads the state in cotton acreage, 80 percent of the
 cotton grown this year will be genetically modified. Across Georgia, which is
 now second only to Texas in cotton production, an estimated 1.2 million acres of
 cotton will be engineered to resist herbicides and kill insect pests.
 From the Carolinas to California, tens of thousands of growers are betting the
 farm on genetically modified crops. This spring they will be planted on 90
 million acres --- nearly a third of the country's total farm acreage. Modified
 crops now account for three-quarters of the cotton and soybeans and a quarter of
 all the corn grown in America.
 Tilting his straw hat back as his tractor idles in the background, Sanders dips
 his hands into a bin on his 12-row planter and lifts up a double handful of
 purple seeds --- color-coded with dye to identify their engineered traits ---
 and offers an explanation.
 "Good ideas," he says, "have a way of spreading."
 Reviews are mixed
 The rate at which the technology has swept through U.S. farmland --- and beyond
 --- is remarkable. China this year will plant more than a million acres of
 modified cotton. More than half of Canada's 16 million acres of canola is
 genetically modified. Commercial plantings worldwide will total 110 million
 acres.
 The enthusiasm, however, is far from unanimous. India, the world's largest
 cotton producer, only this spring approved the first commercial plantings of the
 crop --- after a fractious debate over whether the technology will force off
 their land thousands of farmers who can't afford pricey high-tech seed. Public
 opposition to transgenic crops in Europe and Japan has restricted plantings
 there to small test plots --- and to required labeling of any imported foods
 that have been genetically modified. Brazil, eager to stay in the good graces of
 European food companies and enjoy the fruits of new technology, is wavering.
 Distinguishing modified crops from conventional ones looms as a growing
 challenge for the industry. Recent incidents reveal glaring deficiencies in
 current efforts.
 Two years ago, when proteins from Starlink corn, approved only for animal feed
 because they contained a potential human allergen, were found in taco shells, it
 triggered a nationwide recall of more than 300 corn products --- everything from
 Taco Bell taco shells to store-brand corn snacks sold by Kroger, Safeway and
 Food Lion.
 Agribusiness giant Aventis, which developed the Starlink technology, spent
 millions to recall contaminated seed, but some of the now-discontinued seed is
 expected to linger for years in grain elevators around the country.
 Food companies this year paid $9 million to settle a consumer class action suit
 in the case, but have admitted no liability. Only last month, however, Monsanto
 --- hoping to head off a similar incident --- told authorities that strains of
 canola that had never been approved for commercial use had somehow slipped into
 the system. There were no health implications of the error, but it underscored
 the industry's inability to track specific products.
 The turmoil reflects both political and scientific uncertainties. Revolutions
 don't always follow the intended script. And despite 25,000 field tests of
 modified crops in 40 countries, experts say this one hasn't gone the way its
 supporters, or its critics, expected. Some of the developments: Europeans,
 uneasy about mad cow disease and hoof-and-mouth outbreaks, have yet to decide
 whether to approve commercial modified crops, and the 15-nation European Union
 has imposed a moratorium on new imports of new genetically altered products to
 the EU market. An EU scientific committee acknowledges, however, that whatever
 Europe does, the presence of modified material in food imported from overseas is
 inevitable. In Canada, farmers have sued agrichemical giant Monsanto over
 outbreaks of "superweeds," those that have acquired the modified crops' genes
 for herbicide resistance, but so far the incidents are widely scattered. So far,
 even ardent environmentalists acknowledge that insects have not developed
 resistance to modified pesticides, as they expected. Through careful management
 of such crops, many experts think the pesticidal genes will work indefinitely.
 But because any pesticide spurs the emergence of resistant insects, some
 scientists say tougher bugs are inevitable in the long run. Despite initial
 concerns about the possible poisoning of Monarch butterflies with pesticidal
 pollen from corn, the current varieties of modified corn have been deemed "no
 imminent threat." Pollen from two varieties of corn --- KnockOut and NatureGuard
 --- was toxic to Monarchs, but because neither variety is sold any longer, the
 controversy has ebbed.
 For all the speed with which crops have spread in the last six years, the
 modified revolution has been surprisingly narrow. So far, most of the traits
 engineered into crops are ones only a farmer could love. Ninety percent of the
 transgenic crops being planted this year are designed with a single trait ---
 the ability to resist herbicides, enabling farmers to kill weeds without hurting
 their crops.
 "This technology is clearly very popular with farmers," says Mike Rodemeyer,
 executive director of the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, a nonprofit
 organization that maintains neutrality in the debate over modified crops. "It
 makes their lives easier. And it makes their farming more efficient."
 Herbicide-tolerant cotton means that farmers such as Billy Sanders can kill
 early-season weeds in their fields. That reduces the need for spraying later,
 saves money and time and lets them use tilling techniques that preserve soil
 fertility.
 Cotton varieties with pesticidal properties are having similar benefits. Chuck
 Ellis, the University of Georgia's extension coordinator for Dooly County, says
 the new cotton --- plus the earlier eradication of the boll weevil in the 1990s
 --- has enabled growers to reduce pesticide use from around 20 applications a
 year to two or three.
 "Because farmers don't have to use as much herbicide or pesticide, their cost of
 production is lower," says Harvey Glick, director of global product management
 for the the St. Louis-based Monsanto Co., which dominates the world market for
 modified crops. "It's good for the environment, too."
 Nationwide, the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy estimates,
 cotton growers now make 15 million fewer insecticide applications a year.
 Globally, modified crops have cut the use of farm chemicals by nearly 50 million
 pounds.
 Overall herbicide use is down, although sales of one weed-killer have soared
 with the spread of modified crops. Sales of "glyphosate," marketed as Roundup,
 have jumped fivefold since 1996. Monsanto owns both Roundup and the
 Roundup-Ready technology used in 80 percent of all modified seeds. Roundup is
 now the world's most heavily used agricultural chemical, with sales approaching
 $3 billion a year.
 Charles Benbrook, a consultant to the Institute for Agriculture and Trade
 Policy, says U.S. farmers' growing dependence on a single chemical --- expected
 to be used for weed control on 80 million acres this year --- portends trouble.
 "Before long they will have to use more of it to get the same level of weed
 control," he says. "It's only going to accelerate the development of resistant
 weeds."
 Jumping genes?
 A 10-year study by a Canadian scientific panel found that genetically modified
 plants were no more likely to thrive in the wild than conventional ones, which
 lessens the danger that modified species will crowd out natural ones. Plants,
 however, are promiscuous, and pollen and seeds are highly mobile packages of
 genetic information, so altered genes may end up where they are not wanted.
 At least a portion of the Starlink corn contamination incident last year is
 believed to have been caused by "outcrossing" of pollen with conventional corn.
 Reports that transgenic corn had contaminated the "entire genome" of wild maize
 growing in Mexico --- later retracted by the British scientific journal Nature
 because of technical errors --- stirred worldwide the controversy. Both
 supporters and critics of modified food acknowledge that transgenic corn,
 carried across the border for food or as pirated seed, is probably growing, and
 pollinating, in modern corn's ancestral homeland.
 "We don't really know what's happening in Mexico," says Jane Rissler, senior
 staff scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, which is critical of
 modified technology. "There are a lot of things we still don't know, even with
 millions of acres of crops in the field."
 Even among farmers who currently benefit the most from genetically modified
 crops, unresolved questions linger. Some farmers pay extra for corn with
 built-in pesticides only to discover that the pests never showed up.
 "In some parts of the country, the added cost of modified corn actually reduces
 the profits per acre," says Benbrook.
 For every farmer, the calculus of costs and benefits --- the technology fee owed
 Monsanto for engineered seeds, the savings from reduced spraying, the impact on
 soils --- fluctuates with the unpredictability of the weather, insects and
 economics.
 "It's difficult to say from year to year whether this technology pays for
 itself, but it has at least helped keep American farmers competitive," says Don
 Shurley, cotton economist at the University of Georgia.
 Even so, he says, American farmers are struggling to compete in international
 markets, where cheap labor keeps commodity prices low. The U.S. share of soybean
 exports has dipped lately --- in part because Brazil's non-modified soy products
 have been favored by Europe.
 Two "gene giants"
 The seed industry has been changing as rapidly as the crops farmers plant. Since
 1996, when the first commercial modified crops were planted, more than 70 small
 and medium-sized seed companies have been acquired or become allied with a
 handful of agrochemical companies that now dominate the industry.
 The two largest, Monsanto and DuPont, together control more than 500 biotech
 patents --- five times as many as the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The same
 two corporations control 93 per cent of the transgenic seed market worldwide.
 "Fewer and fewer companies are making critical decisions about the future of
 agriculture," says Hope Shand, research director of the Action Group on Erosion,
 Technology and Concentration, a sustainable-agriculture advocacy group. "The
 gene giants are in control of patented genes, traits and research tools that
 make it difficult or impossible for small companies to compete."
 Monsanto has moved aggressively to protect its patented technology, suing
 farmers who dare to save its modified seeds for future plantings. The royalty
 farmers pay each spring is good for only one year.
 Some companies want even tighter control of the technology. Farmers, especially
 those in underdeveloped countries, save some seed from their harvest to plant
 the next spring. Mississippi-based Delta and Pine Land Co., the ninth-largest
 seed company in the world, is developing "terminator" seeds which, when bagged
 with a specific chemical, would germinate normally, but subsequently yield
 sterile seed.
 Monsanto, battered by worldwide opposition to its own terminator experiments as
 a tool for depriving the third world of the benefits of genetic engineering, has
 disavowed any future use of the technology.
 But Delta and Pine's Vice President Harry Collins says his company is forging
 ahead with its plans and hopes to have it ready for commercial use within four
 years. "Lots of valuable traits are being pirated now by other countries," he
 says. "This way nobody would get it for free."
 Expectations not met
 To date, more than 40 crops --- including chicory, papayas, potatoes, squash,
 sugar beets and tomatoes --- have been approved for commercial use by the three
 U.S. agencies that exercise jurisdiction over modified foods.
 But the cornucopia of new and better crops promised by genetic engineers six
 years ago hasn't materialized --- and what farmers aren't growing these days
 says as much about the state of the revolution as what they are growing.
 The first crop --- and the first casualty --- was the Flavr Savr tomato
 developed by Calgene, a company now owned by Monsanto. The tomato became the
 target of a nationwide boycott by grocery store chains and restaurant chefs.
 Then conventional breeding techniques produced a better-tasting tomato without
 the taint of controversy. With no market, modified tomatoes were left to rot in
 the field.
 Another early modified crop, the Lurical canola, has also fallen short of its
 promise. In 1996, farmers in south Georgia planted tens of thousands of acres of
 the engineered canola, which is rich in lauric oil, a product so coveted for
 chocolate coatings and coffee creamers that proponents claimed canola would be
 "the next oil boom."
 "There just wasn't a market for it," says University of Georgia canola
 specialist George Shumaker. "This year we probably won't have more than a few
 hundred acres of canola in the state."
 Canola remains a big crop in North Dakota and Canada's prairie provinces, where
 more than half the crop is genetically modified. These days, however, most
 canola is engineered only to resist herbicides. And the herbicide is Roundup.
 Genetically engineered potatoes have also fallen on hard times. In the late
 1990s, when Monsanto introduced its New Leaf varieties --- with genes designed
 to kill Colorado potato beetles --- potato growers planted more than 50,000
 acres a year.
 Then two things happened. McDonald's told growers it didn't want any modified
 potatoes for its French fries. Too controversial, it said. A few months later,
 Japan discovered unauthorized modified material in a can of Pringles chips, and
 Procter & Gamble and other firms raced to withdraw their potato snacks from the
 Japanese market. The Japanese eventually decided New Leaf potatoes were safe,
 but Monsanto shelved the technology anyway. Monsanto's Glick says the company's
 decision was a strategic move, not a tactical retreat. "We decided not to
 support those efforts and focus on large, economically important crops that are
 grown all over the world," he says.
 Given the economic and political issues still dogging modified crops --- and the
 high percentage of modified cotton and soybeans already being planted --- some
 experts say the revolution may be approaching a plateau.
 "There are still a lot of open questions," says Ben Lilliston, of the Institute
 for Agriculture and Trade Policy. "The economic benefits are limited so far. The
 environmental impact isn't clear. The regulatory system is full of holes.
 "Maybe what we need most right now is more time."
 SUBJECT: agriculture, food, research, science, technology ENGINEERED CROPS
 LOAD-DATE: May 19, 2002
 GRAPHIC: Photo:
 In the hands of farmer Billy Sanders, this genetically modified cotton seed is
 color-coded and treated with fungicide. Every seed that Sanders plants this
 season is engineered to make its own pesticide or to withstand herbicides. /
 MARLENE KARAS / Staff Photo:
 DOOLY COUNTY FARMER BILLY SANDERS / MARLENE KARAS / Staff Graphic:
 Percentage of acres planted with genetically modified crops in the United
 States.
 Graph shows increase from 1996 through 2002 of genetically modified crops
 including soybean, cotton and corn.
 Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture
 / ROB SMOAK / Staff Photo:
 Chuck Ellis, the University of Georgia's extension coordinator for Dooly County,
 says the new cotton --- plus the earlier eradication of the boll weevil in the
 1990s --- has enabled growers to reduce pesticide use from around 20
 applications a year to two or three. / MARLENE KARAS / Staff Graphic:
 Unlike crossbreeding, the mating of two individuals of the same species (such as
 two varieties of peas), genetic engineering enables scientists to transfer
 characteristics from one organism to an unrelated organism (such as adding
 catfish genes to trout). Here's how it works:
 Every cell, the basic unit of all living things, contains DNA, its genetic code
 that makes it unique.
 The piece of DNA that controls certain characteristics of an organism is called
 a gene. A gene occupies a particular place on a chromosome.
 By cutting a gene-length piece from a DNA molecule and pasting it onto a
 different DNA molecule, scientists can transfer the desired characteristics.
 The DNA ladder: The double helix All DNA is shaped like a twisted rope ladder.
 The vehicle: Agrobacterium
 1 DNA with the desired traits is placed in agrobacterium, a type of plant
 bacteria.
 2 Bacterium enters the cell; joins DNA piece to DNA in cell.
 3 Following the normal process of development, the cell divides. Each new cell
 carries the added DNA.
 The vehicle: Particle bullet
 1 Microscopic metal particles are coated with the DNA having desired traits.
 2 Particles are fired from a DNA particle gun into the plant cells.
 3 Following the normal process of development, the cell divides. Each new cell
 carries the added DNA.
 Source: Burrelle's Services
 / ROB SMOAK / Staff Graphic:
 More than 40 genetically modified crops have been approved but commercial use is
 dominated by only a few.
 Crop.....Purpose..........Source
 Canola...Weed control.....Plant, bacteria, virus
 Corn.....Pest control.....Bacteria
 Cotton...Weed control.....Plant, bacteria, virus
 Papaya...Disease control..Bacteria, virus
 Soybean..Weed control.....Plant, bacteria, virus
 Source: Union of Concerned Scientists
 TYPE: Special Report
                 Copyright 2002 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution









Document Number: 50
 
                                 State Department
                                   May 9, 2002
 "Battling Hunger With Biotechnology," by Gregory Conko and C.S. Prakash; They
 point to biotech's production, environmental gains
 LENGTH: 2679 words
 (The following article appears in the May 2002 issue of the State Department's
 electronic journal, Economic Perspectives. The issue is titled: Food Security
 and Safety. The entire journal can be viewed at:
 http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/journals.htm)
 Needless restrictions on agricultural biotechnology would harm the world's
 ability to battle hunger in the 21st century, say Gregory Conko and C.S.
 Prakash, co-founders of the AgBioWorld Foundation. They say that the concerns of
 anti-biotechnology campaigners simply are not supported by scores of
 peer-reviewed scientific reports or data from tens of thousands of field trials.
 Following is the text of the Conko-Prakesh article:
 (begin text)
 By Gregory Conko, Director of Food Safety Policy, Competitive Enterprise
 Institute, and C.S. Prakash, Professor of Plant Molecular Genetics, Tuskegee
 University
 During the coming decades the world will face the extraordinary challenge of
 conquering poverty and achieving genuine food security with a very potent new
 tool: agricultural biotechnology. Skeptics argue that transgenic plants
 represent a vast new threat to both the environment and human health. However,
 that view is not supported by the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence
 that has been generated over the last three decades. Furthermore, such criticism
 ignores the fact that needless restrictions on biotechnology could endanger our
 ability to battle hunger in the 21st century.
 Transgenic technology holds the potential to increase food production, reduce
 the use of synthetic chemical pesticides, and actually make foods safer and
 healthier. These advances are critical in a world where natural resources are
 finite and where one-and-a-half billion people suffer from hunger and
 malnutrition. Already, farmers in the United States, Canada, and elsewhere have
 benefited from improvements in productivity and reduced use of synthetic
 pesticides. But the real future of biotechnology lies in addressing the special
 problems faced by farmers in less developed nations.
 Critics like to dismiss such claims as nothing more than corporate public
 relations puffery. However, while most commercially available biotech plants
 were designed for farmers in the industrialized world, the increasing adoption
 of transgenic varieties by developing countries over the past few years has been
 remarkable. According to the International Service for the Acquisition of
 Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), farmers in less developed countries now grow
 nearly one-quarter of the world's transgenic crops on more than 26 million acres
 (10.7 million hectares), and they do so for many of the same reasons that
 farmers in industrialized nations do.
 Among the most important limiting factors in developing world agricultural
 productivity is biotic stress from insects, weeds, and plant diseases.
 Transgenic modifications common in several industrialized nations target these
 same problems and can be easily transferred into local varieties to help poor
 farmers in the developing world. For example, South African farmers are already
 growing transgenic pest-resistant maize, and this year began planting transgenic
 soy. South African and Chinese farmers have been growing transgenic
 insect-resistant cotton for several years, and the Indian government approved it
 for commercial cultivation in the spring of 2002. This transgenic cotton,
 similar to the varieties so popular in the United States, is expected to boost
 yields by 30 percent or more for Indian farmers, according to a recent article
 in the Economic Times. It could even transform India from the world's third
 largest producer of cotton into the largest.
 Globally, transgenic varieties are now grown on more than 109 million acres
 (44.2 million hectares) in Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Mexico,
 South Africa, and the United States, according to ISAAA. They are even grown on
 substantial amounts of acreage in Brazil, where no transgenic varieties have yet
 been approved for commercial cultivation. Farmers there looked across the border
 and saw how well their Argentine neighbors were doing with transgenic varieties,
 and smuggling of transgenic soybean seed became rampant. The European Union's
 (EU) Directorate General for Agriculture estimates that Brazil is now the fifth
 largest grower of transgenic crops.
 Although this first generation of crops was designed primarily to improve
 farming efficiency, the environmental benefits these crops offer are extensive.
 The U.S. Department of Agriculture found that U.S. farmers growing transgenic
 pest-resistant cotton, maize, and soy reduced the total volume of insecticides
 and herbicides they sprayed by more than 8 million pounds per year. Similar
 reductions have been seen in Canada with transgenic rapeseed, according to the
 Canola Council of Canada.
 In less developed nations where pesticides are typically sprayed on crops by
 hand, transgenic pest-resistant crops have had even greater benefits. In China,
 for example, some 400 to 500 cotton farmers die every year from acute pesticide
 poisoning. A study conducted by researchers at Rutgers University in the United
 States and the Chinese Academy of Sciences found that adoption of transgenic
 cotton varieties in China has lowered the amount of pesticides used by more than
 75 percent and reduced the number of pesticide poisonings by an equivalent
 amount. Another study by economists at the University of Reading in Britain
 found that South African cotton farmers have seen similar benefits.
 The reduction in pesticide spraying also means that fewer natural resources are
 consumed to manufacture and transport the chemicals. Researchers at Auburn
 University and Louisiana State University in the United States found that, in
 2000 alone, U.S. farmers growing transgenic cotton used 2.4 million fewer
 gallons of fuel, 93 million fewer gallons of water, and were spared some 41,000
 10-hour days needed to apply pesticide sprays.
 Transgenic herbicide-tolerant crops have promoted the adoption of farming
 practices that reduce tillage or eliminate it altogether. Low-tillage practices
 can decrease soil erosion by up to 90 percent compared to conventional
 cultivation, saving valuable topsoil, improving soil fertility, and dramatically
 reducing sedimentation in lakes, ponds, and waterways.
 The productivity gains generated by transgenic crops provide yet another
 important environmental benefit: they could save millions of hectares of
 sensitive wildlife habitat from being converted into farmland. The loss and
 fragmentation of wildlife habitats caused by agricultural development in regions
 experiencing the greatest population growth are widely recognized as among the
 most serious threats to biodiversity. Thus, increasing agricultural productivity
 is an essential environmental goal, and one that would be much easier in a world
 where agricultural biotechnology is in widespread use.
 Opponents of biotechnology argue that organic farming can reduce pesticide use
 even more than transgenic crops can. But as much as 40 percent of crop
 productivity in Africa and Asia and about 20 percent in the industrialized
 countries of North America and Europe are lost to insect pests, weeds, and plant
 diseases. Organic production methods would only exacerbate those crop losses.
 There is no way for organic farming to feed a global population expected to grow
 to 8 or 9 billion people without having to bring substantially more land into
 agricultural use.
 Fortunately, many transgenic varieties that have been created specifically for
 use in less developed nations will soon be ready for commercialization. Examples
 include insect-resistant rice varieties for Asia, virus-resistant sweet potato
 for Africa, and virus-resistant papaya for Caribbean nations. The next
 generation of transgenic crops now in research labs around the world is poised
 to bring even further productivity improvements for the poor soils and harsh
 climates that are characteristic of impoverished regions.
 Scientists have already identified genes for resistance to environmental
 stresses common in tropical nations, including tolerance to soils with high
 salinity and to those that are particularly acidic or alkaline. Other transgenic
 varieties can tolerate temporary drought conditions or extremes of heat and
 cold.
 Biotechnology also offers hope of improving the nutritional benefits of many
 foods. Among the most well known is the variety called "Golden Rice,"
 genetically enhanced with added beta carotene, which is converted to vitamin A
 in the human body. Another variety developed by the same research team has
 elevated levels of digestible iron.
 The diet of more than 3 billion people worldwide includes inadequate levels of
 essential vitamins and minerals, such as vitamin A and iron. Deficiency in just
 these two micronutrients can result in severe anemia, impaired intellectual
 development, blindness, and even death. And even though charities and aid
 agencies such as the United Nations Childrens' Fund and the World Health
 Organization have made important strides in reducing vitamin A and iron
 deficiency, success has been fleeting. No permanent effective strategy has yet
 been devised, but Golden Rice may finally provide one.
 Importantly, the Golden Rice project is a prime example of the value of
 extensive public sector and charitable research activities. The rice's
 development was funded mainly by the New York-based Rockefeller Foundation,
 which has promised to make the rice available to poor farmers at little or no
 cost. It was created by scientists at public universities in Switzerland and
 Germany with assistance from the Philippines-based International Rice Research
 Institute (IRRI) and from several multinational corporations.
 Golden Rice is not the only example. Scientists at publicly funded, charitable,
 and corporate research centers are developing such crops as cassava, papaya, and
 wheat with built-in resistance to common plant viruses; rice that can more
 efficiently convert sunlight and carbon-dioxide for faster growth; potatoes that
 produce a vaccine against hepatitis B; bananas that produce a vaccine against
 cholera; and countless others. One lab at Tuskegee University is enhancing the
 level of dietary protein in sweet potatoes, a common staple crop in sub-Saharan
 Africa.
 Admittedly, experts recognize that the problem of hunger and malnutrition is not
 currently caused by a global shortage of food. The primary causes of hunger in
 recent decades have been political unrest and corrupt governments, poor
 transportation and infrastructure, and, of course, poverty. All of these
 problems and more must be addressed if we are to ensure real, worldwide food
 security. But producing enough for 8 or 9 billion people will require greater
 yields in the regions where food is needed most, and transgenic crops are good,
 low-input tools for achieving this.
 Although the complexity of biological systems means that some promised benefits
 of biotechnology are many years away, the biggest threat that hungry populations
 currently face are restrictive policies stemming from unwarranted public fears.
 Although most Americans tend to support agricultural biotechnology, many
 Europeans and Asians have been far more cautious. Anti-biotechnology campaigners
 in both industrialized and less developed nations are feeding this ambivalence
 with scare stories that have led to the adoption of restrictive policies. Those
 fears are simply not supported by the scores of peer-reviewed scientific reports
 or the data from tens of thousands of individual field trials.
 Mankind has been modifying the genetic makeup of plants for thousands of years,
 often in ways that could have had adverse environmental impacts and that
 routinely introduced entirely new genes, proteins, and other substances into the
 food supply. Food-grade tomatoes and potatoes are routinely bred from wild
 varieties that are toxic to human beings, for example. But plant breeders,
 biologists, and farmers have identified methods to keep potentially dangerous
 plants from entering the food chain.
 The evidence clearly shows there is no difference between the practices
 necessary to ensure the safety of transgenic plants and the safety of
 conventional ones. In fact, because more is known about the genes that are moved
 in transgenic breeding methods, ensuring the safety of transgenic plants is
 actually easier. But the public's reticence about transgenic plants has resulted
 in extensive regulations that require literally thousands of individual safety
 tests that are often duplicative and largely unnecessary for ensuring
 environmental protection or consumer safety. In the end, over-cautious rules
 result in hyperinflated research and development costs and make it harder for
 poorer countries to share in the benefits of biotechnology.
 Perhaps more importantly, restrictions on transgenic plants and onerous labeling
 requirements for biotech foods have caused many governments to block
 commercialization -- not out of health or environmental concerns but because of
 a legitimate fear that important European markets could be closed to their
 exports. As last year's United Nations Development Report acknowledged,
 opposition by European consumers and very strict legal requirements in European
 Union member nations have held back the adoption of transgenic crops in
 underdeveloped nations that need them.
 Furthermore, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, adopted in January 2000, will
 tend to reinforce these counterproductive policies because it permits
 governments to erect unwarranted restrictions based on the Precautionary
 Principle, the notion that even hypothetical risks should be enough to keep new
 products off the market, regardless of their potential benefits. Thus, EU
 nations can restrict imports of transgenic crops from both industrialized and
 less developed nations, no matter how much scientific data have been presented
 showing them to be safe, because opponents can always hypothesize yet another
 novel risk.
 Admittedly, advocates have to take the public's concerns more seriously. Better
 sharing of information and a more forthright public dialogue are necessary to
 explain why scientists are confident that transgenic crops are safe. No one
 argues that we should not proceed with caution, but needless restrictions on
 agricultural biotechnology could dramatically slow the pace of progress and keep
 important advances out of the hands of people who need them. This is the tragic
 side effect of unwarranted concern.
 Ultimately, biotechnology is more than just a new and useful agricultural tool.
 It could also be a hugely important instrument of economic development in many
 poorer regions of the globe. By making agriculture more productive, labor and
 resources could be freed for use in other areas of economic growth in nations
 where farming currently occupies 70 or 80 percent of the population. This, in
 turn, would be an important step in the journey toward genuine food security.
 The choice is clear. Innovators must proceed with due caution. But as a report
 jointly published by the United Kingdom's Royal Society, the National Academies
 of Science from Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and the United States, and the
 Third World Academy of Science contends: "It is critical that the potential
 benefits of [transgenic] technology become available to developing countries."
 It is also critical that industrialized countries not stand in their way.
 Note: The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the
 views or policies of the U.S. Department of State.
 (end text)
 (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
 Department of State.)
 LOAD-DATE: May 10, 2002
            Copyright 2002 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 51
 
                               The Washington Times
                      May 09, 2002, Thursday, Final Edition
 Beating the 'Frankenfood' rap
 BYLINE: By Michael Fumento, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES
 SECTION: COMMENTARY; Pg. A18
 LENGTH: 1021 words
 Wh-wh-wh-what happened?
 That's what anti-biotech activists must be asking themselves in light of a new
 Agriculture Department survey showing that more transgenic crops are being
 planted in this country than ever.
 Just two years ago, a gleeful scholar at the Worldwatch Institute declared in an
 International Herald-Tribune op-ed that, "After four years of supercharged
 growth, American farmers are expected to reduce their planting of genetically
 engineered seeds by as much as 25 percent in 2000 as spreading public resistance
 staggers the once high-flying biotech industry." Margaret Mellon of the
 anti-biotech Union of Concerned Scientists gloated that the year "probably
 represents a turning point for the technology."
 Better spray some Windex on that crystal ball, folks. Biotech plantings actually
 increased in 2000 and like a certain pink bunny, they just keep on going.
 About 74 percent of this year's soy crop, or 54 million acres, will be
 genetically engineered, compared with 68 percent last year and 54 percent in
 2000, according to the Agriculture Department. Some 32 percent of the corn crop,
 or 25.3 million acres, will be of biotech varieties, compared with 26 percent in
 2001 and 25 percent the year before. About 10.5 million acres of cotton, or 71
 percent of this year's cotton crop, will be bioengineered, compared to 69 last
 year.
 The activists gave it their best shot. They tried to convince us biotech corn
 would kill butterflies, but two years of field research proved that wrong. Then
 they tried to scare consumers about tainted tacos, but the public correctly
 shrugged that off as just another food scare. Further, surveys show that the
 more Americans realize we've all been eating these foods for several years now,
 the more comfortable we become with them.
 And so long as there's demand, farmers are only too happy to meet it. "Farmers
 and producers are very smart people," says Martina McGloughlin, director of the
 University of California at Davis Biotechnology Program. "They know these crops
 are saving them huge amounts of money and time." Ms. McGloughlin, who comes from
 a farm background herself, says farmers "Spend less time formulating complex
 cocktails of chemicals and a lot less time spraying."
 As to money, Leonard Gianessi, program director for the D.C.-based National
 Center for Food & Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) is releasing a study in June
 showing that, "Corn farmers are paying on average an extra $6.50 per acre for
 this technology and getting $8 or $9 back on that." Further, "The EPA's numbers
 claim greater benefits for the technology than even we do," he says.
 The environment also comes out a winner, says Ms. McGloughlin.
 For example, plants genetically engineered to resist the herbicide glyphosate
 allow the chemical to be sprayed "over the top" of crop and weeds alike, thereby
 reducing or eliminating the need for turning up the soil to kill weeds. No-till
 farming tremendously reduces runoff of valuable topsoil. Further, "by killing
 the weeds and leaving them in place, farmers are holding onto more plant debris
 and finding that birds and other small wildlife are returning to the fields,"
 Ms. McGloughlin says.
 Yet both here and abroad, activism and ignorance remain powerful forces against
 progress. Glyphosate-resistant sugar beets have been available for two years,
 but are being held back for fear of "Frankenfood" accusations.
 Likewise for a sweet corn variety with built-in protection against insects. A
 Florida study shows this could reduce insecticide sprayings from 12 to just two
 for 80 percent of the crops, "But the seed is just rotting away because farmers
 are afraid of negative reaction," Mr. Gianessi told me.
 Elsewhere resistance is weakening, though hardly at Mach speeds. "All around the
 world, there has been real progress in the acceptance of the technology and
 acceptance of crops using the technology," says Christian Verschueren, director
 general of Brussels-based CropLife International, a global industry umbrella
 group. "The debate in Europe is still vigorous and ongoing, but it's probably
 less so on the food safety side and more on cultural and socioeconomic grounds."
 European farmers receive tremendous subsidies that have encouraged unproductive
 techniques, creating a large disparity between their efficiency and that of
 their American brethren. U.S.-grown biotech crops threaten to widen that
 disparity and increase subsidies. Alleged safety concerns can also be a way
 around international trade agreements and thus a way to bar import competition.
 Still, Mr. Verschueren downplays these factors.
 "Europeans have a view of culture and tradition concerning food that equates to
 'naturalness,' traditional production methods and rules of origin," he says.
 "Americans must respect that, but at the same time Europeans must respect the
 rights and needs of persons in the developing world with populations that are
 both growing in size and affluence, both of which result in pressure to grow
 more food on the limited amount of land available for cultivation. I think
 everybody agrees we need to move toward a more sustainable world."
 Mr. Verschueren notes that some of the crops in the research pipeline like
 beta-carotene fortified golden rice, won't just help increase the quantity of
 food but "provide added value to food itself."
 India's just-announced approval of insect-resistant cotton was a stunning
 setback to biotech activists. Biotech cotton is projected to increase Indian
 yields - and the wealth of its farmers - by as much as 30 percent.
 Biotech agriculture was destined to prevail, just as gasoline-powered cars were
 destined to defeat steam-powered vehicles. But what is not inevitable is the
 rate of progress. Activists continue to fight a well-organized holding action.
 So long as they do, much of the world and even the U.S. will be denied the
 wonderful bounties of biotech.
 Michael Fumento is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in D.C., where he's
 completing a book titled: "BioEvolution: How Biotechnology Is Changing our
 World."
 LOAD-DATE: May 9, 2002
                     Copyright 2002 The Washington Times LLC
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 52
 
                                 State Department
                                February 22, 2002
 Text: NAS Cites Need for Increased Regulation of Biotech Crops; Also calls for
 monitoring crops approved for commercial use
 LENGTH: 1751 words
 A report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) says genetically engineered
 crops should be more rigorously reviewed for potential environmental effects
 before being approved for commercial use and that the public should be more
 involved in the review process.
 According to a February 21 press release, the new report by a
  committee of the academy's National Research Council also said that the U.S.
 Department of Agriculture (USDA) needs to do a better job of monitoring
 genetically engineered crops after they are approved for commercial use.
 "USDA has substantially improved its regulation of transgenic plants, but the
 process could be improved further by soliciting greater public input, enhancing
 scientific peer review, and more clearly presenting the data and methods behind
 regulatory decisions," the committee said.
 The committee said there is no evidence that genetically engineered crops have
 harmed the environment. It added, however, that some transgenic crops are
 engineered to produce a pesticide that could potentially harm or kill non-target
 insects or other animals, or allow targeted pests to develop immunity to the
 pesticide. The committee found that USDA's treatment of these two issues in its
 environmental assessments is generally superficial.
 "The agency should either increase the rigor of its analysis of pest resistance
 and impacts on non-target species, or completely defer to the U.S. Environmental
 Protection Agency, which also assesses these risks," it said.
 The committee also emphasized that USDA does not conduct post-commercialization
 monitoring for environmental effects. The committee recommended that monitoring
 be conducted to detect unanticipated or long-term environmental impacts.
 The committee added that large-scale planting might cause environmental effects
 or impact non-target organisms in ways that could go undetected in the
 pre-commercialization testing phase.
 The USDA sponsored the study, and it can be found at the following Web site:
 http://www.nap.edu
 Following is the text of the press release:
 (begin text)
 February 21, 2002
 Regulation of Transgenic Plants Should Be Reinforced; Field Monitoring for
 Environmental Effects Is Needed
 WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture should more rigorously review
 the potential environmental effects of new transgenic plants before approving
 them for commercial use, says a new report from the National Academies' National
 Research Council. The committee that wrote the report also said the public
 should be more involved in the review process and that ecological testing and
 monitoring should continue after transgenic plants have entered the marketplace.
 Appropriate environmental risk analysis and public acceptance of transgenic
 plants depend on a federal regulatory system and culture that communicates to
 society the seriousness with which potential environmental risks are being
 addressed, the report emphasizes.
 "USDA has substantially improved its regulation of transgenic plants, but the
 process could be improved further by soliciting greater public input, enhancing
 scientific peer review, and more clearly presenting the data and methods behind
 regulatory decisions," said committee chair Fred Gould, William Neal Reynolds
 Professor of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh. "Our report
 provides a detailed road map for the federal government to follow as it
 reinforces its assessment of environmental risks."
 While the committee called for an enhanced regulatory process for transgenic
 plants, it also noted that the current level of regulation for such plants is
 higher than for other agricultural products and practices. This is the case
 despite the fact that the committee did not find any strict distinctions between
 the types of environmental risks posed by plants genetically engineered through
 modern molecular techniques and those modified by conventional breeding
 practices. There is typically no formal assessment of potential environmental
 effects of newly introduced crop varieties produced by conventional breeding.
 There is no immediate need to regulate conventionally bred crops, but their
 potential environmental effects should be re-evaluated.
 The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) -- the arm of USDA
 responsible for regulating transgenic plants -- reviews about 1,000 applications
 each year from biotechnology companies wishing to field-test new transgenic
 plants or petitioning to have a plant deregulated altogether. Field-testing of
 most transgenic plants is approved through the "notification" process, whereby
 applicants notify APHIS that a plant meets general guidelines for not causing
 unwanted environmental effects. If the agency agrees, the plant can be grown
 while the company conducts further field-testing to rule out adverse
 environmental effects. But there is no public or independent scientific input in
 this process, and no limit to the acreage that can be planted.
 There also is a need to re-examine which transgenic plants should be tested and
 allowed to grow commercially through notification, the committee said. It
 discovered one case, for example, where it appears that a variety of corn that
 produces a protein with insecticidal properties, known as avidin, was grown
 commercially under the notification process.
 At the same time, however, the committee called notification an important step
 in effectively streamlining the field-testing review process. In fact, given
 what APHIS has learned about certain plant traits, it should be able to quickly
 screen many of the current generation of transgenic plants for potential
 environmental risks. More detailed investigations should be conducted only when
 preliminary testing indicates a possible risk.
 Most biotech companies commercialize transgenic plants by petitioning for
 non-regulated status -- in essence requesting APHIS to determine that there is
 no environmental risk associated with a specific transgenic plant. As part of
 this process, APHIS always conducts a formal environmental assessment that it
 publishes in the Federal Register, providing the public with a 60-day comment
 period. But the committee found that almost no one comments. It said that before
 making precedent-setting decisions regarding field-testing or deregulation,
 APHIS should solicit broad external scientific and public review well beyond the
 use of the Federal Register, and that the agency should convene a scientific
 advisory group before any changes in regulatory policy are made.
 Some transgenic plants are engineered to produce a pesticide, which could
 potentially harm or kill non-target organisms or allow pests to develop immunity
 to the pesticide. However, the committee found that APHIS's treatment of these
 two issues in its environmental assessments is generally superficial. The agency
 should either increase the rigor of its analysis of pest resistance and impacts
 on non-target species, or completely defer to the U.S. Environmental Protection
 Agency, which also assesses these risks.
 Because APHIS considers deregulation final, it does not conduct
 post-commercialization monitoring for environmental effects. The committee said
 that without systematic monitoring, however, there is no way to ensure that
 environmental damage has not occurred. It recommended that such monitoring take
 place to validate the pre-commercialization environmental testing and to spot
 unanticipated or long-term environmental impacts. Large-scale planting might
 cause environmental effects or impact non-target organisms in ways that could go
 undetected in the pre-commercialization testing phase. Validation testing can be
 carried out through existing USDA programs, but field-monitoring will require
 the development of an interactive program involving government agencies and
 academic scientists. Additional funding will be needed in both instances.
 The study was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The National
 Research Council is the principal operating arm of the National Academy of
 Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. It is a private, nonprofit
 institution that provides science and
  technology advice under a congressional charter. A committee roster follows.
 The report Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants: The Scope and Adequacy of
 Regulation is available on the Internet at  http://www.nap.edu.
 NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL Division on Earth and Life Studies Board on
 Agriculture and Natural Resources Board on Life Sciences
 Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of
 Transgenic Plants
 Frederic L. Gould (chair), William Neal Reynolds Professor of Entomology, North
 Carolina State University, Raleigh
 David A. Andow, Professor of Insect Ecology, Department of Entomology,
 University of Minnesota, St. Paul
 Bernd Blossey, Assistant Professor and Director Biological Control of
 Non-Indigenous Plant Species Program, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell
 University, Ithaca, N.Y.
 Ignacio Chapela, Assistant Professor College of Natural Resources, University of
 California, Berkeley
 Norman C. Ellstrand, Professor of Genetics, Department of Botany and Plant
 Sciences, University of California, Riverside
 Nicholas Jordan, Associate Professor, Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics,
 University of Minnesota, St. Paul
 Kendall R. Lamkey, Research Geneticist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and
 Professor, Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames
 Brian A. Larkins, Porterfeld Professor of Plant Sciences, and Professor of
 Molecular and Cellular Biology, Departments of Plant Sciences and Molecular and
 Cellular Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson
 Deborah K. Letourneau, Professor of Environmental Studies, University of
 California, Santa Cruz
 Alan G. McHughen, Biotechnology Specialist, University of California, Riverside
 Ronald L. Phillips, Regents' Professor and McKnight Presidential Chair in
 Genomics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul
 Paul B. Thompson, Joyce and Edward E. Brewer Distinguished Professor of
 Philosophy, and Director, Center for Food and Animal Productivity and
 Well-Being, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind.
 (end text)
 (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
 Department of State.)
 LOAD-DATE: February 22, 2002
            Copyright 2002 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 53
 
                            Bangor Daily News (Maine)
                     February 19, 2002 Tuesday, ALL EDITIONS
 UM researchers warn of seed contamination;
 Study confirms genetically modified corn can cross-pollinate with organically
 grown crops
 SECTION: B; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 825 words
 Two University of Maine researchers are recommending that farmers who raise
 organic corn take special precautions to ensure their crops are free from
 cross-pollination if genetically modified corn is grown in nearby fields.
 The scientists recently completed a two-year study that confirmed that organic
 crops can be contaminated by wind drift of pollen from transgenic crops.
 They are also cautioning organic farmers to be extremely careful about where
 they purchase seed, having discovered some of their own conventional seed to be
 contaminated with genetically modified seed.
 "Farmers who plant within 100 feet of transgenic crops can expect some pollen
 transfer," said Michael Vayda of the UMaine Department of Biochemistry,
 Microbiology and Molecular Biology.
 Vayda, in partnership with John Jemison of Cooperative Extension, conducted a
 two-year study which confirmed Monday that genetically modified corn can
 cross-pollinate with conventional hybrid corn.
 Jemison is an agronomist and water quality specialist for Cooperative Extension,
 and Vayda is a molecular biologist.
 In August of 1999, anti-transgenic activists armed with machetes entered
 Jemison's test plots and destroyed more than 1,000 corn plants. Although no one
 was ever charged in the incident, activists claimed the genetically engineered
 corn would drift onto organic crops when it bloomed.
 While the survey results did not surprise the UMaine scientists, Vayda said the
 study was complicated by the presence of genetically modified seed in bags of
 conventional seed. In compiling the results, Jemison and Vayda found that their
 supply of conventional seed contained a low level of genetically modified seed.
 Vayda said the seed had been commercially purchased. "The suggestion is that
 organic growers should be very sure of their seed source," said Vayda. He would
 not identify the supplier of the seed.
 Vayda said the drift issue is important because the presence of genetically
 modified components means that crops cannot be certified as organic under the
 standards of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the Maine Organic Farmers and
 Gardeners Association. The researchers found that 0.16 percent of the seeds in a
 conventional hybrid batch was genetically modified.
 "That is considered a very low level," said Vayda. "The European Union sets 0.01
 percent as their importation level and one-half of a percent is the level set by
 Japan and Switzerland. But the USDA sets zero percent."
 The purpose of trials conducted in 1999 and 2000 at the University of Maine's
 Rogers Farm was to determine rates of cross-pollination between plots of
 conventional and genetically modified corn grown at varying distances from each
 other.
 Vayda and Jemison grew plots of conventional hybrid corn to the south and east
 of plots of genetically modified corn known as Roundup Ready. In the 1999 trial,
 cross-pollination amounted to 1 percent or less in the conventional plots that
 were 100 to 130 feet east of the Roundup Ready plot. The rate of
 cross-pollination declined with distance.
 Vayda said that was expected since prevailing winds during the summer blow from
 southwest to northeast. No cross-pollination was recorded in a conventional corn
 plot that was 1,150 feet to the southwest of the genetically modified plots.
 In 2000, the results were complicated by the presence of a small amount of
 genetically modified seed in the conventional seed supplied for the research. As
 in 1999, the field trials showed about a 1 percent cross-pollination rate, but
 contrary to the previous year, the presence of the Roundup Ready gene increased
 slightly with increasing distance from the genetically modified plot.
 It was also present in conventional plots planted to the south of the Roundup
 Ready plot. Roundup, also known by its chemical name, glyphosate, is an
 herbicide that works by blocking protein synthesis in plants and thus causes the
 plants to wither and die. Roundup Ready crops carry a gene that allows it to
 continue protein synthesis and thus resist glyphosate.
 In the course of their studies, Jemison and Vayda harvested corn from the
 experimental plots and dried and shelled the ears to retrieve the seed. To test
 the conventional corn for cross-pollination with the genetically modified
 pollen, they grew the seeds in flats in a greenhouse. When the plants were about
 two inches high, they were sprayed with glyphosate. The plants that survived
 were assumed to have incorporated the Roundup Ready gene, and those plants were
 analyzed in a laboratory to confirm the presence of the gene.
 As a result of the study, Jemison and Vayda suggested that organic farmers may
 need to take new steps to maintain their certification. They suggested keeping
 organic crops away from fields of genetically modified plants, not harvesting a
 few rows around the outside of their fields and purchasing supplies that are
 known to be free of genetically modified seeds.
 LOAD-DATE: February 19, 2002
                         Copyright 2002 Bangor Daily News









Document Number: 54
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                  January 27, 2002 Sunday Five Star Lift Edition
 BYLINE: Tina Hesman Of The Post-Dispatch
 SECTION: NEWSWATCH; Pg. B1
 LENGTH: 1631 words
 THE NEWS: Barry Commoner, who once led research into the effects of nuclear
 fallout, has written an article arguing that bioengineering could produce crops
 that are dangerous to humans and the environment.
 THE ISSUE: Commoner says that something other than DNA must be at work in the
 cellular production of proteins, and that scientists know less than they claim
 about the safety of biotech crops. Mainstream scientists say Commoner is
 twisting facts to support an anti-biotech agenda.
 The man who convinced Baby Boomers to forsake the Tooth Fairy and donate their
 teeth to science has a new campaign. This time environmentalist Barry Commoner
 is contesting the fundamental principles of genetics and railing against the
 biotechnology industry.
 Commoner says there is evidence that biotechnology is built on a shaky
 foundation, and may produce plants and animals that unwittingly endanger human
 health and the environment. But mainstream scientists say it's Commoner who has
 the weak argument and is twisting scientific fact and misinforming the public to
 further his own agenda.
 At issue is the very stuff of life -- DNA. Only a year after academic and
 industry scientists offered the first look at the complete set of genetic
 instructions that make up a human, Commoner is suggesting that the scientists
 are ignoring the most important conclusion of the multibillion-dollar project -
 that the central dogma of biology is wrong. Commoner presented his view in an
 article in the February issue of Harp er's Magazine, bolstered by evidence
 plucked from scientific literature about topics as diverse as the Human Genome
 Project and mad cow disease.
 The central dogma holds that DNA is the genetic material responsible for passing
 along inherited traits. Scientists used to say that a single DNA gene holds the
 instructions for making a single protein with a specific function.
 In bacteria and other simple organisms that's mostly true, but in more complex
 plants and animals it's a different situation, said Phillips Kuhl, president of
 Cambridge Healthtech, a biotechnology information company.
 As scientists from the Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics discovered,
 human beings carry only 30,000 to 50,000 genes. But, Kuhl said, those genes may
 produce five to 10 times as many different proteins - proteins that are needed
 to carry out all the necessary functions of life. No one knows exactly how many
 genes there are. But then, no one knows how many proteins are made either. Some
 proteins may be made only under very specific conditions, and cells may trim the
 protein or tack on chemical groups to alter the ones that are made. Some
 scientists estimate that more than 500,000 protein variants could be built from
 the basic DNA blueprints in a cell, Kuhl said.
 So many necessary proteins, so few genes leave a cell with only one choice - it
 must make the most of what it's got.
 What a cell has is basically a long stretch of DNA with directions for building
 proteins. The instructions are arranged in genes, which are further broken into
 modular units known as exons. Each exon encodes a piece of a protein.
 Cells can mix and match exons to produce different proteins, much like snapping
 together Lego blocks to build castles or barns.
 For Commoner, this molecular tinkering - a process known as alternative splicing
 - is evidence that something besides DNA is directing which proteins are made
 and what they do. That means, he says, that the central dogma is wrong. And if
 that's the case, it means scientists don't fully understand what happens when a
 gene from one organism is spliced into another.
 Such practices have become common in agricultural biotechnology. Scientists have
 inserted natural pesticide genes from bacteria into corn and cotton plants, made
 soybeans and other crops resistant to herbicides, and built defense mechanisms
 against fungus and virus diseases into plants using genetic engineering.
 Educating or advocating
 Commoner first put forward his view that DNA is not the only genetic material in
 the 1960s, in articles published in the British journal Nature - the same
 journal that carried the first report of the structure of DNA and last year
 published a publicly funded project's version of the human genome.
 Commoner's view was widely decried in the scientific community in the 1960s and
 led scientist and writer Isaac Asimov to observe, "If Commoner disapproves of
 the incoming tide and wishes to amuse himself by standing on the shore and
 commanding it to stop, he may. He may also quote as many authorities as he likes
 to impress the waves. But he will get his feet wet just the same."
 For decades Commoner turned his attention to other environmental issues, but he
 says he never converted to the faith of those who follow the central dogma.
 "I have never run into any reasons to change my views," Commoner said. "The
 argument hasn't changed, it's just gotten a lot stronger."
 But scientists involved in molecular biology and biotechnology dispute that
 assertion. They say Commoner has distorted and misinterpreted data, packaging it
 for public consumption.
 "I have never really spoken into the ear of the king. I don't believe in it,"
 Commoner said.
 Instead, he'll take his case to the people, just as he's done for other
 environmental issues. An educated public has the tools to influence government
 policy and keep industry in line, he asserts.
 Scientists familiar with Commoner's view say he may be doing a public
 disservice.
 "He's not educating people about science. He's advocating for a cause," said
 Bruce Chassy, Assistant Dean of Biotechnology Communication and Outreach at the
 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "His view of what science believes
 is horrifically over-simplified. He's interpreting the world to vindicate his
 belief."
 Far from ignoring the important discoveries of molecular biology, scientists
 have celebrated them, even awarding Nobel prizes for work that may seem at first
 glance to counter the central dogma, said Richard Wilson, a co-director of the
 Genome Sequencing Center at Washington University.
 "While we've learned a tremendous amount about mammalian genetics in the last
 few decades (and the human genome project is a cornerstone in this), there is
 still much to learn about how it's all put together. Yes, we should be careful.
 No, we shouldn't write off all that has been learned as a big sham," Wilson said
 in an e-mail.
 The argument probably comes down to a matter of semantics, Kuhl said. It all
 depends on how you define a gene, he said. Although molecular biologists have
 uncovered surprising cellular tricks, the fundamental principles of the central
 dogma still hold, he said. DNA is the inherited genetic material. RNA - a close
 chemical cousin of DNA - is used as an intermediate molecule to ultimately
 produce proteins. (Because DNA is an important archive of genetic information,
 cells make RNA copies of genes. Those copies can be edited, or even shredded
 without losing any of the data tucked safely away in the DNA.) Proteins then
 drive chemical reactions within cells. No discrepancies with the central dogma
 here, scientists say.
 And if details are a little murky, well, that's just part of the miracle of
 life, not something to be feared, they say.
 Plants give pause
 Commoner is much less comfortable with the unknown when it comes to genetically
 engineered plants (sometimes called transgenic crops). "Research on transgenic
 plants is wonderful. It belongs in the laboratory," Commoner said. "We simply
 don't know enough to assert that in putting trillions of these plants out into
 the open, nothing untoward is going to happen."
 It was easy to get the public and other scientists on board to help stop nuclear
 fallout - the danger was clear and easy to understand - but it will probably be
 much more difficult to get scientists to let go of deeply entrenched beliefs
 about the way genes work, Commoner said. He says the stakes may be even higher
 this time.
 "Here the dangers are more insidious, and, in the long run, may be even more
 powerful because of the changes made in living things," Commoner said.
 But nature has been makingchanges in living things for billions of years, often
 running random and sometimes cruel DNA experiments, Chassy said. The results of
 traditional plant breeding can be unexpected as well - sometimes creating plants
 that make people sick.
 When biotech companies such as Monsanto Co. of Creve Coeur invent a genetically
 engineered plant that can fend off insects or withstand herbicides, the plant
 must be scrutinized by a battery of tests. Eric S. Sachs, a Monsanto spokesman,
 says the tests are designed to find hidden allergens and toxins that could
 damage human health; ensure that the new crop is nutritionally equivalent to its
 parent plant; determine whether the plant has qualities that could pose
 environmental dangers; and prove that the newly created plant doesn't hold any
 other nasty surprises.
 "At the end of the day, we get what we want," Chassy said. "We end up with a
 plant that looks, tastes and feels exactly like the plant we started with,
 because that's the only plant we can sell."
 And if Monsanto or other seed companies used conventional cross-breeding
 techniques to produce an insect- or herbicide-resistant soybean plant, what
 would the company have to do to show the crop is safe?
 "The short answer is: nothing," said Sachs.
 That could mean that genetically engineered crops are even safer than their
 conventionally bred counterparts, Chassy said. Which is not to say that
 absolutely nothing can go awry with genetically engineered plants.
 "Can it be 100 percent ruled out?" Kuhl said. "No, because nothing can. Is it
 something I would stay up nights worrying about? No."
 LOAD-DATE: January 27, 2002
 LANGUAGE: English
 NOTES: Reporter Tina Hesman covers biotechnology and science for the
 Post-Dispatch.; Reporter Tina Hesman; E-mail: thesman@post-dispatch.com; Phone:
 GRAPHIC: GRAPHIC; Graphic / Chart / Illustration by POST-DISPATCH - How one gene
 can produce many proteins; (includes illustrations of DNA molecule, and RNA
 strand (showing Exon and Intron), Protein 1 and Protein 2; - The central tenet
 of biology holds that the master genetic information contained in DNA is used to
 make proteins, which carry out the chemical functions inside a cell.; - Cells
 use an easily readable single stranded RNA copy of the DNA instructions as an
 intermediate for making protein.; - Genes are found in DNA. In humans, genes are
 not continuous chunks of information, but are broken up into introns and exons.
 Exonscontain instructions for making pieces of protein. Introns are spacers
 between exons. Scientists used to think introns were "junk" DNA, but now they
 know that some introns actually contain valuable genetic information.; - When
 RNA copies of genes are made, introns are removed to make a continuous set of
 blueprints for building a protein.; - By stitching together different exons on a
 gene -- a process known as alternative splicing -- a single DNA gene can code
 for several different proteins with different functions; Source: "The Human
 Genome" (Nature Publishing Corp., 2001)
                   Copyright 2002 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 55
 
                           The San Francisco Chronicle
 Study finds genes do jump fields;
 New data on bio-engineered crops
 SOURCE: Chronicle Environment Writer
 BYLINE: Jane Kay
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A3
 LENGTH: 438 words
 Genes from bio-engineered crops can jump fields and contaminate native crops,
 scientists at the University of California at Berkeley have discovered in remote
 cornfields in Oaxaca, Mexico.
 The study, released today in the journal Nature, found that some indigenous
 varieties of corn grown in a region prized for its rich biological diversity
 contained traces of DNA from genetically modified plants.
 Some scientists fear that the introduction of foreign genes could reduce genetic
 diversity in the country's native corn varieties. Plants carrying introduced
 genes could begin to dominate the population, reducing other traits that offer
 natural resistance to insects and disease. Traditional breeders use some of
 these traits to improve commercial crops.
 "For a long time, we've been assured that the transgenic crops wouldn't move out
 from where they were planted so there was no risk of cross-contamination," said
 Ignacio Chapela, an assistant professor of microbial ecology at UC Berkeley.
 "Finding it in such a sensitive, delicate place makes it evident that the
 assurances weren't true," Chapela said. Chapela and graduate student David Quist
 are co-authors of the study.
 In the study, the scientists compared a native corn variety, called "criollo,"
 from the region of Sierra Norte de Oaxaca with a collection of seeds taken from
 the same fields in 1971 before genetically engineered crops existed. They also
 compared the criollo to blue maize grown in the Cuzco Valley in Peru.
 The study found no signs of transgenic DNA in the criollo seeds collected in
 1971 nor in the Peruvian native seeds.
 But in the modern criollo corn, four out of six samples showed evidence of a DNA
 segment, called a "promoter," widely used in bioengineering. In addition, two of
 the samples contained another DNA segment commonly used by genetic engineers,
 and one sample contained a gene inserted to make corn produce an insecticide
 that kills corn borers.
 On Sept. 18, Mexico's Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources
 announced it found the contamination in 15 places, citing separate work by
 Mexican and Berkeley scientists. The Berkeley research is being published today
 in Nature.
 The Mexican government banned the planting of genetically engineered corn in
 1998 after two years of cultivation. The government worried that cross
 contamination would pollute one of the world's last repositories of native
 varieties of corn.
 None can say how the contamination occurred. The possibilities include illegal
 plantings of biotech corn later sold for food in Mexico. E-mail Jane Kay at
 jkay@sfchronicle.com.
 LOAD-DATE: November 29, 2001
                   Copyright 2001 The Chronicle Publishing Co.









Document Number: 56
 
                     San Bernardino Sun (San Bernardino, CA)
                            October 31, 2001 Wednesday
 Growing Health Or Hazard?;
 Molecular farming pushes ahead as activists urge strict standards
 LENGTH: 529 words
 In a greenhouse tucked away in Indianapolis flourishes corn being engineered to
 provide the active ingredients in gels that fight herpes and kill sperm.
 On 27 acres of Kentucky farmland grows tobacco that someday may actually help
 fight cancer.
 And in the tiny northern California farming town of Live Oak, rice laced with
 disease-fighting antibiotics usually found in mother's milk sprouts on a 10-acre
 paddy.
 It's called molecular farming, and it's blossoming at biotechnology start-ups
 across the country.
 The idea is to implant human genes into crops to grow disease-fighting proteins,
 which can then be extracted and turned into profitable drugs and therapies.
 Molecular farming seeks to "grow" human therapies in the fields and crack the
 antibody drug market, which had $2 billion in sales last year and is expected to
 grow to $8 billion by 2004.
 Some biotech companies have been able to grow antibodies in labs and turn them
 into drugs. Proponents say molecular farming could significantly cut the costs
 of developing such substances.
 Ten genetically engineered antibody drugs are on the market today, all developed
 using mice. Among the best known is Herceptin, which is used in treating some
 breast cancers and made by Genentech.
 Typically, it takes $100 million to $500 million and up to 10 years to discover,
 develop and deliver a single such drug. Molecular farmers believe they do it for
 as little as $50 million.
 But technological obstacles loom. Few of these plant-generated proteins have
 been tested in people.
 One of the furthest along, Large Scale Biology's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma test at
 Stanford University, involves just 16 subjects and is in Phase I testing, the
 first and smallest of the three human trials required.
 "Molecular pharmers" hope FDA approval for wider trials will be easier because
 their drugs don't involve another animal species, and so there is no danger of
 animal viruses infecting people.
 But they must not only persuade the FDA that their drugs are safe. They must
 also show the Department of Agriculture that their transgenic crops aren't
 likely to contaminate the food supply.
 Activists who reject genetically modified food as unsafe because it is not fully
 understood, they say will be watching closely, determined to keep up the
 pressure for strict safety standards.
 In September, Greenpeace protested at a farm growing rice for Applied
 Phytologics Inc., which is experimenting with growing human proteins found in
 mother's milk. The company's USDA-approved buffer zone was a four-foot row of
 traditional rice, but Greenpeace said the impact of the transgenic rice hadn't
 been studied.
 And Greenpeace's Jeanne Merrill points to the StarLink debacle last year.
 StarLink, a genetically engineered corn, won government approval as animal feed
 but not for human consumption.
 Though StarLink was grown on less than 1 percent of the U.S. corn acreage and
 was thought to be tightly regulated, it cross-pollinated widely, triggering
 nationwide recalls of taco shells, corn chips and other foods.
 "Can you imagine if sperm-killing corn got loose in the environment like that?"
 Merrill said.
 LOAD-DATE: October 13, 2003
                       Copyright 2001 MediaNews Group, Inc.









Document Number: 57
 
                         Bismarck Tribune (North Dakota)
                     October 28, 2001, Sunday, METRO EDITION
 Contraceptive corn, healthy tobacco: 'pharming' takes root
 BYLINE: PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press
 SECTION: Pg. 4B
 LENGTH: 963 words
 In a greenhouse tucked away in Indianapolis flourishes corn being engineered to
 provide the active ingredients in gels that fight herpes and kill sperm.
 On 27 acres of Kentucky farmland grows tobacco that someday may actually help
 fight cancer.
 And in the tiny northern California farming town of Live Oak, rice laced with
 disease-fighting antibiotics usually found in mother's milk sprouts on a 10-acre
 paddy.
 It's called molecular farming, and it's blossoming at biotechnology start-ups
 across the country.
 The idea is to implant human genes into crops to grow disease-fighting proteins,
 which can then be extracted and turned into profitable drugs and therapies.
 Some companies trick crops into accepting human genes spliced into the plants'
 DNA. Seeking to produce a contraceptive, Epicyte Pharmaceuticals Inc. is
 splicing into corn a genetic defect found in some women with the aim of making
 the plant generate a protein that kills sperm.
 Another company, Large Scale Biology Corp., sprays plant viruses injected with
 human genes onto tobacco plants; the resulting infections produce
 cancer-fighting human antibodies.
 Molecular farming offers an elementary yet revolutionary proposition: It seeks
 to 'grow' human therapies in the fields and crack the antibody drug market,
 which had $ 2 billion in sales last year and is expected to grow to $ 8 billion
 by 2004.
 Some biotech companies have been able to grow antibodies -- disease-fighting
 proteins that protect the body -- in labs and turn them into drugs. Proponents
 say molecular farming could significantly cut the costs of developing such
 substances.
 Ten genetically engineered antibody drugs are on the market today, all developed
 using mice. Among the best known is Herceptin, which is used in treating some
 breast cancers and made by Genentech.
 It took Genentech, Novartis, MedImmune and other companies decades of research
 and hundreds of millions of dollars to persuade the Food and Drug Administration
 that these drugs would not harm humans. All ten are mass-produced in
 state-of-the-art laboratories in huge vats -- called bioreactors -- after the
 antibodies have been extracted from the mice where they are manufactured.
 Typically, it takes $ 100 million to $ 500 million and up to 10 years to
 discover, develop and deliver a single such drug.
 Molecular farmers believe they can get their drugs to market for as little as $
 50 million by using fields instead of bioreactors to grow the raw material --
 and because less costly laboratory processes could be used to refine the useful
 proteins for use in medicines.
 'We can inexpensively produce a huge number of high quality plants to
 manufacture human proteins,' said Robert Erwin, chief executive of Vacaville,
 Calif.-based Large Scale Biology.
 ProdiGene Inc., based in College Station, Texas, is developing eight human
 therapies, including a hepatitis B vaccine. It also says it won't need an
 elaborate infrastructure to produce its drugs. ProdiGene's main manufacturing
 tool -- corn -- is fueled by sun, air and water, said its chief scientist, John
 Howard.
 But technological obstacles loom. Few of these plant-generated proteins have
 been tested in people.
 One of the furthest along, Large Scale Biology's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma test at
 Stanford University, involves just 16 subjects and is in Phase I testing, the
 first and smallest of the three human trials required by the FDA for any drug.
 'Molecular pharmers' hope FDA approval for wider trials will be easier because
 their drugs don't involve another animal species, and so there is no danger of
 animal viruses infecting people.
 But they must not only persuade the FDA that their drugs are safe and effective.
 They must also show the Department of Agriculture that their transgenic crops
 aren't likely to contaminate the food supply.
 'Production of pharmaceutical compounds in crops is intriguing and possibly
 lucrative in the long run,' said C.S. Prakash, who manages the Center for Plant
 Bio Research at Tuskegee University in Alabama. 'It does take many years of
 research and the long regulatory process involving FDA and USDA to get their
 products out.'
 Both agencies began meeting last summer to draw up guidelines to better regulate
 biotechnology farming. Nothing formal has been proposed. Currently, a USDA
 permit is required to grow transgenic plants outdoors, and the crops must be
 isolated from fields that produce food.
 Activists who reject genetically modified food as unsafe -- because it is not
 fully understood, they say -- will be watching closely, determined to keep up
 the pressure for strict safety standards.
 In September, Greenpeace protesters donned biohazard suits and carried
 10-foot-tall syringes in front of a farm growing rice for Applied Phytologics,
 Inc., which is experimenting with growing human proteins found in mother's milk.
 The company's USDA-approved buffer zone was a four-foot row of traditional rice,
 and chief executive officer Frank Hagie said the experiment wouldn't harm
 humans, plants or animals. But Greenpeace said the impact of the transgenic rice
 hadn't been studied, and contamination couldn't be ruled out.
 'There are environmental concerns as well as unknown consequences,' Jeanne
 Merrill of Greenpeace said.
 All these companies insist their technologies are safe and that they've taken
 every security measure possible. Large Scale Biology sprays its tobacco crop in
 Kentucky with the tobacco mosaic virus, which 'can't be transmitted by pollen,
 insects or seeds,' Erwin said.
 ProdiGene and other companies say they control their bioengineered crops through
 every step of the process, from seed to harvest to disposal and field cleanup.
 'We have a very tight program,' Howard said.
 LOAD-DATE: October 29, 2001
                      Copyright 2001 The Bismarck Tribune,
                       a division of Lee Enterprises, Inc.









Document Number: 58
 
                         Contra Costa Times (California)
                       August 19, 2001 Sunday FINAL EDITION
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A08
 LENGTH: 2063 words
 DATELINE: CHESTERFIELD, Mo.
 CHESTERFIELD, Mo. For nine years, two dozen genetic engineers struggled to
 create a simple soybean that would stand up to a killer herbicide.
 After tens of thousands of mistakes, they thought they might have done it: They
 had created 100 seedlings laced with DNA from soil bacteria, a cauliflower virus
 and a petunia plant.
 They planned to test them cautiously in their Monsanto Co. labs. But an eager
 executive decided to test them all, to douse every plant with a highly potent
 concentration of the herbicide.
 The team leader, Stephen Padgette, raced to the greenhouse to plead that some
 seedlings be spared. But he was too late; the plants were sprayed.
 Every one of them survived.
 They became the first blockbuster biotech crop, sweeping across America's farms
 and into America's diet with astounding speed.
 Genetically modified soy has been on the market for just five years. But it
 accounts for two-thirds of the U.S. soybean harvest.
 Soy products are used in hundreds of processed foods, often to add texture and
 protein. So the biotech beans end up in pancake mix and baby formula, chicken
 soup and margarine, crackers and salad dressing, ice cream and granola bars.
 From lab to field to table, the story of engineered soy offers a window into the
 biotechnology revolution. It was the first staple crop to be successfully
 engineered and widely planted.
 And it offers the longest-running case study of the biotech experiment.
 Five years in, there are signs that the rapid spread of transgenic crops might
 be upending agricultural ecosystems throwing colonies of soil microbes out of
 balance and shifting the types of weeds that crop up most often on fertile
 fields.
 The experience of biotech soy also points out the lack of federal regulation,
 especially compared with other countries. The soy appeared in processed food
 even before the manufacturers knew it was there.
 And although Monsanto conducted extensive safety tests, critics warn that they
 were inadequate and raise questions about the enormous economic power that a
 company such as Monsanto wields.
 The United States has not seen the same type of biotech protests that have
 roiled Europe in recent years. But vandals protesting genetic engineering have
 destroyed some labs and test fields in their fury.
 And there is a small but fierce rebellion brewing among farmers who contend that
 the biotech business model is strangling the heartland by giving Monsanto too
 much power over global agriculture.
 Although competitors such as Du Pont Co. and Dow Chemical Co. are working to
 catch up, Monsanto dominates the biotech market: More than 90 percent of all
 transgenic crops planted worldwide were developed at the company's high-tech
 labs in suburban St. Louis.
 Monsanto's scientists have engineered not only two-thirds of the soy crop, but
 also two-thirds of all the cotton and a quarter of all the corn grown in the
 United States.
 The new seed is easier and often cheaper to grow. It can reduce the need for
 chemicals to control weeds and pests.
 Transgenic soy, cotton and corn are now planted on more than 75 million acres in
 every state except Alaska, Hawaii, Nevada and Rhode Island. Most U.S. livestock
 eat feed made with biotech grain.
 And 70 percent of processed foods have biotech ingredients.
 Despite European protests, the crops are popular overseas as well, especially in
 parts of Asia and South America.
 Monsanto executives see genetic engineering as a wonder tool that can help
 alleviate hunger by making food more nutritious and easier to grow. They take
 their triumph with these first few crops as proof that they can change the
 world.
 Their critics fear just that.
 In creating a soybean resistant to herbicide, Padgette's team labeled one embryo
 "40-3-2" during genetic trials: It had emerged as the first transgenic soybean.
 Monsanto called it "Roundup Ready," because it could be sprayed with its
 herbicide Roundup and suffer no harm. Just one hurdle remained before taking it
 to market.
 Although the Food and Drug Administration did not require any safety tests,
 Monsanto executives wanted to be sure they had a seal of approval from that
 agency, as well as from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental
 Protection Agency.
 But there was no regulatory process in place.
 So Roy Fuchs, Monsanto's director of regulatory science, was called upon to
 invent one. He came up with a list of tests he thought Monsanto should run to
 prove the soybeans safe. Then he compared notes with government regulators.
 Although the FDA did not require any specific safety tests of biotech food,
 other agencies around the world did. Monsanto plunged ahead.
 Roundup Ready soybeans were fed to quail, cattle and rats, to catfish in
 Mississippi and chickens in Missouri.
 There were toxicity tests to make sure the bean wasn't dangerous even in huge
 quantities. There were feed tests to make sure animals gained as much weight on
 a transgenic diet.
 The foreign protein in Roundup Ready soy was matched against a computer database
 to make sure it did not resemble any known allergen. It was plunked into
 simulated intestinal juice to see how the human gut would react.
 Every nutritional component of the biotech bean was analyzed and matched against
 conventional varieties.
 In all, Monsanto spent as much as $8 million on safety tests. The goal was to
 show a "reasonable certainty" that the beans would do no harm the FDA standard
 used for ordinary food.
 "A lot of people who oppose biotech would like us held to a standard of absolute
 safety, which is not possible," Fuchs said.
 "We would have to reinvent food, because food is not inherently safe." (Indeed,
 food produced through conventional cross-breeding sometimes is dangerous, from a
 potato loaded with toxins to a celery that causes a blistering rash.)
 Monsanto aimed to show that its transgenic crops were "substantially equivalent"
 to conventional ones. The FDA and several international groups, including the
 World Health Organization, have approved this standard.
 Using it, Monsanto has won approval for its soy from 30 regulatory agencies in
 18 countries. Opponents, however, are not reassured.
 "You're producing combinations of genes that cannot be made in nature," said
 Margaret Mellon, a molecular biologist and prominent foe of biotechnology.
 "You're putting bits of DNA, in some cases whole proteins, into crops when
 they've never been in the food system before. It seems to me that level of
 novelty is enough to merit an extra degree of scrutiny."
 "It's difficult to say anything is 100 percent certain, but we have a good
 handle on what we ought to be looking at" to ensure food safety, says Laura
 Tarantino, the FDA's deputy director of pre-market approval.
 "We're trying to use the best set of tests we know."
 The FDA has proposed making safety testing mandatory for biotech food. But the
 agency has no plans to dictate which tests companies should perform.
 To critics, letting biotech companies define and measure safety is akin to
 letting a student write and grade his own exam.
 Even Dan Glickman, former agriculture secretary, has expressed concern that
 products such as Roundup Ready beans have not received enough objective
 scrutiny, though he says he still believes they are safe.
 Glickman supervised approval of several biotech products that followed
 Monsanto's soy.
 Looking back now, he regrets that industry was allowed to take the lead, as
 regulators largely ceded their watchdog role.
 "Regulators even viewed themselves as cheerleaders for biotechnology," he said.
 "It was viewed as science marching forward, and anyone who wasn't marching
 forward was a Luddite."
 Monsanto says its research shows its soybeans perform as well as conventional
 varieties. They also have some positive environmental spinoffs.
 Farmers needn't churn the soil as much to loosen weeds, which cuts down on
 erosion.
 And because glyphosate, the chemical from which Roundup is made, is so
 effective, soybean growers have slashed both the number of chemicals they spray
 and the number of fuel-burning trips they take across their fields.
 But there have been some worrisome indicators, too.
 Research from the University of Georgia suggests that the genetic changes might
 have affected the soybean metabolism, causing stalks to grow brittle and split
 in extreme heat.
 A study at the University of Arkansas found some biotech beans fared badly in
 drought, perhaps because the Roundup spray damaged the soil bacteria that help
 soy plants draw in nutrients.
 Perhaps most troubling, USDA soil scientist Robert Kremer found in a four-year
 study that spraying Roundup over biotech beans seemed to touch off wild
 proliferation of fungi in the soil.
 Some fungi are fatal to soybeans. But Kremer says it's not short-term crop
 damage that concerns him.
 It's long-term shifts in soil ecology if Roundup is sprayed season after season
 on our most fertile fields.
 "These microbes in the soil are in a natural balance with each other, and if we
 keep putting the same chemicals in year after year, that could lead to a shift
 in the soil ecosystem, which could lead to problems down the road in terms of
 the soil's ability to nurture plant life," Kremer said.
 Monsanto says it is still studying the issue.
 Of equal concern are the shifts some farmers have noticed in weed populations.
 Since the introduction of Roundup Ready crops, glyphosate use has soared. It was
 applied on 20 percent of U.S. farm acreage in 1995; four years later, on 62
 percent.
 Although there are competing brands from other companies, the boom has been a
 windfall for Monsanto: Roundup sales brought in $2.6 billion last year.
 Some farmers now plant Roundup Ready crops year-round, rotating corn and
 soybeans; they may apply glyphosate four to six times a year on a single field.
 Although the EPA has determined that spraying crops with Roundup has no ill
 effect on the consumer, critics worry that such heavy use will speed the
 emergence of weeds that can tolerate glyphosate and will force farmers and home
 gardeners alike to turn to more toxic herbicides.
 Many growers seem resigned that weeds one day will outsmart Roundup. "It's
 happened with every herbicide we have," said Don Latham, an Iowa farmer.
 That conviction doesn't stop him from using Roundup Ready beans, though. In
 fact, Latham loves them.
 With conventional soy, he makes two passes over each field to spray three
 herbicides and still spends hours pulling stray weeds by hand. With the biotech
 crop, he sprays glyphosate once and kills every weed.
 Even factoring in the higher price of Roundup beans, he saves $22.50 an acre on
 chemicals and fuel. To him, biotech is a bargain.
 Other growers are not so sure.
 When a farmer buys a 50-pound sack of Roundup Ready soybeans, enough to plant
 about an acre and a quarter, he pays an extra $6.50 "technology fee."
 He also must sign a two-page contract promising not to save beans from his
 harvest to plant as seed the following season. This is a radical demand.
 Traditionally, about one-third of U.S. soybean growers have saved some of their
 harvest for seed, which saves them money.
 Monsanto spent at least $80 million to develop biotech soy.
 It owns eight patents on Roundup Ready beans, plus another two dozen on
 technologies developed during the 13 years of research and testing it took to
 bring the soy to market.
 Now, it's payback time. Or, as Brett Begemann, a vice president, put it: "To
 make that kind of investment, you have to get a return."
 Monsanto is catching flak from critics over its proprietary attitude toward the
 genes and technology that made its biotech blockbusters possible and power its
 $5.5 billion in annual sales.
 Monsanto does license its technology widely so other researchers can use its
 techniques. It also donates its know-how to work on Third World staples such as
 cassava.
 But that track record does not reassure critics who warn that Monsanto and a few
 other biotech leaders have increasing power to choke off competing research.
 "Who will determine the future of agricultural research? Are we as a society
 willing to turn this over to a handful of companies?" asked Hope Shand, research
 director of the Rural Advancement Foundation International.
 LOAD-DATE: November 7, 2001
 GRAPHIC: Los Angeles Times
 Photo 1, marchers protest genetically engineered foods in San Diego last month
 (Los Angeles Times)
                        Copyright 2001 Contra Costa Times
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 59
 
                          Telegraph Herald (Dubuque, IA)
                              August 17, 2001 Friday
 Biologist creates salt-resistant tomato, but little market for it;
 Bio-engineering: It is expected to thrive in saline soils
 SECTION: Pg. c6
 LENGTH: 450 words
 Plant biologist Eduardo Blumwald swears that the tomato he genetically
 engineered to be salt-resistant - despite thriving in the world's increasingly
 more saline soils - tastes as good as any in the local supermarket.
 "Of course, I'm biased," said Blumwald, a professor at the University of
 California, Davis.
 He also might be one of the few people ever to taste his new tomato. The plants
 were destroyed after his experiment ended, and bio-engineered foods just aren't
 selling. The public remains skeptical about so-called transgenic crops, so
 farmers don't want to grow them.
 "Biotech is taboo," said Tom Braner, business manager of Tanimura & Antle, which
 grows 240,000 acres of tomatoes in Five Points near Fresno. "Everybody wants
 organic. Nobody wants genetically modified food."
 Consumer fears are being fed by activists who are trying to discourage
 development of genetically altered food.
 "Nobody knows enough about the safety of these things," said Andy Kimbrell,
 executive director of the International Center for Technology Assessment in
 Washington, D.C. "I don't think anybody wants to participate in an experiment."
 All of which upsets Blumwald, who says his work is being misunderstood.
 Fully 40 percent of the world's farmland has been damaged by high-levels of salt
 from mineral-rich irrigation water, blocking plants from absorbing water and
 reducing crop output. Crops more resistant to salt need to be developed if the
 trend is to be reversed, Blumwald said.
 He also says he's merely "crossbreeding" plants, as farmers have done for
 centuries - though horticulturalists using traditional crossbreeding methods
 over the last century have failed to develop salt-resistant crops.
 Blumwald infused his tomatoes with a salt-fighting gene from arabidopsis, a
 cabbage relative. The resulting plants thrived in water containing 50 times more
 salt than normal. His findings were published this month in Nature
 Biotechnology.
 He believes his invention can be used in a variety of crops and bad soils,
 including the deserts of the Middle East and abandoned farmland in India.
 Others argue that developing salt-resistant plants won't improve the
 deteriorating conditions of the world's farmlands.
 "It's a Band-Aid," said Mark Lipson, co-owner of Molino Creek Farm, which grows
 organic tomatoes, adding that the real problem is over-irrigation of cropland by
 large corporations.
 Lipson and other organic farming proponents also are concerned that pollen from
 biotech crops will contaminate their organic plants. They fear that hard-to-kill
 super weeds will sprout from genetically modified pollen. Not enough research
 has been done to ensure safety, they say.
 SUBJECT: AGRICULTUREMEdical REsearch BIOTECHNOLOGY & GENETIC SCIENCE(93%);
 LOAD-DATE: August 23, 2001
                   Copyright 2001 Woodward Communications, Inc.









Document Number: 60
 
                                The New York Times
                               June 17, 2001 Sunday
                               Late Edition - Final
 On the Menu: Modified Genes
 SECTION: Section 4; Column 4; Editorial Desk; Pg. 14
 LENGTH: 168 words
 To the Editor:
 Re "As Biotech Crops Multiply, Consumers Get Little Choice" (front page, June
 The biotechnology industry rests on a very shaky scientific foundation.
 Its claim that genetic engineering is specific, precise and predictable and
 therefore safe depends on the theory that a single gene, transferred from one
 species into a second, unrelated one, will produce in this alien host only the
 same singular protein that it did originally.
 This is an untenable theory. As recent reports on the Human Genome Project have
 acknowledged, "gene splicing" in higher organisms can produce numerous different
 proteins from a single gene. In plants, the kinds of proteins can vary with
 temperature.
 The risk of harm from transgenic crops is inherently unpredictable and, if it
 occurs, so difficult to remedy that it is a risk not worth taking.
 Flushing, Queens, June 12, 2001
 The writer is director of the Critical Genetics Project, Center for the Biology
 of Natural Systems, Queens College, CUNY.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: June 17, 2001
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Letter
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 61
 
                              San Jose Mercury News
                               June 8, 2001, Friday
 Biotech companies grow plants with human proteins
 BYLINE: By Paul Jacobs
 LENGTH: 931 words
 SAN JOSE, Calif. _ A handful of biotech companies are genetically engineering
 plants to produce human proteins, turning farms into factories for medications
 aimed at a host of human diseases.
 Large Scale Biology in Vacaville, Calif., uses genes from lymphoma patients at
 Stanford to grow a customized cancer vaccine in leafy plants that are close
 cousins to tobacco.
 Epicyte in San Diego uses corn to make human antibodies against herpes and human
 sperm for gels that can block sexually transmitted disease and prevent
 conception.
 These and other companies are betting that transgenic crops, which can produce
 as much as 40 pounds of a human protein per acre, will replace more expensive
 fermentation systems that are the industry standard for brewing up human
 proteins by the vat.
 "Plants are the most efficient producers of proteins on the planet," said
 Epicyte president Mich B. Hein. "They get their energy from the sun and all
 their nutrients from the soil. They make proteins essentially for free once they
 are up and going."
 Cost, however, isn't the only reason for choosing plants over the animal cells
 widely used by biotechnology companies to produce human proteins. Or for
 choosing plants over cows and goats that have been genetically transformed to
 produce human proteins in their milk.
 Some worry that cattle are vulnerable to hoof and mouth disease, which could
 quickly wipe out any herd genetically altered to produce therapeutic proteins.
 And there is concern that animal cells may harbor viruses or other contagions
 that could infect humans.
 "Proteins in plants don't have issues with mad cow disease or hoof and mouth,"
 said John McClellan, director of marketing for ProdiGene in College Station,
 Texas.
 The theory behind producing human proteins in plants _ or in animal cells,
 bacteria or yeast _ is simple: Pluck the gene, a bit of DNA that carries the
 instructions for making the protein, out of a human cell and insert it into the
 other species.
 Now, 25 years after the birth of the biotechnology industry, there are hundreds
 of human proteins _ many of them antibodies _ in various stages of testing for
 treating disease. But, for the moment, there are not enough government-approved
 manufacturing facilities for the expected flood of biotech drugs.
 In 1998, Immunex in Seattle launched Enbrel, a modified human protein grown in
 animal cells for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. The drug has been such a
 huge success _ with sales of $650 million last year _ that new patients must now
 sign up and wait their turn before starting on the drug. The waiting should
 disappear next year when the company opens a manufacturing facility in Rhode
 Island, but not every firm with a promising protein will be able to find the
 production capacity it needs.
 "The people who come out on top will be the people who secure manufacturing,"
 said Immunex spokeswoman Robin Shapiro.
 Immunex scientists are considering plants as an alternative way of producing
 future protein products, but, says Shapiro, "that's a very long way off."
 The capacity problem is a reason why companies working with genetically modified
 plants are so hopeful these days, although no plant-grown human or animal
 protein has yet won Food and Drug Administration approval, although a few are in
 the early stages of testing in patients.
 "We won't really know the answer until we get the first one through," said Kurt
 Hoeprich, director of market development for plant-grown biotech drugs at Dow
 Chemical. Dow is working with Epicyte to grow corn with antibodies against
 herpes and human sperm.
 Researchers at Large Scale Biology have already shown they can make large
 quantities of human proteins in tobacco-like plants (Nicotiana benthamiana)
 grown in greenhouses in Vacaville and Kentucky. One of the proteins grown and
 extracted with a high degree of purity is alpha-galactosidase, an enzyme missing
 in patients with Fabry's disease, a rare inherited disorder that can lead to
 heart and kidney failure. The company has no plans to market the human protein;
 two other companies are racing to do that. "We're using it as a model for the
 process," said the company's CEO, Robert L. Erwin.
 The plant-based companies are aware of the growing protest movement directed
 against genetically engineered crops, although the plants targeted in those
 protests were ones altered to deliver their own pesticides. Last year, the
 agricultural biotech industry was shaken by the news that a pesticide-containing
 corn called Starlink _ approved for animal feed but not human consumption _ had
 entered the food supply.
 Environmentalists are concerned the same thing might happen with plants
 containing pharmaceuticals.
 "Who wants to have a taco that gives you a drug you don't absolutely need?" asks
 Rebecca Goldburg, a senior scientist with Environmental Defense.
 Large Scale Biology's Erwin says that using tobacco-like plants that aren't like
 any crop intended for human use and that don't have the human protein genes in
 pollen or seeds is the best answer.
 The companies that are transforming corn say they are being very careful to keep
 the pharmaceutical crops far removed from fields where corn is grown for human
 or animal consumption.
 Says Epicyte's Hein: "The bottom line is to produce in areas where the pollen
 can't spread to other crops."
 PHOTOS will be available on KRT Direct and from KRT Photo Service, 202-383-6099.
 (c) 2001, San Jose Mercury News (San Jose, Calif.).
 Visit Mercury Center, the World Wide Web site of the Mercury News, at
 http://www.sjmercury.com/
 LOAD-DATE: June 8, 2001
                Copyright 2001 Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service
                        Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service









Document Number: 62
 
                                 Grand Forks Herald
                        April 9, 2001 Monday FINAL EDITION
 BYLINE: Mikkel Pates, Agweek Staff Writer
 SECTION: A; Pg. 30
 LENGTH: 1019 words
 Canada first.
 That's what North Dakota State University, Fargo, agricultural economist Bill
 Wilson thinks U.S. farmers should tell our northern neighbors when it comes to
 adopting genetically modified spring wheat varieties.
 The strategic importance of this is pretty critical, Wilson says. I suspect
 there is nothing the Canadians would like more than for us to liberally adopt
 genetically modified wheats without the ability to segregate them in the
 marketplace.
 Here are the scenarios Wilson sees in a game strategy analysis:
 If both the United States and Canada don't adopt GM wheat, there is no change in
 the market payoff.
 If the United States and Canada adopt simultaneously probably both will gain
 because of the first-tier benefits to farmers and second-tier benefits for
 nutritional and other buyer-driven benefits.
 If the United States adopts GM spring wheat, Canada would win because it would
 raise premiums to their targeted customers and ours who are averse to GM crops -
 currently 85 percent of our export markets.
 If the United States doesn't adopt and Canada does, we would probably gain and
 Canada would lose.
 Either way, Canada would be choosing our destiny; Canada would control our
 choice, Wilson says.
 Biotech crops offer bigger marketing challenges in northern Spring Wheat Belt
 than in the in the traditional Corn Belt and Soybean Belt, Wilson says. He spoke
 at a biotech workshop and conference in Fargo last week.
 Only 20 percent of U.S. corn is exported, while 40 percent to 60 percent of hard
 red spring wheat must be exported, Wilson says. Our top-ranking foreign markets
 for spring wheat - Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan, Italy and South Korea - all
 are averse to GM commodities. Wilson says he suspects for some countries trying
 to keep GM crops out it's easier for them to get us to try to regulate
 nonproduction of GM crops than for them to try to solve the problem themselves
 through marketing.
 Wilson says the Canadian system is better suited to keeping GM wheat separate
 from non-GMO.
 He says one idea is for the United States to create a separate subclass of GM
 wheat.
 If we're going to rely on the marketing system to solve it, we've got to solve
 it through efficient testing and categorization, Wilson says. Right now, we have
 neither, and we're trying to let the market solve it. That creates huge costs
 and risks.
 Wilson says NDSU is about finished with a study of elevator operators, aimed at
 defining any extra costs of handling genetically modified wheat.
 By far, the greatest problem is contamination, Wilson says. In other words,
 somebody claiming something is non-GM, when it really is.
 Neal Fisher, administrator of the North Dakota Wheat Commission, says these
 risks are exactly why his organization and the North Dakota Grain Dealers
 Association favored a bill in the Legislature that would have imposed a two-year
 moratorium on commercial production of GM wheat in the state - or at least until
 Canada jumps into GM wheat production. The bill has been gutted and turned into
 a study resolution.
 The elevator operators have pleaded with legislators to pass the bill. Fisher
 says country elevators have predicted they and the state's spring wheat growers
 would be left to pick up the pieces in the event of a GMO marketing train wreck
 in wheat.
 We're both up there at the front of the list, if we lost 40 percent of the
 market out there, Fisher says.
 Elevator operators say other costs - testing and certification, keeping stored
 units separate, underutilization of bin space, increased demurrage on rail cars,
 barges and vessels and increased likelihood of being out of compliance - all
 pale in comparison, Wilson says.
 Normally such uncertainty is solved through purchasers buying crops on contract
 with growers, but wheat buyers are reluctant to pay premiums associated with
 those contracts.
 Wilson notes that the grain industry's own assessment of the extra cost for
 keeping GMO crops separate has been rising. He says the proliferation of
 large-scale elevators to handle 110-car shuttle trains runs counter to this
 trend. A conventional elevator north of Grand Forks, N.D., has 60 shipping units
 and the manager says he wished he had more, Wilson says.
 A new 100-car elevator near Hillsboro (N.D.) has 11, Wilson says, adding that
 they're going to be incapable of the kind of segregation that may be needed if
 GMO wheat must be segregated.
 Big problem, he says.
 While GMO corn and soybeans in a few short years have risen to account for 30
 percent to 50 percent of U.S. corn and soybean acres, that is less a marketing
 risk than for hard red spring wheat, grown in North Dakota and Minnesota.
 Dave Lambert, an NDSU agricultural economist and department chairman, showed how
 the adoption of genetically modified crops in several major crops has
 skyrocketed, where adoption of hybrid corn took 20 years. The United States has
 68 percent of the reported, legal, world's transgenic crops, followed by
 Argentina with 23 percent and Canada with 7 percent.
 Iowa studies that show the financial returns from growing transgenic soybeans
 and cotton primarily go to the companies that develop them. It is unclear
 whether factors such as increased seed and technology fees for genetically
 modified wheat will offset any benefits, especially because wheat has relatively
 low-cost herbicides to begin with, Lambert says.
 Duane Berglund, an NDSU agricultural economist, says if GM wheat is developed
 with NDSU wheat lines, it is likely it won't go through the typical county crop
 improvement association system for increasing conventional varieties. It'll
 probably be contracted out in a different method or route similar to dry bean
 and seed potato increases.
 The workshop, in conjunction with the annual Extension Service state conference,
 included a number of talks, including Don Lee of the University of
 Nebraska-Lincoln, talking about the basic mechanisms of transferring genes among
 crops. Ted Labuza, a University of Minnesota, St. Paul, scientist, talked about
 the regulation of the transgenic crops.
 LOAD-DATE: November 29, 2001
                        Copyright 2001 Grand Forks Herald
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 63
 
                                Grand Forks Herald
                             April 5, 2001, Thursday
 North Dakota Researcher Warns of Marketing Challenges for Biotech Crops
 BYLINE: By Mikkel Pates
 LENGTH: 651 words
 FARGO, N.D.--Biotech crops offer bigger marketing challenges in the northern
 spring wheat belt than in the traditional corn and soybean belt, a North Dakota
 State University researcher says.
 Bill Wilson, an NDSU agricultural economist, spoke Wednesday at the NDSU
 Extension Service Biotechnology Workshop.
 The big difference is that only 20 percent of U.S. corn is exported, while 40
 percent to 60 percent of hard red spring wheat must be exported, Wilson said.
 The United States' top-ranking foreign markets for spring wheat -- Japan, the
 Philippines, Taiwan, Italy and South Korea -- all are averse to genetically
 modified commodities.
 Wilson said he suspects that some countries that are trying to keep GM crops out
 find it "easier to get us to try to regulate nonproduction of GM crops than for
 them to try to solve the problem themselves through marketing."
 Wilson said NDSU is about finished with a study of elevator operators, aimed at
 defining any extra costs of handling genetically modified wheat.
 "By far the greatest problem is contamination," Wilson said. "In other words,
 somebody claiming something is non-GM, when it really is." Other costs --
 testing and certification, keeping stored units separate, under-utilization of
 bin space, increased demurrage on rail cars, barges and vessels and increased
 likelihood of being out of compliance -- all pale in comparison, Wilson said.
 Normally such uncertainty is solved through purchasers buying crops on contract
 with growers, but wheat buyers are reluctant to pay premiums associated with
 those contracts.
 Wilson noted that the grain industry's own assessment of the extra cost of
 keeping GM crops separate has been rising. He said the proliferation of
 large-scale elevators to handle 110-car shuttle trains runs counter to this
 trend.
 A conventional elevator north of Grand Forks has 60 shipping (storage) units,
 and the manager has said he wishes he had more, Wilson said.
 "A new 100-car elevator near Hillsboro (N.D.) has 11," Wilson said, adding that
 they're going to be incapable of the kind of segregation that may be needed if
 GM wheat must be segregated. "Big problem," he said.
 While GM corn and soybeans in a few short years have risen to account for 30
 percent to 50 percent of U.S. corn and soybean acres, that is less a marketing
 risk than for hard red spring wheat grown in North Dakota and Minnesota.
 Dave Lambert, an NDSU agricultural economist and department chairman, showed how
 the adoption of genetically modified crops in several major crop categories has
 skyrocketed, whereas the adoption of hybrid corn took 20 years.
 The United States has 68 percent of the world's reported legal transgenic crops,
 followed by Argentina with 23 percent and Canada with 7 percent.
 Iowa studies show that the financial returns from growing transgenic soybeans
 and cotton primarily go to the companies that develop them.
 It is unclear whether factors such as increased seed and technology fees for
 genetically modified wheat will offset any benefits, especially because wheat
 has relatively low-cost herbicides to begin with, Lambert said.
 The workshop, in conjunction with the annual extension service state conference,
 featured a number of speakers. Don Lee of the University of Nebraska at Lincoln
 discussed the basic mechanisms of transferring genes among crops. Ted Labuza, a
 University of Minnesota scientist, talked about the regulation of transgenic
 crops.
 Another biotech conference will be held today at the Doublewood Inn in Fargo.
 Wilson and other NDSU economists will describe results of these and other
 studies on the impacts of biotechnology on production, the logistics of
 commodity and food supplies, and international small-grains markets.
 To see more of the Grand Forks Herald, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to
 http://www.northscape.com.
 INDUSTRY: Biotechnology
 LOAD-DATE: April 6, 2001
                Copyright 2001Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News
                        Copyright 2001Grand Forks Herald









Document Number: 64
 
                                The New York Times
                             March 7, 2001 Wednesday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Gene Research Finds New Use In Agriculture
 BYLINE:  By ANDREW POLLACK
 SECTION: Section A; Column 1; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 1817 words
 As the controversy surrounding genetically modified foods intensifies,
 scientists are trying to use the rapidly growing knowledge about genes to
 enhance conventional breeding of crops and livestock rather than implant genes
 from one species into another.
 Many say such an approach is less likely to arouse the public objections that
 have been raised by the development of genetically altered plants and animals.
 The enhanced breeding approach involves testing which genes are in a plant or
 animal, allowing researchers to select more easily which ones to cross. That can
 shave years off the breeding of a new variety.
 "Before we knew where the genes were, we were still breeding in the dark," said
 Dr. Steven Briggs, head of genomics for Syngenta, a Swiss seed and agrichemical
 company.
 Compared with genetic engineering, this enhanced breeding has technical
 advantages and disadvantages. But its biggest advantage is political. Many
 opponents of bioengineered foods do not object to the technique because it
 avoids artificially transferring genes between organisms. It is that transfer
 that opponents say is unnatural and poses risks to human health and the
 environment.
 Indeed, some opponents of genetically altered plants and animals even champion
 the approach as a way for society and companies to reap some of the benefits of
 genetic science and avoid the risks.
 "I think that's where the future is, to upgrade classical breeding," said Jeremy
 Rifkin, a prominent critic of the biotechnology industry. "Classical breeders
 and geneticists can use the genome but not do gene splicing." Mr. Rifkin calls
 this approach the soft path, and says better understanding of genes could even
 be used to improve organic farming.
 But agricultural biotechnology companies like Monsanto and Pioneer Hi-Bred
 International, say that the two technologies are good for different tasks but
 cannot be substituted for each other. So, while they are using the new breeding
 techniques, they remain committed to genetic engineering as well.
 "We don't see it as an alternative to genetic engineering," said Tony Cavalieri,
 vice president for trait and technology development at Pioneer, a unit of
 DuPont.
 And some executives say that even with improvements, crossbreeding is
 inefficient compared with genetic engineering. With genetic engineering,
 scientists can transfer just the gene they want, whereas with crossbreeding, the
 genes of two parents are thoroughly mixed.
 "It's sort of a blunt instrument," said David W. Summa, chief executive of
 Mendel Biotechnology, a plant genetics company in Hayward, Calif. "You're moving
 around lots and lots of genes when you breed."
 Still, a number of companies are turning to the approach because it avoids the
 regulatory reviews required of genetically modified foods and is not expected to
 stir resistance from consumers. The approach is called marker-assisted breeding
 because it uses genetic markers to guide the process.
 "Marker-assisted selection is the first choice if we can solve the problem,"
 said Wally Beversdorf, head of plant science and agribusiness for Syngenta,
 which was formed by the merger of the agricultural businesses of Novartis and
 AstraZeneca. While Syngenta is still committed to genetic engineering, Dr.
 Beversdorf said, it is applying that technique "where we have to, where there is
 no opportunity for marker-assisted breeding."
 Some newly formed companies are deliberately steering clear of genetic
 engineering. AniGenics, a start-up in Concord, Mass., aims to identify genes
 associated with higher milk production, more tender meat and other desirable
 traits of cattle and other livestock. But that knowledge would be used to guide
 conventional breeding, not to create genetically altered herds.
 "It may or may not be faster biologically," said Steven M. Niemi, the president.
 "It's certainly faster politically."
 The marker-based approach is being made easier by an explosion of knowledge
 about genes. In January, Syngenta announced it had determined the complete
 genetic code of rice, the first crop to have its genome sequenced. A month
 earlier, scientists had completed the DNA sequence of arabidopsis, a weed that
 is the plant world's equivalent of the laboratory rat. And there are less
 detailed genetic maps available or being developed for virtually every other
 important crop or farm animal.
 The biggest drawback of the breeding approach is that it is limited to traits
 that are already contained in a species. Scientists would be able to use it,
 say, to breed a blue tomato if they could not find a tomatoe containing
 blue-pigment genes to start the process.
 Syngenta, for instance, tried for 12 years to use conventional breeding to
 develop corn that was resistant to the European corn borer but ended up with a
 variety that reduced the pest damage only about 10 percent, Dr. Beversdorf said.
 But some bacteria make a toxin that kills the borer. It took the company only
 five years to splice the bacterial gene into corn and develop a crop -- known as
 BT corn -- that can almost completely eliminate damage from the borer.
 Dr. Cavalieri of Pioneer said it would probably be impossible to develop plants
 with healthier oils without genetic engineering. And scientists say it would
 also probably be impossible to use breeding alone to develop "golden rice,"
 which could help combat vitamin A deficiency in developing countries. The genes
 to provide the vitamin A were transferred to the rice from daffodils and
 bacteria.
 Still, scientists say that many important traits -- bigger fruit, higher yield,
 disease and pest resistance -- can often be found within the crop species
 itself.
 At the Agriculture Department, Anna McClung recently used the technique to
 develop rice that would be soft on the outside and firm on the inside after
 processing. The work was done with a company hoping to sell the rice in Europe,
 where opposition to genetically modified crops is high. So genetic engineering
 was out of the question.
 Both Pioneer and scientists at Purdue University used the technique to develop
 soybeans that are resistant to the cyst nematode.
 Classical breeding can be a long and tedious affair. Breeders might take a plant
 with a desirable characteristic, like disease resistance, and cross it with
 another plant with other desirable traits, like high yield. They then examine
 the offspring, hoping to find plants that have both disease resistance and high
 yield. Those desirable plants might be then crossed to make a new generation.
 The whole process can require 10 or more generations, thousands of crosses and 5
 to 15 years.
 To see which offspring have the desired traits, the new generation usually must
 be allowed to grow up, and even then detection is often not easy. To test which
 of her rice plants had the right cooking characteristics, Dr. McClung would have
 had to analyze them chemically.
 If scientists can test the genes, however, they can tell if the plant has the
 desired trait when it is still a seedling. "By having a genetic tag, you're able
 to see the presence or absence of the trait every time," Dr. McClung said. With
 the marker, she developed the rice in 5 years, instead of the 7 to 10 it would
 have otherwise taken.
 Usually, scientists do not test for the genes themselves, since many of the
 genes are still not known. Instead, they look for markers along the chromosome
 that are near the gene and therefore tend to travel with the gene from one
 generation to the next. The advantage of this technique is that the markers can
 be used even if the breeders have not identified the gene. Genetic engineering
 can be done only if the gene is known and isolated.
 It is also possible to use markers to follow numerous traits through the
 breeding process. Genetic engineering is at present limited to transferring only
 one or a few genes. Yet many traits, like the yield of a crop, are governed by
 multiple genes.
 But marker-assisted selection can be extremely difficult and has not lived up to
 the expectations scientists had when the technique was first developed in the
 late 1980's, said Nevin D. Young, professor of plant pathology and biology at
 the University of Minnesota. "Traditional breeding is like a dice-rolling
 experiment," he said. "Markers are like loaded dice, but they're hardly precise
 surgical instruments."
 It can take years to find the associations between markers and traits, and
 sometimes links cannot be found at all, he said. It also now costs about $1 to
 test one marker in one plant, which makes it very expensive to test numerous
 genes in thousands of plants. Still the costs of such genetic analysis are
 expected to drop rapidly with the advancement of new DNA testing methods that
 are also being developed for medical diagnosis.
 One of the biggest opportunities presented by marker-assisted selection is to
 improve the harnessing of wild relatives of crops. Human beings domesticated
 plants by selecting for obvious traits, like bigger fruit. But over time, the
 genetic variation in commercial crops has become limited, so when breeders cross
 these crops, the possible outcomes are also limited.
 "We've left behind in this process a huge reservoir of natural variation," said
 Steven D. Tanksley, professor of plant breeding and plant biology at Cornell.
 All the commercially grown tomatoes in the world, from the tiniest cherry tomato
 to the beefiest beefsteak, have less genetic variation than the wild tomatoes in
 a single valley in Peru, he said.
 Breeders have tried to cross wild relatives with commercial crops but with
 limited success. One problem, Dr. Tanksley said, is knowing which wild plants to
 pick. Wild tomatoes often are small and green and taste bad. Someone just
 looking at them would not think of using them in breeding.
 But even small, green tomatoes can contain some genes for redness and large
 fruit. The marker studies allow these genes to be found. "The markers allow you
 to scan through the whole genome," he said. "You can pick out the flavor genes
 away from the yucky gene."
 Indeed, Dr. Tanksley has crossed wild green tomatoes with commercial red ones
 and produced even redder ones. And he crossed small wild tomatoes with big
 commercial ones and got even bigger ones.
 Robert Goodman, a professor of plant pathology at the University of Wisconsin,
 said there was still a risk that marker-assisted breeding could run into the
 same opposition as transgenic crops because people might fail to make any
 distinction. But if that does not happen, he said, the breeding approach could
 provide a way out of the contentious debate.
 "Maybe in five to eight years we'll look back on this argument over transgenics
 and say, 'How arcane,' " said Dr. Goodman, who once headed research at Calgene,
 the company that marketed the first genetically modified crop, a tomato. "Not
 because it became unpopular but simply because it got bypassed by the advances
 made by breeding powered by genomics."
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: March 7, 2001
 GRAPHIC: Photo: Anna McClung, a scientist with the Agriculture Department,
 recently developed a rice to be soft on the outside and firm on the inside. (F.
 Carter Smith for The New York Times)(pg. C2)
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 65
 
                           South Bend Tribune (Indiana)
                     March 3, 2001 Saturday Michigan Edition
 Biotech spurs heavy debate;
 Group shares opinions on transgenic crops
 BYLINE: By WAYNE FALDA;Tribune Farm Writer
 SECTION: SPORTS; Pg. B10; FOCUS ON FARMING
 LENGTH: 816 words
 LAKEVILLE -- Agronomist Bob Nielsen's presentation on the nitty-gritty details
 of biotechnology is a well-honed production given over the past year to
 audiences throughout Indiana.
 But on this night his carefully designed program quickly dissolved into -- of
 all things -- a discussion.
 The free exchange of thoughts and opinions may have scuttled the program, but it
 delighted the Purdue University corn specialist.
 "I'll take that any day of the week," he said afterward.
 To be sure, the public meeting about transgenic crops Thursday night at the Old
 Lakeville School Project will be annotated on some document as a failure.
 Only a half-dozen people appeared. No busloads of activists came down from South
 Bend to howl over transgenic crops, as Nielsen had imagined.
 The paltry assemblage was a far cry from the crowd of 160 in Elkhart County who
 were treated recently to the same presentation. "It was a wonderful crowd in
 terms of numbers," he said of the Elkhart meeting. "Quite often I don't get this
 much feedback from an audience."
 But nothing could have more pleased the loquacious Nielsen, who reveled in the
 exchange.
 It wasn't long before Nielsen launched into his standard description of the gene
 switching that is the hallmark of transgenically re-engineered plants when
 Judith Rubleske interrupted.
 "Why is this necessary?" she asked.
 The nutritionist from South Bend had immersed herself in five books covering the
 subject this winter. She was prepared to counter any propaganda.
 She was leery that plant-killing and insect-killing genes are appearing in
 ordinary foods. "How about all the grains that I eat, the potatoes I eat, the
 tomatoes I eat -- all of these things," she wondered.
 Organic growers Jim and Mary Kulwicki of North Liberty weren't buying the
 arguments of the wonders of bio-engineered crops either.
 The Kulwickis raise organic strawberries, sweet corn, blueberries and other
 vegetables that they then sell at the Farmer's Market.
 "We believe that produce and even field crops can be raised without chemicals,"
 Mark Kulwicki said afterwards.
 Chemical residue on food is not their only concern. The drift of pollen from
 fields of transgenic corn into conventional corn fields "means that you can't
 say that any seed cannot have biotechnology in it," Mary Kulwicki said.
 Nielsen acknowledged that it was unfortunate for farmers that the first wave of
 transgenic crops from seed and chemical conglomerates were those that made life
 easier for farmers instead of benefiting the public at large.
 The result was a public relations nightmare that caught the marketers by
 surprise. That backlash continues today with the discovery that the infamous
 StarLink gene is now found in minuscule levels in some regular seed.
 "If the first transgenic products that had come out had cured cancer, do you
 think most Americans would be worrying about transgenic plants?" he posed.
 "That's a bad analogy. That is not going to happen," Rubleske dismissed.
 What if transgenic crops were cheaper or pure from chemical residue, Nielsen
 offered.
 The South Bend nutritionist shrugged. "I don't make that my bottom line," she
 said. "I have to think about the whole picture."
 Walkerton farmer Steve Murray chimed in. So did Steve Barry, the Fulton-Marshall
 Co-op agronomist in Bremen.
 "The people who produce food in America don't want to use insecticides and kill
 themselves to produce food for the rest of Americans," Murray said in his
 defense of insect-killing crops.
 Round Up, the herbicide of choice on some transgenic crops, is safe for farmers
 and the environment, he said. "If you spill it on your hands you are not going
 to go to the hospital and you are not going to get a chemical burn," he said.
 The Environmental Protection Agency's oversight process for the registration of
 a pesticide "is excruciatingly painful," said Barry.
 Purdue agronomist Nielsen opined that the EPA did fail badly when it gave a
 limited approval for now-famous StarLink corn with the proviso that it only be
 used for animal feed. StarLink was not only found in Kraft corn taco shells in
 supermarkets and in shipments of feed in Japan where it is banned, but also now
 in this year's batch of regular seed, he said.
 "No way should (StarLink) be marketed until it's completely proven safe," he
 said. StarLink contains a unique insect-killing Bacillus thurengiensis gene that
 raised questions of causing allergic responses in some people.
 With the biotech backlash growing stronger "these guys are bearing the brunt of
 the issue," Nielsen said pointing to Murray and Barry.
 The discussion turned into a microcosm of what has evolved into an international
 debate.
 After two hours, it ended.
 "And was pleasantly reasonable," Nielsen said still thinking of that imaginary
 busload from South Bend.
 Staff writer Wayne Falda:
 wfalda@sbtinfo.com
 LOAD-DATE: March 6, 2001
 GRAPHIC: Earl Houin harvests the corn crop at his farm near Plymouth in this
 October file photo. Houin and other area farmers are caught in the middle of a
 battle over whether or not to plant genetically modified crops.Tribune
 Photo/SHAYNA BRESLIN
                  Copyright 2001 South Bend Tribune Corporation









Document Number: 66
 
                                 University Wire
                                February 21, 2001
 UC-Berkeley prof advocates alternative to biotech
 BYLINE: By Shaun O'Brien, Daily Californian
 SOURCE: U. California-Berkeley
 LENGTH: 1304 words
 DATELINE: Berkeley, Calif.
 While most scientists around the world are working on the brink of new
 technological and genetic advances, a University of California-Berkeley
 professor is calling researchers to take a step back from the hype of
 biotechnology and reconsider its possible implications.
 Advances in technology, coupled with the demand for more crops at cheaper
 prices, has led to the widespread popularity of genetically altered, or
 transgenic, crops in the field of agriculture.
 To be more cost efficient, farmers and scientists have genetically developed
 crops that confer more resistance to disease and, as a result, have a higher
 degree of productivity.
 The melding together of biotechnology with farming has resulted in transgenic
 crops where specific genes from unrelated species are introduced into the
 original plant to increase the plant's resistance.
 Modified crops, such as Bacillus thuringiensis corn and roundup ready soybeans
 are grown in more than 40 million hectares worldwide.
 According to UC Berkeley professor Miguel Altieri, the modern demand for use of
 biotechnology in all aspects of life has brought on numerous social and
 environmental problems.
 The mixing of biotechnology and farming, however, produces a level of inequity
 between those who can afford the new technological farming advances and those
 who cannot, says Altieri.
 To combat what he sees as an unequal divide, Altieri, a professor in the
 environmental science, policy and management department, is helping to develop
 an agricultural discipline that takes into a account a culture's social,
 political and historical background.
 The field of study, called acroecology, focuses on creating more sustainable
 farming systems that ensure food security, protect the environment and avoid
 inequity.
 "It is a scientific approach to developing a more sustainable agriculture system
 that is based on the ecology of the area and on the farmer's knowledge," he
 says. "It is a holistic approach, where the understanding of agriculture is
 derived from considering social, ecological, cultural and political
 perspective."
 The transgenic technology approach to agriculture was created to tackle problems
 with overpopulation and food scarcity in Third World countries.
 Promising mass production yields, the application of transgenic crops has been
 accompanied by chemical fertilizers and pesticides applied on a large-scale.
 To Altieri, however, the short-term benefits may be detrimental in long-term
 development.
 Already environmental concerns have been raised about the impacts of transgenic
 corn on non-target beneficial organisms and the creation of new weeds.
 In addition, economic issues have arisen, especially in countries like Latin
 American and Africa, where poor farmers cannot afford the new transgenic
 varieties, says Altieri. He adds that the technology is further promoting
 differentiation among farmers who can afford new technologies and those who
 cannot.
 Altieri offers a plausible solution to this problem through his work with
 acroecology.
 His farming approach differs from biotechnological farming in that it integrates
 the local farmer's knowledge with an environmental awareness to develop a
 technique that is not destructive to the regional culture or environment.
 "Agriculture is a coevolutionary process between nature and society, and thus
 any approach to develop agriculture that is more socially just and
 environmentally benign must take into consideration farmers' needs and the
 ecological milieu," says Altieri.
 Agroecology merges environment and human communities to develop a model of
 agriculture that is culturally acceptable and economically viable.
 Altieri has been one of the main advocates of the field and has spent much time
 researching sustainable agricultural systems.
 His affiliation with the disadvantaged populations of Latin American dates back
 to his childhood in Latin America, where he acquired knowledge of small farming
 and where he developed the passion to solve agriculture problems while
 empowering poor farmers.
 "I was trained in the West, but after studying ancient agricultural systems, I
 soon realized that Western knowledge is incomplete to deal with the complexities
 of third-world agriculture," he says.
 Agroecologists focus on the local environment of the farmers, analyze their
 farming techniques, and elicit farmer participation.
 "Biotechnology targets rich farmers with good land and capital in order to
 implement crops that have been modified genetically," says Altieri. "Agroecology
 provides techniques that are low input and low capital and at the same time that
 empower farmers to become actors of their own development."
 The level of income inequity between poor and rich farmers is not a factor in
 the development of agroecology because poor farmers can use their own resources,
 tools and techniques to develop their farms, he explains
 Through acroecology, farmers in Latin America and Africa have increased their
 yields without the aid of chemical fertilizers or transgenic crops.
 Two examples of agroecology include the use of soil conservation and organic
 fertilizers in Honduras, where a group combated the problem of erosion using
 ditches, rock walls and grass barriers, instead of extensive infrastructures.
 In the Andean region of Peru, researchers uncovered the technique of raised
 fields, which consisted of soil plateaus surrounded by ditches filled with water
 to combat the problems associated with high altitude farming.
 These waru-warus had exhibited a degree of success in the past, and were
 experimented with as a plausible approach for contemporary farmers. Under the
 leadership of the organization, Projecto Interinstitucional de Rehabilitacion de
 Waru-warus, the waru-warus were rebuilt in this region, starting in 1984.
 Since then, the agriculture outputs have increased significantly, and at a
 faster pace than if biotechnological approaches had been adopted.
 A better investment might be for Western scientists to attempt to gain a greater
 understanding of these historical approaches and thus improve them with modern
 approaches but always consulting the local people, says Altieri.
 Along with analyzing the cognitive approaches of these farmers, Altieri says he
 also discovered that their farming techniques had scientific validity.
 "I have found that what farmers have been doing is scientifically correct, we
 just have to empower them to enhance their systems," says Altieri.
 The question remains as to the why this agricultural approach has not reached a
 greater audience as biotechnology has. While biotechnology has been promoted
 widely, agroecology continues to struggle to gain name recognition, says
 Altieri.
 "Political and institutional biases exist against agroecology and small
 farmers," he says. "Policy favors more large-scale agriculture than small
 scale."
 Changes in political and academic opinions are necessary for agroecology to gain
 prominence in the scientific world, Altieri says.
 He adds that he remains hopeful in the belief that consumer pressures and
 farmers movements will pressure governments to consider shifting policies.
 "It is an issue that has to be resolved by social movements including consumers,
 farmers and environmental groups," Altieri says. "With greater understanding,
 people will raise key questions."
 Such questions include who produces food, how it is produced, for whom, and for
 what purpose.
 "(People will) soon demand for a more healthy type of agriculture," says
 Altieri. "In Europe, there has been consumer led debate about genetically
 modified organisms that forced politicians to endorse strong genetically
 modified organism regulations. We have to get to this point in the United
 States, and this will be achieved through public debate."
 (C) 2001 Daily Californian via U-WIRE
 LOAD-DATE: February 21, 2001
                   Copyright 2001 Daily Californian via U-Wire









Document Number: 67
 
                                 Grand Forks Herald
                      February 19, 2001 Monday FINAL EDITION
 BYLINE: Agweek Staff Reports
 SECTION: A; Pg. 26
 LENGTH: 2923 words
 Agriculture issues started slow in the 2001 Legislature in Bismarck, but are
 perking up toward mid-session, key law makers say.
 I'd say the session started off initially quite slow, says Terry Wanzek,
 R-Cleveland, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. I feel this session,
 vs. the last, is a more sense of cooperation and soul-searching. A Feb. 15
 hearing was expected to draw the largest crowds as Farmers Union and others put
 on a full court press to kill a change in the anti-corporate farming laws.
 Rep. Gene Nicholas, R-Cando, longtime chairman of the House Agriculture
 Committee, predicted a bill that encourages nonfarm investment in such things as
 hog and dairy production faces tough sledding.
 Farmers are tapped out, say both Wanzek and Nicholas, who adds, It might be nice
 to go to Main Street to help build some of these things.
 One of Nicholas' top priorities is funding ongoing efforts to harmonize farm
 chemical regulation and pricing between the United States and Canada.
 Nicholas is backing a new $300,000 appropriation request for the Crop
 Harmonization Committee, which he chairs, to make grants to qualifying commodity
 organizations.
 If an effort is put forth by the North Dakota Grain Growers Association, as an
 example, that's an entity that would have impact, Nicholas says. One goal is for
 the U.S. chemical industry to somehow be brought in to these harmonization
 issues. He says the state must keep heat on the U.S. Environmental Protection
 Agency, which has indicated chemical approvals in the two countries.
 The crossover deadline is Feb. 23, meaning it has to be passed in one house to
 be considered in the other.
 Major ag-related issues include:
 Genetic modification - With fresh controversies cropping up daily regarding
 StarLink corn on the national scene, there were at least three bills regarding
 transgenic crops.
 House Bill 1338, introduced by Rep. Phillip Mueller, D-Wimbledon, would restrict
 sales of genetically modified wheat before August 2003, although amendments
 would allow scientific testing in the state. Mueller's thinking is that eight
 out of 11 export markets have been restricted.
 Nicholas says this is a dicey issue because the state could become an island
 among states around it that allow modified wheat. Another issue is liability if
 the state promotes GMO-free wheat and residual contamination occurs from train
 cars that come from areas that allow it.
 Another, HB 1442, would dictate to companies new terms for informing farmers and
 strict rules on how they collect check samples when checking fields for patent
 infringements. Rep. Doug Lemieux, D-Rolette, is one of the proponents. Companies
 indicate this could be a patent rights infringement.
 Still another, SB 2235, would give the Fargo, N.D.-based North Dakota State Seed
 Department authority to develop a program to certify identity-preservation crops
 free of genetic modification. Wanzek, a co-sponsor of SB 2235, says the idea is
 getting national attention because it would be the first state program to offer
 certification for GMO-free, similar to the way it certifies seed.
 Investment capital - Several bills attempt to deal with a shortage of investment
 capital for ag processing ventures in the state.
 One bill allows the Industrial Commission to issue bonds. Nonproducers would
 purchase the bonds, pool funds and then the Agricultural Products Utilization
 Commission would take proposals and disseminate the money. This is similar to a
 bill introduced in the last session and vetoed by then-North DakotaGov. Ed
 Schafer.
 Some opponents wonder whether the bonds would sell, because they aren't backed
 by state guarantees. Others worry that if the bonds do sell and then fail,
 investors would look to the state for liability.
 An investment tax proposal still alive would allow nonfarm investors to purchase
 value-added processing facilities and lease them back to producers. Investors
 would receive a tax credit and could use it on their short form - a major
 investor-friendly element to the plan, Wanzek says.
 In a related issue, North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven's proposed $5 million in tax
 credits in his budget.
 North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson, a Democrat, says he doesn't
 know which of these proposals might emerge, but says, We'd better get serious
 about passing some of these bills that will offer incentives to farmers to start
 or take over existing ventures.
 Antitrust action - This bill would give the attorney general's office subpoena
 power for antitrust issues, similar to other states. A separate bill includes
 $500,000 for the attorney general's office to be used to fund antitrust work
 when it's needed. Nicholas says it's too soon to say whether that gets lost in
 the shuffle to come up with funding for education.
 Producer contracts - One bill spells out producer rights when they enter
 production contracts, including a three-day right of review, readability and
 disclosure. The legislation was advanced by former Attorney General Heidi
 Heitkamp as part of a group of state attorneys general.
 Ethanol - The Senate Transportation Committee took the teeth out of a bill that
 would have mandated service stations to offer corn-derived fuel in at least one
 pump. Instead, it recommended an interim study on the issue.
 Wallie Hardie of Fairmount, N.D., a board member with the North Dakota Corn
 Growers Association who supported the bill, blasted Al Purdue, a Cenex gas
 station manager from the Minot, N.D., area, for testifying against the mandate.
 We are incredulous that a manager of an agricultural cooperative would carry the
 water for the state's petroleum interests, Hardie fumed, after hearings. This is
 the most blatant case of biting the hand that feeds you I've ever seen, and
 adds, Why should farmers buy gasoline, diesel, fuel, feed and fertilizer from a
 company that stabs them in the back?
 On the plus side for ethanol, a Senate bill for tax incentives for those who
 invest in new ethanol cooperatives passed the Senate last week and is now in the
 House. It offers a 30 percent credit on investments of up to $20,000.
 Wheat Commission funding - One bill proposed by the Dakota Resource Council
 would change the wheat checkoff from a flat, 1 cent per bushel to a value-based
 quarter of a percentage point. Wheat would generate 1 cent in checkoff funds
 only if the price reaches $4 a bushel. The bill is opposed by commodity groups,
 the North Dakota Farm Bureau and key committee members, including Nicholas.
 Minnesota Sen. Steve Dille, R-Dassel, says that additional action on alternative
 fuels, which would benefit corn and soybean producers, would benefit both
 farmers and the environment.
 Dille is the ranking minority member on the Minnesota Senate's Agriculture,
 General Legislation and Veterans Affairs Committee.
 For corn and soybean producers, there'll be some attempt to get additional
 ethanol plants in the state, an industry that we already subsidize heavily,
 Dille says. Also, there's a biodiesel bill, which, as I believe it stands now,
 would require at least a 2 percent blend of soy-based diesel with regular
 diesel.
 Alternative fuels legislation also is taking shape in the Minnesota House.
 Rep. Tim Finseth, R-Angus, recently introduced a bill - HF551 - that, if passed,
 would pave the way for an ethanol plant in northwest Minnesota. Unlike many
 other ethanol refineries, it would distill ethanol from locally grown wheat and
 barley.
 On the livestock production side, Dille says, improved cost-share funding for
 state programs - namely those dealing with bringing feedlots up to environmental
 codes - will be priorities as well.
 On the livestock side, we made substantial reforms to feedlot regulations before
 - most to make them more farmer-friendly, Dille says. We'll be working on making
 some additional adjustments - not as massive as before - to make it even more
 farmer-friendly, as far as cost share funding goes. The state's share of that
 cost-share right now is 75 percent of making necessary improvements.
 Upping the cost-share percentage, however, could be a difficult game, Dille
 says.
 Minnesota Gov. (Jesse) Ventura wants to cut it back down to 50 percent on the
 cost-share, Dille says. So we'll have a struggle to get that nailed down -
 there's not a lot of extra money left between tax cuts, tax rebates and so on at
 the state level.
 Programs serving Minnesota's dairy industry also are in need of additional
 funding, Dille says.
 One other, very important issue on the livestock side is that the dairy industry
 is under stress and they've put in requests for a substantial increase in funds
 to deal with their issues, Dille says.
 Minnesota Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, who chairs the state's Agriculture,
 General Legislation and Veterans Affairs Committee, also says that alternative
 fuels legislation and legislation aimed at lending a hand to dairy producers are
 top legislative priorities this session.
 I think that the direction we're going legislatively on agriculture is trying to
 shore up the milk industry, for one, Murphy says. That and expanding biodiesel
 use as well as pushing the E85 program. But I'd say the biggest push is going to
 be ways to help our dairy producers survive.
 In itself, biodiesel legislation, Murphy says, makes good sense because it not
 only benefits the state's farmers, but also the state's environment.
 It's another economic tool we can give our farmers, Murphy says. And not only
 does it help prop up one of the industries we have in Minnesota, it helps the
 environment. It's that much less pollution - for one, a good substitute for the
 sulfur they're taking out of diesel fuel now.
 Revisiting current feedlot regulations also is on the ag-related legislative
 agenda, Murphy says, with special attention to making sure the sprit of the law
 and how the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency enforces the law match.
 I think there has been kind of a difference there, Murphy says. We don't want to
 impose an undue burden on producers - rather, we want to help them be compliant
 and keep their operations going.
 The deadline for bills to be approved by the Senate and House agriculture
 committees and sent on to the respective branches for consideration was last
 week. The Montana legislative session, which convened Jan. 1, will close in late
 April.
 Proposed bills that will affect agriculture include:
 HB211 - House bill 211, which still was pending in committee early last week,
 proposed a moratorium on the planting of genetically modified wheat.
 HJ6 and SJ7 - These bills call for a study of how growing genetically modified
 wheat would affect the state's economy.
 Farmers recognize that drought-resistant varieties of genetically modified wheat
 could benefit their operations, but are concerned about whether they would be
 unable to plant their own seed each year. Meanwhile, there are concerns among
 some members of the public about whether foods made from genetically modified
 organisms are safe.
 HB246 - This bill, which clarifies liability for damages to property caused by
 livestock, was proposed out of concern about a recent Supreme Court case about
 the liability of livestock owners for damage to property. The proposed bill sets
 a standard of gross negligence that has to be proven by the person sustaining
 the property damage.
 For instance, if someone sustained property damage by livestock belonging to a
 rancher who had continuously left the pasture gate open and who had been
 repeatedly warned, it might be gross negligence, explains Krista Lee Evans,
 resource policy analyst for the Montana Legislative Services Division. However,
 if someone other than the rancher, such as a hunter, left the gate open, the
 rancher may not be responsible for damage to property from his or her livestock.
 The bill passed both the House and Senate Ag Committees and was sent on to the
 Senate.
 HB335, SB91 - The House bill proposes public notice for proposed concentrated
 animal feeding operations. The Senate bill proposes financing livestock
 containment facilities through renewable resource program.
 SB245 - The bill proposes to let farmers and ranchers set aside up to 20 percent
 of their income or $20,000 a year in a tax-exempt savings account. The money,
 saved up during good farming and ranching years, could be used to pay bills
 during bad years. A farmer could leave money in the account for up to five
 years, penalty-free. After that he or she would pay a 10 percent penalty.
 SB261 - Legalize growing industrial hemp. The bill passed out of committee and
 was sent to the Senate.
 South Dakota Agriculture has not had a hot-button issue that has drawn busloads
 of South Dakotans to Pierre, for this legislative session, but numerous issues
 still are in play. The Legislature also was affected for the first time by
 leadership shifts as term limits kicked in for the first time.
 Among the highest-profile ag issues in the Legislature is a bill that would
 establish a refundable checkoff on swine, to help fill a void left by the defeat
 of the national swine checkoff last fall.
 The national mandatory checkoff garnered only 39 percent of South Dakota's pork
 producer vote. Its proponents were able to get a Senate bill passed Feb. 13. It
 is now in the House, referred to House Agriculture and Natural Resources.
 The state checkoff would be assessed at up to 0.45 of a percentage point of the
 value of swine when sold. Under its provisions, the state checkoff would be
 suspended if a national checkoff is reinstated. To spend the new state checkoff
 money, the bill reinvents a South Dakota Pork Commission, appointed by the
 secretary of agriculture, comprised of five persons who have made a substantial
 part of their living raising swine for at least five years.
 However, the commission may enter into reciprocal agreements with other states
 that also have a swine checkoff fee to remit the assessment to the state where
 the swine were grown, the bill reads. Producers have 90 days to request a
 refund, and the commission has 60 days from the application to make the refund.
 All deferred bills must have been acted upon in the house of origin to remain
 alive. Bills must pass by Feb. 28 and complete conference action by the final
 day March 3.
 Other ag issues up for consideration this year include:
 Flooded land - Feb. 13, the Senate tabled a bill that would have restricted
 public access to private land inundated by water, an issue of primary importance
 to northeast South Dakota farmers. Passed in the Senate, the House was up late
 last week to hear a bill that would limit liability for landowners if a person
 is injured while going onto flooded lands.
 Wind energy - Two bills dealing with wind energy had been deferred, but required
 action by Feb. 16. One would exempt 10-megawatt or smaller developments from
 sales taxes for items purchased for the projects within the state. The other
 would exempt any size wind energy project from a contractors' excise tax.
 Ethanol - Still alive is a bill that would provide producer incentives for
 operating ethanol plants in South Dakota. Past legislatures have authorized
 incentives, but not appropriated full amounts. This could be especially
 important to the new plant in Wentworth, S.D., and others. The Legislature
 killed bills on both the House and Senate sides that would have directed more
 state vehicle use of ethanol.
 Antitrust - Killed a bill authorizing an antitrust division in the attorney
 general's office.
 Mediation - The Senate passed an act to eliminate the South Dakota Farm Loan
 Mediation Board and transfer program authority to the secretary of agriculture,
 to provide civil liability immunity for certain agricultural finance counselors,
 and to authorize the department to contract with businesses for mediation
 services. The existing mediation board has seven members and is appointed by the
 governor to deal with loan disputes of $50,000 or more.
 Contracts - The House Agriculture and Natural Resources also tabled a bill
 involving rights of farmers who grow crops or livestock under contract. It
 called for plain language and specified a right for farmers to submit a copy to
 the secretary of agriculture for review.
 Foreign Ownership - The committee also killed by tabling a bill that restricts
 foreign companies from holding parcels of more than 160 acres of land in the
 state. That's a response to late December sale to a Mexican company of a
 13,000-acre ranch in the southern Black Hills that has limestone and was
 connected to the state cement plant. South Dakota's Amendment E says nonfarm
 corporations cannot own farmland.
 Weeds - Tabled a bill that would have required property sellers in most sales to
 provide a noxious weed disclosure statement before the buyer makes a written
 offer. A statement would be yes or no to the question of whether there are
 noxious weeds on the property.
 Technical fees - House Taxation tabled a bill that prevents companies from
 charging a development fee or technical fee to South Dakota producers if they
 don't charge customers in other countries.
 LOAD-DATE: November 29, 2001
 GRAPHIC: MIkkel Pates, Agweek staff
 Associated Press;
 Agriculture issues were heating up toward mid-session in North Dakota's 2001
 Legislature, now under way.
 Agriculture issues started slow but pepped up in teh 2001 North Dakota
 Legislature, now near tge midpoint in Bismarck.
                        Copyright 2001 Grand Forks Herald
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 68
 
                                 Grand Forks Herald
                      February 12, 2001 Monday FINAL EDITION
 BYLINE: Mikkel Pates, Agweek Staff Writer
 SECTION: A; Pg. 09
 LENGTH: 564 words
 A new Canadian scientific report says the government lacks ability in judging
 genetically modified crops and products.
 The Royal Society of Canada's panel of 14 university researchers issued the
 250-page report last week. The society is one of the country's most prestigious
 scientific bodies. The report was requested in 1999 by the Health Canada
 (department of health) Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
 Among its conclusions and recommendations:
 The Canadian government is in a conflict of interest as both a promoter and
 regulator of biotechnology food products.
 If the same government agency that is charged with the responsibility to protect
 the public health and environmental safety from risks posed by technologies also
 is charged with the promotion of that same technology, and if its safety
 assessments are, by official policy, balanced against the economic interests of
 the industries that develop them, this represents, from the point of view of
 both the public and the industrial stakeholders, a significant conflict of
 interest, the report says.
 A merging of public and private research interests is compromising the ability
 to assess risks and benefits. Confidentiality agreements are anathema to public
 research and regulation.
 Peer review and independent corroboration of research findings are axioms of the
 scientific method, and part of the very meaning of the objectivity and
 neutrality of science, the report admonishes. The panel specifically criticized
 the 1995 approval of Monsanto's Roundup Ready canola, and the evaluation of the
 plant's potential invasiveness. Genes are inserted into Roundup Ready crops that
 make them immune to the herbicide Roundup.
 The panel concludes that the lack of transparency in the current approval
 process, leading as it does to an inability to evaluate the scientific rigor of
 the assessment process, seriously compromises the confidence that society can
 place in the current regulatory framework used to assess potential risks to
 human, animal and environmental safety posed by GMOs (genetically modified
 organisms), the report says.
 Health Canada currently judges whether transgenic crops are safe based on their
 substantial equivalence to conventional versions. Confidence in this safety
 standard is, however, scientifically unjustifiable, the report says. Because
 substantially equivalent genetically modified crops require no labeling, they
 can pose risks because of allergens and toxins.
 The panel recommends a new diagnostic assessment that would include more outside
 peer review. It would evaluate the new products at four molecular levels, as
 well as assess health and environmental impacts.
 The extra costs involved should be regarded as a necessary long-term investment,
 the report says.
 The panel suggests the federal and provincial governments put more money into
 university research to offset the influence of private-company research. Panel
 members say environmental assessments of modified crops and animal products are
 inadequate.
 Serious ecological impacts could arise following very rare events that would be
 hard to predict from data collected in conventional ecological experiments. The
 sparse knowledge base available concerning the ecology and genetics of GM crops
 is a major hurdle for sound risk assessment, with important regulatory
 implications, the scientists says.
 LOAD-DATE: November 29, 2001
                        Copyright 2001 Grand Forks Herald
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 69
 
                      Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA)
                            November 13, 2000, Monday
 Poor nations can't afford debate on gene-altered crops
 BYLINE: Jennifer A. Thomson
 SECTION: OPINION; Pg. 9
 LENGTH: 779 words
 Recent world conferences on agricultural biotechnology have made it unmistakably
 clear that if governments foil the growth of this technology, mankind will be
 denied solutions to a host of problems that plague many nations, particularly in
 the developing world.
 The biotechnology debate in Europe is dominated by cultural and ethical issues,
 potential food and environmental safety questions, and an underlying skepticism
 with regard to the role of multinational corporations and "industrialized"
 agriculture.
 Recently, activists have attempted to raise similar issues in the United States
 and Canada through dramatic, colorful public-relations stunts and
 attention-grabbing headlines.
 Yet, in developing countries, the case for biotechnology can be made very
 easily: It is needs-based. Rich countries may engage in lengthy disputes about
 real or imagined risks. We suggest that is largely a luxury debate.
 Meanwhile, the rest of the world needs to focus on a rigorous risk-benefit
 analysis. From the perspective of many developing and newly industrialized
 countries, agricultural biotechnology's benefits are very real. They are
 urgently needed today and indispensable tomorrow.
 The developing world cannot afford to let Europe's homemade problems stunt the
 future growth in our countries.
 In South Africa, small-scale farming still is the norm rather than the
 exception. Field trials with genetically modified crops have been taking place
 since the mid-1990s, and commercial planting of crops with insect-resistant and
 herbicide-tolerant traits started in 1998.
 The results are extremely encouraging, and the benefits are tremendous,
 especially in small-scale farming.
 Studies in the Makatini Flats in the KwaZulu-Natal province in 1998 showed a 20
 percent yield increase in cotton through the use of insect-resistant,
 genetically modified cotton seed.
 In the cases of some commercial farmers, the use of pesticides has decreased
 considerably. We also observed an increase in beneficial insects in and around
 the fields planted with pest-resistant cotton.
 These field results stand in marked contrast to the fears in some industrialized
 countries that such crops might endanger "non-target" insects, such as the
 monarch butterfly in the US. Biotechnology offers farmers and consumers in South
 Africa more than just higher yields and pesticide-free crops.
 This nation's geography and climate regularly bring drought to large areas that
 otherwise could produce substantial farm crops.  Drought-tolerant seed research
 is making tremendous progress in South African laboratories, promising improved
 production and economic opportunity.
 Halfway around the world, China has more than 20 percent of the world's
 population and only 7 percent of the world's arable land. With its growing
 population and changing eating habits, as well as an ongoing loss of cultivable
 land, food security is an imminent concern.
 My colleague, Prof. Zhangliang Chen, Vice President of Peking University, tells
 me that China first turned to biotechnology in the mid-1980s. According to Dr.
 Chen, more than 100 laboratories across the country have been involved in the
 effort. In 1997, China started to commercialize transgenic crops, most of them
 with such traits as insect and virus resistance.
 Roughly 1 million acres of transgenic crops were planted, making China one of
 the world's top three countries growing transgenic crops. As Europe hems and
 haws, China's research effort is moving forward at a brisk pace.
 Scientists are now, or will be, focusing on bacterial, fungus, and virus
 resistance; salt and drought tolerance; nutritional enrichment; and quality
 improvement. Additionally, even more advanced applications, such as
 "bio-pharming" for edible oral vaccines and recombinant pharmaceuticals, are in
 the picture.
 Given the socioeconomic realities and needs in countries like South Africa and
 China, it is almost trivial to discuss whether they should use a technology that
 already has shown its benefits to their populations.
 These countries cannot afford to limit themselves to the industrialized world's
 narrow interpretation of risk assessment. Likewise, they cannot afford to allow
 the Western debate to slow developing countries' access to already existing and
 expected future benefits of biotechnology.
 Jennifer A. Thomson is chairwoman of the Department of Microbiology at the
 University of Cape Town in South Africa.
 (c) Copyright 2000. The Christian Science Publishing Society
 LOAD-DATE: November 12, 2000
             Copyright 2000 The Christian Science Publishing Society









Document Number: 70
 
                          Deseret News (Salt Lake City)
                            September 4, 2000, Monday
 A look at 'transgenic' foods
 BYLINE: By Linda SeebachScripps Howard News Service
 SECTION: OPINION; Pg. A13
 LENGTH: 562 words
 Detractors call them "Frankenfoods": crops containing genes transferred from
 other species. Worry about that or not, as you will, but you have to admire the
 ingenuity of the term and its effectiveness in rousing irrational fears.
 Nothing equally catchy has been coined by advocates for development of
 genetically modified organisms.
 Professors at Colorado State University, whose new Web site aims to offer a
 balanced presentation of the controversy, have opted for the unemotional
 "transgenic."
 The authors are Pat Byrne, Sarah Ward and Ann Fenwick of the Department of Soil
 and Crop Sciences and Lacy Fuller of the Center for Life Sciences. The site is
 www.colostate.edu/programs/lifesciences/TransgenicCrops at CSU, in Fort Collins,
 Colo.
 They are, they say in their introduction, "engaged in plant genetics research
 and teaching" at CSU. "They receive no funds from companies involved in
 transgenic crop development, nor are they affiliated with groups campaigning
 against such crops."
 Fair enough. But as experts who actually work in the area, neither are they
 afflicted with the antitechnology hysteria that predominates in this discussion.
 There are risks -- it would be more accurate to say, based on experience so far,
 that there could be risks -- from genetic engineering of transgenic plants.
 There are also benefits, already substantial and potentially enormous. As with
 every scientific advance, there are trade-offs between risks and benefits, and
 the best policy usually lies somewhere between ignoring all risks and trying to
 avoid them.
 If you think this debate has nothing to do with you, you're almost certainly
 wrong. In 1999, more than half of the soybeans planted in the United States, and
 a quarter of the corn, were transgenic varieties. They're not segregated in
 production, so if you haven't eaten them directly you've eaten them in products
 like soy protein or corn oil used widely in prepared foods, or indirectly in
 meat from animals whose feed contained them.
 "We have all been eating transgenic food products for some time," the authors
 say. "There is as yet no single case reported of anyone suffering health effects
 as a result."
 The transgenic varieties popular with farmers are resistant to herbicides or
 produce their own pesticides. If farmers plant crops resistant to a particular
 herbicide, such as those marketed by Monsanto under the brand "Roundup Ready,"
 they can spray their fields with Roundup (glyphosate) and the weeds die while
 the crop flourishes.
 There's nothing more organic than genetic modification. The reason there are
 genes like these is that plants and the things that eat them have been in an
 evolutionary war for far longer than humans have been on the scene.
 The advantages of these crops is that they markedly decrease the amount of
 chemicals needed in farming, and by increasing the productivity of the land
 reduce the demand for converting other kinds of land to farmland.
 This fight is coming to a neighborhood near you; last month, for example, the
 Open Space Department in Boulder, Colo., banned genetically modified crops from
 agricultural lands it leases out.
 But that's Boulder for you. Others will want to weigh the risks and benefits
 before deciding, and now they have a great place to start.
 Contact Linda Seebach of the Denver Rocky Mountain News at
 http://www.denver-rmn.com.
 LOAD-DATE: September 4, 2000
                  Copyright 2000 The Deseret News Publishing Co.









Document Number: 71
 
                          The Record (Bergen County, NJ)
                      August 1, 2000, TUESDAY; ALL EDITIONS
 SOURCE: Wire services
 SECTION: OPINION; Pg. L15
 LENGTH: 1052 words
 FAR AWAY from the shadow of Dolly the sheep and the roar of protests
  in cities like Minneapolis and Seattle, in the Gallatin River valley
  around Bozeman, Mont., biotech researchers like Joan Combie aren't
  thinking about moral and ethical dilemmas.
 They're working to revolutionize patio and palate, with
  weed-resistant lawns that need less mowing and ice cream that won't melt
  as fast in the summer sun. In the process, they're putting
  environmentalists in something of a quandary.
 Many, such as the protesters amassed this week in Philadelphia for
  the Republican National Convention, point to genetic research as a bad
  experiment about to go awry.
 But experts say bioengineering could revolutionize consumer waste in
  ways that recycling cannot. It could also reduce the pressure to clear
  virgin forests and make food more readily available and inexpensive in
  poverty-stricken countries.
 And then there's Combie, who is in the middle of a sticky experiment
  with broad implications.
 Combie is developing a new form of industrial-strength glue.
 Someday, it could provide an environmentally friendly (not to say
  profitable) alternative to the synthetics used on carpets in office
  buildings that have been blamed for outbreaks of sickness.
 She and her partner, Fred Albert, are among thousands of researchers
  around the world quietly making daily breakthroughs in work that rarely
  spurs angry demonstrations or the kind of media hype generated by cloned
  livestock and ears of corn.
 "There's nothing really exciting about glue,"Combie confesses with
  a chuckle."But cloning a sheep, that's newsworthy. Unfortunately, I
  think the controversial stuff surrounding bioengineering takes up more
  than its share of newspaper space."
 Last week, Minneapolis became the latest battleground in the fray
  over bioengineering as hundreds of protesters took to the streets in an
  attempt to disrupt an international scientific conference on
  biotechnology.
 The irony about objections to protests of bioengineering research,
  advocates say, is that the protesters 1 likely go home and enjoy the
  benefits of genetic tinkering.
 It might have been in something as simple as clean clothes (courtesy
  of improved detergents) or a glass of fruit juice whose flavor had been
  enhanced.
 "Apart from these common consumer products, I would bet that at some
  point in time the lives of those protesters have been bettered by
  biotechnology, certainly in the area of medicines,"says Preston Scott,
  executive director of the World Foundation for Environment and
  Development in Washington, D.C. "Their increased life expectancy is no
  accident."
 In addition to care-free lawns, researchers believe they are on the
  cusp of:
 Unleashing a form of ancient, microscopic bacteria to eat
  toxins at mining sites in cleanups that could save taxpayers millions of
  dollars annually.
 Extracting the natural agents that enable microbes to endure
  high doses of ultraviolet rays and transform it into sun cream for
  beachgoers and possibly an armor that could shield astronauts traveling
  to other planets.
 Manufacturing"organic"nanochips as small as a speck of dust
  that can store as much information as millions of personal computers.
 Altering the genes of mosquitoes to prevent them from
  carrying diseases such as malaria, and even to change their diet so they
  snack on animals rather than people.
 The trend with biotech, experts say, is to deliver more products in
  a smaller space, essentially to make it cheaper in the long run for
  companies to do business with products that also yield less waste.
 That ethos is quite attractive to some environmentalists, but they
  say troubling questions remain about the wisdom of tinkering with forms
  of life.
 Critics say that by the time a problem is identified, it's already
  too late to ameliorate the damage. Concern over such things as the
  pollen dust of Bt corn, the monarch butterfly killer that prompted the
  protests in Minneapolis, is only the tip of the iceberg.
 A few months ago, the World Bank commissioned a blue-ribbon panel to
  examine the risks of genetically modified crops on human health and
  natural ecosystems.
 The conclusion was that transgenic crops represent a rapid
  acceleration of the hybridization process that has been going on 1 for
  centuries with everything from orchids to house pets. The report
  concluded there is, as yet, no compelling evidence to suggest transgenic
  crops have caused major problems.
 "I don't want to criticize the protesters. They are asking the right
  questions, but maybe some of those questions have already been
  answered,"says David Kaye, spokesman for biomedical research firm
  Amgen, based in Thousand Oaks, Calif.
 As scientists try to genetically decode known species and splice
  together beneficial properties, the real frontier lies in identifying
  specific enzymes in previously unknown microorganisms.
 That search accounted for $ 2.5 billion in research and development
  worldwide in 1999, and genetic scientists believe that enzymes represent
  potentially $ 50 billion in untapped revenue.
 THE BOOM in biotech has given way to a rush of small research
  companies trying to cash in. Fourteen years ago, when Montana Biotech
  was founded, there were few firms specializing in genetic engineering.
 Now, in the Bozeman area alone, there are dozens of companies united
  under the umbrella of the Gallatin Valley Technology Alliance, forming
  partnerships with parties ranging from NASA to multinational companies.
 "There's a minority of issues that are stirring up controversy but
  some of the really exiting things are going unnoticed by the public,"
  Combie says.
 As for the demonstrations, Preston Scott has his own take."I see
  the protests as a political-social phenomenon,"he says.
 "It obviously involves a group of people who feel disenfranchised,
  not only politically but intellectually. They are against the
  technological wizards, who in many cases work for corporations and hold
  the cards and make decisions that affect all of us. The gap has
  compelled them to hit the streets."
 Todd Wilkinson wrote this piece for The Christian Science Monitor.
 LOAD-DATE: August 1, 2000
 LANGUAGE: English
             Copyright 2000 North Jersey Media Group Inc., All Rights
                                     Reserved









Document Number: 72
 
                                 The Miami Herald
                             July 29, 2000, Saturday
 Brazil Gets a Taste of Genetically Modified Food Fight
 BYLINE: By Kevin G. Hall
 LENGTH: 858 words
 RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil--The global battle over genetically modified food is
 spilling into Brazil, South America's largest economy.
 And the consequences will be huge for U.S. exporters to Brazil of nearly $ 2
 billion a year in food products and commodities such as corn and soybeans.
 They'll be big for Brazil, too, forcing it to choose between the United States
 and Europe as its target export market.
 Currently, Brazilian law permits imports of genetically modified seeds on a
 case-by-case basis. But lawsuits have stymied every effort to do so. Brazil also
 has a new law requiring labels on genetically modified consumer foods. But so
 far, the commission named to carry out the law has failed to agree how it should
 work.
 Brazil's debate comes as U.S. opponents have launched a new American initiative
 against biotechnological foods and the industry has just concluded a $ 50
 million U.S. campaign to promote their safety and usefulness.
 What Brazil decides has importance to American consumers, too. Soybeans, a key
 export, are used as protein additives and in cooking oils, and are crushed into
 meal to thicken or bind food products.
 If Brazil joins the United States and Argentina in allowing genetically modified
 products to be grown and imported, it will be harder for consumers anywhere to
 be sure their breakfast cereals, loaves of bread or chicken breasts contain no
 genetically modified ingredients.
 The issue has arisen because U.S. farmers now routinely use genetically modified
 seeds to grow corn, cotton or soybeans that are more resistant to pests or
 hearty enough to withstand certain pesticides. The practice also is common in
 Canada and has spread to Mexico.
 European environmental groups, often supported by a heavily subsidized farm
 sector and chemical manufacturers, have managed to keep some genetically
 modified food imports out of Europe or to require that they be labeled.
 Now that's happening in Brazil, the world's second-largest soybean producer, for
 whom Europe is a major market. Brazil's chief competitor there is the biggest
 producer, the United States.
 Brazil also is a major importer of feed grains, and its population of 165
 million makes it South America's biggest consumer market. It imports about $ 70
 million in consumer foods from the United States, possibly including some that
 contain genetically modified ingredients.
 Thus far, the Brazilian government has appeared to side with U.S. scientists and
 regulators who say genetic modification does no harm. But polls in Europe, the
 United States and Brazil show consumers are wary.
 "The problem is not so much technical. There is the question of public opinion,
 disinformation about the products," said Claudio Machado, an agriculture
 researcher at Brazil's acclaimed University of Sao Paulo.
 "We are in favor of transgenics because it lowers our costs," said Osmar
 Giovelli, whose family business, Industrias de Oleos Vegetais, grows and crushes
 soybeans in the southernmost state of Rio Grande do Sul. Transgenics is
 shorthand for genetically modified products.
 Giovelli has a special certification program in place to sell transgenic-free
 products to the niche health-food market. But since neighboring Argentina's
 exports are almost all transgenic, it is hard to keep genetically modified seed
 out of Brazil.
 Researchers estimate that as much as 15 percent of Brazilian soybeans may be of
 transgenic stocks smuggled in or blown across the border from Argentina.
 Opponents of genetically modified foods argue that not enough is known about
 their long-term effects or about how transgenic feeds affect farm animals
 consumed by humans.
 While favoring unrestricted access for transgenic products, "I can understand
 why Brazil is taking a good look at this," said Linda Thrane, a spokeswoman for
 U.S. agribusiness giant Cargill in Minneapolis. Cargill exports chicken feed to
 Brazil.
 Another U.S. ag giant, Monsanto, has won Brazil's approval to test modified
 soybean seeds, but the offer remains tied up in court.
 Brazilian Agriculture Minister Marcus Vinicius Pratini de Moraes has said
 publicly that transgenic feed corn for animals has no effect on their genetic
 structure. He has praised transgenic crops as safer for the environment because
 they require less pesticide. He blames unnamed makers of agricultural chemicals
 for financing environmentalist opposition in hopes of selling more crop
 protection products.
 Brazilian agriculture officials are developing a labeling standard for consumer
 foods with genetically modified contents. But what percentage of a product must
 be genetically modified to require such a label has not been resolved.
 "If we try to say something is free of genetic modification, we will have to
 label everything," said Edmundo Klotz, president of the Brazilian Food Industry
 Association, which represents grocery-store chains. "In some sense every product
 on a store shelf over the last six years will probably have some genetically
 modified component."
 To see more of The Miami Herald, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to
 http://www.herald.com
 INDUSTRY: Agriculture/Food
 LOAD-DATE: July 29, 2000
                Copyright 2000Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News
                         Copyright 2000The Miami Herald









Document Number: 73
 
                          Telegraph Herald (Dubuque, IA)
                             July 12, 2000, Wednesday
 Report:Modify crops to stop hunger; Food:Scientists say genes are the key to
 feeding the world's growing population
 BYLINE: Associated Press
 SECTION: Pg. b8
 LENGTH: 362 words
 LONDON (AP) - To combat world hunger, rich nations must boost funding for
 research into genetically modified crops and poor farmers must be protected from
 corporate control of the technology, a group of science academies said Tuesday.
 In an unprecedented report by seven independent academies from both the
 developed and developing world, experts agreed that genetic modification of
 crops is crucial to addressing the problem of the world's growing population and
 shrinking land for growing food.
 Today, "800 million people don't have access to enough food," said Brian Heap,
 vice president of Britain's Royal Society and chairman of the group that wrote
 the report.
 Genetically modified, or transgenic, crops are created when scientists introduce
 a gene from one species into another. The technique can be used to make crops
 more resistant to disease and pests, fortify them with extra vitamins or
 vaccines, and boost tolerance to drought.
 The academies' report, launched in London by the Royal Society, urged companies
 and research institutions to share their knowledge and called for a ban on broad
 patents covering GM technology.
 Meanwhile, the public sector must create more genetically modified crops that
 benefit poor farmers in developing nations, it said.
 The document was a consensus of opinions from the Royal Society, the U.S.
 National Academy of Sciences, the Third World Academy of Sciences and the
 science academies of China, Brazil, India and Mexico.
 Investigations into the effects GM crops have on the environment should be
 coordinated, and public-health regulators in every country need to identify and
 monitor any potential adverse effects on human health, the academies said.
 Worldwide, 74 million acres have been planted with genetically modified crops,
 mainly in the United States. Other countries embracing the technology include
 Argentina, Canada, Australia and China.
 But the issue of genetically altered crops has become politically charged
 elsewhere, particularly in Europe, where anxiety about food safety runs high
 after a crisis in the mid-1990s over mad cow disease that led to a ban on
 British beef exports.
 SUBJECT: biologySCIENCE GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS(94%);SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
 LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2000
                         Copyright 2000, Telegraph-Herald









Document Number: 74
 
                              Tulsa World (Oklahoma)
                                   July 9, 2000
 Food fight! Bioengineered crops need more study and less fear
 LENGTH: 1053 words
 In the past year, the international melee over genetically modified crops has
 begun to resemble a college-fraternity food fight, with tomatoes, chicken wings
 and mashed potatoes flying in all directions. Unfortunately, many participants
 have made lots of noise but little sense.
 The debate has now come to the United States from Europe and is growing so
 tempestuous it threatens to forestall any hope of a reasoned approach to the
 problem. In March, more than 1,500 protesters descended on a biotechnology
 convention in Boston, further inflaming passions at a time when thoughtful
 dialogue is in desperately short supply.
 Yet that is just what we need at this critical juncture. While the genetic
 manipulation of food represents uncharted territory, and many unanswered
 questions remain, we will never find the answers we need if we take the Luddite
 approach and close our eyes. That's the danger of excessive fear: It can yield
 paralysis.
 To avoid this, we need to delve deeper into the issue to address the key
 questions. Are genetically engineered foods safe for human consumption? What are
 the environmental risks of introducing new genes into existing crops? And what
 risks do we face if we don't take advantage of this new technology?
 Bioengineering, like any ground-breaking technology, is not risk-free; but it
 isn't necessarily a recipe for calamity, either. And the status quo presents
 certain risks, as well. For example, world hunger might worsen if we fail to
 develop hardier strains of crops. Hazardous pesticide use may increase if we
 halt the development of pest-resistant strains of corn. Ironically, Western
 Europe, the center of much opposition to such "unnatural" foods, has the world's
 highest pesticide consumption.
 To sort this out, additional research needs to be funded and a rigorous
 cost-benefit analysis must be performed so we don't fly blind into the
 agricultural horizon. Though the evidence to date shows no indication that
 engineered foods are dangerous, further studies are needed to clarify the
 potential for such problems as allergic reactions to transgenic crops. Since
 genes encode proteins and proteins can cause allergies, the transfer of genes
 from one organism to another presents the risk of introducing allergenic
 substances into the food supply.
 Once again, however, opposition to genetically modified foods is impeding the
 search for answers; because of the controversy, European scientists have had
 access to less research funding from governments and industry. This has led to a
 troublesome paradox: Their ability to study the health or environmental effects
 of transgenic foods has been hindered as a result of public fears and
 resistance.
 But such fears should not be allowed to cloud the debate. The issue has already
 been subject to enough confusion and inconclusive research, such as a 1999
 Cornell study that showed a possible adverse effect of transgenic crops on
 monarch butterflies. Studies like this fuel the controversy, but further
 research is needed to demonstrate whether butterflies are indeed being harmed.
 Other research has triggered even more dissent -- most notably a report on
 genetically modified potatoes that appeared last year in the Lancet, the British
 science journal. The report concluded that the potatoes caused adverse effects
 in the digestive tract of rats, but it was immediately criticized for multiple
 flaws, including a deficient experimental design and insufficient studies.
 Scientific advisers at the Lancet itself had mixed reactions to the paper, and
 some advised rejecting it before publication. But the prestigious journal
 ultimately decided to publish the study to promote further inquiry. Contrary to
 some newspaper reports, publication of the article was not meant to endorse the
 researchers' claims.
 The point isn't that the research was wrong -- it was simply incomplete. So
 what's needed now is more research, not more emotional hand-wringing.
 It's worth noting that so-called "natural" foods can be the product of genetic
 manipulation, too. Nectarines, as everyone knows, are really genetically altered
 peaches, and humans have been cultivating wheat to achieve better yields and
 disease resistance for centuries.
 None of this means that new genetically engineered foods should be introduced
 without thorough safety and environmental-impact studies. The National Academy
 of Sciences, in fact, recently advocated stronger regulation of such foods as
 well as additional research to assess the safety of transgenic products consumed
 over extended periods of time.
 Well-designed studies, along with careful regulation, could go a long way toward
 easing the public's fears. But consideration of the issue must also take into
 account the other side of the equation: the potential benefits of biotechnology.
 This technology could enable us to reduce our dependence on chemical pesticides
 while improving both agricultural yields and nutritional value.
 There's another potential benefit as well. As new threats to existing crops
 emerge, biotechnology may play a crucial role in helping prevent deadly
 infectious outbreaks that could devastate agricultural production. The
 geminivirus provides a good illustration: In the past year, geminiviruses have
 become a major threat to crops all over the world, as standard control measures
 like insecticides have proven ineffective. But genetic engineers may eventually
 be able to endow plants with proteins that inhibit the virus, thereby protecting
 crops from infection -- and people from starvation. This kind of scientific
  advance would be analogous to new discoveries made in medicine -- and be just
 as important. If we can search for new ways to fight viruses in humans, why not
 for plants? In both cases, the final goal is the same: to protect and enhance
 the quality of life.
 At this stage, we need to conduct a careful inquiry into the risks and benefits
 of genetically modified food. But to succeed in this, we must be willing to
 conduct a levelheaded -- and open-minded -- exploration. If rational voices can
 prevail, we may be able to pioneer some exciting advances in agricultural
 technology. But if we close our eyes to the future, we'll simply be mired in the
 past. Stephen L. Cohen is a physician and a medical journalist.
 LOAD-DATE: July 11, 2000
 GRAPHIC:ELAINE KURTENBACH/Associated Press
 Zhu Zhen inspects genetically modified corn seedlings in his laboratory.
                          Copyright 2000 The Tulsa World









Document Number: 75
 
                           The Roanoke Times (Virginia)
                       June 6, 2000, Tuesday, METRO EDITION
 SECTION: VIRGINIA, Pg. A1
 LENGTH: 1627 words
 The activist group posted an ominous message last fall that Virginia Tech
 officials took seriously.
 On its Web site, the underground Bioengineering Action Network of North America
 (BAN) identified companies, government agencies and universities involved with
 the genetic engineering of crops and animals and designated them "targets" for
 destruction on Oct. 27 or 28. Tech's Fralin Biotechnology Center was one of 11
 U.S. and Canadian university facilities BAN listed.
 "Prior to this point our actions have been uncoordinated," the BAN message read.
 "Let us take action the night of the 27 (or early morning of the 28th) and hit
 them when they are weak. ... Destroy their crops, equipment, buildings, vehicles
 and they get the point. All of a sudden, 'venture capitalist' scum realize that
 biotechnology is not such a great investment and they flee with their bags of
 cash with them."
 Tech officials became aware of the threat days before the proposed "call to
 action." Campus police officers conducted patrols in and around the building on
 those days but reported no unusual activity.
 The online threat represented an extreme example of the concerns Tech and
 private industries face as they push ahead with biotechnology research and
 development in Southwest Virginia.
 Interest groups, academics and private citizens have raised questions about the
 health risks and ethical issues associated with genetic engineering in the
 region and around the world. Just last week, nearly 4,000 demonstrators
 protested against genetically modified foods outside an international
 biotechnology conference in Genoa, Italy.
 "People have really been confronting these issues," said Tech professor Doris
 Zallen, a trained geneticist and science policy expert. "Scientists don't have
 the corner on wisdom."
 Those questions have prompted scientists to make greater efforts to educate the
 public about the merits and risks of transgenic research. Tech Professor Tracy
 Wilkins, who put together the university's first transgenic research team, said
 public confidence is critical if scientists hope to achieve success. Without
 that support, they would lose the government and corporate funding needed to
 proceed with research, he said.
 "Good science can lose," said Wilkins, the director of the Fralin center and
 founder of two biotechnology companies. "It requires a lot of money to do these
 things. The companies aren't going to invest in something that won't sell. The
 consumer has all the power here."
 "How safe is it?" asked Patricia Smith, a Craig County resident concerned about
 the environmental effects of Pharming Healthcare's plan to keep transgenic
 cattle on a farm in her community. The Dutch company last year announced plans
 to keep transgenic cattle in 10 buildings on the farm and build a separate
 production facility at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. Scientists
 hope to use human proteins from the cows' milk for affordable medicines to treat
 people with heart problems and blood disorders.
 Smith and other Craig residents worry about pollution caused by runoff from
 Pharming's cattle facility. They also worry about mutations that could affect
 other animals and plants. And they wonder whether the chase for patents and
 profits will make Pharming blind to those concerns.
 "I really sense that they are more about just the money," said Smith, who works
 for a Patrick County company that studies soil and plant biology. "Everything is
 so new. I don't think the researchers even know the answers."
 Pharming has not purchased land for the Craig facilities and has not made a
 contractual commitment to the state, which offered the company $ 23 million in
 tax breaks and other incentives last year. Pharming officials have continued
 negotiations with representatives from Wisconsin, who hope to lure those
 operations away from Virginia.
 But Pharming officials have insisted the company's Craig County operation will
 not harm the environment. Transgenic cattle will not graze freely in pastures or
 mix with other animals, company spokeswoman Tonua Fedusenko said. Genetically
 engineered proteins will be excreted in the cows' milk, she said.
 "Remember, too, biotechnology companies are significantly impacted by
 government-driven regulatory agencies" such as the Food and Drug Administration,
 Fedusenko said.
 But government regulations have limits, Zallen said.
 "Government is a little bit slow to react," she said. "The problem is no one can
 regulate scientists because it could strangle their work."
 The Department of Health and Human Services last year formed an advisory
 committee to review medical, ethical and social issues surrounding another
 controversy in biotechnology - the transplanting of animal organs into humans.
 Not long after the panel began its work, researchers at PPL Therapeutics
 announced the births of the world's first cloned pigs in Blacksburg. The news
 raised hopes that genetic modifications could make pigs' organs safe for
 transplantation in humans, offering a short-term solution to a worldwide organ
 shortage.
 But the March announcement generated criticism from some scientists, ethicists
 and other observers who argued cloning and cross-species transplantation were
 fraught with problems.
 Animal-rights activists criticized PPL for attempting to use farm animals as
 organ factories. Opponents of cross-species transplantation raised concerns
 about health risks, particularly the threat of transmitting deadly viruses to
 humans. Others chided PPL for announcing the breakthrough before publishing its
 research or obtaining patents for its cloning process.
 PPL officials later acknowledged they hastened their announcement because the
 company had heard rumors that competitors were on the verge of a similar
 breakthrough. But David Ayares, PPL vice president for research, did not dismiss
 the medical and ethical concerns raised in the wake of the cloning announcement.
 He said his company has an obligation to educate the public about the benefits
 and dangers of cross-species transplantation.
 "We want to be as open and inclusive as we possibly can." Ayares said in March.
 "We don't want to try to pull something over on them."
 Some plant scientists have taken a similar approach to addressing concerns about
 the safety of genetically engineered crops. Many view transgenic crops -
 engineered to resist insects, produce proteins or shield them from herbicides -
 as resources for feeding the world's growing population and protecting the
 environment. But some environmental groups fear genetically modified crops can
 harm birds and insects, contaminate other crops or endanger human health.
 No studies have found evidence of health risks, noted Carole Cramer, a Tech
 plant physiologist.
 "Without this technology, there isn't a way we can feed them (future
 populations) that's not fully destructive to the environment," said Cramer, who
 has pioneered research in transgenic tobacco. Cramer co-founded a Blacksburg
 company called CropTech Development Corp., which uses transgenic tobacco to
 produce human proteins for pharmaceutical and industrial uses.
 Federal regulators already have imposed some restrictions on drug-producing
 plants like those CropTech cultivates. Companies must obtain permits to conduct
 field tests and must isolate the plants from other crops to minimize the risk of
 cross-pollination.
 "It's clear that we will be mandated by the FDA to have quality control at every
 level of the process," Cramer said.
 Zallen said scientists and concerned citizens too often talk past each other
 when discussing ethical issues in science and technology.
 "It's not that they're bad people," she said of the scientists. But nothing in
 their training prepares them for dealing with these issues in a public setting,
 so they often appear to be speaking "in a foreign tongue," Zallen said. So
 others must bridge the communications gap.
 "I think the professional societies can do that," she said. "Institutions of
 higher education can do that."
 Zallen has experience in explaining complex and controversial science to the
 general public. Her 1997 book, "Does It Run in the Family? A Consumer Guide to
 DNA Testing for Genetic Disorders," was praised by scholars for its clear
 explanations of advancements in the understanding of inherited medical
 conditions and DNA testing options. The book also earned her the Sturm Award for
 Excellence in Faculty Research from Tech's Phi Beta Kappa chapter.
 Each fall, Zallen organizes a public forum at Tech to discuss current issues in
 science and technology. The forum, called "Choices and Challenges," explores
 ethical issues in a variety of fields. In the last 15 years, topics have
 included nuclear power and space science, limits to caring for the terminally
 ill and the prospects for genetically engineering "designer children."
 "We bring people together," said Zallen, whose forum participants include
 scientists, academics and the general public. "We create a level playing field.
 Everyone is urged to speak in a normal language."
 Her program this November will deal with organ transplantation, including the
 cross-species transplantation controversy arising from PPL's cloning of pigs.
 Tech President Charles Steger said programs like "Choices and Challenges" are
 important because "we have an obligation to be a responsible social institution
 and to raise key questions that foster public debate."
 And even if that debate takes place at a university that has made headlines for
 cutting edge research, ethicists like Zallen will not take sides.
 "We should have no agenda except the truth and good policy," she said.
 Michael Sluss can be reached at 381-1676 or mikes@roanoke.com
 LOAD-DATE: August 10, 2000
 GRAPHIC: ASSOCIATED PRESS A Greenpeace demonstrator stands in front of the
 police as thousands of environmental activists, wildlife conservationists and
 students took to the streets of Genoa, Italy, last month to march toward the
 site of an international biotechnology conference. Concerns about health risks
 associated with genetic engineering, like research done at Virginia Tech, have
 prompted other protests around the world.  MATT GENTRY/THE ROANOKE TIMES "People
 have really been confronting these (biotech) issues," says Virginia Tech
 professor Doris Zallen, a trained geneticist and science policy expert.
 "Scientists don't have the corner on wisdom."
                         Copyright 2000 The Roanoke Times









Document Number: 76
 
                         News and Observer (Raleigh, NC)
                        May 7, 2000 Sunday, FINAL EDITION
 Food fight
 SECTION: QUESTION; Pg. A23
 LENGTH: 2314 words
 TERRA CEIA -- The Ratcliff family farm is on the front lines
 in a growing war over bioengineered crops.
 The battle is being played out silently these days in the neat
 rows of corn and soybeans that stretch as far as the eye can see
 in this tiny coastal farming community, whose name means
 "heavenly land."
 So far, it's a draw.
 Sandy Ratcliff is planting half his fields with bioengineered
 corn and soybeans and raising conventional varieties on the other
 half.
 The bioengineered seeds cost more than the conventional ones -
 often three or four times as much - but Ratcliff said he more
 than makes up the difference in reduced costs for labor and pest
 control.
 Ratcliff, who holds an economics degree from N.C. State
 University, said he probably would have shifted over completely
 to bioengineered seeds by now were it not for the intensifying
 debate about the safety of the genetically modified crops. More
 and more, farmers are hedging their bets by raising both
 bioengineered and conventional varieties, or getting out of the
 genetically modified crops altogether.
 "In the end, we are going to grow what our customers want us
 to grow," said Ratcliff, who runs the 1,250-acre Beaufort County
 farm with his father and aunt. "So far, our customers haven't
 expressed much problem with the genetically modified crops, but
 we know that could change. Our goal is to be in a position to
 react as quickly as we can if the market suddenly shifts one way
 or the other."
 More than half the soybeans and nearly a third of the corn
 grown in this country last year were genetically modified
 varieties, most designed to resist pests or stand up better to
 widely used herbicides. All told, U.S. farmers planted more than
 70 million acres with bioengineered crops last year - an area
 more than twice the size of North Carolina.
 Up until last year, the agricultural biotechnology industry,
 usually called "agbio" these days, was growing by a rate of more
 than 20 percent a year, and agbio companies such as Monsanto and
 Novartis were among the technology darlings of Wall Street. But
 last year, the number of U.S. acres planted with genetically
 modified seeds fell for the first time since agbio crops were
 introduced in this country in the early 1990s, a trend some
 experts expect to continue.
 The drop is expected to be particularly sharp in soybeans and
 corn, the two commodities where bioengineering technology has
 made its biggest inroads.
 The U.S. Department of Agricul-ture says corn farmers expect
 to plant just 25 percent of their fields with bioengineered seeds
 this year, down from 33 percent last year. The number of acres
 planted with bioengineered soybeans is expected to fall from 57
 percent last year to 52 percent this year.
 Ready for anything:
 For now, Ratcliff is standing pat. He sells most of his crop
 to livestock operations that use the corn and soybeans to fatten
 up pigs, cows and poultry. So far, livestock growers in this
 country have shown no reluctance to raising their animals on
 genetically modified feed.
 But Ratcliff and other farmers know that could change quickly.
 The specialized seeds go by a lot of different names -
 transgenic mutations, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and
 bioengineered crops, to name a few. Whatever they are called,
 they all are created by introducing genetic material from one
 type of living organism into a different kind of organism. The
 aim is to transfer desirable traits between different kinds of
 plants and animals. For example, the gene that allows a salmon to
 withstand cold water might be able increase the hardiness of a
 tomato plant.
 While it sounds fairly simple, there are mounting questions
 about the impact of transgenic organisms on people, animals and
 the environment.
 What happens when a person who is allergic to shellfish eats a
 bioengineered soybean containing a lobster gene? What if a gene
 transfers some bad traits to its new host along with the good
 ones, such as increasing production of lethal toxins? What if a
 gene meant to render a crop resistant to a certain herbicide is
 somehow transferred to some of the weeds the chemical is intended
 to kill?
 "There are a lot of legitimate concerns that have yet to be
 addressed by the agricultural biotech industry," said Rebecca
 Goldberg, who specializes in biotech issues for the Environmental
 Defense Fund in New York City. "The regulation of this industry
 has been pretty laissez-faire for more than a decade now."
 Last week, the Clinton administration announced a series of
 steps aimed at assuring the public that biotech foods are safe,
 including a formal process for reviewing genetically modified
 crops and labeling standards.
 Under the plan, biotech companies would be required to notify
 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration at least four months before
 releasing new genetically engineered ingredients for food and
 animal feed and to disclose their research data. Such
 notification is currently voluntary. In addition, the USDA will
 begin certifying new scientific tests to detect biotech
 ingredients in food.
 Both agencies have said that all agbio crops on the market
 today appear to be safe. But some experts say additional
 government regulation, including requirements for additional
 testing and mandatory labeling, may be needed to increase public
 confidence in the industry and its products.
 "The government agencies are going through some soul-searching
 on this right now, something that probably isn't a bad thing,"
 said Thomas Hoban, a sociology professor at N.C. State University
 who studies attitudes toward bioengineered foods. "They are going
 to beef up and fine-tune the approval system soon, no question
 ... which should go a long way toward making people less
 apprehensive."
 With so many questions about transgenic crops unanswered,
 there has recently been a sharp increase in consumer concern
 about genetically altered organisms, especially in Europe. In
 fact, a consumer backlash against GMOs in Europe is so strong
 that many international food companies have announced they will
 avoid bioengineered ingredients in products destined for markets
 there.
 A stir in Japan:
 Japan moved last month to demand safety tests for genetically
 altered foods produced at home and overseas. The Japanese import
 about 60 percent of their food, much of it from the United
 States. Biotech products created a stir last year when the
 government revealed that beef from cloned cows had been sold
 unlabeled for at least two years.
 And now concerns have started to show up among U.S. consumers,
 who so far have been the biggest market for bioengineered foods.
 The GMO crops have become a mainstay of processed foods, showing
 up in everything from corn chips to cooking oil.
 But several big food conglomerates, including Gerber and
 Frito-Lay, have said they will avoid transgenic ingredients in
 their products sold in the United States. Big grain processors
 such as Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill want farmers to
 separate their genetically modified crops from their conventional
 ones. Some fast-food chains, including McDonald's, have begun to
 balk at buying genetically modified potatoes from french fry
 suppliers.
 As happened in Europe, agbio in the United States is now
 coming under attack from a host of environmental and
 anti-business groups - everyone from Greenpeace to labor
 activists. So-called "eco-terrorists" have also adopted the
 cause, with one underground group even claiming credit for
 torching an agbio research building at Michigan State University
 several months ago.
 Charles Hamner, director of the N.C. Biotechnology Center,
 said most of the concerns are ideological rather than scientific.
 "I would say about 90 percent of the protests in Europe have
 been more about free trade or politics than legitimate scientific
 concerns," he said. "At the same time, the scientists and the
 companies have an obligation to supply people with both the
 benefits and risks of biotechnology. People have always shown
 they are pretty good at making decisions when they have all the
 facts."
 Proponents of biotech crops argue that the technology isn't
 different from the conventional methods of cross-breeding that
 have existed for centuries. If anything, they say, genetic
 modification is less harmful because it transfers only certain
 genes to an existing organism instead of creating and releasing a
 large number of new gene combinations into the environment.
 Fred Gould is an entomology professor at N.C. State University
 who recently served on a panel assembled by the National Academy
 of Science to study issues surrounding bioengineered crops
 designed to resist pests. That panel concluded that even though
 all biotech products now on the market seem safe, stricter
 government oversight and regulation of the industry are needed.
 Gould said he thinks the next year or two will be the most
 critical for the agbio industry.
 "Everything appears to be coming to a head all at once," he
 said. "If the biotech companies can't convince the general public
 here in the United States that their products are safe and useful
 to them, they are facing some very tough times indeed."
 Should the American public eventually turn up its nose to
 GMOs, it could have a major impact on the North Carolina economy.
 Although Tar Heel farmers would probably be the first group to
 feel the pinch, they would not be the only ones. North Carolina
 is also home to more than 100 biotechnology-related companies,
 and many are at the forefront of agbio research and development.
 Aventis CropScience, for example, employs nearly 600 people at
 its U.S. headquarters in Research Triangle Park and at a major
 R&D facility near Goldsboro.
 BASF Agricultural Products and Syngenta AG also have major
 operations at RTP, employing 350 and 220 people, respectively.
 Dozens of smaller agbio companies are scattered across the state.
 N.C. poised to benefit:
 Despite the current hurdles, officials at the
 government-sponsored N.C. Biotechnology Center predict the
 state's agbio industry will continue to grow 20 percent annually
 for the next several years.
 "We are already one of the top two or three areas in the
 country for agricultural biotechnology, if not the leading area,"
 Hamner said. "With all of the scientific and technical know-how
 at our local universities and companies, we are well-positioned
 to be the world leader when it comes to agbio."
 He said North Carolina, and the Triangle in particular, are
 perfectly poised to ride the crest of what he predicts will be a
 huge wave of agbio breakthroughs in the next five years.
 "We are moving into an incredibly exciting time when the
 technology is going to leap from the labs to the commercial
 market," Hamner said. "I think the change in farming due to agbio
 in the next few years will be the equivalent of what happened
 when McCormick invented the reaper or Whitney invented the cotton
 gin."
 In the meantime, other major countries are moving quickly into
 transgenic crops, even as the debate on the products heats up in
 the United States.
 "There were 2.5 million cotton farmers in China who grew GMO
 varieties last year, and that figure is expected to grow
 exponentially in the next few years," Hoban said. "I think China
 will be glad to become the world leader in agbio if the United
 States decides it
 doesn't want to be."
 Despite his near-term concerns as a farmer, Sandy Ratcliff
 believes bioengineered crops represent the future of agriculture,
 both in the United States and around the world.
 "For me, it is pretty simple," he said. "We are going to have
 to feed more people with less farmland over the next few decades.
 Once you get past the worries, genetically modified crops are
 going to be vital in making sure people have enough food to eat."
 (The Associated Press contributed to this report.)
 Cheryl Dean, a molecular biologist, of Raleigh:
 'I don't have any concerns about it at all. I think mostly
 their fears may be unfounded about it. I really do. But maybe I
 just have more faith that things will be OK with genetically
 altered food. I'm not really sure [why some people are against
 it] unless they're afraid that things may get out of control or
 that it's just not natural or that we're playing with things that
 aren't natural. We are getting too much pesticides in the food,
 so I think that would be a help to make food resistant to the
 different bacteria or insects or whatever.'
 Frank Roediger, a computer analyst, of Raleigh:
 'I don't think that it has anything to do with the fundamental
 way our bodies process food. I might be completely naive about
 this, but that's just the way I feel. Obviously, something shows
 up on [opponents'] radar screen that doesn't show up on mine. It
 raises concerns in them. I don't know whether they feel there's
 toxicity in the food or whether they just feel that the food
 supply shouldn't be engineered because of biodiversity. Whatever
 we can do to increase foodstocks is good, because there's still
 hungry people in the world, so whatever we're doing isn't quite
 enough yet.'
 J.J. Sutton, a movie theater employee and Garner High School
 student, of Garner:
 'If it doesn't have any side effects, I guess it would be all
 right. Does it make the food better? If it makes the food better,
 then it should be all right. You can feed more people. If it
 doesn't hurt anybody, then that's good.'
 -- Interviews by assistant Q editor Burgetta Eplin Wheeler
 SUBJECT: farming GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS(94%);AGRICULTURE(92%);
 LOAD-DATE: May 8, 2000
 GRAPHIC: 3 c photos c graphic Two paths to genetic transfer Alisa Nance/Staff
 Corn grows in a greenhouse near Goldsboro where researchers with Aventis
 Biotechnology cultivate genetically altered crops. Sandy Ratcliff blends
 tradition with biotech. Dr. Ali Scott tests corn for a pest control protein in
 Aventis Biotechnology's lab. Staff photos by Gene Furr
 TYPE: Lead
                       Copyright 2000 The News and Observer









Document Number: 77
 
                        The Chronicle of Higher Education
                                  April 14, 2000
 Research Deal Drives a Wedge at University in Canada's Rural Heartland
 SECTION: INTERNATIONAL; Pg. A75
 LENGTH: 1029 words
 A multinational company offers to lease and refurbish a research building at a
 cash-hungry university. Sound like welcome news? Not when biotechnology is part
 of the deal.
 A $ 7-million contract signed by the Monsanto Company and the University of
 Manitoba is raising a furor in Canada's agricultural heartland, where some
 farmers and consumers are suspicious of genetically modified foods. In one
 Canadian poll published last month, 68 percent of those responding said they
 would be less likely to buy food if they knew it had ingredients with altered
 genes.
 University of Manitoba faculty members opposed to agricultural biotechnology say
 they were blind-sided by a lease that will turn a building there into a Crop
 Technology Centre supported by Monsanto, now part of the Pharmacia Corporation
 and a company known for its strong investment in genetic engineering.
 In biotechnology research, Canada presents something of a paradox. While
 protests against genetically modified food are spreading and distributors are
 starting to reject such produce, the financing available for university
 researchers is pushing them to work on genetically altered foods.
 Money for basic agricultural research is scarce in Canada, scarcer than it is in
 the United States, and one of the few places Canadian scientists can turn to for
 support is biotechnology companies, despite public criticism. The available
 financing, coupled with government policies encouraging researchers to
 collaborate with corporations, is making some Canadian plant researchers feel
 pressured to move into biotechnology.
 The situation at the University of Manitoba could easily be replicated elsewhere
 in Canada.
 "Without the issue of biotechnology, this lease wouldn't have made the radar
 screen at all," says Michael McAdam, vice president for administration at the
 University of Manitoba. He negotiated the 10-year lease with the U.S.-based
 Monsanto at the request of the federal department of agriculture. "Some people
 think that Monsanto will have influence on campus, but we don't have more than
 this leasing relationship with Monsanto," Mr. McAdam argues.
 That's not how opponents of the deal see it. Robert Chernomas, president of the
 Manitoba Organization of Faculty Associations, held a March conference, titled
 "Food for Thought," to protest the leasing arrangement. "We question whether
 genetically engineered products should be produced on campus without debate,"
 says Mr. Chernomas, who is also a professor of economics at Manitoba. "We
 believe any research done on campus should be public," he adds, alluding to
 corporate inclinations to delay or avoid publishing research when it interferes
 with patents or trade secrets. "Many corporations don't see that as their best
 interest," he says.
 The protest does not deter Monsanto Canada's Larry Taylor, director of the new
 Crop Technology Centre. He says researchers will use traditional and genetic
 engineering techniques to improve canola, flax, and wheat varieties. "But it's
 faster to use biotechnology methods. We're very committed to that kind of
 technology and believe in it." Farmers are asking for disease-resistant crops,
 he says, and biotechnology may be able to provide them, along with canola low in
 saturated fats and other foods.
 Mr. Taylor says university researchers have forged more collaborations with
 biotechnology companies over the last decade because of Canadian-government
 policies that encourage them to have corporate partners. In addition, the high
 regulatory costs of commercializing new technologies make it difficult for
 university researchers to go it alone. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency
 requires proof, for example, that a new crop variety will not have a lower
 nutritional value than its older version.
 Even if scientists' new crops do pass such tests, the lack of confidence among
 Canadian food companies in the marketability of genetically modified foods may
 stop them from ever reaching stores. Last fall, New Brunswick-based McCain
 Foods, the world's largest supplier of French fries, announced that it would no
 longer buy genetically altered potatoes. "We think genetically modified material
 is very good science but, at the moment, very bad public relations," says
 Harrison McCain, chairman of the company. Monsanto, for its part, is tailoring
 its research to Canadian growing conditions to appeal to farmers and hopes that
 it will win consumer acceptance through education.
 While Canadian scientists working on genetically modified crops worry about
 finding a market, scientists who don't wave the wand of biotechnology in their
 laboratories often have to scrape for money.
 Few know that better than Ann Clark, a professor of plant agriculture at
 Ontario's University of Guelph, who studies pasture management and organic
 farming. A critic of agricultural biotechnology, Ms. Clark says Canada's policy
 of encouraging industry ties means her research support is practically
 nonexistent: "My research doesn't involve a proprietary product. I look at how
 to sow and manage pastures for productivity and profitability."
 She says her financing has dropped drastically in the last 10 years, as those
 paying for research have encouraged the use of molecular genetics. She has
 spoken out frequently against transgenic crops, saying that safety testing is
 inadequate, and incurred the wrath of her own dean of agriculture, Rob
 McLaughlin, who told The Toronto Star that her behavior was unethical.
 He later apologized in the University of Guelph's faculty newspaper.
 "My comments referred to a perception that she might not have adequately
 identified her area of expertise or made it clear that her opinions and research
 did not represent the University," he wrote.
 Ms. Clark is now on sabbatical at Ohio State University. She found out this
 winter that her laboratory at Guelph had been moved down to smaller quarters, on
 the first floor, so her dirt wouldn't contaminate the clean genetics labs above.
 Her old lab was taken over by biotechnology researchers. Will she change her own
 research to draw more funds? "Not on your life. I have a conscience."
 LOAD-DATE: May 15, 2000
 Copyright 2000 The Chronicle of Higher Education









Document Number: 78
 
                        The Chronicle of Higher Education
                                  April 14, 2000
 Scientists Leave the Lab to Defend Bioengineered Food
 SECTION: RESEARCH & PUBLISHING; Pg. A29
 LENGTH: 3331 words
 The demonstrators took to the streets of Oakland, Calif., in December, passing
 out leaflets and debating with anyone who would listen. They were nervous about
 genetically modified foods, and had timed their efforts to coincide with a
 public hearing on the topic, held by the Food and Drug Administration.
 But their anxiety stemmed not from the health or environmental risks of
 bioengineered foods, nor from the trade or political issues surrounding the new
 technology. The demonstrators were scientists from the nearby University of
 California at Berkeley, joined by colleagues from U.C.-Davis and Stanford
 University, who had turned out to express their support for agricultural
 biotechnology and to combat public fear of the crops.
 The scientists wanted to offer an alternative view to that of environmental
 groups and others who have staged numerous protests in the United States against
 genetically modified foods in the past year. Recently, some of the protests have
 grown violent, with groups like the Earth Liberation Front destroying
 scientists' offices and genetically engineered crops at the Universities of
 California and Minnesota, and at Michigan State University.
 Plant scientists in academe, the vast majority of whom support the use of
 techniques that transfer new genes into crop plants, have begun to respond to
 the public's outcry. Normally media-shy, they are trying to educate people about
 the science behind the techniques by engaging in debates, framing petitions,
 holding press conferences, writing newspaper articles, and addressing government
 agencies. They are urging the public to keep an open mind about the technology,
 and to heed the growing mass of data that pinpoint the risks and benefits.
 The researchers see genetic engineering as a powerful tool to increase food
 production and protect the environment, and they worry that it could be lost if
 the public doesn't support it. They also worry that a loss of confidence in
 genetic engineering could cut off government and corporate support, forcing
 scientists to abandon their research. And they fear the long-term impact of
 scientific issues being decided based on incorrect information.
 "What should drive the issue is the science. Where there are legitimate
 scientific concerns, those clearly need to be addressed," says James N. Siedow,
 a professor of biology at Duke University. "The flip side of the coin is, we
 ought not to be basically throwing out the notion of commercialization of
 genetically modified organisms based on fear and half-truths and outright
 falsehoods."
 "We cannot approach biology as a risk-free enterprise, because it never is,"
 says Susan R. McCouch, a plant scientist at Cornell University. Farmers and
 regulators should decide whether and how to apply various techniques with an
 understanding of how the benefits stack up against the risks. And, say many
 scientists, the potential that genetic engineering holds for improving crops and
 protecting the environment should figure large in that equation.
 Techniques to insert foreign genes into plants were first developed in the
 1970's. One method involves putting the gene into a bacterium that then inserts
 its DNA, including the new gene, into a plant cell's DNA. The plant cells with
 the new gene can then grow into a genetically modified plant. Another technique
 involves coating the surface of microscopic metal balls with the genetic
 material to be transferred, and then shooting the balls into plant cells. The
 DNA sloughs off the metal balls, and the plant cells incorporate it into their
 own genetic material.
 When the plant's cellular machinery reads the new gene, it produces a protein
 that can do one of many things: It can ward off insects, improve the plant's
 nutritional value, or protect the plant from herbicides, for instance.
 The first genetically engineered crops hit the market in the mid-1990's,
 containing genes that protected plants against insects and herbicides. Those
 plants already account for around half of all the cotton and soybeans grown in
 the United States, and one-third of the corn.
 While many American farmers embrace the technology, reactions from the public
 have been decidedly negative, especially in Europe.
 Many of the worries are social and political. Why should the handful of large
 biotechnology corporations that have patented these crops exert greater and
 greater control over the world's agriculture? Are those companies forcing the
 technology onto consumers and farmers who may not want it, particularly in
 developing countries? Is it even ethical to patent living things? Is so much
 attention being focused on biotechnology that other agricultural methods, such
 as organic farming or integrated pest management, are being ignored?
 Those concerns should be discussed, say the scientists, but they believe most
 resistance to genetically engineered crops is born of fear. People worry that
 such crops will wreak havoc on the food supply and the environment. Plant
 scientists say those fears are overblown. "The first thing that gets lost in
 these discussions is the science," says Mr. Siedow.
 Take the issue of food safety. No experiments that stand up to scientific
 scrutiny have found health risks from eating genetically modified foods.
 Millions of Americans have eaten the foods for several years now, and no
 problems have been reported. Yet fears of unsafe food still seem to be foremost
 in the minds of the public. When Peggy G. Lemaux, a cooperative-extension
 specialist for the University of California at Berkeley, recently gave a talk,
 an audience member began crying because she found out that the soy formula she
 fed her baby was made from genetically modified plants.
 Ms. Lemaux and other scientists say there are no solid data to suggest that
 bioengineered foods can make people sick. A widely publicized experiment, in
 which rats were fed genetically engineered potatoes, has been written off by
 most scientists as inconclusive. Though the rats suffered damage to their guts
 and immune systems, scientists believe the problem lay in the potatoes
 themselves, which produce natural toxins at varying levels, and in the fact that
 the rats in the experiment were undernourished. Similar experiments, in which
 rodents were fed bioengineered tomatoes, found no ill effects.
 A food-safety concern that scientists take more seriously -- but think they can
 resolve -- is the possibility that genetically modified foods can cause
 allergies. If the gene added to a crop produces an allergenic protein, a
 previously harmless food could elicit allergic reactions.
 That has already happened once. In the early 1990's, Pioneer Hi-Bred
 International, Inc., an Iowa-based seed company, transformed soybeans to produce
 a protein from Brazil nuts. When a scientist at the University of Nebraska
 discovered that the protein was likely to cause allergies, Pioneer Hi-Bred
 dropped the project.
 Scientists say that proteins that might cause allergies often get discovered
 even earlier, preventing any problematic bioengineered foods from being
 developed, much less marketed. Based on the molecular identity of the protein,
 scientists often can predict whether it will be an allergen even before
 engineering a plant to produce it, according to Bob B. Buchanan, a professor of
 plant and microbial biology at Berkeley.
 But critics say the strategy is not fail-safe. Rebecca Goldburg, a senior
 scientist for Environmental Defense, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group,
 points out that no guidelines exist for dealing with a protein that fails the
 lab tests. "The question is, what do you do? The company would like to get this
 protein onto the market," she says.
 One of the difficulties in testing for allergenic proteins is that most animals
 do not experience allergies and so can't be used for experimentation. Mr.
 Buchanan is trying to develop tests on dogs, whose allergies are similar to
 those of humans.
 Even with tests for allergenic proteins still being developed, near-consensus
 exists among scientists that genetically engineered foods are not hazardous to
 human health. "If you take one gene from a soybean and put it into corn, it's
 not going to make corn any less safe," says Channapatna S. Prakash, the director
 of the Center for Plant Biotechnology Research at Tuskegee University. He points
 out that triticale, a widely planted hybrid of wheat and rye, was produced by
 mating the two crops, adding tens of thousands of genes from rye to wheat.
 "Traditional varieties were always bred like this, and we never tested them for
 anything."
 Similarly, scientists dismiss concerns that agricultural biotechnology will
 reduce the planet's biodiversity. Traditional agriculture is just as likely as
 newer techniques to replace wild ecosystems with single crops, they say.
 But the scientists pay more heed to some other environmental concerns. Those
 include the risk of insects' developing resistance to a toxin the crop produces,
 the same toxin hurting nonpest insects like butterflies, and the spread of a
 crop's new genes, called transgenes, to other plant species.
 Many of the bioengineered corn and cotton crops that have been planted are
 so-called Bt crops, which produce a toxin that kills insect pests. Bt is widely
 used as a traditional, sprayed insecticide even by organic farmers. It gets its
 name from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, which naturally produces the
 toxin.
 As with any pesticide, if Bt is used long enough, some insects are likely to
 evolve to be unharmed by it. But because Bt crops produce the insecticide
 constantly, resistant insects may appear even faster. If they mate with other
 resistant insects, they may spawn uncontrollable pests. "It would be a real
 shame if the efficacy of Bt toxins was squandered on a decade or so of use of
 transgenic crops," says Environmental Defense's Ms. Goldburg.
 Research continues on the best way to delay insect resistance. One method, the
 "refuge" strategy, relies on growing Bt crops near non-Bt crops, so that only a
 few insects will evolve resistance in the Bt field, while many more will survive
 without developing resistance by feeding on the refuge crops. The few resistant
 insects are likely to mate with susceptible bugs, producing susceptible progeny.
 The Environmental Protection Agency requires that growers plant at least 20
 percent non-Bt crops, a fraction that has been agreed upon by scientific panels
 from the government, industry, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, as well as
 researchers working with farmers, according to Fred Gould, a professor of
 entomology at North Carolina State University.
 But insecticide-producing crops might also harm wildlife other than the pests
 they target. Last spring, much publicity arose around a Cornell University study
 of monarch-butterfly larvae that fed on milkweed coated with pollen from Bt
 corn. Although almost half of the caterpillars died, many researchers say the
 study, which was conducted in a laboratory, has little relevance for butterflies
 living in the wild, near corn fields. More recent lab studies have found little,
 if any, danger to monarchs living near the edges of corn fields. In any case,
 the scientists point out, Bt was already known to be harmful to butterflies when
 used as a traditional pesticide.
 Research continues at several universities on questions such as how far corn
 pollen might drift from an engineered corn field and how toxic it is to the
 butterflies. New Bt plants may soon be available that do not produce the toxin
 in their pollen. helping weeds survive
 The other major environmental concern, that transgenes might move into closely
 related plants growing nearby, is an important one, according to Norman C.
 Ellstrand, a professor of genetics at the University of California at Riverside.
 Since many transgenes help crops survive, by protecting them from insects, for
 instance, the bioengineered plants could conceivably mate with related plants,
 including weeds, and make them hardier. The major crops grown in the United
 States do not have weedy relatives here, Mr. Ellstrand points out, but it could
 be a problem for growers elsewhere.
 "We may be able to anticipate most of the problems with transgenic crops," he
 says. "We're not talking killer tomatoes. We're talking reasonable risks that
 can be anticipated."
 But the studies being done to identify and solve such problems are scant
 compared with projects aiming to make new engineered plants. "The funding is
 trivial," complains Mr. Ellstrand. The Agriculture Department has dedicated $
 1.5-million this year to studying the environmental effects of agricultural
 biotechnology. By contrast, a Swiss pharmaceutical and agricultural company,
 Novartis, gave Berkeley's plant- and microbial-biology department $ 25-million
 over five years, in a controversial deal supporting basic research on plant
 genetics.
 Research on risks would be "a wise use of resources by the people who believe in
 biotechnology the most," says Margaret Mellon, the director of the Union of
 Concerned Scientists' agriculture and biotechnology program. "But they really
 don't act as if they see that it's in their interest to understand the risks of
 the technology."
 What's more, corporate support may have influenced the tenor of the scientists'
 arguments, others say. "It's very difficult for somebody who has grants from a
 company to also speak out about any of the uncertainties, because it would
 threaten research funds," says Sheldon Krimsky, a bioethicist at Tufts
 University. Of academic scientists' enthusiasm about agricultural biotechnology,
 he says, "It's hard to know whether or not it's a sincere belief on their part,
 or whether they have become invested in the same set of values as corporate
 interests that are heavily funding academic research."
 But many scientists insist that the driving force behind their studies is
 excitement about how agricultural biotechnology can improve food's nutritional
 content, create new products such as edible vaccines, and even protect the
 environment.
 Already, Bt crops are reducing the use of traditional pesticides long suspected
 of being hazardous. According to the National Center for Food and Agricultural
 Policy -- a nonprofit organization in Washington financed by the federal
 government, charities like the Rockefeller Foundation, and several
 agricultural-chemical companies -- the use of Bt cotton reduced insecticide use
 by two million pounds in 1998, or 12 percent of the total used nationwide on
 cotton.
 However, most of the benefits that might come from genetically modified crops
 are hypothetical, because the products are still in the pipeline. "The best
 stuff is yet to come," says Ray A. Bressan, a professor of horticulture at
 Purdue University's main campus, who studies the genes that allow some plants to
 tolerate drought. His research, like that of many other academic scientists, is
 many years from producing a usable crop, but if successful, it could help
 subsistence farmers dramatically.
 So could research to improve the nutritional value of foods, which is also
 making headway. In January, European scientists announced that they had created
 rice containing the substance humans convert to vitamin A, which is deficient in
 the diets of millions of people.
 Tuskegee's Mr. Prakash has developed a sweet potato with high protein levels. He
 hopes to bring his vegetables to the farmers of Vietnam, by working with the
 International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, a
 nonprofit group that helps interested countries develop appropriate
 biotechnology methods.
 That group is also working with several countries in Southeast Asia to develop
 virus-resistant papaya, a widely grown fruit and a source of vitamin A.
 Currently, according to the group's executive director, Anatole F. Krattiger,
 about half of the crop in this area is lost to papaya-ringspot virus. A
 genetically modified strain that resists the virus has already been developed in
 Hawaii, and the first Asian field trials are under way in Thailand.
 Genetic engineering is also being used to create foods with entirely new
 properties. Some genetically modified foods, far from causing allergies, might
 actually make them less problematic. Berkeley's Mr. Buchanan has discovered an
 enzyme from plants that can disarm the allergens that make it impossible for
 some people to consume wheat or milk.
 "If we treat the food with our system, the vomit response is greatly reduced,"
 he says. The process is easy with milk, since the enzyme dissolves in it, but
 much harder with wheat. So Mr. Buchanan's research team is working to engineer
 the cereal to produce the enzyme. Mr. Buchanan hopes a similar technique will
 work for peanut allergies, which can be fatal.
 Other bioengineered foods might someday replace medicines. Charles J. Arntzen,
 the president of the Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, a private,
 nonprofit organization in Ithaca, N.Y., has already engineered potatoes to
 deliver vaccines against diarrheal diseases or against hepatitis B -- but only
 if people eat the potatoes raw. He's now working on making banana and tomato
 vaccines.
 Edible vaccines would eliminate the need for injections and the cost of
 purifying and refrigerating traditional vaccines. What's more, the
 vaccine-containing plants could be grown in developing countries. Once
 scientists develop such plants, critics argue, someone will need to deal with
 the logistics of transporting them and making sure that infants get the proper
 doses.
 Academic scientists worry that exaggerated fears about genetic engineering could
 deny them the chance to use biotechnology tools to improve health and nutrition
 worldwide. They admit that self-interest plays into their hopes for the future:
 With escalating public concern over genetically modified plants, they could lose
 grants for their research.
 "If people could make choices wisely, we could navigate this water," says Ms.
 McCouch, of Cornell University. "But it does require bringing the public along
 and making sure that people don't feel anything is being forced upon them that
 they are fundamentally at odds with."
 To that end, the public-affairs committee of the American Society of Plant
 Physiologists has worked in the past year to involve its members in the public
 debate over genetically engineered food. "We've encouraged members not simply to
 write their congressmen, but to write editorials," says Mr. Siedow, who chairs
 the committee.
 Mr. Prakash has drawn up a petition in support of genetic engineering as a
 "powerful and safe means for the modification of organisms" that can enhance the
 "quality of life by improving agriculture, health care, and the environment."
 Four days after he had posted it on the World Wide Web at
 http://www.agbioworld.org, 600 scientists had signed it. Now, three months
 later, more than 1,600 have signed.
 "There's no question that activity is increasing," says Berkeley's Ms. Lemaux.
 Scientists can't afford to keep a low profile anymore, she says, and she has
 worked to galvanize her colleagues to become activists. She keeps on her Web
 site (http://plantbio.berkeley.edu/ outreach) text and slides for a generic talk
 about biotechnology for other scientists to use.
 "It's not to, quote, support the technology, as much as it is to support the
 gathering and dissemination of the scientific basis for the technology and its
 risks and benefits," she says.
 Some scientists are encouraged that their message is getting across. Says John
 W. Taylor, a professor of plant and microbial biology at Berkeley and one of the
 Oakland demonstrators, "There are some people that are true believers, and I
 doubt you're going to have much of an effect. But most people will listen to
 information, and if it makes sense they'll put it in their data bank. And then
 they'll think about it."
 LOAD-DATE: May 15, 2000
 Copyright 2000 The Chronicle of Higher Education









Document Number: 79
 
                            Investor's Business Daily
                                  April 6, 2000
 Panel Calls For More Oversight Of Biofoods - Academy Of Sciences Says Products
 Safe, But Must Be Studied
 BYLINE: By, Investor's Business Daily
 SECTION: A; Pg. 9
 LENGTH: 560 words
 DATELINE:  WASHINGTON (Reuters)
 Biofoods sold in grocery stores are safe, but U.S. agencies that regulate
 genetically altered plants must work harder to protect health and the
 environment, the National Academy of Sciences said on Wednesday. The report,
 prepared by a panel of scientists from universities and private groups, will
 influence the U.S. policy debate over whether biofoods need more stringent
 regulation. U.S. farmers are expected to plant fewer acres of genetically
 altered soybeans, corn and other crops this year in response to stiff consumer
 resistance in Europe, Japan and elsewhere. Several American environmental and
 consumer groups have demanded that federal regulators require more testing of
 altered crops to ensure the products are safe, and hold the products to the same
 strict standards of pharmaceuticals or food additives. The report was careful to
 emphasize no evidence existed to suggest biofoods were unsafe. But it called for
 more research to detect any effects on human health or the environment. "Public
 acceptance of these foods ultimately depends on the credibility of the testing
 and regulatory process," said Perry Adkisson, chancellor emeritus at Texas A & M
 University and the head of the panel. "The federal agencies responsible for
 regulating transgenic plants have generally done a good job," he said. "Given
 the current level of public concern, and following our review of the data, it is
 the committee's belief that the agencies must bolster the mechanisms they use to
 protect human health and the environment." The scientists urged the
 Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture Department and the Food and Drug
 Administration to "quickly come to an agreement" on each agency's role in
 regulating gene-spliced plants. Long-term monitoring of the environmental impact
 of transgenic crops was also needed to spot any problems that may not have been
 anticipated in company tests, the report said. Another key finding of the
 science panel was that the risks of genetically altered plants should be
 analyzed based on the plant's actual properties, not simply because it was
 developed by tweaking genes in a lab. The scientists took no position on the
 controversial laboratory study issued last summer by Cornell University
 researchers indicating that monarch butterflies were hurt by pollen from Bt
 corn, a variety engineered to resist a destructive bug. The issue needed more
 research, including "rigorous" field evaluations and testing to see if the same
 results occurred in actual farm fields, the panel said. Last year, American
 farmers grew more than 70 million acres of transgenic crops such as Bt corn and
 Roundup Ready soybeans, a variety treated to resist a widely used weedkiller.
 That level will drop slightly this year for the first time since 1995, says the
 Agriculture Department. The National Academy of Sciences probe grew out of a
 battle over the EPA's attempt to regulate plants engineered to protect
 themselves against destructive bugs. The agency, which has yet to finalize the
 rules, in 1994 proposed to grant broad exemptions for plants based on existing
 research. The panel urged the EPA "to reconsider its plans to grant categorical
 exemptions" for transgenic plants. In some cases, the manipulation of genes
 could potentially increase human and environmental exposure to high levels of
 toxins, the report said.
 LOAD-DATE: April 12, 2000
 Copyright 2000 Investor's Business Daily, Inc.









Document Number: 80
 
                       Saint Paul Pioneer Press (Minnesota)
                              April 6, 2000 Thursday
 SECTION: MAIN; Pg. 4A
 LENGTH: 613 words
 The genetically modified crops that feed virtually every American need stricter
 regulation to prevent harm to food safety and to the planet, a scientific panel
 said Wednesday.
 The scientists stressed that they had no evidence of ill effects from the
 designer corn and other crops that have fast taken over much of the country's
 farm fields.
 They also noted that the crops - plants crafted in laboratories to resist
 insects - also reduce farmers' chemical use.
 And the panel found no sound scientific distinction between the dangers of the
 genetic engineering that has been used in commercial fields for five years and
 the century-long practice of conventional plant breeding.
 Still, the study by the National Research Council concluded that genetically
 modified crops were a radically new technology with still-unknown consequences.
 "There is a potential for undesirable effects," the report said.
 That warning came less than a week after a federal agency released a survey
 suggesting that farmers might be planting fewer biotech crops this year.
 The panel, a group assembled by the National Academy of Sciences, called for
 more research to determine whether transplanting genes could significantly
 increase the chance of allergies or promote the mutation of pesticide-resistant
 bugs or nearly indestructible weeds.
 With biotechnology growing in practice and controversy - Europeans, for
 instance, have tried to ban the importation of biotech products - advocates on
 both sides found something in the report to crow about.
 "It supports the case that there are risks with transgenic crops, that the risks
 need to be regulated and that the regulation is too weak," said Margaret Mellon,
 a molecular biologist and lawyer who tracks the debate for the Union of
 Concerned Scientists.
 Her organization is among those that worry that plant biotechnology represents
 the opening of a biological Pandora's box that could unleash health and
 environmental disasters.
 The biotechnology industry argues that gene-spliced crops hold the promise of
 using far fewer chemicals to produce harvests that will fill supermarkets with
 healthier foods. It found vindication in the report.
 "(The) committee reached consensus that there is no evidence that foods improved
 through biotechnology are unsafe," said Val Giddings, a vice president at the
 Biotechnology Industry Organization.
 The report was delivered amid an uncertain future for biotechnology. First
 available on a large scale in 1996, the technology accounted for the majority of
 acres planted among several major crops in the United States last year.
 But this year, reflecting increasing opposition in foreign markets, farmers
 appear to be backing away from biotechnology for the first time. The Agriculture
 Department released a survey Friday indicating that growers planned to scale
 back slightly the planting of genetically modified cotton and soybeans.
 The same survey showed that corn farmers planned to roll back from 25 percent of
 their acres last year to 19 percent this year the planting of corn genetically
 modified to contain the natural pesticide bacillus thuringiensis. The bug killer
 makes the stalk toxic to the European corn borer and has long been a favorite of
 organic farmers.
 In their study released Wednesday, the scientists concluded that too few studies
 had been conducted to guarantee that the crops wouldn't mate with weedy cousins,
 spawn generations of insects impervious to relatively environment-friendly
 sprays or spur allergies or other dangerous reactions in people who consume the
 products.
 The National Academy of Sciences is online at www.national-academies.org.
 LOAD-DATE: January 29, 2002
                     Copyright 2000 Saint Paul Pioneer Press
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 81
 
                           The San Francisco Chronicle
 Can Genetically engineered crops feed a hungry world?;
 Biotech Will Not Feed the World
 BYLINE: Miguel A. Altieri
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A27; OPEN FORUM
 LENGTH: 1062 words
 MOST PROPONENTS of agricultural biotechnology assert that genetically modified
 crops are essential to feed the 840 million undernourished people in the world,
 and to reduce the poverty of the 1.3 billion people who live on less than $1 per
 day. They believe that the biorevolution can be harnessed to serve the food and
 nutritional needs of the world's poor. But will such potential benefits of
 genetically engineered food crops ever become practical enough to rid the world
 of hunger?
 Pro-biotechnology scientists say that with new research methods, biotechnology
 can be used to develop new crop varieties that are drought tolerant, resistant
 to insects and weeds, able to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and even increase
 the nutrient content in the edible portion of plants. Proponents say modern
 biotechnology offers enormous opportunities to poor farmers and low-income
 consumers in developing countries.
 The first problem with that argument is that there is no relationship between
 the prevalence of hunger and a country's population. For every densely populated
 and hungry nation like Bangladesh, there is a sparsely populated (but also
 hungry) country like Brazil.
 Even in the midst of superabundance in the United States, there are between 20
 million and 30 million malnourished people. Thus, even though crop yields per
 acre improved dramatically between the late 1960s and the early 1990s, these
 advances in agriculture have only trimmed the ranks of the world's
 undernourished by 8 percent -- to 840 million from 920 million.
 Poverty is the key reason why 840 million people do not have enough to eat. In
 the past 30 years, enough food was produced to feed everyone -- had it been more
 evenly distributed. Hunger is not a matter of agricultural limits, but a problem
 of masses of people not having access to food or the means to produce it.
 Biotechnology proponents, however, argue that food production will not keep pace
 with the growth of the global population, which is expected to add 73 million
 people every year from now until 2020. The biotechnology proponents say hunger
 will persist unless the potential of biotechnology is realized. I say, if the
 root causes are not addressed, hunger will persist no matter what agricultural
 technologies are used.
 At most, biotechnology has the yet-unrealized potential to deal with the issues
 of quality and quantity of food but does not address distribution and access.
 Insisting on technological solutions to hunger ignores the tremendous complexity
 of the problem. It is too easy to fall into the "paradox of plenty" -- more food
 accompanied by greater hunger. Any method of boosting food production that
 deepens inequality is bound to fail to reduce hunger.
 This is particularly true for biotechnology, which is being promoted by private
 corporations to whom poor farmers (who produce most of the basic food crops in
 the developing world) do not represent an attractive market.
 For example, the new strain of rice that is capable of producing provitamin A,
 which is being heralded as the best that agrobiotech can offer the developing
 world, constitutes a solution that ignores the root causes of why there are 2
 million children at risk of vitamin A deficiency. In rural areas of the
 developing world, food preferences are culturally determined. Asians will not
 likely consume "orange rice" in the midst of abundant white rice.
 In fact, Asian small farmers grow diverse rice varieties with varying
 nutritional content and adapted to a wide variety of environmental conditions.
 The resulting genetic diversity heightens resistance to plant diseases and
 enables farmers to derive multiple nutritional uses.
 If, as expected, transgenic seeds continue to be developed and commercialized
 exclusively by private firms, poor farmers will continue to find them too
 expensive to purchase. The few that will have access to bioengineered seeds will
 be hurt by becoming dangerously "dependent" on the annual purchase of such
 seeds. Choices are surely also being denied to poor farmers when private
 industries insist upon protecting biotech patents that deny seed saving, an
 aspect that is of fundamental cultural importance to traditional farmers, who
 for centuries have saved and shared seeds.
 Food production will have to come from agricultural systems in countries with
 the largest population growth. This poses a major challenge for biotechnology in
 these tropical countries where farmers are not only resource poor -- with no
 access to credit, technical assistance or markets -- but where about 370 million
 rural poor live in arid or semi-arid zones or in steeply sloped areas. In the
 past, such farmers were bypassed by advances in agriculture known as the Green
 Revolution because their soil, water and labor methods were unsuited to the
 demanding and costly management practices of improved seeds and accompanying
 need for pesticides and fertilizers. Biotechnology will exacerbate the problem
 even more. Some scientists and policymakers posit that a solution would be to
 increase government investments in biotechnology research.
 However, larger investments may not yield the desired results. Corporate legal
 rights to biotechnology is affecting the development of transgenic crops by
 public institutions.
 Moreover, the seed distribution channels and networks to reach farmers are being
 privatized, focusing on commercial farms rather than on poor farmers.
 Much of the needed food can be produced throughout the world by small farmers
 using agroecological technologies. In fact, new rural development approaches and
 simple technologies spearheaded by farmers groups and nongovernmental
 organizations around the developing world are already making a difference.
 These results are a breakthrough for achieving food security and environmental
 preservation in the developing world, but realizing their potential depends on
 investments, policies, institutional support and attitude changes on the part of
 policymakers and the international scientific community.
 Failure to promote such people-centered agricultural research and development
 will miss an historic opportunity to raise agricultural productivity in
 economically viable, environmentally benign and socially uplifting ways.
 Miguel A. Altieri is an entomologist at UC Berkeley.
 http://nature.berkeley.edu/agroeco3/
 LOAD-DATE: March 31, 2000
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO, Protesters joined the debate on whether bio-engineered crops
 will benefit or harm us and the environment when the FDA held hearings in
 Oakland on genetically modified foods last December.
                   Copyright 2000 The Chronicle Publishing Co.









Document Number: 82
 
                           The San Francisco Chronicle
 Vandalism Hurting Case Against Genetically Engineered Foods;
 Plant stomping at UC Davis, Berkeley is unnecessary, stupid
 BYLINE: Tom Abate
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. C1; BIOSCOPE
 LENGTH: 1143 words
 A handful of vandals are undermining the legal effort to question the safety of
 genetically engineered foods.
 Since last July, eco-vandals have broken into greenhouses and stomped on
 genetically altered crops in at least 18 separate incidents in several states.
 UC Berkeley has been targeted twice, and UC Davis has been hit four times.
 The most recent attack occurred in January when vandals broke into a greenhouse
 at a U.S. Department of Agriculture field office in Albany and stomped some
 genetically altered wheat.
 This burst of vandalism prompted campus police from the University of California
 at Berkeley and the University of California at Davis to organize a daylong
 seminar on outdoor security last week, where FBI officials briefed university
 cops on the latest in monitoring systems.
 This vandalism is not only cowardly but tactically stupid, since food critics
 have been making plenty of headway in the courts, the markets and the regulatory
 arena.
 For instance:
 -- International negotiators in Montreal recently agreed that exporters can be
 required to label shipments that contain genetically altered grains. Under what
 is called the Biosafety Protocol, individual nations also won greater latitude
 to restrict genetically engineered food imports in the future.
 This was a huge victory, coming after the recent World Trade Organization
 meeting in Seattle, which ended without adopting the laissez-faire position
 favored by U.S. trade officials.
 -- Last week, Frito-Lay became the most prominent mainstream food producer to
 say it would not buy genetically engineered corn. Gerber Baby Food and
 French-fries maker McCain Foods Ltd. had taken similar stances earlier. Such
 moves have started to make farmers leery of planting GE seeds.
 -- The Center for Food Safety in Washington, D.C., recently won an important
 procedural victory in federal court, challenging the Environmental Protection
 Agency's decision to allow crops to be grown, using BT.
 BT, a natural insecticide that organic farmers spray on crops, kills bugs
 quickly before evaporating. Because it doesn't linger, pests never develop the
 sort of resistance that occurs when bugs eat a less-than-lethal dose of
 pesticide and survive to breed progeny inoculated against that pesticide.
 But biotech firms have spliced the BT gene into corn, cotton and other crops,
 trying to build this pest killer into plants. Their intention was to reduce
 aerial applications of pesticides.
 Organic farmers, afraid BT crops would breed pesticide resistant bugs, asked the
 EPA in 1997 to study this issue. Attorney Joe Mendelson, who is leading the
 lawsuit on this issue, said the EPA had refused to reply, until a federal judge
 recently gave the agency until March 20 to explain its reasoning on the
 pest-resistance issue.
 Mendelson said the center can use that EPA response as ammunition in its lawsuit
 seeking to force the agency to rescind its endorsement of BT crops.
 -- The National Academy of Sciences will soon release a report offering the
 first comprehensive assessment of the ecological and safety concerns arising
 from BT crops.
 The NAS effort was initially marred by controversy after the staff member
 coordinating the project quit to take a job with a biotech industry group. The
 NAS responded by adding members with avowedly environmental views.
 The NAS draft report is now being circulated for criticism and revision, and
 should be out within a few weeks.
 -- Similarly, some 400 European scientists, environmentalists, industry and
 consumer advocates will assemble in Scotland at the end of this month for what
 is shaping up as perhaps the biggest public debate so far on the risks and
 benefits of genetically engineered foods.
 With these and other efforts focusing attention on the issue, there's simply no
 reason to go around stomping crops to get attention -- especially when Bay Area
 people who want to get exercised about this issue have a more productive outlet
 for their energy coming up soon.
 UC Berkeley Professor Miguel Altieri will hold an international seminar from
 March 2 to March 4 on the "ecological impacts of transgenic crops." His guests
 will include Cornell researcher John Losey, who did the monarch butterfly study,
 and Swiss scientist Angelika Helbick, who has looked at how transgenic crops
 affect beneficial insects like ladybugs.
 Although many of the discussions will be limited to students and scientists,
 Altieri is planning at least two public events: one on campus the afternoon of
 March 2, and the other in the city of Berkeley the evening of March 3.
 Altieri hopes to finalize the logistics early this week. For details, e-mail him
 at agroeco3@nature.berkeley.edu or call (510) 642-9802.
 -- DETERRING BIO WARFARE: On a truly terrifying topic, CIA Director George Tenet
 warned Congress last week that the United States was becoming increasingly
 vulnerable to potential biological attack, as the sophisticated tools of
 biotechnology become accessible to small nations and even terrorists.
 Policymakers have raised such fears before, and the standard response has been
 to increase research funding for super-vaccines and improved civil defense (see
 my story on this subject: "Bio-War Games," Chronicle Business section, Aug. 9,
 Harvard biologist Matthew Meselson, a longtime activist on chemical and
 biological warfare issues, has a different approach. He wants the nations of the
 world to make it an international crime to make or use biological weapons. Any
 nation would be able to imprison, try and punish any person, whether a private
 terrorist or a government official, who broke this international law.
 Meselson has modeled his statute on current international law that makes slavery
 and torture international crimes.
 Former dictator Augusto Pinochet has discovered to his chagrin that some nations
 take seriously their right to prosecute him for tortures perpetrated while he
 ruled Chile.
 On the surface Meselson's idea sounds like a quixotic exercise. Some nations
 would have to adopt the proposal, and ask the United Nations to begin the
 convoluted process of getting the world's nations to agree to make biological
 warfare a crime.
 But the alternative, says Meselson, is crazier still. One day our CIA gets wind
 that terrorist X or nation Y is planning a biological attack. We try to bluff,
 bully or bomb them into quitting, which may or may not work.
 Why not instead put these wannabe bioterrorists on notice that they'll never be
 free to travel in civilized nations if they embark on this uncivilized course of
 action.
 To find out more, visit www.fas.harvard.edu/hsp/ and click on "what's new."
 Look for BioScope every Monday in the Business section. Send your bio-feedback
 to Tom Abate by e-mail, abate@sfgate.com; fax, (415) 543-2482; or phone, (415)
 PLANTS; University of California at Berkeley; University of California at
 Davis; U.S. Department of Agriculture; BIOTECHNOLOGY & GENETIC SCIENCE(94%);
 LOAD-DATE: February 7, 2000
                   Copyright 2000 The Chronicle Publishing Co.









Document Number: 83
 
                        Austin American-Statesman (Texas)
                            December 20, 1999, Monday
 15 minutes with ...
 SECTION: Business; Pg. D11
 LENGTH: 1032 words
 Among the protesters at the World Trade Organization talks in Seattle earlier
 this month were opponents of genetically modified foods, crops that have been
 altered using genetic material from other organisms to make them easier to grow.
 The rapid adoption of GM, or transgenic, seeds has prompted vociferous protest
 because of concerns about their threat to health and the environment, leading to
 talk in some countries of banning imports of such foods.
 TechMonday's Andrew Park talked to John Mullet, director of the Crop
 Biotechnology Center at Texas A&M University, about the controversy.
 TECHMONDAY: Are protesters right to be concerned about the safety of genetically
 modified foods?
 Mullet: I think in the U.S. in particular, there have been a series of
 regulatory requirements or agreements that have been put in place since the
 early '80s that do as good a job as possible in eliminating risks in this type
 of technology. In Europe . . . the consumer there has less confidence in their
 country's ability to regulate, screen and ensure a safe food supply. And I'm not
 sure if that's based on fact or perception. That's one of the things that's
 mobilized consumers to be concerned.
 TM: What can farmers and seed makers do to answer those concerns?
 Mullet: At this university, our position is that people need information about
 this technology so they can make an informed choice. I think the thing to
 remember is that this technology has developed quickly and we haven't had the
 vehicle to communicate with consumers.
 TM: What is an example of a trade policy that might address this concern?
 Mullet: The one thing I've heard discussed a lot is the development of labeling.
 It seems to me to provide consumer choice as long as its done in an objective
 manner so that the consumer gets the information.
 TM: Will farmers gamble on transgenic foods in the next couple of years?
 Mullet: This will be interesting to find out. This is really the first year
 coming up where this issue has become prominent. I would expect some nervousness
 among producers. . . . As you know, risk is always a factor in decision-making,
 and I expect this year it will be a reduction of use of these products. I've
 heard some statements where this is the fastest technology adoption ever. What
 that says is if there's some slowdown in the adoption rate, perhaps in the long
 term it won't matter that much. Because of the incredible adoption rate, we were
 going to reach 100 percent coverage of transgenic crops in five years. Even with
 a slowdown in the adoption, we are projected to reach that figure in five to
 seven years.
 TM: Could the controversy realistically scale production of GM crops back to
 nothing?
 Mullet: It's very difficult to predict, and I'm not in a position . . . to
 judge. But you and I both know the history of other scares that have happened. I
 think it's an issue is here, and we ought to deal with it. And it potentially
 could be a serious problem.
 LOAD-DATE: December 21, 1999
                   Copyright 1999 The Austin American-Statesman









Document Number: 84
 
                        The Daily Record (Baltimore, MD.)
                           December 15, 1999, Wednesday
 Farmers Sue Monsanto Over Biotech Safety
 SECTION: Pg. 1Csum
 LENGTH: 221 words
 A group of Iowa, Indiana and French farmers sued Monsanto Co. yesterday for
 allegedly selling genetically altered crops without first ensuring they were
 safe for consumers and the environment. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in
 Washington, D.C., aims to stop industry leader Monsanto from adding genes to
 give soybeans, corn and other plants resistance to pests without more rigorous
 testing. Monsanto said its products are safe and the lawsuit was unfounded. The
 case comes at a time when some consumers have expressed some uneasiness about
 the rapid increase in transgenic crops and the snack foods, salad dressings and
 baked goods made from them. The issue is also a priority in world trade talks.
 Japan, the European Union, South Korea and others have already moved ahead to
 require labels on foods made with transgenic crops to satisfy consumer worries
 about long-term health and safety. "This lawsuit alleges that the company had a
 responsibility to make sure that any safety representations about the product
 were backed up," said Jeremy Rifkin, head of the Foundation on Economic Trends,
 which is backing the lawsuit filed by two Indiana farmers, two Iowa growers and
 a French soybean farmer. In 1999, half of the soybeans and one-third of corn
 grown by U.S. farmers were genetically modified varieties.
 LOAD-DATE: December 15, 1999
                       Copyright 1999 The Daily Record Co.









Document Number: 85
 
                       The Star-Ledger (Newark, New Jersey)
                             December 5, 1999 Sunday
 The redesign of what we eat raises issue: What's 'natural'?
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 2770 words
 Hailed as science at its best, or pilloried as "Frankenfood," the first fruits
 of the biotechnology revolution in agriculture are ripe for the plucking.
 Whether civilization fully partakes in the feast is the decision at hand.
 "People are beginning to understand that this is a fundamental juncture," said
 Charles Benbrook, an eminent agricultural economist based in Iowa. "We have a
 choice over how to produce this basic need, and we've come to the point in the
 road where we have to decide."
 A battle is brewing over genetically engineered food, produced in this season's
 harvest for the first time on a mass-market scale. It is a battle over whether
 such food is safe to eat, whether the crops it is drawn from can harm the
 environment, and whether the techniques that make it possible should be the
 dominant mode for future food production.
 Questions in the debate can be as specific as whether such techniques will aid
 or hinder family farmers, and as broad as whether the technology will ever help
 feed a world of expanding population and hunger.
 The winds of American public opinion and activism have shifted as the products
 have moved out of the lab and onto the dinner plate.
 Chances are, most Americans have already eaten genetically engineered food
 without knowing it: tortilla chips, fast-food french fries, baby formula, veggie
 burgers and muffin mix are among the products containing oils and grains from
 crops that have been genetically modified.
 Though food that contains genetically engineered material has never been proven
 unsafe, its viability is being closely watched by several key
 sectors, including:
 The Food and Drug Administration, which is holding a series of  public hearings
 to decide whether
 food containing genetically engineered ingredients should be labeled.
 American farmers - many of whom have embraced the technology and are now upset
 that European consumers are banning the crops and driving down commodity prices.
 A juggernaut of agrichemical industries that are banking on the notion that,
 with genetically engineered
 crops, pesticides will no longer be the dominant technique in industrial-scale
 agriculture.
 An army of public-interest and environmental-activist organizations who want a
 public debate over the safety of genetically engineered crops.
 Advocates of developing nations, who can envision the technology as a salve for
 world hunger but who also can imagine a new form of economic imperialism:
 industry giants trying to control vast biological resources of the planet
 through such methods as patenting seeds.
 Genetically engineered crops, first introduced in 1996, were touted heavily by
 seed and agricultural chemical companies this year and priced to sell.
 During the spring and summer, American farmers sowed genetically modified seeds
 over 90 million acres - more than one-fourth of the nation's cropland - in what
 observers of science described as one of the greatest technological rollouts in
 history.
 This first generation of altered crops, including more than a third of  all corn
 grown and more than half of all soybeans, contains genetic material that has
 been spliced with the DNA of other organisms to confer an advantage in growing.
 Some, like varieties of corn, potatoes and cotton, produce their own varieties
 of pesticide so they can "bite back" insects. Strains of soybeans, corn, canola
 and cotton, among others, have been pre-programmed to withstand pesticides.
 Critics say current products offer little benefit to consumers while asking them
 to assume a risk inherent in any new technology. Advocates agree that the
 present line of crops is tailor-made for farmers, not consumers.
 While farmers have accepted them, it's not without some misgivings.
 "They're doggone good crops," said Robert Frey, who is growing genetically
 engineered corn and soybeans on his 380-acre farm in Alpha, set in a
 picture-postcard landscape in the rolling hills of Warren County. "If they
 become the norm, though, I worry about the role a farmer will play in food
 production in the future.
 These seeds will be conceived and designed somewhere else, leaving me a bit
 player. I don't know what I'll be charged for this stuff down the road. I sure
 don't want to become a serf."
 To be sure, the issue pits corporate titans such as Monsanto, Novartis and
 DuPont against activist organizations, including Greenpeace and a Cambridge,
 Mass., group, the Council for Responsible Genetics. Agricultural companies have
 invested billions in gene technology over decades to help ease production and
 cut back  on the use of pesticides.
 The companies are pushing the technology because they believe the present system
 of industrial griculture, using chemicals on a massive scale to control crops,
 weeds and pests, will soon exhaust its usefulness - insects are mutating to
 withstand the pesticides, and the environmental consequences of the caustic
 chemicals are costly and unpopular.
 The world, the companies believe, will soon need something else, especially
 something that promises the possibility of crops in unlikely growing places,
 crops with custom-designed traits such as drought  resistance and vitamin
 fortification.
 "We're right; the public will see," said Rich Lotstein, a Novartis biologist at
 the company's agricultural research division in North Carolina.
 "This stuff is science at its best."
 But others worry about the environmental effects of the new technology and the
 adequacy of the safeguards provided by the federal government.
 When companies say, 'Trust us,' I get scared," said Benedikt Haerlin, the
 Greenpeace activist who made the term Frankenfood' au courant and who has been
 wildly successful in coordinating protests in Europe.
 "Aren't some of these folks the same ones who brought us DDT?"
 Caught unawares
 Behind the scenes, the dispute hinges on an intellectual brawl between
 gene-focused molecular biologists - as scientists call genetic engineers - and
 other environmental biologists who study how organisms relate in webs of life
 called ecosystems.
 On the one hand, many molecular biologists view the present attention to their
 work as extremely worrisome, exhibiting the worst of anti-science elements and
 representing the impractical whining of the well-fed sector of the world at the
 expense of the starving.
 It also has caught them unawares. At an international scientific meeting in
 London last month on the subject of genetically altered food, many were at a
 loss to explain public doubts and seemed unable to address them.
 "Stopping this technology based on fears that are exaggerated and unjustified
 would be a travesty of historical proportions," said Peter Day, the renowned
 plant geneticist who heads the Biotech Center at Rutgers University's Cook
 College in New Brunswick.
 "Biotechnology offers new hope for the developing world. . . . As population
 growth continues inexorably past 6 billion, I see no alternative to the wise use
 of these technologies."
 The industrialized nations of the world, Day said, can look forward to a slew of
 "next-phase" agricultural technology products in a few years, including
 higher-quality produce, healthier plant fats and oils, and vitamin-enriched
 foods, as well as biodegradable plastics and food-based pharmaceuticals.
 On the other hand, other scientific critics say, if the technology continues to
 develop as it has, society is inviting a vast genetic gamble with nature.
 "This is one big, giant experiment, and we are the guinea pigs," said Jane
 Rissler, a Cornell University-trained plant pathologist who was a staff
 scientist with the Environmental Protection Agency and is a member of the Union
 of Concerned Scientists in Washington. "Genetic engineering is a dramatically
 different and powerful technology. It can't be shoved down the throats of people
 around the world."
 How radical?
 At the moment, the differences between the two biological world views seem to
 form an uncrossable chasm. The divide saturates every discussion on the topic,
 from the most elementary idea of the difference between genetic engineering and
 any other food-processing technique, to wide- ranging discussions of the health
 of the planet.
 Some scientists, who devoted their careers to the field long before it came
 under public scrutiny, see gene-altered crops as a logical extension of Luther
 Burbank's clever crossbreeding experiments a century ago.
 Michael Lawton, a 41-year-old professor in the plant sciences department at
 Rutgers University, said that what traditional breeding and selecting methods
 created were "genetic monsters" of their own - wonderful monsters. The genetic
 ancestors of corn had only "a few miserable kernels," he said, compared with the
 hundreds found on a single ear of modern varieties.
 "With genetic engineering, like every other technology, we will have to judge
 each and every application on its merits," Lawton said. "It's the same for
 regular engineering. You can make bombs or baby carriages, but no one is
 proposing we ban engineering."
 Others such as Rebecca Goldburg, a biologist and senior scientist at the
 Environmental Defense Fund in New York, see the new technology as radically
 different because it allows the alteration of plants in ways never before
 thought possible.
 "With traditional selective breeding, humans can, for example, cross one variety
 of potatoes with another potato variety or with related wild potatoes," said
 Goldburg, a Montclair resident. "But breeders cannot add viral, insect, moth or
 chicken genes to potatoes, all of which have been added to potatoes with
 recombinant DNA and other genetic engineering techniques."
 The question - whether genetic engineering is radically different from other
 crop-improvement techniques - is crucial. The entire regulatory U.S. scheme at
 present is designed on the principle that it is not.
 Three U.S. agencies - the Department of Agriculture, the EPA and the FDA -
 regulate genetically engineered products under a handful of statutes. These were
 originally designed to regulate other products, before genetically engineered
 products had even been imagined. The result, critics said, is a patchwork of
 regulations and programs with differing requirements and underlying
 philosophies.
 Lotstein of Novartis countered that the present system is more than adequate,
 making the U.S. food supply the safest in the world.
 "If crops derived through biotechnology were not rigorously tested and found to
 be safe, they would not be on the market today," Lotstein said. The crops are
 extensively studied in the lab and greenhouse several years prior to small-scale
 field trials and subsequent large-scale commercialization, he said.
 Goldburg, speaking last week at an FDA hearing, said that regulators have been
 asking the wrong question. "We shouldn't have to prove that these products are
 dangerous," she said. "The FDA needs to prove to us that they are safe."
 Wake-up call
 Unlike Europeans, already sensitized to food issues by the outbreak of mad cow
 disease and its threat to their food supply, American consumers have seemed
 indifferent to genetically modified foods. In May, however, two Cornell
 University scientists published a report showing that, at least in the lab,
 pollen from genetically modified corn can kill monarch butterflies.
 Even those who are gung-ho about biotech conceded the importance of the
 experiment: It showed that a gene-altered crop can provoke an unanticipated
 environmental effect.
 Still, advocates of the technology say there is adequate government scrutiny to
 ensure that both environmental and food-safety concerns will be monitored as the
 technology evolves. In addition, they argue that the benefits of the technology
 outweigh any risks.
 Critics who want to slow down the assessment process wonder aloud whether
 industry pressure is allowing the technology to proceed unfettered by
 government. Those who endorse the "precautionary principle" popular in Europe
 say America should wait on genetically engineered foods until information on
 their safety is in.
 Scientists have identified a number of ways in which genetically engineered
 organisms potentially can harm both the environment and human health.
 The biggest environmental risk posed by genetically engineered crops is the
 possibility that a plant can become a weed - that is, the plant will spring up
 in places it isn't wanted. In farming, weeds can severely limit crop yield.
 A new combination of traits produced through genetic engineering might enable a
 crop to thrive, unaided, in circumstances that make it an even worse weed: For
 example, a rice plant engineered to be salt- tolerant could escape cultivation
 and invade nearby marine estuaries.
 There are no guarantees that the new genetic combinations in crops will remain
 confined to farm fields, critics point out. If relatives of the altered crops
 are growing near the field, a new gene could easily move to them via pollen. The
 new traits might confer upon wild relatives the ability to thrive in unwanted
 places.
 Furthermore, certain genetically engineered crops threaten the continued
 susceptibility of pests to one of nature's most valuable pesticides, one that is
 commonly used by organic farmers: the Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt toxin. "This
 is going to kill organic farming," said David Ehrenfeld, a professor of ecology,
 evolution and natural resources at Rutgers University.
 These "Bt crops" are genetically engineered to contain a gene for the Bt toxin.
 Because the crops produce the toxin in most plant tissues throughout the life
 cycle of the plant, pests are constantly exposed to it. This continuous exposure
 will offer countless opportunities for insects to mutate so that they ultimately
 are unharmed by the Bt pesticide.
 The dominant health-safety risk associated with genetically engineered crops is
 that food derived from them will cause allergic reactions in susceptible
 individuals.
 Transgenic crops - plants that have had genes from other species inserted into
 their genetic material - could bring new allergens into foods that sensitive
 individuals would not know to avoid. A study by scientists at the University of
 Nebraska shows that soybeans genetically engineered to contain Brazil nut
 proteins cause reactions in people allergic to Brazil nuts.
 Deep down, environmental scientists perceive a sense of overconfidence among
 gene-focused colleagues that could blind them to potential accidents.
 "I have no moral objections to genetic engineering, I've just become skeptical
 about the way the technology has been developed," said Philip Regal, a professor
 in the department of ecology, evolution and behavior at the University of
 Minnesota. Regal is the technology's leading academic critic.
 Molecular biologists working for industry dominate the thinking in the field,
 Regal said, and they have "tunnel vision." They don't know enough about how
 organisms interrelate in the worldwide environment to think through any negative
 impact, he maintained.
 "When industry says it's done a safety test, usually what it means is that
 they've put it out, planted it and looked for commercially viable features, like
 whether the stalks of corn are upright," said Regal. "That's not a test of
 ecological safety. It makes me wonder whether they are dumb or just lying.
 "In either case, then, I don't want to trust them with projects that are
 potentially dangerous."
 What keeps Regal and like-minded environmental biologists awake at night is a
 1992 experiment conducted by scientists at Oregon State University on behalf of
 the EPA.
 Researchers took a variant of a common soil bacterium, klebsiella planticola, ,
 genetically engineered to produce alcohol instead of the sticky goo it normally
 creates to allow it to cling to roots.
 Government agencies, saying they were genuinely interested in assessing the
 environmental dangers of genetic engineering, had never conducted a test with an
 organism that has a fighting chance of surviving and mucking things up,
 according to the scientist who headed up the experiment, Elaine Ingham.
 "All of the work up 'til then that was being used to suggest that genetic
 engineering had no negative effects had been the equivalent of taking a penguin
 and putting him in Times Square - giving him virtually no hope of surviving,"
 she said. "I wanted to create a real test."
 Ingham and her team got much more than they bargained for. The altered bacterium
 turned every plant in her experiment to slime.
 "Nobody cares about plants killed in a flowerpot," said Regal. "But what happens
 if things like this get turned loose in nature?
 "It shows we don't know as much as we think we know. There are hidden problems
 that we need to acknowledge."
 LOAD-DATE: June 6, 2007
 GRAPHIC: 1. The shoot of a sugar beet plant, the product of transgenic
 engineering, yields a clone in a research lab operated by Novartis in North
 Carolina.
 10,000 years of food improvement
 8000 B.C.- Agriculture-based societies begin to develop in Europe and Asia.
 People start saving the best seed from their harvest to plant the following
 season.
 1800 B.C.- Yeast is used to make wine, beer and leavened bread. This is the
 first use of microorganisms to create new types of food.
 1795- Nicolas-Francois Appert invents a way to preserve fresh foods by heating
 and sealing in metal or glass containers, and the canned food industry is begun.
 1856- Louis Pasteur invents a process of heating liquids to destroy harmful or
 unwanted organisms. The process - pasteurization - is one of the most important
 steps in food safety.
 1865- Austrian botanist Gregor Mendel begins experiments on pea plants in a
 monastery garden. He concludes that unseen materials are passed  as traits from
 one generation to the next.
 1914- American Clarence Birdseye invents quick-frozen foods, making many
 seasonal vegetables, meats and fish available any time of the year.
 1922- Farmers first purchase hybrid seed corn created by careful selection and
 crossbreediing of two parent plants. Hybrid corn accounts for a 600% increase in
 U.S. corn production between 1930 and 1985.
 1953- Researchers James Watson and Francis Crick define the structure of DNA,
 leading to a better understanding of how cells in all living things store,
 duplicate and pass on genetic material from generation to generation.
 1973- In experiments using fruit flies, researchers Stanley Cohen and Herbert
 Boyer successfully move a gene from one organism to another.
 1990- The USDA approves the first food product modified by biotechnology -
 Chymogen, an enzyme used in place of rennet in cheesemaking.
 SOURCE: Monsanto Company
  INFO GRAPHIC: How crossbreeding differs from genetic engineering INFO GRAPHIC:
 What genes are and what they do
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: nsl
                     Copyright 1999 Newark Morning Ledger Co.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 86
 
                                The New York Times
                 November 22, 1999, Monday, Late Edition - Final
 Altered Foods: Future Can Wait
 SECTION: Section A;Page 30;Column 4;Editorial Desk
 LENGTH: 155 words
 To the Editor:
 Gregg Easterbrook (Op-Ed, Nov. 19) may be right that the real benefits of
 genetically engineered crops will probably come in later versions of transgenic
 crops. However, genetic engineering is not necessarily the solution to world
 hunger. The main reason for food scarcity is simple: governments, especially
 developing countries' governments, continue to protect agriculture. If farmers
 are given a subsidy to produce cotton for the domestic market, while they could
 produce, say, rice, and get a higher price for it in the global market, that
 harms farmers. Consumers lose, too: they have to pay for the cotton subsidy
 directly or indirectly and are also denied the lower rice price.
 Genetically engineered crops can be beneficial to society only if governments
 take the first step of removing subsidies and allowing farmers access to global
 markets.
 Washington, Nov. 19, 1999
 http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: November 22, 1999
 TYPE: Letter
                    Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 87
 
                                The New York Times
                 November 19, 1999, Friday, Late Edition - Final
 Food for the Future
 BYLINE: By Gregg Easterbrook;Gregg Easterbrook is a senior editor of The New
 Republic and author of "Beside Still Waters: Searching for Meaning in an Age of
 Doubt."
 SECTION: Section A;Page 35;Column 1;Editorial Desk
 LENGTH: 812 words
 C orn that is genetically modified to include a natural insecticide, cotton that
 has been engineered to tolerate herbicides -- if you've been reading about such
 new transgenic crops, you may be asking yourself, "Why do we need this stuff?"
 After all, American farmers already turn out plenty of high-quality food at low
 prices.
 Yes, it's true that most genetically modified crops now available are barely
 distinguishable from what they supplant, and so far they have not led to such
 promised advances as big reductions in the need for agricultural chemicals. And
 while there is no evidence that genetically engineered crops in the field have
 caused any harm to human health or done any damage to the environment, planting
 them obviously entails a risk of unwanted ecological effects.
 So shouldn't the genetic engineering of crops be stopped? That is what many
 critics, here and in Europe, are saying. And if the current generation of crops
 were all that the genetic engineering of agriculture would produce, that view
 would be correct, because the risks, while small, would outweigh the benefits.
 But the important thing to keep in mind is that the transgenic crops in the news
 today are just the first manifestations of a fundamental new idea. Much better
 versions are coming.
 Initially, many new ideas seem of modest value or even appear to be a step
 backward. The first cell phones seemed like a niche product for millionaires.
 The first heart-bypass operations, statistically speaking, seemed no more
 effective than if the patients had refused treatment. But the second and third
 generations of advances based on these ideas were spectacular. This is likely to
 be the pattern that genetically engineered crops will follow.
 The transgenic crops in the news today were conceived by researchers 10 to 20
 years ago. The next advances may represent the difference between those
 suitcase-size "portable" computers of the early 1980's and the slim laptops of
 today.
 For example, the Rockefeller Foundation is sponsoring research on so-called
 golden rice, a crop designed to improve nutrition in the developing world.
 Breeders of golden rice are using genetics to build into the rice forms of
 vitamin A that the body can absorb; vitamin A deficiency is a common problem in
 poor countries. A second phase of the project will increase the iron content in
 rice to combat anemia, which is a widespread problem among women in
 underdeveloped countries.
 Golden rice, expected to be for sale in Asia in as little as five years, may
 offer dramatic improvements in nutrition and health for millions of people, at
 just shy of zero cost to farmers and consumers.
 Similar initiatives using genetic manipulation are aimed at making crops more
 productive by reducing their dependence on pesticides, fertilizers and
 irrigation, or by increasing their resistance to plant diseases. Other projects
 hope to solve problems like peanut allergies by removing the genes for allergens
 from the plants.
 Today 800 million people in poor nations are chronically undernourished,
 according to the United Nations, and the populations of these countries are
 expected to grow by an additional two billion to three billion people before the
 global population peaks sometime in the next century. Merely changing the way
 food is distributed cannot solve the need for increased agricultural output. But
 the second and third generations of genetically engineered crops might.
 Then there are the health care possibilities. For example, the standard
 three-shot course required for hepatitis B inoculations in the United States
 typically costs about $200. There is no way most people in poor nations can
 afford that, a reason hepatitis B is exacting a terrible toll in Africa. But
 researchers at Cornell University are working to transfer the genetic code for
 the hepatitis B vaccine into bananas. If they are successful, hepatitis B
 inoculations could cost as little as 10 cents per dose and would require no
 medical personnel to administer them.
 This project is one reason that while skeptics in the West are looking askance
 at genetic engineering, the World Health Organization is having a major
 conference this month in Geneva to see how this technology can help improve
 global health.
 Of course, the genetic engineering of crops must be carefully regulated. A new
 system of independent testing and federal oversight might be required, replacing
 the current hodgepodge in which the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food
 and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture have overlapping and
 conflicting responsibilities.
 But it would be a mistake if the underwhelming results of the first generation
 of transgenic crops led to laws or boycotts that blocked the second and third
 generations. After all, it is the world's poorest people who would have the most
 to lose.
 http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: November 19, 1999
 GRAPHIC: Drawing (Lutz Widmaier)
 TYPE: Op-Ed
                    Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 88
 
                        The Plain Dealer (Cleveland, Ohio)
                       October 11, 1999 Monday, FINAL / ALL
 BYLINE: By LAUREL HOPWOOD; Cleveland Heights
 SECTION: EDITORIALS & FORUM; Pg. 8B
 LENGTH: 288 words
 Regarding "Inspired by butterflies, Kucinich seeks labels for altered foods,"
 (Sept. 29):
 Thank you for starting the dialogue with Northeast Ohio that the foods we are
 eating everyday have been genetically engineered. A crucial point for consumers
 to understand is that genetically-engineered crops are not hybrids, such as
 combining broccoli and cauliflower. This new technology involves combining
 completely different species, which bypasses all natural protective barriers.
 This is a total remake of life as we know it.
 The huge corporations making these new life forms want us to believe that the
 use of transgenic crops reduces pesticide use and increases crop yield. Numerous
 universities are publishing articles that debate these claims. The corporations
 that manufacture genetically-engineered seeds also manufacture the pesticide
 that must be used along with their proprietary seeds. These new
 genetically-engineered life forms are then patented, enabling huge corporations
 to own and control the food supply. Farmers are starting to see the writing on
 the wall.
 Furthermore, government regulatory agencies offer false assurances of safety. In
 order to bypass their oversight responsibility, the Food and Drug Administration
 calls genetically-engineered food "substantially equivalent" to conventional
 foods. However, a food containing genes from different species are not the same
 as their conventional counterpart. The Environmental Protection Agency is
 required to perform environmental impact statements prior to the release of any
 new transgenic crop, but these studies are not being done.
 Without public input, we are being subjected to the new pollution of the
 upcoming millennium: genetic pollution.
 LOAD-DATE: October 12, 1999
           Copyright 1999 Plain Dealer Publishing Co.The Plain Dealer,
                                 October 11, 1999









Document Number: 89
 
                               The Washington Post
                     October 9, 1999, Saturday, Final Edition
 WHAT ON EARTH?; The New Crops
 SECTION: A SECTION; Pg. A15
 LENGTH: 398 words
 Many experts believe the key to feeding the world's 6 billion people and the
 many more billions to come lies in producing genetically altered crops that can
 resist harsh environmental conditions, insects and herbicides. American
 companies engineered such plants in the 1990s, and about half of the American
 soybean crop, for example, is now transgenic.  But some farmers and importers in
 Europe and Japan have balked at buying the seeds or crops, and a controversy has
 erupted in the United States over the labeling of food items that contain
 transgenic ingredients.  Environmentalists have warned that the use of
 transgenic crops can speed the development of insecticide-resistant insects and
 weeds that are invulnerable to herbicide.
 Production of genetically altered crops has increased 23-fold in the past four
 years.
 Global area of genetically altered crops (This chart was not available)
 Three countries grew almost all of the world's commercially produced transgenic
 crops this year.  Australia, South Africa, Mexico, Spain, France, Portugal,
 Romania, Ukraine together account for a fraction of 1 percent.
 Canada 10%
 Argentina 17%
 China 1%
 NOTE: Numbers rounded
 Four crops made up almost all of the transgenic harvests worldwide in 1999.
 Potatoes, squash and papayas accounted for less than 1 percent combined.
 Soybean 54%
 Corn 28%
 Canola (rapeseed) 9%
 Cotton 9%
 NOTE: Numbers rounded
 All About Genetically Altered Crops
 In 1980, researchers spliced the gene of a bacterium into a petunia, creating
 the first "transgenic" plant. This feat was followed by a tomato made frost
 resistant through a gene from a flounder.  Currently seven major transgenic
 crops are grown commercially.  These plants produce their own insecticide,
 reducing the inconvenience and cost of spraying for pests. These plants also can
 be made resistant to the most common herbicides. As a result, weeds, which
 inhibit crop growth, can be controlled with as little as one herbicide spraying
 per season, instead of many applications.  Better weed control also means less
 tilling, and less tilling reduces soil erosion.
 SOURCES: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications,
 World Watch Institute
 LOAD-DATE: October 09, 1999
 GRAPHIC: Illustration, BYDITA SMITH AND TOBEY
                        Copyright 1999 The Washington Post









Document Number: 90
 
                                 University Wire
                                 October 6, 1999
 Reclaim the seeds
 BYLINE: Staff Editorial, The California Aggie
 SOURCE: U. California-Davis
 LENGTH: 447 words
 DATELINE: Davis, Calif.
 As the pace of genetic engineering research accelerates at UC Davis, crops with
 altered DNA composition continue to permeate our markets. According to a recent
 survey, 54 percent of last year's soybean crop and 33 percent of the corn
 harvest consisted of genetically modified plants.
 Although creators of these new varieties are working to improve the quality of
 life for human beings, all of the risks have not been evaluated. While
 transgenic crops have the potential to produce more food, require less chemical
 inputs and thrive in a variety of environments, their abilities are often
 countered by health and agricultural concerns.
 The public is not clearly aware of the benefits and losses inherent in genetic
 engineering - perhaps because the scientists are unsure as well. Shoppers still
 unknowingly purchase and consume genetically engineered foods daily because of a
 lack of labeling.
 In light of these complaints, Reclaim the Seeds - the group that destroyed UC
 research plants last week - may have a valid case, but their destructive actions
 are abhorrent to all concerned citizens. In an attempt to protest the
 infiltration of a potentially dangerous, partially understood technology into
 the marketplace, they showed disrespect for private property and ruined the
 postdoctoral project of a hardworking UC student.
 Groups that question the use of transgenic organisms in the food supply should
 focus more on educational efforts, lobbying and pressuring the legislature for
 more information about and clear labeling of genetically engineered products for
 consumer safety.
 While genetically altered products can be beneficial for humans - both by
 putting nutrients in foods that would otherwise lack them and increasing yields
 - 100 percent of our food supply should not be converted to this technology.
 Products made from altered plants should also be clearly distinguishable from
 their "natural" counterparts, returning the power of the dollar to the consumer.
 Citizens highly concerned about genetically modified crops can always keep their
 purchases solely organic. Organic products, produced without pesticides or
 genetic modifications, remain "pure foods," and if more people purchased them,
 the force of consumers' choices concerning altered crops would be heard.
 The answer to the protests surrounding genetic engineering lies in education,
 further investigation and lobbying for labels rather than wanton destruction of
 UC research crops. The very crops destroyed may have been able to provide some
 insight to the implications of genetically modified plants in the environment
 and the food supply.
 (C) 1999 The California Aggie via U-WIRE
 LOAD-DATE: October 6, 1999
                  Copyright 1999 The California Aggie via U-Wire









Document Number: 91
 
                            Bangor Daily News (Maine)
                             August 31, 1999 Tuesday
 Real questions about genetically modified Maine crops
 BYLINE: Richard Stander
 LENGTH: 1050 words
 The Bangor Daily News did a disservice to its readers and to the
 truth in its Sept. 23 editorial ("Amid the alien corn").In
 decrying the "senseless destruction" of the University of Maine
 test plot of genetically modified organism corn (GMO corn) the
 editorial suggested the action interfered with research aimed
 ultimately at determining whether or not GMO corn is a danger to
 human health or to the environment.If only it were true!
 But according to the university researchers the aim of their
 inquiry is narrowly focused on what ITAL yields UNITL are to be
 expected from a genetically engineered strain of corn, tolerant to
 the herbicide Roundup, a widely used product manufactured by the
 Monsanto Copr.The seed for this Roundup-ready corn is,
 coincidentally, produced by a Monsanto-owned company, DeKalb, which
 supplied the seed to the UMaine researchers.Now, who do you
 suppose stands to profit most from the university research?And who
 stands to lose the most?
 Herbicide-resistant GMO corn is not new to U.S. agriculture.As
 much as 50 percent of corn seed planted this year was engineered to
 resist herbicides, which means that herbicides could be used not
 just before planting, but after planting, too, destroying more
 competing weeds.More Roundup profits for Monsanot; and higher
 yields for farmers.Win-win, right?Well, look again: This year the
 commodity prices for corn and soybeans, after record 1998 harvests,
 were below production cost and hundreds of family farmers
 throughout the Middle West found themselves close to bankruptcy.
 Another unforeseen consequence of the higher application of
 herbicides made possible by the introduction of herbicide-resistant
 GMO corn is the elimination of milkweed in cornfields.Scientists
 in Canada predict that this may lead to a decline in monarch
 butterflies, as milkweed is the sole food source for thebutterfly
 caterpillars.
 Monsanto has been bullying, intimidating and spreading lies
 about their biotech products all over the world.Concerned about
 avoiding what reputable scientists have called a possible
 environmental disaster the European Union has banned GMO foods and
 seed, and earlier this month the Japanese government suspended
 approvals of Bt corn in the wake of a Cornell University report on
 the threat to monarch butterflies.Brazil, too, this month has
 turned down Monsanto's bid to sell GMO soybeans in that country.A
 Brazilian judge said last week that the U.S. biotechnology giant's
 local unit must perform a one-year environmental impact study
 before selling its transgenic crop in Brazil.
 Roundly criticized for their indifference to questions of
 environmental safety and human health risks, a Monsanta official
 told The New York Times that the corporation should not have to
 take responsibility for the safety of its food products."Monsanta
 should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food," said Phil
 Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communictions."Our
 interest is in selling as much of it as possible.Assuring its
 safety is the FDA's job," Angell said.Unfortunately, the Food and
 Drug Administration, ignoring its own concerned scientists, isn't
 conducting any safety studies either, and is being sued by a group
 of public interest groups for this lapse in responsibility.
 Currently there is no research being done anywhere in the
 United States which would answer any questions about the safety of
 these products, to hjmans or to the environment.As these questions
 go unasked and unanswered, the U.S. government, acting in behalf of
 Monsanto and other U.S. biotech corporations, has threatened to
 retaliate with trade sanctions against countries whose consumers
 are just saying "no" to GMO foods.In our country, where consumers
 are not given the right to choose, products containing genetically
 modified corn and soy are estimated to be in 70 to 80 percent of
 U.S.-processed foods, including baby foods.Here in Maine,
 corporate lobbyists, working the Maine Legislature, succeeded last
 session to reject a labeling law which would have given Maine
 consumers the right to know if they were consuming genetically
 altered food.
 The University of Maine researchers, way over theirheads on
 the ability to answer the really important questions swirling
 around GMO seed, claim they're responding to farmers' needs.But
 the American Corn Growers Association (ACGA) is proposing that
 farmers should consider planting non-GMO crops if certain questions
 are not answered."GMOs have become the albatross around the neck
 of farmers on issues of trade, labeling, testing, certification,
 segregation, market availability and agribusiness concentration.
 Until all these issues are answered, it is best for production
 agriculture to examine alternatives to planting GMOs," said Gary
 Goldberg, chief executive officer of the ACGA.The ACGA is calling
 for the following questions, among others, to be addressed:
 How do we export GMO grains to unwilling foreign customers and
 will the U.S. Department of Agriculture encourage the sale of
 GMO-free crops?
 How far do GMO and GMO-free grains have to be planted from
 each other to prevent cross-pollination?
 Since GMO fields can cross-pollinate with non-GMO fields, will
 GMO growers be required to plant buffer zones?How large should the
 buffer zones be?
 Will biotech companies be liable for contamination of non-GMO
 crops caused by cross-pollination?
 Will there be the need for liability waivers between neighbors
 to prevent legal ramifications in the event of one neighbor not
 knowing what another neighbor is planting?
 Are the supposedly higher yields aof GMOs marketable in a
 climate that already has overproduction and oversupply?
 These questions, and others regarding ecological and health
 risks, are what a responsible university agricultaural extension
 department, truly committed to both farmers and consumers, should
 be engaged in.Unfortunately, John Jemmison and his colleagues at
 the University of Maine chose instead to be shills for Monsanto.
 Their "research" got the treatment it deserved.
 Richard Stander is a retired organic farmer living in Stockton
 Springs.
 LOAD-DATE: August 31, 1999
                         Copyright 1999 Bangor Daily News









Document Number: 92
 
                        Austin American-Statesman (Texas)
                             August 29, 1999, Sunday
 Brazil focus of genetics debate; Decision on allowing planting of
 BYLINE: Laurie Goering
 SECTION: Business; Pg. D1
 LENGTH: 1628 words
 LONDRINA, Brazil -- The rolling green hills of southern Brazil, checkered with
 red-dirt farm fields awaiting spring planting, don't look like an international
 battleground.
 But that is what Brazil, the world's second-largest soybean producer after the
 United States, has become this season, as the country struggles to decide
 whether to permit the planting of genetically modified soybeans for the first
 time.
 Pressured by eager U.S. seed dealers, worried European consumers, environmental
 opponents and Brazilian farmers eager to use the technology, the Brazilian
 government has yet to make a final ruling on the planting of what would be the
 country's first transgenic crop.
 Experts say the decision may prove crucial in determining whether transgenic
 crops continue their spread internationally and even whether they continue to
 thrive in the United States
 "Brazil is critically important to the rate of biotech adoption or decline,"
 said Steven Sonka, an economist and agricultural strategist with the National
 Soybean Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign.
 "It will be closely watched by the rest of the world."
 Transgenic soybeans -- plants engineered to resist pests or tolerate herbicides
 using genes borrowed from other species -- have been enthusiastically adopted in
 the United States since their introduction in 1996. Today, a little over half
 the soybeans planted in the United States grow from transgenic seed, the
 majority of it produced by St. Louis-based Monsanto Ltd.
 Genetically modified corn, cotton, oilseeds and potatoes also are growing in
 popularity in the United States, and everything from transgenic cranberries to
 papayas are in the works. Fully 60 percent of the processed food products on
 U.S. store shelves contain some kind of transgenic ingredients, food safety
 experts estimate.
 While adoption of the new crops has been relatively smooth in the United States,
 the rest of the world is a more complicated picture.
 European countries, spooked by recent food scares from mad cow disease to
 products laced with cancer-causing dioxin, have in the past four months led an
 international charge away from transgenics, which environmental groups there
 have termed "Frankenstein foods."
 Though Germany is among the world leaders in genetically modified crop research,
 England and France have banned transgenics from supermarket shelves, and the
 European Union appears to be moving to prohibit the importation of transgenic
 foods for at least three years -- a nightmare scenario for U.S. farmers.
 "It's a mess to say the least," said Lisa Zannoni, a biotech consultant to the
 European Association of Plant Protection.
 Canada, the world's second-biggest biotech crop user, has half its canola oil
 acreage in transgenics and about 40 percent of its small corn crop.
 Argentina, the third-biggest user, has planted 20 percent of its soybean acreage
 in so-called Roundup Ready soybeans, the same herbicide-resistant variety Brazil
 is considering as its first transgenic.
 In India, however, anti-transgenic activists said angry farmers have burned
 fields of genetically modified crops. China, which does not acknowledge U.S.
 patents, is developing its own transgenic tobacco and tomatoes. Japan is showing
 signs of following Europe's retreat from transgenics.
 Fertile ground for dispute
 Nowhere, though, is the dispute over transgenics stickier than in Brazil, Latin
 America's largest nation with 160 million people and its largest agricultural
 producer.
 Earlier this year, Brazil's government, through its agricultural ministry,
 approved Monsanto's request to begin selling Roundup Ready soybeans in Brazil
 after years of testing.
 Brazil's Institute of Consumer Defense and Institute of Environment and
 Renewable Natural Resources quickly filed suit along with the environmental
 group Greenpeace. In June, a federal judge in Brasilia reversed the sales
 go-ahead, banning transgenic seed until the country finishes writing more
 complete rules governing the sale and use of transgenic foods.
 The judge also insisted Monsanto present an environmental impact statement
 showing that Roundup Ready soybeans will not produce any damage to the
 environment or consumers.
 "This decision is a huge victory for those concerned with the impacts of
 transgenics in the environment and public health," said Karen Suassuna of
 Greenpeace Brazil.
 Monsanto has appealed the decision. "We're focusing on going through the right
 steps in the regulatory and legal process. We want to stay on target for
 commercialization" in 1999, said Lisa Watson, a Monsanto spokesman in
 Washington.
 While Monsanto is hesitant to talk in any detail about its battle in Brazil,
 U.S. analysts say the company's future in transgenic crops may well depend on
 whether it can get Roundup Ready seeds in the ground this year in Brazil.
 Making that happen is "stunningly important" for Monsanto, Sonka said, because
 the company's profit and shareholder value estimates have been based on sales to
 Brazil starting this year. If that effort fails, nervous investors may well
 reduce holdings in Monsanto and other Midwest transgenic-producing companies.
 That in turn could scare CEOs away from further investment in developing
 transgenic products, Sonka said.
 "Without the cash from these products, the private companies won't go down that
 path again," the economist said. "What happens with Roundup Ready in Brazil is
 very important."
 Possible backlash
 Another problem for Monsanto is that U.S. farmers now using transgenics find
 themselves in increasingly tight competition with Brazil for overseas soybean
 markets. If Brazil rejects transgenics this year and finds itself with better
 access to European and Japanese markets as a result, that success could trigger
 a backing off from transgenics in the United States, Sonka warned.
 A significant minority of farmers in the United States already are reducing
 their use of Roundup Ready crops because alternative herbicides have dropped
 more than 50 percent in price, making the Roundup system, which limits farmers
 to using Roundup herbicide and its close cousins, more expensive, he said.
 The problem with that for companies, he said, is that "when you see a little
 backing off from a product, the financial backoff is magnified."
 U.S. farmers, struggling with the lowest grain prices in two decades and trying
 to retain overseas markets, "are now bearing the brunt of transgenics
 rejections," he said. Midwest jobs also could be at risk if the companies fail
 to win acceptance for new transgenic products abroad.
 At the heart of Monsanto's battle in Brazil -- and the transgenic industry's
 efforts to win acceptance in Europe and Asia -- is one glaring problem: Roundup
 Ready soybeans, and other transgenic crops now hitting the market, produce no
 clear consumer benefit.
 The genetically modified seeds Monsanto and other companies chose to bring to
 market first are designed to solve the problems of farmers by fighting insect
 pests or making herbicide applications simpler.
 The new seeds also benefit the companies, who hope to stake out increasing
 shares of the market. Farmers who plant Roundup Ready soybeans have no choice
 but to use Roundup herbicide or one of its cousins.
 Consumers, on the other hand, don't get cheaper prices, higher nutrition or
 anything else, environmentalists charge, but potential health risks from the new
 products.
 The tomato pasting
 The focus on transgenic products for farmers and not consumers may be in part a
 reaction to an initial transgenic consumer failure -- the introduction of the
 FlavrSavr tomato in 1994 in the United States
 The tomato, designed to hold firm for transport after being picked ripe, was
 priced too high and eventually pulled from the market in 1996 after consumers
 quit buying, Sonka said.
 Today, of the hundreds of genetically modified crops being tested in U.S. plots,
 only 19 percent are designed to improve product quality, according to Susan
 Koehler of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The rest are focused on making
 cultivation easier, with fully 28 percent aimed at increasing tolerance to
 herbicides.
 U.S. transgenics companies promise that over the next five years, they intend to
 produce a second wave of consumer-friendly modified crops, from high-protein
 corn to carrots with extra vitamins.
 It may be too late. European consumers, who might have been wooed by low-fat
 oils or vitamin-enriched potatoes, for instance, now see little reason to adopt
 imported foods they believe may have long-term health perils and no health
 benefits.
 Transgenic foods have so far shown no signs of producing health problems in
 humans, apart from an alleged handful of allergy cases. But opponents argue
 long-term studies have yet to be done, and that governments that let
 dioxin-tainted milk and mad cow disease slip past can't be trusted when they
 claim the new foods are safe.
 "Many people suspect (these crops) don't benefit anyone, only threaten
 everyone," said Ricardo Arnt, editor of Superinteressante, a Brazilian science
 magazine that has followed the transgenics debate.
 (from box)
 Soybean production and prices
 Production of soybeans has increased while prices have dropped.
 A look at the numbers:
 Production
 In metric tons
 World: 157.7 157.2 159
 United States: 73.2 75 80
 Brazil: 32.5 31 30.5*
 *Researchers are revising production upwards but crop won't be planted until
 Oct. and Nov.
 Price
 Per bushel
 SOURCES: National Agricultural Statistics Service, Department of Agriculture,
 Foreign Agriculture Service, Economic Research Service
 LOAD-DATE: August 29, 1999
                   Copyright 1999 The Austin American-Statesman









Document Number: 93
 
                                The New York Times
                  August 5, 1999, Thursday, Late Edition - Final
 Can We Trust Altered Foods?
 SECTION: Section A;Page 22;Column 6;Editorial Desk
 LENGTH: 142 words
 To the Editor:
 The idea that genetic engineering is somehow "natural selection, just speeded
 up," is a false and dangerous one that is sure to lead to food crises far more
 serious than the sick Monarch butterflies that transgenic crops have already
 produced (Op-Ed, Aug. 2).
 As a consumer I have a reasonable assurance that two edible strains of potato,
 when crossbred, will produce a safe new strain. I have no such assurance about a
 strain of potato like Monsanto's New Leaf that, thanks to its new bacterial
 genes, creates its own insecticide.
 The Food and Drug Administration must demand testing of transgenic foods that
 contain food additives before they enter the marketplace. And the Environmental
 Protection Agency should insure that the crops are safe to grow as well as eat.
 Somerville, Mass., Aug. 3, 1999
 http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: August 5, 1999
 TYPE: Letter
                    Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 94
 
                       The Star-Ledger (Newark, New Jersey)
                               July 25, 1999 Sunday
 The Precautionary Principle
 BYLINE: Kevin Coughlin
 SECTION: PERSPECTIVE; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 1136 words
 Nearly two centuries ago, Mary Shelley spun a cautionary little yarn about what
 can happen when scientists don't think things through.
 "Frankenstein" remains evergreen. As a new millennium approaches, some sharp
 minds are urging the scientific community to hit the brakes before its newest
 creations spin out of control.
 The recent scare over genetically engineered corn - pest-proof, yet also lethal
 to  butterflies - is just another wake-up call. From so-called "Frankenfoods" to
 cloning to stitching animal organs into humans, there is growing concern that
 science and technology are outracing the policy makers and ethicists.
 "There's no forum to talk about this stuff," says George Annas, chairman of
 Boston University's health law department. "The time is now. Human cloning is
 the perfect example. There is lots of downside to it. No one can think of a good
 reason to do it."
 Annas believes the "Precautionary Principle" should be taught alongside the
 Theory of Relativity. Simply put, that means the sci-tech crowd should prove its
 offerings are safe before setting them loose on us.
 Will transplanted pig livers unleash the next AIDS plague? What is the likely
 fallout from human cloning? Will the coming wave of diagnostic bio-chips become
 tools of discrimination? Is our privacy doomed to drown in a sea of cross-linked
 databases?
 Until such questions have answers, laboratories should consider easing off the
 throttle. The notion has some prominent backers:
 n Ian Wilmut, the ruddy-cheeked cloner of Dolly, has been far from sheepish in
 pushing a ban on human cloning. A committee of the American Medical Association
 thinks a five-year wait is prudent.
 n Fritz Bach of Harvard Medical School wants a two-year moratorium on
 xenotransplantation, or the use of animal organs in humans - even though pig
 research is how he brings home the bacon. An international alliance of doctors
 and lawyers concurs.
 n The British Medical Association wants a halt to commercial planting of
 transgenic crops until safety issues are resolved.
 All this isn't to suggest scientific innovation is bad; few people would trade
 X- rays and antibiotics for a flat world that's orbited by the sun.
 But it pays to listen when Wilmut says human cloning, the most dramatic new
 technology on the horizon, lacks the most basic justification: Why?
 Cloning a lost loved one makes no sense to Wilmut; a cloned infant will be a
 unique individual, burdened by expectations it never can fulfill. Psychological
 implications aside, it's a physically risky business. Animal cloning has a
 monstrously high failure rate, Wilmut notes. And just imagine losing your wife
 to a younger version of you.
 It's probably too late to stop what Wilmut started. A flaky physicist named Dick
 Seed vows to clone a chip off his old block. Others will do the same - and they
 won't have trouble finding countries in which to set up shop.
 In the end, science usually wins. The Vatican clipped Galileo's wings, but
 others took up his cause. And so far, anxiety over genetic research has done
 little to slow the pace of scientific effort.
 To make matters tougher, strong cases can be made for xenotransplants and
 crop-engineering.
 Each year in the U.S., 40,000 patients await organ transplants. Human donors are
 scarce; animals soon may spell the difference between life and death.
 Xenotransplants will be big in five to 10 years, predicts the Robert Wood
 Johnson Foundation and other experts.
 Australian scientists raised hopes recently by altering a sugar-like molecule in
 pig cells. The re-tooled molecule may trick human antibodies into accepting
 transplanted pork. Tests of transgenic pig cells have corrected Parkinson's-like
 symptoms and regenerated nerve growth in rodents.
 Still, it's a long road from rats to the Rat Pack. Since the 1960s, when a half-
 dozen chimp kidneys were implanted in people, about 20 animal-to-human
 transplants have been attempted, mostly in the U.S. and India. All the patients
 died soon after surgery, according to an international alliance of doctors and
 lawyers that opposes the practice.
 Pigs may transmit viruses similar to AIDS, warns Bach. Scores of Malaysians died
 this year after bites from mosquitoes carrying a swine virus. Right now,
 however, only monkey parts are off-limits for transplants in the U.S.
 Bach believes the public should decide if a steady supply of porcine hearts,
 livers and bladders is worth the risk of new scourges. He wants lawyers to grill
 experts on public television, followed by weekend "consensus conferences,"
 modeled after a Dutch process in which citizen panels advise the government.
 A global food fight is churning the loudest protests so far.
 Since the FlavrSavr tomato got the green light five years ago, laboratories have
 been "improving" everything from cotton to corn syrup. The U.S. agri-industry
 says this sort of genetic tinkering enhances flavor, nutrition and crop yields.
 Developing countries don't buy it. Monsanto's plans for tweaked cotton have
 outraged India, where fields have been torched to protest the company's new
 "Terminator" technology. That bit of genetic alchemy would require poor farmers
 to buy new seeds every year.
 Slowly, America is catching on. A Cornell study in the spring suggested pollen
 from bug-resistant corn is deadly to butterflies. Dead Monarchs aren't the only
 farm-tech fears. A Minnesota study reported people got sick after chowing on
 chickens pumped full of antibiotics; consumers apparently fell prey to a bug
 that developed a resistance to the poultry drug. A movement to mandate labeling
 of genetically doctored foods has gathered a half-million signatures in this
 country.
 At Children's Hospital in Boston, meanwhile, a pioneer in muscular dystrophy
 research is chewing on another grim picture. Louis Kunkel forecasts a future
 straight from the 1997 film "Gattaca," a stark world where everyone's fate is
 genetically sealed. He anticipates a decade-long avalanche of cheap bio-chips
 that screen for every conceivable condition and affliction.
 If your genes carry a death sentence, do you really want to know? Will you grab
 a gun and head for the water tower? The day is approaching when applicants lose
 jobs or insurance over flunked genetic tests. At least three companies now
 perform genetic screening on new hires, claims a survey by the American
 Management Association. With few laws to protect medical databases, genetic
 discrimination is all but inevitable, frets the American Civil Liberties Union.
 Kunkel says it's time to chart public policy now - before the chips hit the fan.
 "The main characteristic of responsible scientists is skepticism. That's what
 this is all about," Annas says of his Precautionary Principle.
 While they're at it, maybe someone should declare a moratorium on millenniums.
 No telling where they might lead.
 LOAD-DATE: June 6, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: nsl
                     Copyright 1999 Newark Morning Ledger Co.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 95
 
                           Capital Times (Madison, WI.)
                      July 21, 1999, Wednesday, ALL EDITIONS
 BYLINE: Linda Brazill
 SECTION: Editorial, Pg. 10A
 LENGTH: 838 words
 I think my grocery shopping habits are similar to those of many Madisonians. I
 buy from the big guys as well as neighborhood grocers and bakeries, from the
 co-ops and the Farmers' Market. These days I notice there's a growing amount of
 produce labeled ''organic'' that now appears in the larger stores where there
 was little or none a few years ago.
 More important, I'm buying more of it. Price used to be the determining factor
 -- and organic often cost significantly more. But these days health and safety
 concerns play much more of a role in my buying choices.
 Food safety was virtually a non-issue until 1996, when transgenic crops were
 introduced. These are plants that have had a gene from another species inserted
 -- permanently altering its genetic code. The Agriculture Department has
 approved 50 varieties of crops that have been engineered to be resistant to
 insects or herbicides. By 1997 transgenic crops covered 19 million acres in the
 United States; in 1998 it was 50 million, according to the current issue of
 Whole Earth magazine.
 Last fall, 61 percent of shoppers in 11 European countries said they avoid
 ''genetically modified or GM crops.'' In a recent Time magazine poll, 81 percent
 of respondents said genetically modified foods should be labeled and 58 percent
 said they would not buy them.
 Finally, the Clinton administration seems to be getting the message as well.
 Last week the New York Times reported that the Clinton administration would
 conduct long-term studies on the safety of altered farm products. Secretary of
 Agriculture Dan Glickman said they may ask for voluntary labeling -- a move the
 biotech firms have fought against as much as European consumers have fought for.
 In Europe, opposition to genetically modified foods is so significant that it
 has resulted in the labeling of all newly manufactured genetically modified
 products imported from this country. In addition, no new genetically modified
 varieties have been approved by the European Union in 15 months.
 What this means on the most basic level is that no corn from the United States
 has been imported because genetically modified corn cannot be separated from the
 untreated corn because, like soybeans, it's all mixed together for transport.
 This is a huge problem for American farmers -- currently costing them $ 200
 million a year -- and it's likely to get worse. Archer Daniels Midland, one of
 this country's largest exporters, says it will no longer accept genetically
 modified corn for export. It is telling farmers it wants conventionally grown
 corn.
 As the Swiss biotech firm Novartis admitted, ''If consumers are not confident in
 purchasing the food produced from these crops, we have no market. No farmer
 wishes to grow something he can't sell.''
 Corn, soybeans and potatoes -- three staples of Midwest agriculture -- are all
 in the forefront of this battle. This year, at least half of the United States'
 70 million-acre soybean crop will be planted with Monsanto's ''Roundup Ready''
 seeds, which have been modified to be immune to the company's own Roundup
 weedkiller. American soybeans (whose crop output is second only to corn)
 dominate the world market. Soybeans find their way into an incredible assortment
 of foods: pigs and chickens are fed soy; soy is the major protein for
 vegetarians in tofu and tempeh; soy is the world's leading edible vegetable oil.
 Not long ago the Clinton administration was calling Europeans ''irrational''
 because of their opposition to genetically modified foods. The Food and Drug
 Administration does not require testing of genetically modified food -- ''just
 assurances from the company that manufactures the genetically modified food that
 it is safe,'' as the Times phrased it.
 Consumers want assurances based on proof. Gene manipulation decisions have
 long-term consequences that will affect us all. Technology is not inherently bad
 -- or good -- but it should be able to stand up to scrutiny. It is a public
 health issue, and the public is finally speaking out.
 Whole Earth reports that a citizens group in Australia has put together a set of
 national guidelines that deal with questions of who owns the genes and/or the
 technology and how to proceed. Among the group's suggestions are regulating the
 industry (with potential sanctions) through a statutory body whose deliberations
 are public; making decisions that take more than science into account (public
 health and the environment, for example); and including ethicists in all
 policy-making.
 Perhaps the most crucial suggestion is that the government commit itself to
 helping all the stakeholders reach ''mutually beneficial solutions'' rather than
 decisions arrived at under pressure from lobbyists.
 Wisconsin citizens are well aware of the pressure that lobbyists have exercised
 in many decisions affecting us. Decisions about the food we eat are the last
 area where we should let other people make decisions that could prove fatal to
 our health and the health of Wisconsin farmers.
 LOAD-DATE: July 22, 1999
 EDITOR-NOTE:  Linda Brazill is an editorial writer for The Capital Times.
 TYPE: Column
                     Copyright 1999 Madison Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 96
 
                                Chicago Sun-Times
                 July 12, 1999,MONDAY,Late Sports Final Edition
 Butterfly's peril may be overstated, but other studies raise environmental
 worries
 SECTION: NEWS;Pg. 6
 LENGTH: 987 words
 For years, environmentalists have warned that tinkering with the genetic makeup
 of farm crops could yield nasty surprises.
 And for years, the warnings have been largely ignored.
 Then came news from Cornell University researchers that pollen from genetically
 altered corn could kill monarch butterflies.
 "Monarchs are considered to be a flagship species for conservation," said
 Cornell researcher Linda Raynor. "This is a warning bell."
 Earlier studies sounded similar warnings. But they didn't involve the much-loved
 butterfly and received little attention.
 A close look at the monarch study reveals the findings aren't as dire as the
 headlines proclaimed. On the other hand, studies that have received little
 notice raise concerns at least as serious as those raised by the monarch study.
 The butterfly study, announced May 19, involved genetically engineered corn that
 contains a gene from a bacterium. The gene enables the crop to produce its own
 pesticide, known as Bt, which protects the plant from a caterpillar called the
 European corn borer.
 Monarch caterpillars eat milkweeds, which grow in fence rows, ditches, pastures
 and edges of cornfields. In a laboratory study, Cornell researchers dusted one
 group of milkweeds with pollen from Bt corn. They dusted a separate group of
 milkweeds with pollen from non-Bt corn.
 Three-day-old monarch caterpillars were placed on each group of milkweeds. After
 four days, 44 percent of the caterpillars exposed to Bt corn pollen died; none
 of the caterpillars exposed to regular corn pollen died. Caterpillars that
 survived Bt pollen ate less and grew more slowly than other caterpillars.
 "Attack of the Killer Corn," proclaimed U.S. News and World Report. "Nature at
 Risk" said Scripps Howard News Service.
 But such conclusions are premature because it's far from certain how findings
 from one small laboratory study apply to the outside world.
 There are few milkweeds inside cornfields, where virtually the only thing that
 grows is corn. Bt pollen can drift to milkweeds outside fields, but only 30
 percent of pollen travels more than 26 feet.
 There are other reasons to question whether the lab findings apply to the real
 world. The amount of pollen researchers brushed on laboratory milkweed may be
 larger than the amount in the wild. Moreover, laboratory caterpillars had no
 choice but to eat milkweed leaves dusted with pollen. Wild caterpillars, which
 prefer clean leaves, might avoid pollen-covered milkweed.
 Even if it turns out Bt pollen does kill monarchs in the wild, the problem could
 be minimized by planting non-Bt corn near the edges of cornfields.
 Lead Cornell researcher John Losey acknowledged the limitations of his study.
 "We need to go out and see how this translates in the field," he said.
 Biotechnology companies such as Monsanto argue that the environmental benefits
 of Bt corn outweigh the risks. For example, a Monsanto-funded study by a former
 Iowa State University researcher estimated that widespread use of Bt corn would
 reduce pesticide use in the Corn Belt by 1.2 million pounds a year. Farmers
 would have less exposure to toxic chemicals, and there would be fewer bird kills
 and other harmful effects on wildlife.
 "Biotechnology is the single most promising approach to feeding a growing world
 population while reducing damage to the environment," Monsanto said.
 Before approving Bt corn, the Environmental Protection Agency reviewed dozens of
 studies that found Bt corn did not harm such insects and animals as honey bees,
 lady beetles, earthworms, catfish and quail.
 Critics fault the EPA for not requiring studies on the monarch. If Bt corn kills
 the corn borer, which is the larval stage of a moth, it should have been obvious
 that Bt corn also might be lethal to butterfly larvae, said Jane Rissler, a
 staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
 "It shows the regulatory system is very weak," Rissler said.
 Lost in the hubbub over the monarch study are several other environmental
 concerns:
 Pity the lacewings. Bt corn does a superb job of killing corn borers. But it's
 not supposed to kill other bugs. One such "non-target" insect is the lacewing
 caterpillar, which eats corn borers. A laboratory study in Switzerland found
 that more than 60 percent of lacewings died after eating corn borers from Bt
 corn. By comparison, fewer than 40 percent of lacewings died after eating corn
 borers from non-Bt corn.
 Pesticides in soil. When used as a pesticide spray, Bt breaks down quickly and
 does not harm the environment. But when Bt is genetically engineered into corn
 and other transgenic crops, it can accumulate in soil and pose a threat to
 beneficial insects, according to a laboratory study by New York University
 researcher Guenther Stotzky.
 "Stotzky's results, if they hold true under field conditions, should sound an
 alarm to regulators," the Union of Concerned Scientists said.
 Superweeds? Canola oil comes from a plant called oilseed rape. The plant has
 been genetically engineered so it can withstand herbicides. But what if the
 genetically engineered plant passes its genes to weeds? Will the weeds become
 resistant to herbicides, too?
 "When a crop grows near its weedy relative, it's inevitable that the genetically
 engineered trait will move into the weed," said Ohio State University plant
 biologist Allison Snow.
 In a laboratory study, Snow found that offspring of herbicide-resistant oilseed
 rape weeds reproduced as prolifically as regular weeds.
 However, it's unlikely that genetically engineered crops such as corn, soybeans,
 potatoes and tomatoes will give rise to super weeds because these crops do not
 have weedy relatives in the United States.
 It shouldn't come as a surprise that genetically engineered crops can have
 unwanted environmental impacts, Losey said.
 "You're introducing something completely new," he said. "You have to expect
 things you can't predict."
 SUBJECT: series; second; What's for Dinner; genes; genetically engineered;
 crops; opposition; corn; monarch butterflies; pollen; deaths; AGRICULTURE;
 LOAD-DATE: July 13, 1999
 LANGUAGE: English
 GRAPHIC: Laboratory tests that found a pollen threat to monarch butterflies may
 not apply in the wild, scientists concede. See related story page 6.
                      Copyright 1999 Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.









Document Number: 97
 
                                The New York Post
                               May 23, 1999, Sunday
 SECTION: All Editions; Pg. 016
 LENGTH: 1020 words
 "We should have labeling so people can decide for themselves if they want to be
 a guinea pig."JOE MENDELSON OF THE CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY
 You are an unwitting lab rat in the biggest scientific experiment ever.
 Every day you are eating unlabeled genetically modified foods and ingesting
 proteins that have never before been in the human food supply.
 And nobody knows if they're making you sick.
 "It's ludicrous that the agencies in our government responsible for food safety
 are allowing us to be experimented on," said Joe Mendelson, legal director of
 the Center for Food Safety.
 "The jury is still out scientifically so, at a minimum, we should have labeling
 so people can decide for themselves if they want to be a guinea pig."
 Religious leaders, scientists and some health experts are demanding stricter
 labeling and further research on the increasingly widespread practice of
 injecting genes from bacteria and viruses into fruits and vegetables.
 Among the widely distributed genetically modified foods are corn, potatoes,
 tomatoes, sugar beets, yellow squash, papaya and radicchio.
 Most are unlabeled, since companies are required to label modified foods only if
 they have a different nutritional content than the original or contain new
 toxins, antibiotic-resistant genes or known food allergens such as nuts,
 shellfish, eggs or milk.
 No product with known allergens is on the market, but food companies hope to
 fortify vegetables with genes from a wide variety of animals, fish and insects.
 Researchers have put flounder genes into tomatoes and moth genes into potatoes,
 but these hybrids have yet to hit supermarket shelves.
 The biggest genetically altered crop in the country by far is the soybean, which
 is in almost every processed food from ice cream to baby formula.
 While an estimated 55 percent of this year's crop has been altered with DNA from
 bacteria and viruses, the percentage of foods containing the modified soybeans
 is actually higher because they are routinely mixed with unaltered beans before
 being sold to processors.
 "Virtually all processed food in this country that isn't organic probably
 contains at least a little bit of genetically modified food," said Rebecca
 Goldburg, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund.
 An FDA spokesman said the agency's studies show that all transgenic crops on the
 market are safe.
 "All of the proteins introduced to date by genetic engineering have been shown
 not to have any similarities to known allergens, to be very rapidly digestible,
 and to be present in very low amounts," said Dr. Jim Maryanski, biotechnology
 coordinator for the FDA.
 Maryanski admitted that companies producing new genetically modified foods don't
 have to show their safety tests to the agency or even test them at all.
 But most do, Maryanski said, because the companies are liable if somebody gets
 sick or dies from their products.
 A University of Nebraska study published in the New England Journal of Medicine
 in 1996 showed that if you are allergic to a certain food and its genes are put
 into another species, you can have an allergic reaction to the new hybrid.
 That's why transgenic foods have some allergy sufferers eating in fear.
 One of them is Sheila Slade, a grandmother from Marlboro, N.J. who is extremely
 allergic to potatoes, beets, carrots and cinnamon and could die if she ate them.
 Under present law, a grower would not have to label a tomato that contains
 potato genes since potatoes are not considered a "known allergen."
 "I eat with a lot of trepidation these days," she said. "I read everything I buy
 to know what's inside it, but if it's genetically altered and not labeled, I
 can't do that."
 Then there's the possibility of an allergic reaction to things people don't
 usually consume, such as proteins from bacteria and viruses inserted into plants
 to make them resistant to insects or pesticides.
 About 25 percent of the current corn crop has genes from a bacteria called BT
 inserted into its DNA to make it resistant to pests.
 A study published in the magazine Nature this week showed that pollen from BT
 corn kills or seriously stunts the development of Monarch butterfly
 caterpillars.
 The study does not suggest that BT corn is toxic to humans but this kind of
 unintended consequence from genetic manipulation is what has some scientists
 worried.
 "We're eating large quantities of chemicals that come from a species we don't
 normally eat and we could have an allergic response to that," said Dr. Philip
 Regal, professor of biological science at the University of Minnesota.
 "Have we already seen effects? There's no real way of knowing. It's going to be
 a matter of luck whether we catch some of these allergies," he said.
 Regal said combining DNA from different species can result in toxic byproducts.
 He and many other scientists believe byproducts in a genetically engineered food
 supplement called L-Tryptophan killed 37 people and made thousands sick in the
 late 1980s.
 He has joined in a lawsuit with the Center for Food Safety that demands the FDA
 classify genes used to alter food as additives and test them more rigorously.
 Seven Christian clergymen, three rabbis, a Hindu group and a Buddhist group have
 also joined the federal court suit.
 They claim their religious freedom has been trampled because they have no way of
 knowing if they are eating foods banned by their faiths.
 One of the plaintiffs, Lubavitcher Rabbi Yossi Serebryanski of Crown Heights,
 said he has stopped eating tomatoes and only eats potatoes he knows are organic.
 The rabbi said he fears that genes from non-kosher foods - such as pigs or
 insects - could be implanted in vegetables and Jews may unwittingly break kosher
 laws by eating them.
 Serebryanski said putting genes from one species into another is "destructive to
 nature, to the world, to health, to the balance of energy in the people who eat
 it."
 LOAD-DATE: May 24, 1999
 GRAPHIC: SHOPPING CART: Of 15 processed foods purchased at random by The Post,
 10 probably contained genetically modified ingredients, according to their
 manufacturers.
            Copyright 1999 N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.









Document Number: 98
 
                          Deseret News (Salt Lake City)
                            February 21, 1999, Sunday
 Activists board ship to protest 'Frankenstein' crops in cargo
 SECTION: WIRE; Pg. A11
 LENGTH: 348 words
 BOGOTA, Colombia (Reuters) -- Environmental activists briefly boarded a ship
 carrying genetically modified U.S. corn in Colombia Saturday as part of a
 protest campaign against so-called "Frankenstein" foods.
 Environmental group Greenpeace said five members from Argentina, New Zealand,
 Australia and Colombia used jet skis to reach the cargo ship Abydos, which was
 traveling from New Orleans, shortly before it docked at Colombia's Caribbean
 port of Santa Marta.
 Shore-based protester Isabelle Meister of Switzerland said the group spoke
 briefly with the ship's captain to complain against the lack of import and
 export controls on genetically modified foods. The protesters then left the
 ship.
 Media in Britain, where a debate is raging on such foods, have dubbed the crops
 "Frankenstein" food in a reference to the fictional mutant monster.
 "We're protesting against transgenic crops being dumped on these countries
 without them even being told," Meister said in a phone interview. "This was a
 peaceful protest to draw attention to the issue."
 Scores of other demonstrators in the port unfurled banners saying "No genetic
 imperialism."
 Meister said she did not know how large the U.S. cargo was but said Colombia has
 imported more than 1.6 million tons of U.S. corn between March 1998 and January
 1999, about 20 percent of which was genetically modified.
 The protest came as the United Nations held a weeklong conference on genetically
 modified foods in the nearby Colombian resort of Cartagena.
 More than 500 delegates from 150 countries are trying to hammer out a protocol
 that would establish strict guidelines for the import, export and use of
 genetically modified crops.
 The biotechnology industry has pumped billions of dollars into engineering new
 high-yield and disease-resistant strains of crops, especially corn, soy and
 cotton, by mixing genes and DNA from other plants and even animals.
 Critics say the crops could cause widespread environmental damage by
 cross-pollinating with wild species and harm plants, insects and animals right
 up the food chain.
 LOAD-DATE: February 21, 1999
                  Copyright 1999 The Deseret News Publishing Co.









Document Number: 99
 
                            Bangor Daily News (Maine)
                            January 21, 1999 Thursday
 Altered vegetables prompt concern, controversy
 BYLINE: Clair Wood
 LENGTH: 779 words
 The Jan. 14 issue of the Bangor Daily News reported that
 Monsanto Co. has withdrawn its application before the Maine Board
 of Pesticides Control to market genetically modified corn in the
 state.Monsanto's YieldGard corn contains a gene from the bacterium
 Bacillus thuringiensis that produces a toxin that infects and kills
 insects.
 A year ago, the board rejected a similar application from
 anothercompany and local environmentalists are taking credit for
 ensuring that Maine is the only state in the United States not to
 allow corn that is genetically modified to be planted.This
 decision is the latest skirmish in a worldwide battle between
 "agribiotech" companies and determined opponents over genetically
 modified food crops.
 An article by Anne Moffat in a recent issue of the journal
 Science describes the variable fortunes of the biotechnology
 industry since its inception about 15 years ago.Plants have been
 genetically altered to make them resistant to herbicides and
 insects, to survive in adverse environmental conditions, for
 enhanced flavor and appearance, and to have longer shelf lives.
 One of the earliest crops was the 'Flavr-Savr' tomato brought
 out by Calgene Co. in 1991.It contained a gene that slows down
 enzymatic action that causes the tomato to ripen and then spoil.
 This allowed the tomato to stay longer on the vine before being
 harvested, but the softer, riper fruit was so damaged by picking
 and packaging equipment that it has been taken off the market.
 Insect-resistant corn, potatoes, cotton, and soybeans are
 enjoying much greater success.About 75 million acres of
 genetically modified crops are now being grown worldwide.More than
 one-half of all the soybeans and one-third of all corn come from
 plants containing foreign genes.Between 1997 and 1998, the acreage
 of transgenic crops in the United States increased from 20 million
 to 51 million acres.
 New experiments hold out the promise of helping alleviate world
 protein deficiencies.Workers at Tuskegee University in Alabama are
 altering sweet potatoes, a crop easy to grow in many of the world's
 poorer regions, so they produce a protein very high in essential
 amino acids that the body cannot make on its own.
 Protein levels have increased up to fivefold over the unaltered
 plants, with an actual increase in bushels per acre.Test animals
 fed with the transgenic sweet potatoes had a 56 percent weight gain
 over a control group fed with unaltered potatoes for over a month
 with no visible ill effects.
 Despite the potential economic and nutritional benefits,
 transgenic crops have been met with reactions ranging from apathy
 to outright hostility around the world.For the mostpart,
 Americans seem to care very little if their produce has been
 genetically altered.
 Thomas Hoban, a professor at North Carolina State University,
 surveyed 4000 people over a 4-year period and found that most were
 comfortable with using transgenic foods.This extended more to
 plants than animals.There was a stir over the use of BST growth
 hormone in milk, but Hoban says that, "Consumers will accept
 altered foods when they see a benefit. "
 The same acceptance is not to be found in Europe.Last summer,
 activists destroyed dozens of test plots in Great Britain and on
 the continent, and even Prince Charles weighed into the
 controversy.In an interview with the London Daily Telegraph,
 Prince Charles said that tinkering with plant genes to make
 superior crops "takes mankind into realms that belongs to God
 alone. "
 Then, a media frenzy erupted when a noted researcher at
 Scotland's Rowett Research Institute said on national television
 that potatoes containing an insecticide gene taken from the jack
 bean made his test animals sick.
 "If you gave me the choice now," Dr. Arpad Pusztai told
 Science, "I wouldn't eat them. " Pusztai was immediately suspended
 by the institute and his research notes confiscated, fueling
 further controversy.
 Agribiotech boosters complain that all of the controversy has
 left consumers confused and has caused image problems that will
 take years to undo.This is fine with opponents, who say that too
 little is known about the harmful effects of altered plants on
 human health and the environment.Their concerns include the
 possibility of genes escaping to the wild leading to 'superweeds,'
 crops becoming less hardy and suspectible to disease, insects
 becoming resistant to natural insecticides, causing increased
 reliance on chemicals, and the largely unknown, long-term effects
 of genetically altered foods on human health.
 SUBJECT: Science Forum GENETIC ENGINEERING(92%);CORN FARMING(90%);
 LOAD-DATE: January 21, 1999
                         Copyright 1999 Bangor Daily News









Document Number: 100
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                 November 1, 1998, Sunday, FIVE STAR LIFT EDITION
 BYLINE: Bill Lambrecht; Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau
 SECTION: NEWS, Pg. A1
 LENGTH: 1505 words
 The scary, hard-to-kill robot played by Arnold Schwarzenegger in his movies had
 fewer adversaries than "The Terminator" that Monsanto Co. soon may control.
 Terminator is what the world calls a new genetic technology designed to render
 the seeds of crops sterile. It was invented to block farmers from saving seeds,
 ensuring that they buy the jazzed-up, genetically engineered varieties companies
 are creating.
 Technology Protection System - the official name - makes good business sense.
 After all, how can the seed business prosper if farmers use seeds for free?
 But corporate bottom lines aren't the issue to farmers, scientists and activists
 waging an anti-Terminator campaign around the world. They see the technology as
 threatening to an agricultural way of life that has existed for centuries, and
 they're bringing heat on St. Louis-based Monsanto.
 * At the World Bank in Washington last week, scientists and farm economists in
 the world's largest agriculture research network voted to condemn the technology
 and prohibit it in their projects. The organization is the Consultative Group on
 International Agricultural Research, which is committed to battling hunger; it
 is sponsored by the United Nations, the World Bank and leading foundations.
 * A letter-writing campaign aimed at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which
 co-owns the technology, is picking up steam. The U.S. government has received
 more than 2,000 letters and e-mails from 55 countries asking that the Terminator
 not be licensed.
 Monsanto won't control the technology until it completes the purchase of Delta
 and Pine Land, the Mississippi seed company that co-owns the patent; a $ 1.9
 billion deal was announced in May. Several years may pass before the technology
 is commercially available.
 But Monsanto is feeling the backlash. In Europe and in developing countries,
 genetic engineering is viewed not just as a scientific advancement but as a
 social force that controls people and what they grow. For those who think that
 way, the Terminator has become a powerful symbol.
 Even fervent supporters of genetic engineering have become critics. Among them
 is M.S. Swaminathan, an internationally known geneticist from India. Swaminathan
 has received many international awards; on Oct. 22 in St. Louis, he accepted the
 Missouri Botanical Garden's Henry Shaw Medal.
 Swaminathan, a leader in the global farm research group meeting in Washington,
 said he worries about the Terminator's effects. It "may have value in the U.S.,
 where farmers plant 1,000 acres," he said. "But I don't think it will be good
 for the majority of small farmers in the world who must keep their seeds."
 Terminator's roots
 Plant scientists take pride in developing crops that have high yields and
 produce healthy seeds. But when researchers gathered in 1993 at a U.S.
 Department of Agriculture lab in Lubbock, Texas, the goal was something entirely
 different: engineering plants with suicidal tendencies.
 Genetically engineered crops were three years away from American fields.  But
 companies and their allies in the Agriculture Department were looking ahead.
 "There was a feeling that there needed to be incentives to improve varieties,"
 recalled Harry Collins, a vice president of Delta and Pine Land, the nation's
 largest cotton seed company.
 In other words, companies assured of steady profits from their gene-altered
 crops would be more inclined to invest in research; that is the main argument on
 behalf of the technology. Proponents say low-income farmers in developing
 nations have plenty to gain.
 "The centuries-old practice of farmer-saved seed is really a gross disadvantage
 to Third World farmers who inadvertently become locked into obsolete varieties
 because of their taking the easy road and not planting newer, more productive
 varieties," Collins wrote recently.
 The researchers in Texas mapped out the protection system, filed for a patent
 and began perfecting their invention. It has worked for tobacco and cotton.
 Researchers expect that it also will work in other self-pollinating plants;
 among them soybeans, wheat and rice.
 Often the Terminator is referred to as a gene, but it's actually three genes
 incorporated into a plant. Two come from bacteria; they prevent a mature plant's
 seeds from manufacturing a protein needed to germinate.
 In March, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office awarded Patent No.  5,723,765,
 called "Control of Plant Gene Expression," to the Agriculture Department and to
 Delta and Pine Land. The government and the company hope to wrap up negotiations
 giving Delta a licensing agreement by the end of the year.
 That agreement is critical in the drive to secure patents around the world.
 Michael Ruff, who is handling the negotiations for the Agriculture Department,
 said that Terminator patents have been sought in nearly 30 countries.
 An internal memorandum circulated recently among Agriculture Department
 officials calls for an extra layer of review because of the sensitivity of the
 technology. It orders government scientists to get special permission for
 Terminator research. A copy was obtained by the Post-Dispatch.
 The memo spells out a potential benefit of the technology that companies don't
 highlight because they don't care to raise the specter of escaping genes. By
 rendering plants sterile, the memo says, Terminator can block the spread of
 undesirable traits between transgenic crops and related wild species in the
 environment.
 Power of a name
 "The Terminator" was coined by Patrick Mooney, a Canadian who is executive
 director of Rural Advancement Foundation International. Mooney's organization,
 better known as RAFI, often criticizes genetic technologies and efforts by
 American companies to export the business-friendly, U.S. patent system around
 the world.
 "In my 30 years dealing with these issues, I've never seen anything that caused
 such an instant reaction. This is clear to people, and it is threatening,"
 Mooney said.
 Monsanto spokesman Phillip Angell observed, "If your goal is to demonize a
 technology, that's a great name."
 RAFI is behind the campaign loading up Agriculture Department computers with
 e-mails arguing that the government shouldn't be spending tax dollars on
 research benefiting big companies. The Agriculture Department responds by saying
 that farmers ultimately will benefit from a larger selection of crop varieties.
 Sandy Hays, an Agricultural Research Service spokeswoman, likened the practice
 of seed-saving to the business of automobiles.
 "It would be like going down to the car dealership and buying a car and the next
 year the car had babies," she said. "You would never need to buy another car."
 Meanwhile, Monsanto is getting blamed, in part because of the company's lead in
 genetic technologies. In Europe, where genetic engineering is fiercely debated,
 farmers and environmental organizations routinely describe the Terminator as an
 unwanted controlling force. The issue also is a flash point in India, where 70
 percent of farmers save seed and where Monsanto is working to expand business.
 Suresh Babu, an Indian native and a supporter of genetic engineering, said he
 sees the controversy blocking acceptance of genetically altered crops.
 "Agriculture ministers hear the word Terminator, and bang, they want to ban
 anything that is genetically modified," said Babu, an economist for the
 International Food Policy Research Committee in Washington.
 The Terminator struck a chord among the 400 agriculture researchers gathered at
 the World Bank last week for their annual meeting. On one hand, leaders of the
 Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research trumpeted the
 potential of genetic engineering to combat hunger. But on the other hand, they
 felt strongly enough to take a political stance.
 "We're talking about people who live on the knife's edge of subsistence," said
 Ismail Serageldin, the World Bank vice president who directs the group. "These
 people's very existence depends on their ability to grow the next crop."
 Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications, said people react as
 they do because the technology "is new and frightening to them and has a
 terrible name." He argued that rather than taking away choices, the system can
 provide people with protection from pests, resistance to drought and benefits
 unavailable in countries where companies won't operate without patent
 protection.
 "This is an enabling technology that can leapfrog barriers that may take years
 to overcome," he said.
 The terminator issue
 Terminator is a new genetic technology designed to render the seeds of crops
 sterile. It was invented to block farmers from saving seeds, ensuring that they
 buy the genetically engineered varieties companies are creating.
 Proponents say the program makes good business sense. Farmers no longer can use
 seeds for free.
 Opponents say the technology threatens an agricultural way of life that has
 existed for centuries.
 LOAD-DATE: November 1, 1998
 LANGUAGE: English
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO Color Photo - (hands holding unidentified 'Terminator' seed)
                   Copyright 1998 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 101
 
                            Bangor Daily News (Maine)
                             October 19, 1998 Monday
 Health, research, jobs and Question 1
 BYLINE: Michael E. Vayda
 LENGTH: 629 words
 I was astonished to read Nancy Oden's commentary (BDN, Sept. 30),
 which was a string of bizarre and blatantly incorrect statements
 regarding genetic engineering and the research and development
 initiative.
 Let's be clear about what the Nov. 3 referendum is about: Maine
 voters can invest in their economic future or fall further behind
 other states.The R&D bond under consideration as Referendum
 Question 1 will enhance Maine's ability to compete in high
 technology fields such as Biotechnology.Contrary to Ms. Oden's
 nightmarish distortion, biotechnology provides the means to produce
 safe, effective products and analytical tests without toxic side
 effects.
 For this reason, biotechnology will be a principal growth
 industry of the 21st century, and Maine has the opportunity to be a
 part of it.Funds from the R&D bond will be used to increase
 biotechnology research capabilities at the University of Maine and
 the University of Southern Maine, which can contribute to growth of
 Maine's economy.
 Researchers at the University of Maine have used genetic
 engineering to develop novel vaccines to protect animals from
 disease-causing agents without prior exposure to the actual
 pathogens.Genetically engineered cells have been used to detect
 the presence of environmental toxins in our ground water, lakes and
 streams.Molecular techniques have been used to develop new,
 sensitive tests to screen for viruses, bacteria or fungi in potato
 seed stock, shellfish or salmon aquaculture pens.UMaine scientists
 use DNA-based techniques to assess genetic diversity in Gulf of
 Maine fishes and in the forest ecosytem.Further, UMaine
 researchers use molecular techniques to understand basic processes
 within cells, whichare key to understanding phenomena such as
 ovarian cysts, heart arrhythmia and cancer.
 Such innovative research can enhance our quality of life, and
 give rise to spin-off enterprises that can provide safe,
 well-paying jobs for Maine people.A growing number of
 biotechnology companies in Maine are contributing to the State's
 economic expansion using bio-molecular techniques.One Maine
 company produces and purifies antibodies which can be dispensed in
 capsule form to provide passive protection again disease-causing
 agents, just like mother's milk provides protective antibodies to
 infants.Another Maine company uses DNA probes to tract desired
 quality traits in animal breeding.
 Yet another Maine company isolates and purifies specific human
 proteins which are the basis of kits for early detection of heart
 attack and certain types of cancer.The use of
 genetically-engineered cells to produce such "specialty proteins"
 allows efficient purification without risk of disease-agents which
 might contaminate animal tissues or human blood products.These are
 the kind of clean, high quality industry that we want to promote in
 Maine.
 Biotechnology has made our lives better by allowing production
 in quantity of individual proteins with industrial or therapeutic
 value.It is hard to believe that Ms. Oden objects to life-saving
 products such as human insulin, TPA, clotting factors, and immune
 system regulators simply because they are produced by genetic
 engineering.Similarly, transgenic crops are simply normal plants
 which have been provided with the genetic information to synthesize
 one or a few extra naturally-occurring proteins.
 Let's be clear about the beneficial impact biotechnology
 research can have on the quality of human life, and how it can help
 Maine grow in the next century.
 Michael E. Vayda is a professor and assistant director of the
 Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station at the University
 of Maine in Orono.
 LOAD-DATE: October 19, 1998
                         Copyright 1998 Bangor Daily News









Document Number: 102
 
                       The Star-Ledger (Newark, New Jersey)
                            September 27, 1998 Sunday
 Genetic modification of crops sprouts fear of mutant weeds
 BYLINE: Scott Canon, KRT NEWS SERVICE
 SECTION: ESSEX; Pg. 36
 LENGTH: 924 words
 The temptation is mighty. The thought of planting genetically tinkered seeds
 sets farmer Daniel McAmoil to dreaming of bigger yields and bigger profits.
 He's lured by crops that can bathe unharmed in herbicides, whose custom-fitted
 DNA may lower the costs on his farm near Penokee, Kan. And, sweetening the pot,
 an industry leader in the miracle seed just lowered prices.
 ``But I'm going to wait and see," McAmoil said.
 Research made public this month has raised anew old worries that genetically
 altered crops could behave unpredictably, perhaps mating with wild plants to
 create a Frankenstein's weed that even a horde of angry villagers can't corral.
 ``I'm not one of those environmental wackos," McAmoil said, "but I'm a little
 apprehensive about playing God here.
 ``Over millions of years of evolution, God's plan has developed the plants we
 have now."
 Writing in the journal Nature, researchers from the University of Chicago
 reported that a plant altered by scientists to repel herbicides also was more
 likely to pollinate other plants and pass on laboratory-crafted traits.
 That news, in turn, breathed new life into the debate about whether transgenic
 crops risk the accidental birth of a line of monster weeds artificially armed
 against herbicides, insects or drought.
 Environmental groups have long warned that taking a gene from one plant or
 animal and injecting it into an organism that would not otherwise pick up the
 trait is dangerous. Such experiments, they say, could set loose an unpredictable
 genie in an ecological playground.
 The biotechnology industry sees those worries as alarmist, a result of a lack of
 understanding about the precision involved in crafting transgenic plants. It
 notes further that transgenic products already put food on the dinner table
 without disaster.
 The U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved several transgenic crops for
 use. Roundup Ready brand corn can be safely sprayed with the herbicide
 glysophate while anything else green in the field dies in just days. Roundup
 Ready soybeans account for almost a fourth of the American crop. About half the
 cheese produced in the United States depends on the use of transgenic material.
 Yet the latest transgenic experiment has some scientists fretting that mixing
 genes might be more complex than previously thought.
 Researcher Joy Bergelson added a herbicide-resistant gene to Arabidopsis
 thalinia - sort of the fruit fly of the plant world, used in experiments because
 it reproduces so quickly.
 Ordinarily, the mustard-like plant fertilizes only itself more than 99 percent
 of the time. Bergelson found, however, that pollen from her genetically altered
 plants was 20 times as likely to fertilize other plants.
 No one is sure why, although the lab-modified plants had a flower that opened
 differently than the original.
 ``What is clear is that you get some unexpected effects with genetically
 engineered plants," said Norman Ellstrand, a genetics professor at the
 University of California-Riverside. "We don't want transgenes to move in the
 population of wild relatives. We don't want superweeds."
 For transgenic crops such as corn and soybeans, there's little danger of that
 spread between transgenics and wild plants in the United States. To pass on any
 gene - put in a plant by man or nature - a native cousin must grow nearby. The
 closest wild cousin to corn grows in southern Mexico. The soybean's relatives
 bloom in Asia.
 Even the Union of Concerned Scientists, long an opponent of transgenics,
 concedes this point.
 ``I don't see, with soybeans, that there are environmental problems involved
 with gene flow in the United States," said Jane Risler, a senior staff scientist
 for the group.
 But take the sunflower. Commercial sunflowers, a different breed, are planted on
 nearly 500,000 acres across the state. The two varieties continuously swap
 pollen and, as a result, genetic traits.
 ``Any transgenic sunflower is going to end up mixing with the wild sunflower. No
 question," said Diana Pilson, an evolutionary biologist studying the sunflower
 at the University of Nebraska.
 ``What's really unclear is what the probability of this superweed thing is. In
 most cases it won't be a big deal, but we don't know how frequently."
 Defenders of transgenic crops, however, say that the Arabidopsis experiment is a
 only rough parallel to the work of the biotechnology industry.
 Scientists generally agree that the uncharacteristic flowering of Bergelson's
 plants, for instance, probably came from the process of implanting the
 herbicide-resistant gene - not the gene itself. Trial and error can fix such
 problems.
 ``In the commercial process, you throw out the plants that don't have the right
 flowering morphology," said Donna Mitten, a geneticist for the German firm
 biotechnology firm AgrEvo.
 The reproductive transgenic Arabidopsis would have been discovered and refined
 in commercial development, she said, left behind for a plant whose behavior
 would be entirely predictable.
 With traditional crossbreeding, where hybrids are formed by sharing pollen of
 one plant with a related species, genetic material is swapped wholesale. It's as
 if, say biotechnology advocates, you are repairing a car with a sledge hammer.
 With transgenics, a single foreign gene is inserted into an organism. So that
 hammer is exchanged for a screwdriver.
 ``This is all very careful," Mitten said.
 But critics say that although only a single gene might be placed in a plant
 cell, it's impossible to determine where in the genetic chain that addition will
 take hold.
 LOAD-DATE: April 18, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: nsl
                     Copyright 1998 Newark Morning Ledger Co.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 103
 
                         Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA)
                        September 27, 1998 Sunday, ORLEANS
 BYLINE: By Scott Canon Knight Ridder Newspapers
 SECTION: NATIONAL; Pg. A35
 LENGTH: 1059 words
 The temptation is mighty. The thought of planting genetically tinkered seeds
 sets farmer Daniel McAmoil to dreaming of bigger yields and bigger profits.
 He's lured by crops that can bathe unharmed in herbicides, whose custom-fitted
 DNA may lower the costs on his farm near Penokee, Kan. And, sweetening the pot,
 an industry leader in the miracle seed just lowered prices.
 "But I'm going to wait and see," McAmoil said.
 Research made public this month has raised anew old worries that genetically
 altered crops could behave unpredictably, perhaps mating with wild plants to
 create a Frankenstein's weed that even a horde of angry villagers can't corral.
 "I'm not one of those environmental wackos," McAmoil said, "but I'm a little
 apprehensive about playing God here.
 "Over millions of years of evolution, God's plan has developed the plants we
 have now."
 Writing in the journal Nature, researchers from the University of Chicago
 reported that a plant altered by scientists to repel herbicides also was more
 likely to pollinate other plants and pass on laboratory-crafted traits.
 That news, in turn, breathed new life into the debate about whether transgenic
 crops risk the accidental birth of a line of monster weeds artificially armed
 against herbicides, insects or drought.
 Environmental groups have long warned that taking a gene from one plant or
 animal and injecting it into an organism that would not otherwise pick up the
 trait is dangerous. Such experiments, they say, could set loose an unpredictable
 genie in an ecological playground.
 The biotechnology industry sees those worries as alarmist, a result of a lack of
 understanding about the precision involved in crafting transgenic plants. It
 notes further that transgenic products already put food on the dinner table
 without disaster.
 The U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved several transgenic crops for
 use. Roundup Ready brand corn can be safely sprayed with the herbicide
 glysophate while anything else green in the field dies in just days. Roundup
 Ready soybeans account for almost a fourth of the American crop. About half the
 cheese produced in the United States depends on the use of transgenic material.
 Yet the latest transgenic experiment has some scientists fretting that mixing
 genes might be more complex than previously thought.
 Researcher Joy Bergelson added a herbicide-resistant gene to Arabidopsis
 thalinia -- sort of the fruit fly of the plant world, used in experiments
 because it reproduces so quickly.
 Ordinarily, the mustardlike plant fertilizes only itself more than 99 percent of
 the time. Bergelson found, however, that pollen from her genetically altered
 plants was 20 times as likely to fertilize other plants.
 No one is sure why, although the lab-modified plants had a flower that opened
 differently than the original.
 "What is clear is that you get some unexpected effects with genetically
 engineered plants," said Norman Ellstrand, a genetics professor at the
 University of California-Riverside.  "We don't want transgenes to move in the
 population of wild relatives. We don't want superweeds."
 For transgenic crops such as corn and soybeans, there's little danger of that
 spread between transgenics and wild plants in the United States. To pass on any
 gene -- put in a plant by man or nature -- a native cousin must grow nearby. The
 closest wild cousin to corn grows in southern Mexico. The soybean's relatives
 bloom in Asia.
 Even the Union of Concerned Scientists, long an opponent of transgenics,
 concedes this point.
 "I don't see, with soybeans, that there are environmental problems involved with
 gene flow in the United States," said Jane Risler, a senior staff scientist for
 the group.
 But take the sunflower. Commercial sunflowers, a different breed, are planted on
 nearly 500,000 acres across the state. The two varieties continuously swap
 pollen and, as a result, genetic traits.
 "Any transgenic sunflower is going to end up mixing with the wild sunflower. No
 question," said Diana Pilson, an evolutionary biologist studying the sunflower
 at the University of Nebraska.
 "What's really unclear is what the probability of this superweed thing is. In
 most cases it won't be a big deal, but we don't know how frequently."
 Defenders of transgenic crops, however, say that the Arabidopsis experiment is
 only rough parallel to the work of the biotechnology industry.
 Scientists generally agree that the uncharacteristic flowering of Bergelson's
 plants, for instance, probably came from the process of implanting the
 herbicide-resistant gene, not the gene itself. Trial and error can fix such
 problems.
 "In the commercial process, you throw out the plants that don't have the right
 flowering morphology," said Donna Mitten, a geneticist for the German firm
 biotechnology firm AgrEvo.
 The reproductive transgenic Arabidopsis would have been discovered and refined
 in commercial development, she said, left behind for a plant whose behavior
 would be entirely predictable.
 With traditional crossbreeding, where hybrids are formed by sharing pollen of
 one plant with a related species, genetic material is swapped wholesale. It's as
 if, say biotechnology advocates, you are repairing a car with a sledge hammer.
 With transgenics, a single foreign gene is inserted into an organism. So that
 hammer is exchanged for a screwdriver.
 "This is all very careful," Mitten said.
 But critics say that although only a single gene might be placed in a plant
 cell, it's impossible to determine where in the genetic chain that addition will
 take hold.
 "You're always concerned about the unintended effect," said Allison Snow, a
 plant population ecologist at Ohio State University.  "People have always said
 that genetic engineering is very precise. But perhaps you don't have as much
 control as we thought."
 For McAmoil, the eastern Kansas farmer, the whole issue is unsettling. He's
 largely inclined toward high-tech farming anyway. He even uses infrared
 photography to plot farming strategy.
 He has analyzed the finances of Roundup Ready crops and has been impressed by
 what he found.
 "Competition is forcing us to look for every shortcut that we can to get a good
 crop and good weed control," McAmoil said.  "But I'd still like to see how this
 stuff is going to work out. I don't want to open a Pandora's box in my fields."
 LOAD-DATE: October 3, 1998
                 Copyright 1998 The Times-Picayune Publishing Co.









Document Number: 104
 
                   The State Journal-Register (Springfield, IL)
                  July 12, 1998, Friday, EARLY AND CITY EDITIONS
 Transgenic revolution / Genetically engineered crops have become commonplace
 SECTION: BUSINESS, Pg. 53
 LENGTH: 1368 words
 You've eaten it.
 Eggs, steak, chicken, cheese, milk, nondairy creamer, bacon, boullion cubes,
 canned soup, cola, catsup, farm-raised catfish, frozen dinners, ice cream,
 Jello, cereal, pasta, crackers, bread, sauces, most sandwich spreads, Twinkies,
 some tomatoes and potatoes and the fat-free dressing on your salad.
 Products from genetically engineered crops or animals fed with them are all but
 unavoidable in the American diet.
 Any processed food containing corn or soybean products -- meal, oil, starch --
 is certain to contain some quantity of a "transgenic" crop; an estimated 70
 percent of processed foods contain soybeans.  All meat and animal products come
 from livestock fed to varying degrees with corn and soybeans, and genetically
 altered tomatoes and potatoes are on the market.
 Fruit, vegetables and fish caught from the wild, fresh or frozen without
 additives, and scrupulously prepared "organic" foods are among products sure to
 be free of transgenic content.
 It's little-known but no secret: Crops grown from genetically altered seeds
 entered the market in large quantities beginning in 1996. That was the year
 "Roundup Ready" soybeans -- altered to be tolerant of Monsanto's widely used
 herbicide -- were first grown commercially in the United States.
 While this revolutionary change in the food people eat occurred relatively
 quietly here, the response was very different among some important importers of
 American agricultural products.
 "That sparked a lot of noise in parts of Europe," said Karen Marshall, director
 of agricultural public relations for St. Louis-based Monsanto, a leading
 biotechnology firm that developed the Roundup Ready gene.  "It's hard to know
 how much is consumer driven and how much is activist driven."
 The European Union approved the use and importation of Roundup Ready soybeans in
 1996, the same year that mad-cow disease led to the destruction of Britain's
 entire cattle herd and food safety fears -- unrelated to the genetic engineering
 issue -- across the continent.
 "You suddenly had a consumer base that had a greater concern about regulatory
 issues and food safety than they had in years," said Marshall, who spent part of
 that year with Monsanto in Europe.
 In the United Kingdom and Ireland, opposition may have even grown since 1996 --
 one newspaper's opinion survey found only 14 percent of the population favorable
 toward food from genetically altered crops -- while alarm among consumers in
 Germany has eased considerably, said Marshall.
 America's relative calm in 1998 about genetically engineered crops was not
 always the case.  A certain tension existed at Monsanto's Jersey County research
 farm in 1987, when it was the site of the first-ever trial of a transgenic crop
 outside of a laboratory or greenhouse.
 Under close federal supervision, a 5-acre plot was planted in three modified
 tomato varieties carrying the Roundup Ready, the "Bt" gene that makes plants
 inedible for certain insects, and a resistance to viral disease.  It was fenced,
 rodent-proof wire was buried 2 feet deep around the perimeter, and lights were
 installed to light the field up like a prison yard at night.
 It was all to protect Monsanto's research and reduce the likelihood of
 unforeseen biological consequences.
 "They had fences up around it with guards and 24-hour security," said Dennis
 Edwards, an entomologist and manager of the farm south of Jerseyville. "Monsanto
 wanted to make sure that we didn't have deer and people running through it.  We
 don't have quite as much concern, now that we've learned more about it."
 Most genetically modified crops currently in use have been altered through
 production traits -- insect resistance and herbicide tolerance. The resulting
 soybeans, for example, are indistinguishable to the eye or even chemical
 analysis from unmodified products, except through DNA testing.
 Interest in labeling of products derived from transgenic crops remains among
 many European governments, but no accurate mechanism exists.
 "There were some calls in 1996 to segregate these products, until they realized
 the nature of commodity crops," said Marshall.  "That has been one of the
 sticking points in Europe -- how do we know it's there, what if we want to keep
 it out?"
 The barn door is open, however, and the horse long gone.  At the American
 grain-handling system's thousands of entry points -- places like Bluff Springs
 Farmers Elevator east of Beardstown -- there is no way to distinguish between
 Roundup Ready soybeans and conventional varieties.
 "I can't tell the difference," said Bluff Springs manager Marlin McCormick, "and
 nobody's telling us to segregate, so we don't."
 So far, the production traits inserted into the genetic codes that guide crops
 have helped many farmers save money by cutting herbicide use or increase yields
 by reducing insect damage.
 Farmers can spray Roundup -- which normally kills any green plants on contact
 but leaves almost no residue in the soil -- over soybean seedlings, leaving the
 impervious transgenic plants and wiping out all competitors that would take
 light, water and nutrients from the crop.
 While Roundup Ready soybeans are unrecognizable at harvest, the weed-free
 furrows between rows of plants can make the genetically modified plants more
 obvious.
 "If I drive from here to Springfield, it's probably 50 percent (of acreage),
 said McCormick.  "It's easy to see in the fields, but we can't at the elevator.
 "We understand that there's people from (Europe) that are not satisfied that
 (genetic engineering) is the way to be going. . . . There's no way the industry
 could stop it now."
 While opposition to modified crops in other export markets such as Asia and
 South America, as well as domestically, has been much less than in Europe,
 acceptance is far from universal.
 Labeling requirements for the organic food industry, currently being developed
 by the federal government, are likely to exclude from eligibility not only
 conventional, agrichemical-based production but also the use of genetically
 altered crops, despite their potential to reduce chemical applications.
 Marshall sees potential for continued contract-growing of unmodified crops, for
 both organic customers in the United States and specialized markets abroad.
 "That kind of market will exist -- biotechnology-free -- if there's enough
 demand," she said.  "The critical thing is that it's honest."
 Roundup Ready corn, introduced commercially this year on about 1 percent of the
 crop's total U.S. acreage, has not yet been approved in Europe.  But it will
 enter the American corn market after harvest, and soon the exported crop -- with
 a fraction of content from genetically engineered plants -- will carry it
 inexorably to the bellies of overseas customers.
 Transgenic crop timeline
 1982: The first genetic modification of a plant -- a petunia -- is conducted by
 Monsanto at its Chesterfield, Mo., campus for laboratory and greenhouse
 research.  Petunias and tobacco were the "white rats" of transgenic crops, said
 one Monsanto employee.
 1987: The first outdoor trial of genetically modified plants in the world is
 conducted on Monsanto's Jerseyville research farm.  Three varieties of tomatoes
 were grown under tight security to demonstrate that nothing unexpected would
 occur with altered varieties exposed to the environment.
 1992: The U.S. government is among the first worldwide to issue a policy to
 guide the regulation and introduction of genetically engineered plant varieties.
 1996: First commercial use of Roundup Ready soybeans on just over 1 percent of
 the crop's U.S. acreage, and introduction of insect-protected cotton and
 potatoes, both highly susceptible crops that normally require large quantities
 of pesticides.
 1997: Roundup Ready soybeans on more than 10 percent of acreage. Commercial
 introduction of insect-protected "Bt" corn, and cotton with combined traits for
 insect protection and Roundup tolerance.
 1998: An estimated 40 percent U.S. cotton acreage, 30 percent of soybeans and 25
 percent of corn is planted in genetically modified seeds.  First commercial use
 of corn stacked with Bt and Roundup Ready genes.
 LOAD-DATE: July 14, 1998
 GRAPHIC:  Photographs by Bill Hagen / The State Journal-Register; Entomologist
 Dennis Edwards, center, explains how corn borers damage corn not protected by
 Monsanto Bt gene at an open house at the company's research farm near
 Jerseyville. / Corn borers have eaten through young corn leaves. 2 COLOR PHOTOS
                    Copyright 1998 The State Journal-Register









Document Number: 105
 
                      Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania)
                      June 22, 1998, Monday, SOONER EDITION
 SECTION: SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & MEDICINE, Pg. A-6
 LENGTH: 1656 words
 Contemplating world hunger from the vantage point of a well-laden breakfast
 table is certainly comfortable, if odd.
 One morning last January, executives of Iowa-based Pioneer Hi-Bred
 International, the ''world's largest developer, producer and marketer of
 genetically improved seed,'' gathered at a cafe in downtown Manhattan for a
 discussion about global food security.
 The three officials and a group of journalists ate pancakes and muffins as
 Pioneer's chairman and CEO, Chuck Johnson, outlined his vision of the future.
 ''The business we're in is ensuring that the world has the capacity to have the
 food it needs to survive,'' he explained.
 That future capacity, he is convinced, can come only from the crops that
 companies such as Pioneer are producing: high-yield, insect-resistant breeds of
 corn, soybeans, sorghum and sunflowers.
 Pioneer makes some of its seeds conventionally, by creating hybrids. Back in the
 1920s, though, the conventional was radical, and the average farmer looked upon
 the newfangled seeds, in Johnson's words, as ''witchcraft and Satanism - until
 he got his first taste of the yield.''
 For the past few years, however, Pioneer has been offering genetically
 engineered seeds, which have genes spliced into their chromosomes that make them
 more resistant to insects and weed killers.
 Johnson told the journalists about herbicide-resistant soybeans and a variety of
 corn that produces a toxin normally made by a bacterium known as Bacillus
 thuringiensis, or Bt.
 Last year, he said, a million acres of the Bt corn were planted in the Midwest,
 with an increased yield of 10 percent to 15 percent, thanks to the way the Bt
 toxin discourages corn-eating insects.
 Pioneer's vice president for marketing, Mary McBride, then chimed in, claiming
 that these ''transgenic'' crops have the power to increase food production in
 the developing world with minimal environmental impact.
 Opponents of transgenic crops claim that ecological and evolutionary forces
 could turn these crops into disasters. Perhaps the plants will prove so robust
 that they will grow aggressively, like weeds, and invade other environments
 including a neighboring farmer's fields.
 Virus-resistance genes could escape into weeds and make them so hardy they'd
 outcompete endangered plants in the wild.
 Antibiotic-resistance genes (which botanists insert into transgenic crops as
 supposedly harmless markers) might escape into soil bacteria and from there into
 those that infect humans.
 Crops engineered to carry Bt-toxin genes might trigger the evolution of ever
 adaptive Bt-resistant bugs.
 Is all this worry just more witchcraft and Satanism? The only way to know how
 seriously to take such doomsday scenarios is to run experiments.
 Researchers have only begun to do this work, setting up experiments to see how
 readily transgenic genes and proteins can escape the crops they were meant to
 help. The results thus far are proving that the doomsday scenarios are not pure
 fiction.
 But the researchers are split over whether the results should be cause for
 anxiety. Much of the concern over transgenic crops stems from the promiscuous
 sexual habits of plants.
 Not only can pollen from one breed of plant fertilize another, but different
 species can sometimes mate and produce hybrids that can reproduce.
 Genes in one population of plants (crops, for example) can thus seep into
 another population (neighboring weeds).
 In the late 1980s, geneticist Norman Ellstrand at the University of California
 at Riverside began warning of the dangers of this genetic escape.
 One could, for example, imagine an herbicide-resistance gene getting into weeds
 and making superweeds that could take over a field.
 Yet this possibility hinged on how likely it was for crops and weeds to
 hybridize, and for the transgenic genes to establish themselves in the wild
 population.
 Ellstrand decided therefore to measure the likelihood, and in 1996 he reported
 that domesticated sorghum, Sorghum bicolor, could readily form hybrids with a
 weed called Johnsongrass, Sorghum halepense.
 (Domesticated crops are often surrounded by their close weedy relatives, since
 both flourish under the same conditions.)
 Using harmless gene markers rather than actual transgenes, Ellstrand found that
 wind-carried pollen could create hybrid seeds more than 300 feet away from the
 original crop.
 These hybrids produced pollen and seeds as viable as the johnsongrass, meaning
 that they could spread just as aggressively.
 More recent experiments with actual transgenic crops also show that inserted
 genes can move between species.
 Plant geneticist Rikke Bagger Jorgensen of Denmark's Riso National Laboratory in
 Roskilde studied the yellow-flowered crop called oilseed rape, known in the
 United States as canola and in Latin as Brassica napus. Oilseed rape is a
 cultivated cross between a weed called wild mustard, or Brassica campestris, and
 Brassica oleracea, the cabbage plant.
 Jorgensen planted a version of oilseed rape engineered to survive a weed killer
 called Basta alongside its wild ancestor (and weedy neighbor) B. campestris.
 Fertile hybrids formed easily, and when Jorgensen sowed the hybrids together
 with the original weed, a second generation of seeds was produced. These seeds
 grew to adulthood and turned out to be impervious to Basta as well.
 Jorgensen returned to her fields the following spring and discovered that this
 second generation had produced offspring of their own, which continued to be
 herbicide resistant.
 Yet despite these results, she and others remain sanguine about the prospects of
 transgenic crops.
 ''If you can put in genes that give the plant itself a better resistance, for
 instance, to fungal pathogens or to insect pests, then you can minimize your use
 of pesticides, and that would be beneficial to the environment,'' Jorgensen
 says. And she believes that as long as transgenic oilseed rape is carefully
 managed, it can be safe.
 ''If you spray very early, before the campestris flowers, you minimize its
 potential to hybridize,'' she says.
 But it would be unwise to grow Basta-resistant oilseed rape alongside a crop
 resistant to a different herbicide.
 ''Then what you'll have is Brassica campestris plants with multiresistance in
 very few generations,'' Jorgensen says.
 A weed with only one herbicide-resistance gene would, however, still be
 manageable. As one researcher said, you can always destroy the plants with
 another herbicide.
 The prospect of herbicide-resistant crops creating the need for spraying still
 more herbicides doesn't fit well with the environmentally friendly image offered
 by companies like Pioneer.
 Yet some critics think biotech corporations are actually comfortable with that
 prospect because they can make transgenic crops as well as herbicides.
 ''The biotech companies, since they make the herbicides, don't see it as a big
 problem, because it forces them to make a new herbicide,'' says botanist Hugh
 Wilson of Texas A&M University.
 Wilson has been studying transgenic gene flow and its possible effects, not on
 the struggle between weeds and crops but between weeds and rare or fragile wild
 plant species.
 Herbicide resistance isn't so much of a problem in this regard, since weed
 killers are found only on farms. Of far more pressing concern to him is the
 possibility that genes for resistance to insects, viruses and fungi can be just
 as important in the wild.
 It's conceivable that a spread of genes from transgenic crops into wild plants
 could allow them to outcompete other species.
 One possible way to contain the threat of transgene escape might be to bar
 certain genetically engineered crops when weedy relatives already exist in a
 given place.
 ''There are no weeds related to maize in Europe,'' says French cytogeneticist
 Anne-Marie Chevre of the national Institute of Agronomic Research at Le Rheu.
 ''But we have a lot of wild species more or less related to oilseed rape in the
 field everywhere.'' Therefore France has permitted transgenic corn to be grown
 on its soil.
 The United States could similarly allow transgenic maize soybeans and potatoes
 to be farmed, since they have no wild relatives with which they are sexually
 compatible here. On the other hand, squashes and sunflowers do.
 There are ways this policy might go wrong, however. A desperate farmer might
 ignore the law and plant a transgenic crop that can breed with local weeds.
 And crop-to-weed gene exchanges are only one kind of change that transgenic
 crops can bring. Researchers have been developing a transgenic potato, for
 example, that can fight off the aphids that feed on it. The new potato produces
 a protein called lectin that ruins the aphids' digestion.
 Greenhouse tests have shown that this transgenic potato can reduce populations
 of the peach-potato aphid by half. That's impressive, but not quite good enough
 to allow the potatoes to survive on their own. To fully protect their crop,
 farmers would need to introduce aphid-devouring ladybugs.
 But as entomologist Nick Birch of the Scottish Crop Research Institute in Dundee
 has shown, the lectin in the potato makes ladybird beetles ill: After eating
 transgenic potato-glutted aphids, ladybugs produce far fewer offspring and live
 much shorter lives.
 Yet even though he has shown how transgenic crops can have harmful effects that
 spread through a food chain, Birch doesn't think his results are cause for
 alarm. If ladybugs can also find aphids in the wild that are unaffected by
 transgenic potatoes, the plant's harmful effects will be diluted.
 In general, Birch thinks that with careful tests of their potential effects,
 transgenic crops can prove safe and useful in reducing our dependence on
 pesticides.
 Who knows - maybe those witchcraft and Satanism theories are indeed wrong . . .
 Josie Glausiusz is an associate editor at Discover magazine.
 LOAD-DATE: July 1, 1998
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO (3), PHOTO: Robert J. Pavuchak/Post-Gazette: The endless search
 to improve; the yield of domesticated plants, like corn and tomatoes, has led
 science to; create "transgenic" plants which come from seeds that have been
 genetically; altered. Yet plant scientists are in disagreement about the
 long-term; consequences to the environment of such genetic manipulation. For
 example,; virus resistance genes could escape into weeds, giving them a hardness
 that; would make them more competitive than endangered plants in the wild.;
 PHOTO: Jill Greenberg: Genetically engineered tomatoes have been among the;
 first such vegetables to appear in supermarkets.; PHOTO: Weeding it out/Altering
 genes to help crops resist blight could; backfire if those crops become too
 aggressive or if weeds inherit those; traits. (Photo, page A-1)
                        Copyright 1998 P.G. Publishing Co.









Document Number: 106
 
                           The Roanoke Times (Virginia)
                       June 22, 1998, Monday, METRO EDITION
 SECTION: VIRGINIA, Pg. A1
 LENGTH: 1142 words
 By introducing specific genes into the plant, large quantities of human proteins
 can be extracted.
 The tobacco wars in Congress have gotten all the attention, but another, quieter
 revolution is going on in Carole Cramer's research laboratory.
 You won't find any mammoth golden tobacco leaves wilted from the sun or, for
 that matter, the cured nicotine-filled flakes that give rise to cigarettes.
 In Cramer's artificially lit growing room at Virginia Tech, odd-looking
 genetically engineered varieties prevail: tiny cultured seedlings, long skinny
 strands that resemble vermicelli and even a living liquid concoction that looks
 like a beaker of pea soup.
 Those images are apt because Cramer, a plant physiologist at Tech, thinks her
 research may help transform tobacco from a maligned carcinogen into a powerful
 agent for making beneficial medicines, vaccines and other health-enhancing
 products.
 She and her colleagues say that shift could give thousands of tobacco farmers in
 Virginia a new lease on life for growing the state's biggest cash crop.
 "It's going to be a revolution in medicine," Cramer predicted during a recent
 tour of her lab. "The benefits are so significant in what genetic engineering
 permits you to do, and that is going to produce a revolution in agriculture."
 She and a handful of scientists across the country are on the cutting edge of
 biotechnology research with tobacco. They have learned that by introducing
 specific genes into the plant, they can extract from its leaves large quantities
 of human proteins necessary for fighting and preventing disease - the grist for
 the next generation of pharmaceuticals and vaccines.
 So-called transgenic plants have advantages over animals and cell culture
 systems for making human proteins, researchers say, because they don't transmit
 disease and because they generally produce the desired product faster and at a
 lower cost.
 Tobacco, it turns out, may be the best biotech crop in the world because it's
 easy to genetically manipulate, produces plentiful amounts of the sought-after
 proteins, grows quickly and yields a million seeds for each plant.
 Seeing the promise of alternative uses for tobacco, the General Assembly this
 spring approved $ 750,000 over two years for Cramer's research and for her first
 field trials with transgenic tobacco implanted with human proteins.
 The field trials began last week at the South Piedmont Agricultural Experiment
 Station in Blackstone. This week, a second crop will go into the ground at the
 Glade Spring Agricultural Experiment Station in Washington County.
 "Essentially, we'll be defining what a grower would have to do to produce
 tobacco for pharmaceutical use, which is really exciting," Cramer said.
 Although research on transgenic tobacco is still in its infancy, some predict it
 could fuel a multibillion-dollar industry.
 Planet Biotechnology, a California company, has been testing on human subjects
 an anti-tooth-decay mouth wash made with antibodies extracted from transgenic
 tobacco.
 Biosource Technology, another California firm, has built in Kentucky the first
 fabrication plant for producing pharmaceuticals from transgenic tobacco and is
 awaiting Federal Drug Administration approval.
 CropTech, a Blacksburg company co-founded by Cramer in 1992, is working on a
 tobacco-produced anti-clotting protein to combat stroke, a protein for use in
 blood processing and an enzyme to fight Gaucher's disease, which can cause liver
 and spleen enlargement.
 Among Cramer's advances is a system for switching on the gene that produces the
 desired human protein after the crop has been harvested, a breakthrough that
 should make industrial production more efficient.
 Scientists see a potential for making key components of anticancer drugs in the
 leaves of tobacco, as well as industrial products, like enzymes used in paper
 production and laundry detergents.
 "We think that the market out there for this kind of product is just
 astronomical," said David N. Radin, CropTech's president. "The industry could
 eventually have an impact that would be comparable to tobacco being grown now"
 for cigarettes.
 Gross receipts from Virginia tobacco topped $ 180 million in 1997, making it by
 far the state's biggest cash crop. Virginia was fourth in the country last year
 in tobacco production, after North Carolina, Kentucky and South Carolina,
 according to figures from the Virginia Agricultural Statistics Service.
 Earlier this month, Gov. Jim Gilmore hosted a tobacco summit during which he
 warned that the human costs of a proposed settlement with tobacco companies were
 being ignored, including its effect on the state's roughly 7,500 tobacco farmers
 who tend crops in Southside and Southwest Virginia.
 The tobacco deal killed last week in the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate would
 have included a cigarette tax increase, billions of dollars in tobacco-related
 health care reimbursements to states from cigarette companies and regulation of
 nicotine as a drug. Democrats vow the issue hasn't died, as individual states
 continue to sue cigarette companies.
 It could take five to 10 years to bring transgenic tobacco products to market,
 but CropTech's Radin said if the industry takes off it could use "thousands of
 acres" of the crop in Virginia.
 Others, while seeing the potential of the research, are a little more cautious.
 "There are alternative uses for the tobacco crop," said Sen. William Wampler
 Jr., R-Bristol, who sponsored the legislation to fund the upcoming field trials.
 "This is not a home run. It's a solid base hit for the tobacco grower, who I'm
 most concerned with."
 "I'm very excited about it, especially for the advancement of medicine," said
 Wayne Ashworth, president of the Virginia Farm Bureau. "It would be a great
 breakthrough."
 However, Ashworth said he didn't know how many acres of farmland might be used
 for transgenic tobacco.
 Some scientists say that has yet to be determined.
 "I think that all the different areas for developing new uses for tobacco have
 huge potential," said H. Maelor Davies, a plant biochemist and director of the
 Tobacco and Health Research Institute at the University of Kentucky.
 A few years ago, the institute shifted its emphasis from research on the health
 effects of tobacco to development of transgenic tobacco "as a way to start a new
 tobacco industry in Kentucky," Davies said.
 But he cautioned that a major hurdle remaining is convincing drug and other
 companies that they can achieve large cost savings by using transgenic crops.
 "There hasn't been much stimulation of end users, and that's really what we're
 trying to do here," Davies said.
 Cramer is optimistic.
 "If this thing flies," she said, "it has such huge potential for the state."
 Ian Zack can be reached at 381-1665 or ianz@roanoke.com
 LOAD-DATE: June 23, 1998
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO: ALAN KIM THE ROANOKE TIMES. Virginia Tech professor Carole
 Cramer stands with her tobacco plants in the greenhouse room. COLOR
                         Copyright 1998 The Roanoke Times









Document Number: 107
 
                         The Pantagraph (Bloomington, IL)
                             February 9, 1998, Monday
 Pest resistance gained genetically poses considerable risk over time
 SECTION: Business; Pg. E7
 LENGTH: 887 words
 Agricultural scientists now can genetically engineer many benefits into a wide
 range of crops.Insect, herbicide and virus resistance are current examples.
 Scientists have inserted genes from a bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt),
 into corn, potatoes and other crops, giving them resistance to various damaging
 insects.They have transferred genes that provide herbicide resistance into
 soybeans, allowing farmers to control weeds that compete with crops for water
 and nutrients.Pieces of virus gene proteins have even been inserted into crops
 to "immunize" the plants against damaging viral diseases.
 Such benefits, however, are not without risk, according to Alison G. Power,
 Ph.D., associate professor in Cornell University's section of ecology and
 systematics.Addressing nearly 4,500 scientists attending the annual meeting of
 the American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Sciences of America (CSSA) and the
 Soil Science Society of America (SSSA).Power outlined possible consequences
 that researchers should consider in their work.
 For example, crops today depend upon humans, because they no longer have traits
 that enable them to survive, reproduce and propagate their species over time.
 Plants depend on humans for water and nutrients that allow them to do well, and
 for their planting and dispersal.Left alone, they could not compete with more
 competitive flora in the normal plant community.
 Researchers could transfer genes into crop plants that make them more
 competitive and give them the ability to survive and reproduce.But Power
 suggests that such new, "transgenic" crops could pose a problem, should they
 become weeds in other crops.
 Power asked the research scientists to think about other scenarios when they are
 considering genetic manipulation of crops.Among them:risks associated with
 hybridization between crops and wild relatives; risks due to recombination
 between viral transgenes and wild-types viruses; risks due to pest evolution;
 and risks due to changes in pest-management strategies and cropping systems.
 Hybridization between a transgenic crop and its wild relatives can occur when
 wild plants are present and the two are so near to each other that pollination
 moves the transgene into the wild population.If the transgene does not confer
 some selective advantage on the resulting hybrid, there is no problem.Should
 the transgene provide a selective advantage to the wild relative or hybrid,
 however, that could result in a new problem.For example, wild oats are a
 significant weak pest in domestic oats, to which they are closely related.If a
 pest-resistance gene moved from domestic to wild oats, it would increase wild
 oats' pest resistance, making them even difficult to control in domestic oat
 fields.
 Some environmentalists worry that similar gene transfers might occur in natural
 plant communities.Suddenly, a plant that is normally kept in check by the
 depredations of a particular insect species, an insect herbivore, undergoes what
 is termed ecological release.Simply the plant population explodes, because
 insect suppression of the plant no longer exists.The plant grows and
 reproduces more vigorously than in the past and changes the dynamics of the
 natural plant community.The long-term effects are open to conjecture and
 warrant investigation.
 The transfer of viral genes that protect a crop from specific plant diseases to
 a wild relative affords the same potential risk; the wild relative is immunized
 against the disease.The only difference is that the transfer may be effected
 through virus or insect vectors, rather than pollination.
 Another risk to consider is pest evolution.As with antibiotics, insecticides
 and herbicides, the pest eventually evolves and becomes resistant to the control
 substance.
 Because of its effectiveness, scientists have been inserting Bt into more and
 more crops.Reliance on a single pest-control method or product can be
 dangerous.Whenever that has happened in the past, the pest has evolved
 resistance to overcome the effects of the toxin.
 Pest-management strategies have implications for cropping systems as well.At
 issue, Power states, is not whether we utilize these new technologies, but
 making sure that the technologies do not dominate the management systems."What
 if" questions need to be asked, she says.
 For example, farmers currently rotate corn to help control various insect pests
 and diseases.If transgenic corn is significantly less subject to attack by
 such pests,, will farmers be less likely to rotate the crop and choose to grow
 continuous corn?What are the implications for soil erosion, nitrogen use and
 organic matter within the system, if farmers no longer rotate to soybeans,
 alfalfa or some other legume?
 Power emphasizes that the extent that transgenic crops allow farmers to abandon
 traditional farming methods, such as rotation, significant changes in cropping
 patterns might emerge that could have negative environmental effects.
 Members of the ASA, CSSA and SSSA are dedicated to the conservation and wise use
 of natural resources to produce food, feed and fiber crops, while maintaining
 the environment.Due to common interests, the societies hold their annual
 meetings jointly.
 SUBJECT: Agribusiness special section AGRONOMY(92%);AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
 LOAD-DATE: August 14, 1998
                          Copyright 1998 The Pantagraph









Document Number: 108
 
                            Bangor Daily News (Maine)
                              January 9, 1998 Friday
 An earful of questions about transgenic corn
 BYLINE: Sharon S. Tisher
 LENGTH: 1189 words
 On Dec. 12, Maine became the first state in the nation to deny
 registration of three varieties of genetically altered field corn
 designed to produce their own pesticide to control the European
 Corn Borer (ECB).This action by the Board of Pesticides Control
 was compelled by Maine statutes which place the burden on companies
 seeking to register a new pesticide to demonstrate that a need
 exists for the product and that the product will not cause
 "unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. " There is no
 doubt that the applicants, DEKALB Genetics and Novartis Seeds,
 failed to meet either of these burdens, after two appearances
 before the board, which I attended.
 Douglas Johnson's characterization (BDN commentary, Dec. 31)
 of those who raised questions about the transgenic products at
 these meetings as "Luddites," and of the Board of Pesticides
 Control as "muddleheaded bureaucrats," is neither constructive, nor
 accurate, nor good public relations (Johnson was identified as a
 partnerin a biotechnology public relations firm in Stonington).
 The opposition to the transgenic products in Maine has nothing
 to do with, as Johnson put it, "fanciful scenarios for genetic
 mayhem should the Bt gene somehow escape from the corn. " Johnson
 appears to be referring to the demonstrated risk of gene transfer
 through cross-pollination, causing wild, weedy relatives of the
 genetically modified plant to acquire some of the characteristics
 of the modified plant.This is indeed a concern, particularly in
 Mesoamerica, where weedy relatives of maize abound, and when
 transgenic crops are designed to be herbicide resistant, hence
 potentially transferring that resistance to weeds.The focus of the
 concerns here, however, was on quite a different issue: the impact
 of use of varieties of corn which produce their own Bt pesticide on
 the development of pest resistanct to Bt sprays.
 Bt (shorthand for the aerobic, spore-forming bacterium Bacillus
 thuringiensis commonly found in soils) produces a number of insect
 toxins, which have been incorporated in foliar sprays for decades.
 Because these toxins are developed from a naturally occurring
 bacterium, and are very safe for human beings, animals and
 non-target insects, they are some of the few pesticidal products
 available for use by organic as well as conventional farmers.They
 are effective against a variety of pests, including the Cologado
 Potato Beetle.Because of Bt's effectiveness and safety compared to
 the synthetic chemical pesticides it displaces, Bt was
 characterized as the "single most important insecticide ever
 discovered," in the Sept. 16, 1997, EPA rulemaking petition filed
 by an international coalition of organic growers and environmental
 organizations, calling for the cancellation of registration of all
 transgenic Bt plant pesticides.
 Johnson, who characterizes organic farmers as "Luddites,"
 might be surprised to learn that many Bt products used by organic
 farmers have in fact been produced through genetic engineering.It
 is not the use of genetic engineering per se which is opposed by
 many Maine organic farmers, but rather the risks presented by the
 release of live transgenic organisms in the field.
 When Bt is used as a foliar spray, its application can be
 targetedto the appropriate parts of the plant, and it naturally
 degrades in a few days.It kills some, but not all, of the
 Bt-susceptible insects.By contrast, genetically engineered Bt
 plants express Bt throughout the plants for their full life cycle.
 They are designed to, and do, kill virtually all Bt-susceptible
 insects.The only insects which survive to produce new generations
 of pests are those which have the trait of resistance to the Bt.
 The threat of insect resistance, an ever present reality of the
 "pesticide treadmill," is many times escalated.Such a threat is
 hardly "fanciful. " The tobacco budworm, a cotton pest, has been
 shown to become 10,000 times more resistant to Bt after three years
 of exposure to Monsanto's transgenic Bt cotton Bollgard.
 At the board's first meeting on the transgenic corn
 applications, Novartis representative Jeff Stein acknowledged that
 if widespread use of Bt corn develops in the field, it is likely to
 place "high selective pressure" on the ECB to become tolerant to
 the Bt toxins.Stein also admitted that there were many unanswered
 questions about how to prevent the development of resistance.EPA
 has not yet approved a resistance management plan for the Bt corn,
 and EPA registration is conditional on development of such a plan
 by the year 2000.As Stein admitted, according to the EPA, "so much
 is not known that it would be premature to come out with a
 (resistance) strategy now. " The conditional registration is
 designed to "fill in the knowledge gaps" to study such issues as
 "insect growth, migration behavior, mating. " Stein also
 acknowledged that when a method to scientifically manage against
 resistance is developed, practical questions exist about how to
 ensure that all farmers carry out these measures.
 Concerns about resistance management merged in the Board of
 Pesticides Control's deliberations with serious doubts about the
 need for the transgenic field corn products in Maine.Unlike the
 transgenic "NewLeaf" potato previously approved in Maine, these
 products will not replace other, more hazardous pesticides
 currently used to control target pests.On the contrary, all
 indications are that no field corn growers in Maine use any
 pesticides to control the ECB.While the ECB may impair the quality
 and quantity of cornkernels on the husk, no one has yet
 demonstrated that it significantly impacts the overall yield of
 corn silage crops in Maine -- where the entire plan is harvested
 and ground up for fodder.
 The board challenged the applicants to produce evidence of
 such impact by the Dec. 12 meeting, and they failed to do so.The
 testimony of a certified crop advisor for an ag supply dealer that
 his certification "makes me a scientist, and I can tell you I have
 seen corn borer damage" referred to by the opponents.Of far more
 weight were the comments of the Cooperative Extension corn pest
 specialist Don Barry, who found the applicants' claims of increased
 silage yield "hard to believe without any date," and who opined
 that "the lover we can limit (transgenic Bt crops') dissemination,
 the longer Bt's going to be useful for everyone.
 As a result of the biotech companies' inability to produce the
 evidence required by Maine's registration statute, in the words of
 Board of Pesticides Control member Alan Lewis, the board had "the luxury of
 making Maine not participate in this experiment. " That
 was the prudent, and the necessary, decision.
 Sharon S. Tisher, who teaches environmental law at the University
 of Maine in Orono, has served as a member of Maine's Commission to
 Study Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering and is chair of the
 Public Policy Committee of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners
 Association.
 LOAD-DATE: January 10, 1998
                         Copyright 1998 Bangor Daily News









Document Number: 109
 
                        Telegram & Gazette (Massachusetts)
                     February 27, 1997 Thursday, ALL EDITIONS
 High-tech bio-science, low-tech goats
 BYLINE: Lisa Eckelbecker; Telegram & Gazette Staff
 SECTION: BUSINESS REVIEW; Pg. F30
 LENGTH: 1210 words
 Chewing feed from a trough or leaping to perches above their
 baying barn mates, the goats of Genzyme Transgenics Corp. seem a world
 removed from high technology.
 Until you check their genes.
 Then it becomes clear that Genzyme Transgenics' goats possess
 cutting-edge capabilities.Genetically altered to produce therapeutic
 proteins in their milk, they are animals that Genzyme Transgenics
 believes may someday provide the raw biological materials for important
 pharmaceuticals far better and cheaper than traditional bioreactors.
 "What we have is a technology that, once fully implemented, begins
 to make manufacturing feasible," said Thomas E. Smith, manager of
 Genzyme Transgenics's farm operations."People could afford these
 drugs. "
 Could herds of dairy goats replace multi-million dollar
 biotechnology factories?The case must still be proven, but with a
 goat-produced protein known as antithrombin III in human trials,
 corporate partners on board and early plans to look for additional
 farmland next year, Genzyme Transgenics is positioning its goats as a
 new manufacturing technology.
 "Any product can fail in the clinic," cautioned James A. Geraghty,
 president and chief executive of Genzyme Transgenics."I think ATIII
 has as good a chance as any product.But I do feel certain that
 transgenic products will come to market. "
 Pioneered in the 1970s, transgenics involves placing foreign
 sections of DNA, or genetic code, into an embryo to produce an animal
 with a trait determined by the inserted code.
 Genzyme Transgenics is developing goats that carry human genes for
 proteins such as ATIII, a plasma protein that helps prevent harmful
 blood clotting.
 The company formed in 1993 as a subsidiary of Cambridge-based
 Genzyme Corp. and developed some of its first transgenic goats with
 scientists at the Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine in
 Grafton.Genzyme still owns about 45 percent of the company's stock.
 Genzyme Transgenics has since raised $ 24 million in two stock
 offerings, signed up about a dozen pharmaceutical partners and bought
 the testing services company TSI Corp.
 It also established a 168-acre farm in Charlton and imported
 hundreds of disease-free goats from New Zealand.The 550-animal herd,
 cared for seven days a week by about 15 workers, now includes about 50
 transgenic animals.
 In the third quarter that ended Sept. 29, 1996, Genzyme Transgenics
 reported revenues of $ 12.5 million, including $ 2.6 million from its
 pharmaceutical partners.The company lost $ 1.2 million, or 8 cents per
 share, during the quarter.Its stock is trading around 8 5/8.
 Last September, Genzyme Transgenics initiated the first human trial
 of a transgenic-produced drug when it began giving goat-produced ATIII
 to people in the United Kingdom.
 A second study involving heart surgery patients began in December
 in Atlanta, and Genzyme Transgenics plans to start a pivotal,
 final-stage trial later this year.On that schedule, the company could
 be ready to file for approval of transgenic ATIII in late 1998.
 Although genetically engineered mice have been used for research
 for some time, and companies have begun selling seeds for transgenic
 crops such as cotton, the use of transgenic animals to treat human
 disease is a new and unproven field.Companies developing transgenic
 animals for their milk include PPL Therapeutics Plc of the United
 Kingdom and Pharming BV of the Netherlands.
 The task is to show that the proteins animals secrete are safe and
 effective in humans, said one expert.
 "The major challenge is to prove and to show that the proteins
 produced in a heterologous animal can be biologically active in the
 human without having repercussions," said Karl M. Ebert, president of
 Midas Biologicals Inc. and a former Tufts researcher who has
 collaborated with Genzyme Transgenics."That's the key. "
 The exploration of transgenics stems from the difficulty and cost
 of making certain molecules in biotechnology's traditional bacterial
 systems or cell-culturing vats.Donated blood products, a source of
 plasma proteins, also carry health risks.
 Consider ATIII.Genzyme Transgenics reported that it can generate
 all the ATIII it needs for its ongoing trial in Atlanta with just three
 goats turning out 2 grams of protein per liter of milk, more than the
 highest daily ATIII dose in the trial.
 Made from traditional cell-culture or donated-blood methods, one
 day's dose of ATIII could cost $ 2,000.But transgenic goats could turn
 out ATIII at a significantly lower price, according to Geraghty.
 "The economics are clearly going to be attractive," said Geraghty.
 "It will be one-tenth or less the cost of making it in cell culture, so
 the economics are very powerful. "
 At a lower cost, Genzyme Transgenics officials believe it would be
 possible to expand the market for ATIII, now more than $ 200 million a
 year in revenues, to $ 300 million to $ 400 million in revenues.
 Still, creating a transgenics business, and a transgenic animal, is
 not easy.
 At Genzyme Transgenics, workers start by harvesting fertilized eggs
 from does.Then they inject pieces of human DNA into the eggs and
 transfer the eggs to other does.
 Workers test kids born after the five-month gestation period to
 determine whether they carry the human gene.According to Genzyme
 Transgenics, only 5 percent to 10 percent of the kids born from the
 process will be transgenic.
 Those goats that do carry the gene can be bred, their offspring
 tested for the gene and the females milked.
 Workers freeze the milk at the farm, then send it to a Genzyme
 Corp. facility in Framingham for separation and purification.In some
 cases, Smith said, goats are producing three to 10 grams of protein per
 liter of milk.
 "It's definitely a new twist on farming in the sense it's a new
 form of agricultural enterprise," said Smith."We've essentially taken
 the principles of the bioreactor to the living bioreactor. "
 Among the unanswered questions facing Genzyme Transgenics is
 whether the offspring of transgenic animals will produce proteins in
 quantities different from their mothers.
 Still, the manufacturing potential of transgenic animals has
 attracted companies such as BASF Bioresearch Corp. of Worcester, which
 recently signed a $ 6 million deal with Genzyme Transgenics for the
 development of goats capable of producing two undisclosed proteins.
 Another company, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., is working with Genzyme
 Transgenics to develop goats capable of secreting a monoclonal antibody
 called BR-96.The drug maker is developing BR-96 to carry the
 anti-cancer drug doxorubicin directly to breast cancer tumors.
 Several goats carrying full lengths of the BR-96 gene have been
 born since last spring, and they have proven capable of producing more
 than 10 grams of active antibodies per liter of milk, said one company
 official.
 Although Bristol-Myers Squibb is still testing BR-96 and
 doxorubicin - and still considering other BR-96 production methods -
 the good performance of the goats means that Bristol-Myers Squibb may
 consider transgenics as a production method for BR-96.
 LOAD-DATE: February 28, 1997
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO; Genzyme Transgenics Corp. goats at a Charlton farm.; PAULA
                Copyright 1997 Worcester Telegram & Gazette, Inc.









Document Number: 110
 
                       The Atlanta Journal and Constitution
                     November 2, 1996, Saturday, ALL EDITIONS
 Debugging King Cotton;
 Genetically engineered strain of insect-resistant cotton did well this year, but
 some experts say it could actually promote 'super bugs.'
 BYLINE: Mike Toner; STAFF WRITER
 SECTION: SCIENCE; Pg. 01G
 LENGTH: 1050 words
 In the land where cotton once was king, farmers are harvesting a bumper crop of
 brave new bolls. From the snow-white cotton fields of Georgia's coastal plain to
 Texas' Brazos River, growers are reaping the rewards ---and tallying the costs
 ---of the largest genetically engineered crop in history.
 Despite a summer drought in Texas and October rains in the Southeast, the
 National Cotton Council says 1996 has been a good year, bolstered by heavy
 plantings of a new, genetically engineered strain of insect-resistant cotton.
 In its first year of commercial production, Monsanto's Bollgard cotton was grown
 on more than 2 million acres in the Cotton Belt, accounting for one in every
 seven acres of cotton planted nationwide and one in every four in Georgia.
 "This technology is going to change the way we grow cotton," says Cleve Mobley,
 who farms 2,000 acres of the crop in the Waynesboro area. He had to spray
 insecticides on his conventional strains of cotton seven times this year, but
 none of his insect-resistant cotton had to be sprayed more than once.
 "It's easy on the environment and easy on my pocketbook," Mobley says. "This
 year I had 75 percent of my land in Bollgard. Next year, it'll be more than 90
 percent."
 Future of agriculture at stake
 With other genetically engineered crops ---including insect- resistant corn and
 potatoes as well as herbicide-resistant soybeans --- set to be planted on
 millions more acres next spring, more is at stake in this harvest than seasonal
 gyrations in the cotton market. To both supporters and critics of biotechnology,
 the bottom line is the future of American agriculture.
 Monsanto says the yields of its new cotton are 15 percent to 17 percent greater
 than those of conventional strains. And, the company says, Bollgard's ability to
 manufacture its own insecticide and resist attack by some of cotton's most
 devastating pests has enabled thousands of farmers to reduce the use of
 pesticides.
 "The vast majority of growers who used Bollgard didn't have to spray for
 budworms or bollworms at all," says Monsanto's Gary Barton. "And most of those
 who did have to spray, because of heavy insect pressure, got by with one or two
 applications instead of five or six they would have needed."
 But critics say this year's extensive plantings of Bollgard, which incorporates
 a microbial gene that produces a potent natural insecticide called Bacillus
 thuringiensis, or Bt, threaten to undermine one of the most useful pesticides
 available to American farmers.
 'Planting and praying' Some insects already are developing resistance to
 conventional sprays containing Bt, and some researchers say that, as major
 cotton pests such as the cotton bollworm and tobacco budworm are exposed to it
 in fields, they too are likely to become resistant.
 "Right now we are planting and praying," says Jane Rissler, a biotechnology
 specialist with the Union of Concerned Scientists. "At first we will probably
 only see pockets of resistance show up, but once resistance develops, Bt will be
 lost to farmers, including many organic farmers, who used the natural
 insecticide in spray form to control pests."
 Although Bollgard costs three times as much as conventional cotton, the prospect
 of eliminating costly spraying programs was attractive enough for thousands of
 farmers to try the new product.
 "About 25 percent of the total cotton acreage in Georgia was planted in
 Bollgard," says Phillip Roberts, an entomologist with the University of Georgia
 Extension Service. "In general, growers are fairly pleased, but this was a very
 light year for insects here, so we may not have had a real test of its abilities
 yet."
 Perceptions of Bollgard's success have been dictated largely by the insects
 themselves. A flurry of reports of "failures" of the genetically engineered
 cotton in Texas and Mississippi sent ripples of concern through the industry.
 Monsanto says unusually heavy infestations of cotton bollworms ---20 to 50 times
 normal ---in some fields forced some farmers to supplement the natural
 insecticidal properties of Bollgard with spraying.
 "But we never claimed that anyone could just plant Bollgard and walk away,"
 Barton says. "We got about 95 percent control, but with insect pressure as heavy
 as it was this year, the 5 percent we didn't get did some damage."
 Critics say the limits of Bollgard's success are sowing the seeds for problems.
 If the 5 percent of insects that survive are even moderately resistant to Bt,
 they could foster generations of "superbugs" that would be increasingly immune
 to the pesticide. Because cotton bollworms can attack 200 other species of
 crops, Rissler says, the spread of resistant populations could be doubly
 disastrous.
 EPA unlikely to halt planting
 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates the use of all
 pesticides, has made Monsanto develop a resistance management program to
 prevent, or at least delay, the onset of resistance. As a way to assure a supply
 of susceptible insects, farmers are required to set aside "refuge" areas
 adjacent to their fields where Bollgard is not used.
 Although the idea of a refuge for insects runs counter to most farmers' natural
 instincts, Monsanto says a spot check of more than 1,000 growers shows that they
 are adhering to the regulations.
 But critics say that scattered "failures" reported this summer, the first year
 Bollgard has been grown so widely, suggest that the refuge approach isn't
 working or that the cotton plants aren't manufacturing enough of the Bt
 pesticide to deliver a lethal dose to some insects.
 The Union of Concerned Scientists has asked the EPA to suspend further planting
 of Bollgard until the answer is clear. With spring planting only months away in
 some areas and orders for Bollgard pouring in, suspension is a remote
 possibility. The EPA spent five years studying Bollgard before approving it, and
 in the past two years it has approved commercial use of 13 other transgenic
 crops.
 Regardless of what happens in the cotton fields, opportunities for insects to
 develop Bt resistance will increase next year as farmers begin planting
 transgenic corn, which also has been engineered to produce the Bttoxin. Monsanto
 is also marketing insect-resistant potatoes that contain Bt.
 LOAD-DATE: November 4, 1996
 GRAPHIC: Color photo: Why farmers like Bollgard: Monsanto researcher Roy Fuchs
 in
  a field of cotton plants protected with the Bollgard gene. Behind him are
  plants without the gene. / Monsanto
  Color photo: Below, the cotton boll on the left came from a plant
  protected by Bollgard; the boll on the right was grown in the same field
  but came from an unprotected plant. / Monsanto
  Chart: TO MARKET, TO MARKET
  A list of approved genetically engineered crops:
  Cotton: Three varieties incorporating insect and herbicide resistance.
  Corn: Two varieties incorporating insect resistance.
  Soybeans: One variety with herbicide resistance.
  Potatoes: One variety incorporating insect resistance.
  Tomatoes: Five varieties with delayed ripening traits, thicker skin.
  Squash: One variety resistant to two viruses.
  Canola: One variety engineered to produce oil rich in lauric acid.
  Source: Union of Concerned Scientists
                     Copyright 1996 The Atlanta Constitution









Document Number: 111
 
                            Bangor Daily News (Maine)
                             November 1, 1996 Friday
 Are transgenic crops sowing catastrophe?
 BYLINE: Clair Wood
 LENGTH: 766 words
 Crops and plants that have been genetically altered to resist
 diseases, insect pests, and weather extremes while increasing
 yields, taste and texture would seem to be a huge plus for the
 world's farmers.  Tomatoes with improved flavor, appearance, and
 shelf life and strawberries that resist early frosts are already
 available as are cereal grains that are resistant to rusts and
 other diseases.
 Researchers have produced a new strain of pea that has a
 foreign gene to produce an insecticide built into its genetic code.
 The new strain is safe from weevil larvae that often destroy the
 crop in storage.  Similar protection can be given to a wide variety
 of peas, beans, and other legumes.  They could prove a huge
 advantage to Brazilian farmers, for example, who lose up to 40
 percent of their bean crop to storage pests each year.  Yet, for all
 the pluses that genetically engineered crops bring to agriculture,
 many scientists worry that a definite minus could be lurking just
 over the horizon: a genetically enhanced "superweed. "
 According to an article by James Kling in a recent issue of
 Science, about 25 genetically altered crop plants have been
 approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the last four
 years.  Among the latest is the Freedom 2 Squash that was
 genetically altered by the Asgrow Seed Co. of Michigan to resist
 two common plant viruses.  Because of the advantage the foreign gene
 has given the new variety, it has greatly outproduced its unaltered
 relatives in two years of field tests.
 What concerns biologists is that advantages, such as disease
 resistance, may somehow get transferred from crop plants to their
 weedy relatives and create new superweeds.  Low-producing weed
 plants could then compete with their cousins that give superior
 yields leading to a crisis in that crop.  It is somewhat ironical
 that the large-scale field tests needed to find out if such fears
 are justified have been avoided precisely to prevent engineered
 genes from escaping into the wild.  It is a classic Catch-22
 situation that can only be resolved by large-scale field tests.
 Proponents claim that Asgrow's experience shows there is
 nothing to fear.  At the same time that Asgrow began small-scale
 field tests of their transgenic squash, they began to search among
 wild varieties to see if any possessed the same gene for virus
 resistance that had been placed into the Freedom 2 Squash.  They
 found 14 wild squash plants, both in the United States and Mexico,
 and having no contact with the genetically altered variety, to
 possess the same resistance.  Moreover, wild varieties that were
 deliberately planted near the test plots did not acquire the gene
 from the test plants.  "This shows," says Asgrow's director of
 research, "that it's unlikely viral-resistance genes from
 transgenic squash will be transmitted to the wild. " Also,
 conventional wisdom says that first-generation hybrids between wild
 plants and crops are often sterile so that gene flow from the
 transgenic crop to weeds would be minimal.
 Others are not so sure and point to studies such as one
 conducted by geneticist Rikke Jorgensen of Denmark.  She studied a
 transgenic variety of oilseed rape that carried a foreign gene for
 herbicide resistance.  It has a weedy relative in the form of field
 mustard.  She found that the engineered gene had transferred to the
 mustard and afforded it the same resistance that it gave the rape
 plant in the first generation.  It thus became impossible to use the
 herbicide to remove the mustard weed from the rape crop.  The
 message, says geneticist Norm Ellstrand of the University of
 California, "is that gene transfer will happen and become effective
 in the first generation of genetically-altered weed plants. "
 While the argument goes on, large-scale field testing and
 commercial production of transgenic crops are scheduled to go
 forward, mainly in developing nations.  Virus-resistant potatoes
 will soon be commercially planted in Mexico among many wild
 varities.  In fact, Mexico is a region where potatoes originated and
 this is also a cause for concern.  Foreign genes could alter wild
 varieties of crop plants that geneticists use to develop new crop
 strains.  "It probably won't happen often," says Ellstrand, "but,
 within 10 years, we will have a moderate to large-scale ecological
 or economic catastrophe because there are so many productsand
 foreign genes being released. "
 Clair Wood is a science instructor at Eastern Maine Technical
 College and the NEWS science columnist.
 LOAD-DATE: November 01, 1996
                         Copyright 1996 Bangor Daily News









Document Number: 112
 
                          Omaha World Herald (Nebraska)
                       June 30, 1996 Sunday SUNRISE EDITION
 Genetic Engineering Moves Out of Labs and Into Fields Genetic Engineering in
 Plants
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 1A
 LENGTH: 1451 words
 DATELINE: Johnston, Iowa
 Fact and fiction are on a collision course in America's farmlands this year.
 Consider: Farmer Stan Carlson of rural Creston, Iowa, planted specially coated
 corn seeds March 23 in soil with a temperature of 35.2 degrees.
 The rule of thumb says corn shouldn't be planted until the soil temperature is
 50 degrees and rising, usually in late April. Carlson's test corn today is tall,
 uniform and thick compared with an adjoining plot.
 Consider: Farmer Wally Friesen of rural Henderson, Neb., has 300 acres of corn
 with lethal leaves that quickly kill predator insects when they take a tiny
 bite. Beneficial insects aren't harmed. Corn plants on Friesen's 1,400 other
 acres - like those of many of his neighbors - are peppered with holes chewed by
 the destructive European corn borer. It will cost Friesen nearly $ 13 an acre to
 have an aerial applicator spray his infested fields with an insecticide.
 When Carlson and Friesen began farming in the 1950s and '60s, genetically
 engineered crops that could kill insect predators, or seeds that would wait for
 the ideal soil temperature before germinating, were something out of science
 fiction.
 But it's not fiction. It's the science of agricultural biotechnology, and it's
 dawning in the farm belt.
 In laboratories and fields across the region - such as Pioneer Hi-Bred
 International's facilities here - scientists and farmers are creating, testing
 and using breakthrough technologies that are launching what is expected to be
 the beginning of the most historic period in agriculture since the development
 of hybrid corn seed.
 "My idea of a miracle in southern Iowa is to plant corn on time," Carlson said.
 "Every time we've tried to plant these last few years it has rained for a month.
 " Carlson tries every year to finish planting his 400 acres of corn by May 10.
 But wet conditions this year kept his planter idle until June 5. The only corn
 planted early this year on Carlson's land was a half-acre provided for the first
 farm tests of new seed coatings. The coated seeds could dramatically advance the
 start of spring planting of corn and soybeans in the Upper Midwest.
 Three other west-central Iowa farmers also provided plots for the tests to
 Sucrosco Seeds Co. of Manilla, a family-owned, regional corn company conducting
 the field tests.
 The seed coatings are called Intellicoat and are made from a patented and
 biologically inert substance largely derived from natural oils. When the soil
 warms to the appropriate temperature, the polymer coating increases its
 permeability, allowing the seed to absorb water and germinate.
 The thin coating helps protect seeds from chilling injury and fungal infection
 until the soil warms to within 2 or 3 degrees of the desired temperature, said
 inventor Ray Stewart, general manager of Intellicoat Corp. of Menlo Park, Calif.
 The company is a subsidiary of Landec Corp. "This is fantastic," Carlson said.
 "The soil is usually perfect for planting in March and into April, but it's too
 cold to plant." Admittedly, late March is early to plant corn, whether or not
 the seed is coated, said Mark Gruhn, vice president of research and development
 for Sucrosco Seeds.
 Coated seeds, however, could be a solution to the short and frantic period of
 time farmers usually have to plant their crops each spring.
 "Everything that is planted even a little late impacts on the yield because it
 can run into fall frosts," Gruhn said. "For farmers with big farms or not enough
 equipment, it's a serious problem. This looks like a solution." Sixty-seven
 percent of the coated corn Friesen planted March 23 emerged and is growing. In
 an adjacent plot of uncoated corn, the stand is only 3 percent. The typical Iowa
 average at harvest is a 90 percent stand, Gruhn said.
 Results were better on plots planted later. Coated corn planted April 3 - nearly
 three weeks before the typical start of planting - has a stand of 91.7 percent.
 "That's exciting," Gruhn said. "It shows that when we have perfect window of
 opportunity to plant in early April we don't need to wait until it's warm enough
 to get the seed in the ground. It can rain into May and we won't be out pacing
 in the machine shed waiting to get into the fields." Stewart said a few more
 years of testing will be needed before a decision can be made on when any coated
 seeds could be available for commercial corn or soybean production. Terra
 Industries in Sioux City has conducted tests of coated soybean seeds for three
 years.
 In Nebraska, Friesen is among the first farmers to plant fields with a
 genetically engineered corn plant that is toxic to one of the crop's most
 destructive pests - the corn borer. Corn borers are insects that tunnel into the
 stalks and ears of a corn plant, dramatically reducing the number and size of
 kernels that grow on an ear. The damage costs U.S. farmers about $ 1 billion a
 year in lost yields.
 Results already are so impressive on his knee-high corn plants that Friesen
 can't wait to order more seed next year and expand the number of his corn acres
 planted with the high-tech hybrid. The corn is equipped with a gene that
 produces a natural toxin to attack the corn borer. The gene comes from a common
 soil organism called Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt.
 "My Bt corn has a few scars from chewing, a few little dings, but no live corn
 borers," Friesen said. "'They're dead, and that's the best sight you'll see as a
 farmer. This is unreal." Ciba Seeds and Mycogen Plant Sciences collaborated and
 developed the first Bt hybrids. Last year they were granted full clearance by
 government agencies to sell the seeds for this crop season. No other seed
 companies have borer-resistant corn on the market.
 Genetically engineered crops need the approval of the U.S.  Environmental
 Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of
 Agriculture before they can be sold to farmers.
 Friesen expects a 10 percent to 15 percent increase in yield from his 300 acres
 of borer-resistant Ciba corn over what his nonresistant hybrids will produce. He
 said the bigger yield should cover the higher cost of the seed at current corn
 prices of $ 3.50 a bushel.
 A bag of Bt corn seed costs $ 99, or up to $ 5 per bag more than Ciba's current
 elite lines. A bag of seed typically plants three acres of corn.
 Friesen's enthusiastic response to the genetically engineered corn is what Mark
 Pieper of Lincoln has been hearing a lot of lately. Pieper is product manager
 for Ciba Seeds' new Maximizer corn hybrids with the built-in corn borer control.
 "They've had a taste of it this year and that's all it took," he said.
 Less than 1 percent, or 500,000, of the estimated 80 million acres of corn in
 the United States this spring were planted with borer-resistant varieties.
 Response to Ciba and Mycogen's new seeds was so overwhelming that they were
 rationed to growers. This year's full production of Bt seed is expected to sell
 out next season, too, Pieper said.
 Demand is great in the western Corn Belt, such as Nebraska and western Iowa,
 because that's where the greatest corn borer infestations are typically found,
 Pieper said. Nebraska alone treats about 2 million acres a year with
 insecticides against the pests.
 DeKalb Genetics, Northrup King and Pioneer could have their versions of Bt corn
 ready and approved for the 1997 crop, spokesmen said.
 Seed companies and research institutions have spent hundreds of millions of
 dollars over the past decade to develop transgenic corn. Transgenic crops have
 had a gene from a foreign organism - such as the soil-living Bacillus
 thuringiensis - introduced into them.
 Hybrids with the borer resistance are nearly 100 percent effective, said John
 Foster, a University of Nebraska-Lincoln entomologist who has studied Bt corn.
 Spraying corn with insecticides to control corn borers typically is 60 percent
 to 80 percent effective, he said.
 "It's a powerful leap in technology that will change people's expectations of
 the (insect) control we'll expect in the future," Foster said. "It's
 mind-boggling."
 Genetic Engineering in Plants 1869 - Discovery of DNA.
 1966 - Genetic code deciphered.
 1974 - Transfer of a foreign gene to a bacterium marks start of genetic
 engineering.
 1994 - U.S. Food and Drug Administration OKs commercial sale of Flavr Savr-brand
 genetically engineered tomato.
 1995 - Final U.S. regulatory approval granted for commercial sale of genetically
 engineered corn seed with built-in resistance to insects.
 Sources: AgrEvo USA Co., Ciba Seeds.
 SUBJECT: Agriculture; Technology BIOTECHNOLOGY & GENETIC SCIENCE(92%);GENETIC
 LOAD-DATE: July 03, 1996
 NOTES: Sidebar included
 GRAPHIC: Color Photo/1; SMART CORN: The corn flanking Stan Carlson of Creston,
 Iowa, was planted on the same day - March 23 - in near-freezing ground. The
 red-coated seeds like those in his left hand produced the tall stand on his
 left.  Regular seeds like those in his right hand produced the thin stand on his
 right., PHIL JOHNSON/WORLD-HERALD/1sf
                    Copyright 1996 Omaha World-Herald Company









Document Number: 113
 
                          Omaha World Herald (Nebraska)
                       June 30, 1996 Sunday SUNRISE EDITION
 Firms Seek Foothold In New Marketplace
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 2A
 LENGTH: 458 words
 DATELINE: Johnston, Iowa
 Genetically engineered crops have caught the attention of corporate boardrooms,
 said James Miller, director of oilseeds and field crops research for Pioneer
 Hi-Breds International.
 Biotechnology, chemical and seed companies are scrambling to create technology
 alliances that will give them the freedom to operate in the business of
 genetically engineered crops.
 For example: Monsanto agreed in February to pay DeKalb Genetics $ 158 million to
 buy up to 40 percent of its stock and to launch a 10-year agreement to share hot
 herbicide tolerance and insect resistance technology. DeKalb has about 10
 percent of the U.S. corn seed market.
 Pioneer, which has about 45 percent of the U.S.  seed market, completed a $ 51
 million agreement in December to buy a 13.5 percent stake in Mycogen Plant
 Sciences, which holds 30 of the 36 known Bt insecticidal genes.
 "For the benefit of the industry, we'll find ways to move forward with products
 through cross-licensing," Pioneer's John Duesing said last week.
 He is responsible for scouting and licensing to support the company's research
 efforts.
 Sandoz Ltd. and Ciba Seeds agreed in March to a $ 27 billion merger that would
 unite both companies' seed and biotechnology divisions. The new headquarters
 would be in Minneapolis.
 The courts also are now involved.
 DeKalb filed lawsuits in April against Ciba, Mycogen and Pioneer, alleging that
 they had infringed on DeKalb's patent rights.
 The stakes are high. Industry analysts predict that by 2000, annual sales of
 transgenic seeds will be $ 3 billion, growing to $ 25 billion by 2010.
 They also say that about half of America's farmland within the next decade will
 be planted with transgenic crops designed to kill predators or to enhance a
 certain property, such as oil or sugar content, or to resist a normally deadly
 herbicide.
 For example, a Monsanto-produced transgenic soybean available for commercial
 planting this year is resistant to the company's Roundup herbicide. Roundup, a
 cheap and relatively environmentally friendly weed killer, normally would kill
 soybean plants.
 Pioneer announced Thursday that it had received a patent that will allow its
 breeders to develop soybeans with genetic resistance to a common nematode, a
 microscopic parasite that robs growers of $ 400 million in yields each year.
 The efficiencies of genetically improved food production will be critical as
 soon as the coming decade, said Pam Armstrong-Gustafson, Pioneer's corn
 marketing director. That will become apparent, she said, as the world's
 population continues to climb, rising Third World incomes lead to increased
 demand for meat and the number of farmers continues to decline.
 SUBJECT: Agriculture; Technology BIOTECHNOLOGY & GENETIC SCIENCE(94%);
 LOAD-DATE: July 03, 1996
                    Copyright 1996 Omaha World-Herald Company









Document Number: 114
 
                       The Star-Ledger (Newark, New Jersey)
                              April 21, 1996 Sunday
 Natural pesticides' role mulled
 LENGTH: 658 words
 Associated Press BETHESDA, Md. Thomas H. Willey raises herbs and vegetables
 organically on 50 acres in Madera, Calif. The few occasions when he needs a
 pesticide he turns to a natural one produced by bacteria that grow in the soil.
 Willey has used the bacillus thuringiensis pesticide, or Bt, perhaps three times
 in the last 10 years, most recently on carrots and before that on basil. Bt
 targets a handful of insects, is harmless to people and other animals, and
 breaks down quickly.
 Bt does so well that it has moved from backyards and a handful of organic farms
 to the mainstream as producers try to reduce the use of chemicals. But with Bt's
 success have come increased worries that insects will become resistant to Bt.
 That's especially true this year because of genetic engineering. More than 1
 million acres of corn, cotton and potatoes that have been altered to produce Bt
 are being planted this spring.
 "Three cows are out of the barn," Willey told a forum held last week by the
 Agriculture Department, a rare event that joined organic growers, other farmers,
 university and corporate scientists and environmentalists.
 Few disagreed that Bt resistance is a problem, though they differed on its scale
 and what regulators should do about it.
 Since 1985, two agricultural pests, the Indian meal moth and diamondback moth,
 have proved resistant in the field. Ten other pests have shown resistance in
 laboratories. And Bt has been used for 30 years on a small scale as a powder and
 spray.
 Some 500 species of mites and insects have evolved built-in protections against
 synthetic pesticides that are widely used and have been around for five decades.
 Without plans to manage resistance, the Environmental Protection Agency says,
 widespread resistance could develop within five years if the Bt-producing crops
 are planted uniformly over large areas.
 That bothers environmentalists.
 "Bts are a natural resource and a public good and should not be squandered,"
 said Rebecca J. Goldburg, senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund in
 New York. That group and the Union of Concerned Scientists want the government
 to slow down approvals of transgenic crops.
 Monsanto Co., the St. Louis-based pesticide maker, developed the cotton and
 potato plants being grown commercially this year. Ciba-Geigy Corp., a
 Greensboro, N.C., pesticide company, developed the corn with Mycogen Corp. of
 San Diego.
 The environmentalists say that once Bt is used up, the pesticide companies can
 fall back on new chemicals. The organic growers and other farmers can fall back
 on nothing.
 That's nonsense, argue the companies, which say they wouldn't have invested
 hundreds of millions of dollars and years of research into a technology that
 would quickly become useless.
 No one expects farmers to make a wholesale switch to the transgenic crops, they
 say, even when the cost comes down and more become available.
 Corn growers in particular, remembering the blight of the early 1970s, regularly
 use a variety of hybrids to spread their risks. It will take a long time for all
 80 million acres of corn to be planted in transgenic crops.
 No more than 375,000 acres will be planted in Ciba's corn this year, said
 Jeffrey Stein, director of regulatory affairs for Ciba Seeds. That means there's
 time to work out strategies to fight resistance.
 Besides, he said after the forum, "farmers are going to experiment to figure out
 how little they need to plant to get the level of control they want."
 Most panelists agreed that the Agriculture Department needs to spend more on
 researching resistance problems and educating farmers.
 Farmers hotly debated whether they and their neighbors will be careful enough to
 use the new techniques wisely, rotate crops and keep areas where nonresistant
 insects will mate with resistant ones to keep resistance from spreading.
 With that debate came suggestions that the EPA should require growers to follow
 plans for lowering resistance risk.
 LOAD-DATE: April 2, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: nsl
                     Copyright 1996 Newark Morning Ledger Co.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 115
 
                      Wisconsin State Journal (Madison, WI)
                       April 7, 1996, Sunday, ALL EDITIONS
 BYLINE: Jennifer A. Galloway Agriculture reporter
 SECTION: Money, Pg. 1C
 LENGTH: 2891 words
 With this year's planting season just around the corner for Wisconsin's 77,000
 farmers, we wanted to give a sense of what is on their minds and how
 agricultural developments will affect them, the farm economy and you.
 Farmers today concern themselves as much with politics, finances, technology and
 conservation as they do with the price of commodities or the health of their
 animals. Here is a glimpse of trends in those areas and other dynamics on the
 farm and related industries this spring.
 Farm Bill
 This year may well be one of the most profitable years on record for farmers.
 One-time cash payments from the government called for in this year's Farm Bill
 combined with record high grain prices will mean windfall profits for producers.
 ''This is the most incredibly lucrative farm program there has ever been,'' said
 Doug Caruso, executive state director of the Farm Service Agency, which
 administers USDA programs.
 Grain farmers will receive -- with virtually no strings attached -- declining
 cash payments for seven years. The payments will replace target prices,
 deficiency payments and acreage reduction programs. They are intended to help
 farmers shift to a market-oriented economy that is not subsidized by the
 government.
 Depending on the crop and the number of farmers who elect to participate, this
 year's payments could amount to as much as a fourth of the cost of production,
 Caruso said.
 ''There is no reason for producers not to take advantage of the program,'' he
 said.
 What's more, farmers who don't take advantage of the cash payments may be at a
 competitive disadvantage compared to those who do receive the subsidies, Caruso
 said.
 Corn farmers will fare particularly well this year, given that market prices are
 well over $ 4.00 a bushel. Cash payments on corn could run as high as 39 cents
 per bushel on a crop that costs about $ 1.50 to produce.
 State farmers say they will plant 3.85 million acres of corn this year, up 5
 percent from last year.
 Farm Economy
 Farmers are more financially fit than they've been in years, thanks to record
 commodity prices, rising land values, stable incomes and lower interest rates,
 farm economists say.
 Agricultural lenders around the state indicate that farmers this year are
 borrowing more than in the past to finance rising operating costs and dairy
 expansions. ''Costs are up for farmers, but the values of the assets they hold
 have been rising and their net worth and equity positions have been good,'' said
 Mary Elvekrog, senior account officer for Badgerland Farm Credit Services in
 Madison. ''We are optimistic and confident about their cash flows,'' she said.
 Bruce Jones, a UW-Madison farm economist and director of the Center for Dairy
 Profitability said that stable farm income and caution on the part of farmers in
 recent years have established a foundation from which farmers are now beginning
 to build. ''Dairy farmers have waited, gotten their financial houses in order,
 looked at the future and decided that the time is right to expand,'' he said.
 Unlike last year when interest rates were trending up, farmers can expect stable
 or possibly declining rates in 1996. Jones predicts interest rates on farm loans
 to settle 1/4 or 1/2 of a percentage point lower than a year ago. One new
 financing program available this spring from the Wisconsin Housing and Economic
 Development Agency is geared toward farmers who expand or modernize.
 The Farm Asset Reinvestment Management program provides a state guarantee on up
 to 25 percent of loans made by local lenders. Loans of up to $ 400,000 are
 available and can be used to purchase machinery, equipment, facilities, land or
 livestock.
 Crops
 Hybrid seeds genetically engineered to kill pests or resist the effects of
 Roundup herbicide hit the market this year. These seeds contain specialized
 genes that are toxic to a particular insect or tolerant to the powerful
 herbicide.
 Transgenic crops, as they are known, are an exciting new tool for farmers to
 efficiently combat insects or weeds and boost yields while reducing the use of
 chemicals, experts say. ''This is one of the real advances in terms of crop
 production,'' said Joe Lauer, a UW-Madison agronomist. ''This year, farmers are
 figuring out how these seeds might fit into their operations.''
 Farm supply outlets report that farmers are keenly interested in transgenic
 seeds, but are approaching the new technology with caution. Many wonder whether
 yields on the new seeds will measure up to traditional hybrids.
 ''No one is jumping in big,'' said Bob Williams, manager at Danco Prairie FS
 Cooperative, a farmer supply company. ''But there is great interest out there,''
 he said. Among the hot products are:
 A new corn hybrid that is toxic to the European corn borer, one of corn's most
 troublesome pests. Corn-borer damage significantly lowered yields on Wisconsin's
 corn crop last year. The new seed, manufactured by Ciba Seeds of Normal, Ill.,
 contains a natural insecticide called Bacillilus thuringiensis, or Bt. The seeds
 are available in Wisconsin for three different maturities.
 Roundup resistant soybeans, produced by Monsanto, that tolerate the application
 of Roundup, a cheap, broad-spectrum and relatively safe weed killer. Roundup
 typically kills soybean plants. Varieties of Roundup Ready soybeans suitable for
 Wisconsin won't be on the market until next year. However, the seeds are being
 sold in other areas of the Midwest.
 Russett Burbank potatoes that contain a built-in insecticide and are resistant
 to the Colorado potato beetle. Monsanto's New Leaf potato, which contains Bt,
 showed promising experimental results last year and Wisconsin growers are eager
 to plant the tuber this year.
 On the alfalfa front, new research shows that yields can be boosted by as much
 as 45 percent by interseeding alfalfa fields with sweet sorghum.
 Alfalfa is the state's largest crop in terms of acreage. Wisconsin farmers grow
 more than 5 million acres of alfalfa, which is fed primarily to dairy cows.
 The Agricultural Research Service found that interseeding raised forage yields
 by 45 percent on high-value land in the Midwest and by 28 percent on land of
 lesser quality. The higher yields were accomplished without commercial nitrogen
 fertilizer, even while conserving soil.
 Vegetable Industry
 High-tech potatoes and packaged veggie-based meals are the leading trends in the
 processed vegetable industry.
 Wisconsin's 250 potato growers are gearing up to get their spuds in the ground
 this week, though planting may be delayed by the unseasonably cold weather. This
 year's potato crop is expected to cover 79,500 acres, up 2 percent over last
 year, according to the Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association. The
 state annually produces about 2.7 billion pounds of potatoes.
 Ore-Ida Foods of Plover, the state's largest potato processor, has said it will
 accept the transgenic potato from growers this year. ''We are recognizing them
 as an equal potato, the same as other Burbank varieties,'' said Grant Jones,
 head of public relations for Ore-Ida, which is based in Boise, Idaho. Consumers
 likely will be buying transgenic french fries later this year.
 Wisconsin growers welcome Ore-Ida's willingness to accept the Bt potato because
 they're assured of a market. And the potato allows farmers to combat pests with
 technology instead of chemicals.
 ''This is a boon for Wisconsin growers,'' said Tamas Houlihan, a spokesman for
 the growers association.
 Farmers who grow sweet corn, snap beans and peas for processing have their own
 bonanza -- the potential for higher incomes if they convert a portion of their
 acreage into corn or soybeans. Companies such as Green Giant and Stokely are
 facing extremely narrow profit margins and farmers who supply them this year are
 planting more grains for a guaranteed income, Houlihan said. ''Guys are making
 the switch because lenders are telling them they have to have cash flow,'' he
 said. ''Processing crops have just not cash flowed to where the lenders are
 satisfied.''
 With corn and soybean prices at historical heights, Houlihan said growers
 probably will reduce vegetable acres by 2 to 5 percent. Still, the state will
 retain its number one status in production of sweet corn and snap beans.
 Consumers of frozen vegetables can expect more newfangled mixtures and
 convenience packaging this year, according to the Food Institute of Fair Lawn,
 N.J., which tracks retail food trends.
 ''Consumers want complete products that they can heat and serve,'' said Jim
 Gawley of the Food Institute. Companies such as Green Giant and Bird's Eye are
 expanding their production of frozen pasta and vegetable blends and meal kits.
 Consumers add their meat of choice to the kits, which contain a combination of
 vegetables and a sauce.
 The private-label industry also is capitalizing on consumer demand for
 convenience foods. Expect to soon see fancy frozen veggies in your store brand.
 Technology
 Satellite technology is helping farmers farm by the foot instead of by the acre.
 Computers and satellites can now evaluate the variations and nutrient needs of
 soil down to nine-foot square plots giving farmers a report card on how
 management and the environment are affecting their crops. Until recently,
 farmers blanketed fields with fertilizer and pesticide because they weren't
 aware of minute differences in soil types, moisture and suceptibility to weeds.
 Precision farming measures those differences and allows for exact application of
 fertilizer and pesticides. It also helps farmers treat the soil based on its
 maximum potential yield and can increase their net return per acre. More than
 100 farmers in Dane, Columbia and Sauk counties are using the so-called
 precision farming technology this spring, said Bob Williams, of Danco Praire FS
 Cooperative.
 ''Farmers can see exactly what is limiting their yields in a specific location
 and make an economic decision about what to do,'' he said. Components of
 precision farming include:
 Global Positioning System (GPS) -- a satellite-driven guidance system the
 pinpoints exact locations in a field and accurately measures fertility, yield
 and crop damage.
 Grid mapping -- A collection of soil samples at precise locations for annual
 comparisons of nutrient needs.
 Yield monitoring -- Linked with a GPS satellite receiver, a computer mounted in
 a combine continously measures and displays the yield being harvested.
 Farmers this year also are experimenting with new planters that leave 15 to
 20-inch fallow rows between corn rows as opposed to the typical 30-inch rows.
 Narrow-row planting gives each plant more equal access to sunlight and air and
 helps promote faster growth, said Joe Lauer, UW-Madison agronomist. And zoned
 tillage continues to gain favor among farmers. Planting corn in eight-inch bands
 that alternate with 22-inch fallow rows helps farmers comply with soil
 conservation requirements while speeding the corn's maturation, Lauer said.
 Conservation Reserve Program
 Congress rewnewed its commitment to the Conservation Reserve Program, which pays
 farmers to idle erosion-prone land. It capped the amount of land in CRP at the
 current level of 36.5 million acres and made several changes in the program that
 will affect Wisconsin farmers with land in CRP. More than 700,000 acres of the
 state's cropland is enrolled in the CRP.
 Here's what CRP participants can expect: Farmers whose 10-year CRP contracts
 expire on Oct. 1, 1996 have several options. If their land is considered
 croppable by USDA standards, they can get out of their contract now and farm the
 land for the 1996 harvest year. They can extend their contract for another year
 or let their contract expire on Oct. 1.
 The only way participants can get a five-year extension is if they agree to
 plant hardwood trees on the property.
 Contracts covering 200,000 acres of CRP land in Wisconsin expire this year, so a
 large share of participants must soon make this decision.
 Farmers whose CRP contracts expire in 1997 or 1998 will be able to sign up for
 federal cash crop payments after the July 12 deadline. These farmers are the
 only individuals who can sign up after the one-time enrollment period this
 spring.
 LOAD-DATE: April 09, 1996
                     Copyright 1996 Madison Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 116
 
                          Telegraph Herald (Dubuque, IA)
                              March 22, 1996, Friday
 Farmers like genetic corn, profits
 BYLINE: Associated Press
 SECTION: National/World, Pg. a 2
 LENGTH: 428 words
 DATELINE: URBANA, Ill.
 The scores are in from field tests on genetically-engineered seed corn. And
 farmers are pleased.
 "The results were amazing," said Blair Hoerbert, who farms about 600 acres south
 of Peoria. "Not only was it the healthiest corn I have ever had the privilege to
 harvest, the corn produced 12 bushels more per acre."
 Hoerbert planted several acres with the seed genetically engineered to be toxic
 to one of corn's deadliest enemies, the European corn borer.
 For Hoerbert, whose fields were infested with borers the previous year, that
 means a yield of 127 bushels per acre, rather than 115. It meant additional
 income of $36 per acre even after Hoerbert paid the nearly $10-per- acre premium
 for the genetically engineered seed.
 Hoerbert and a few hundred other farmers were the first to test the new corn,
 which will be available commercially this year - but in limited quantities.
 Companies such as Mycogen Corp., Ciba-Geigy Seed, Monsanto Co. and DeKalb
 Genetics Corp. have each spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past
 decade to develop the new corn, which is called a transgenic hybrid.
 Transgenic crops have had a gene from another organism introduced into their
 chromosomes through genetic splicing. In the case of the corn Hoerbert planted,
 the gene came from a soil bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis, or "Bt."
 The Bt gene makes the plant poisonous to the corn borer, which usually costs
 American corn farmers about $1.5 billion a year in lost crops. It is said to
 have no effect on beneficial insects and animals, but all transgenic crops
 require approval from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Agriculture
 Department and the Food and Drug Administration before they can be put on the
 market.
 Not everyone, though, believes those agencies are using sufficient safeguards.
 The Union of Concerned Scientists says growing the new corn will hasten pest
 immunity to Bt, which it called the nation's most valuable natural pesticide.
 Bt is now used in spray form by organic farmers to control insect pests, but
 constantly exposing corn borers to it on the large scale on which corn is grown
 will increase the likelihood they will develop a resistance, the group has said.
 But from what he has seen in his fields, Hoerbert rejects such arguments.
 "It's the biggest technological breakthrough I've ever been associated with in
 all my years of farming," Hoerbert said of the new corn. "I really believe there
 will be a day when we look back and remember this year as one of the most
 historic in agriculture."
 SUBJECT: agriculture, crop, genetics, science GENETIC ENGINEERING(92%);
 LOAD-DATE: December 9, 1996
                         Copyright 1996 Telegraph Herald









Document Number: 117
 
                       The Atlanta Journal and Constitution
                     March 7, 1996, Thursday, JOURNAL EDITION
 Genetically engineered crops can create strains of 'superweeds'
 BYLINE: Mike Toner; STAFF WRITER
 SECTION: NATIONAL NEWS; Pg. 02C
 LENGTH: 401 words
 Good genes, it seems, are going to be hard to keep down on the farm.
 Genetically engineered crops, which entered commercial production in the United
 States last year, can pass their traits to noxious weeds with stunning speed,
 researchers reported Wednesday.
 The discovery reinforces decade-old concerns about the possible spread of newly
 engineered traits, such as herbicide tolerance, from domestic crops to their
 weedy relatives - creating accidental strains of "superweeds."
 Danish researchers say tests show that genetically modified commercial oilseed
 rape, or canola, can pass herbicide resistance to closely related weeds in the
 wild mustard family in a single growing season. In two seasons, the weeds were
 resistant to the same chemicals.
 "Once released, these new traits may be difficult to control," Thomas Mikkelsen
 of Denmark's Riso National Laboratory reported in the current issue of the
 journal Nature.
 "This shows that the genes we put into these crops are not going to stay put,"
 says Margaret Mellon, a biotechnology specialist with the Union of Concerned
 Scientists in Washington. "We are no longer talking about something that might
 happen. It is happening."
 The Danish research involved only small test plots and a single trait, but the
 results could stir new concern in the United States, where production of
 genetically engineered crops is accelerating.
 So far, the government has approved nine transgenic crops - including an
 herbicide-resistant cotton, grown in Georgia and several other Southern states,
 and a strain of canola modified to produce laurate, an ingredient in soap and
 detergents.
 Calgene Inc., the biotechnology company that developed laurate canola, planted
 2,000 acres of it in Georgia last year and plans to double production in the
 state this year. In five years, officials hope to have genetically engineered
 canola on a half-million acres of North American farmland.
 Andrew Baum, president of Calgene's oils division, says the latest research
 holds no surprises. He says that even if wild mustard, a hardy weed found
 throughout the South, acquires the new genes through pollination, it would not
 confer any competitive advantage over natural weeds.
 But Mellon says traits such as resistance to insects and herbicides pose a
 greater risk. "Once these genes are loose in the wild, no one knows what is
 going to happen," she says.
 LOAD-DATE: July 17, 1996
                     Copyright 1996 The Atlanta Constitution









Document Number: 118
 
                      Wisconsin State Journal (Madison, WI)
                       April 9, 1995, Sunday, ALL EDITIONS
 SECTION: Money, Pg. 1C
 LENGTH: 947 words
 Commercial potato growers praise it. Organic farmers bash it. Scientists tout it
 and the manufacturer boasts its eco-friendly nature.
 Consumer reaction to a new genetically engineered potato with a built-in
 insecticide remains to be seen. The new potatoes won't be commercially available
 until next year.
 But interest in the first vegetable bred to contain its own toxin that kills
 bugs is high in the agricultural and scientific communities.
 The new potato, which the Environmental Protection Agency last week approved for
 commercial development -- one step away from commercial sale -- reduces the need
 for farmers to apply chemicals to control the potato industry's most tenacious
 pest -- the Colorado potato beetle.
 The tuber, called NewLeaf, is made by Nature Mark, a Boise, Idaho, subsidiary of
 Monsanto.
 ''Growers are desperately trying to minimize the use of pesticides,'' said Jim
 Okray, a Portage County potato farmer who was the first grower to serve on an
 EPA scientific advisory panel.
 Okray was in Washington, D.C., last month to evaluate scientific data and public
 testimony on the new potato.
 ''This new technology gives us another tool to use in battling pest problems,''
 said Okray who farms 2,000 acres of potatoes in Plover.
 That technology, in which scientists have inserted genetic material from the
 bacillus thuringiensis, or B.t., bacterium into potatoes (as well as cotton and
 corn), creates a tuber that is virtually immune to the potato beetle, a bug that
 costs U.S. potato farmers $ 85 million a year.
 Left to its own devices, the beetle can nibble its way through whole crops of
 potatoes. Farmers must spray chemical insecticides on their plants several times
 a season to control the damage.
 Wisconsin's $ 145 million potato industry is the country's fifth largest.
 In1994 state farmers harvested a record 2.5 billion pounds of potatoes from
 71,500 acres.
 The Colorado potato beetle is the industry's No. 1 pest, farmers say, both in
 Wisconsin and elsewhere.
 ''This gives the potato complete protection,'' said Jeffrey Wyman of the
 built-in insecticide. Wyman is a UW-Madison entomologist who has conducted field
 trials with the new potato on Wisconsin farmland since 1992.
 The toxin produced by the potato kills the beetle by interfering with its
 digestive system when it consumes the plant.
 The EPA ruled last week that the B.t. plant pesticide will not pose an
 unreasonable risk to public health, other nontarget organisms or the
 environment.
 ''For the first time growers will not have to spray insecticides and natural
 predators will be left on the potato,'' Wyman said, explaining that blanket
 insecticides applied to kill the beetle also wipe out beneficial insects like
 assassin bugs and ladybird beetles that eat other pests.
 Some potato growers must spend up to $ 300 an acre to prevent the beetle from
 decimating crops, Wyman said. In Wisconsin, where growers have a national
 reputation for their innovative approaches for controlling pests, farmers spend
 about $ 30 to $ 40 an acre.
 But some say there is a troublesome downside to the transgenic potato. Organic
 farmers have traditionally sprayed the B.t. bacteria on plant leaves as a means
 of controlling bugs without chemicals. The bacteria naturally produce compounds,
 known as delta endotoxins that are toxic to certain types of insects.
 Organic farmers fear the new potato will wipe out the effectiveness of B.t.
 spray, one of the few biological insecticides.
 They and the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Washington, D.C.-based
 organization with 50,000 members, say the EPA has taken a short-sighted approach
 in its approval of the transgenic potato.
 ''The decision by EPA is premature,'' said Jane Rissler, a plant pathologist
 with the scientists' union, of the agency's approval last week. ''Widespread use
 of these crops could lead to the loss of one of the most valuable biological
 pesticides -- a possibility the EPA has done little to forestall,'' she said.
 But scientists, growers, the potato's manufacturer and even the EPA say they
 have taken the resistance problem into consideration as part of the potato's
 development.
 In issuing its preliminary approval for transgenic crops with the B.t. bacteria,
 the EPA said commercial registration will hinge on the effectiveness of Nature
 Mark's plans to manage the resistance issue.
 A spokesman for the company said it is developing a strategy for growers who use
 the B.t. potato. That plan would incorporate the potato with a variety of means
 to control pests, such as crop rotation and the use of beneficial insects, said
 John Cudnohufsky, manager of product development for Nature Mark.
 EPA is expected to grant approval of the B.t. plants for commercial sale within
 weeks.
 Wyman, of UW-Madison, says the B.t. potato may be the first genetically
 engineered product to include such a plan for growers, a regulatory approach he
 says will become more critical as more transgenic crops become available.
 ''The EPA is treating this registration quite differently than standard
 insecticides,'' he said.
 While growers are excited about the B.t. potato, they recongnize its limitations
 and are not about put all their bets on it yet. Nature Mark has so far only
 developed beetle-resistance for the Russet Burbank variety, and testing on the
 tuber continues.
 The company will use nearly 1,500 acres in Wisconsin this season to do more
 research on the product, as well as grow the seed.
 ''It is just going to be another option,'' said Okray, the Plover potato farmer.
 ''And the more safe options we have, the better off we and the consumer are
 going to be.''
 LOAD-DATE: April 12, 1995
 GRAPHIC:  State Journal photos/Meg Theno
 The Colorado potato beetle can devour a crop in a matter of days. The beetle on
 the left ate the potato leaf shown in 15 minutes.
 Jeffrey Wyman, an entomologist at UW-Madison, helped develop and test a potato
 with an internal toxin that kills the potato beetle without the need for
 chemical pesticides. Photos/UW-Madison
 Left: These are transgenic potatoes grown from seed that has a built-in
 insecticide to protect it against the potato beetle. The plants have not been
 treated with chemical pesticide. Right: These are normal potatoes in midseason
 that have not been treated with chemical insecticide.
                     Copyright 1995 Madison Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 119
 
                      Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA)
                            January 6, 1994, Thursday
 First 'Transgenic' Vegetable Crops May Soon Get Marketing
 Approval
 BYLINE: Brad Knickerbocker, Staff writer of The Christian Science
 Monitor
 SECTION: THE U. S.; NATIONAL; Pg. 4
 LENGTH: 874 words
 HIGHLIGHT: But critics warn about the unknown effects of genetic
 manipulation
 IMAGINE year-round vegetables that are attractive, tasty, and
 nutritious. Juicy and flavorful tomatoes or fresh yellow squash to
 lighten the gloom of a winter storm.
 For years this has been the goal of researchers as they worked
 toward genetically engineered crops of a better quality than those
 that evolved naturally or were bred through traditional means.
 The first such crops may get federal government approval for
 marketing within a few months. But the means of developing them -
 genetic manipulation - is a controversial one whose full
 environmental impact has not been determined.
 While boosters are enthusiastic about the potential for
 ''transgenic'' plants, critics urge a go-slow approach in light of
 possible unknown effects from the plants.
 The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a nonprofit research
 and advocacy group, recently warned that ''commercialization of
 transgenic crops poses serious environmental risks.''
 Among the risks cited in a report by UCS scientists Jane Rissler
 and Margaret Mellon is the possibility that such crops could either
 become weeds or transmit new genes to wild plants that could become
 weeds. Either scenario, they say, would mean greater reliance on
 agricultural chemicals.
 Dr. Rissler, a plant pathologist and former biotechnology
 project manager at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
 cautions against ''a tremendous number of applications to
 commercialize transgenic crops ... with no adequate regulatory
 structure to protect against their potential ecological risk.''
 Under traditional breeding methods, related organisms are
 crossed - apples with apples - to emphasize desired traits.
 Biotechnology allows mixing a wide range of genes, hence the term
 ''transgenic.''
 The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has received
 applications to field test engineered plants that use chicken genes
 to increase disease resistance in potatoes, flounder genes to
 reduce freezing damage in tomatoes, and bacteria to reduce insect
 damage in rice.
 Among the transgenic plants now under development, according to
 the UCS, are corn, cotton, cranberries, soybeans, eggplant, and
 sugar beets.
 In their report, Rissler and Dr. Mellon acknowledge:
 ''Genetically engineered crops are not inherently dangerous,'' and
 they don't dispute the safety record of initial testing.
 ''But the safety record of small-scale field tests, as welcome
 as it is, does not necessarily predict safety at a commercial
 scale,'' they write.
 Among other potential problems, Rissler and Mellon note:
 ''Plants engineered to contain virus particles will facilitate the
 creation of new viruses.'' Transgenic plants designed to produce
 drugs or pesticides, they warn, could harm other plants and
 animals.
 ''What will it mean to have a steady stream of animal and
 microbial genes entering the gene pools of plants in wild
 ecosystems?'' they ask. ''It may mean little. But, as yet, it is
 not clear that we even have the framework within which to ask the
 question.''
 Other scientists dispute these findings. Susanne Huttner,
 director of biotechnology research at the University of California
 at Davis, argues that genetic engineering allows for more precise
 and reliable genetic changes than does conventional crossbreeding.
 ''That precision and reliability enhances our knowledge of the
 kinds of modifications that are being introduced into crop plants
 and, in turn, enhances our ability to make risk assessments and
 develop risk-management strategies,'' Dr. Huttner writes in an
 analysis of the UCS report.
 Regarding genetic contamination, she notes a 1989 National
 Academy of Sciences study that found: ''When problems occur, they
 have been manageable, and, for the most part, confined to the
 managed ecosystem.''
 ''In more than 400 carefully monitored field trials in the US
 and 600 trials worldwide,'' Huttner adds, ''there has been no
 evidence of any unexpected or unwanted behavior by a genetically
 engineered plant.''
 There is considerable commercial interest in genetically
 designing marketable crops. During the past five years, most USDA
 applications to field test transgenic crops have come from
 chemical, seed, and food firms. (This, in itself, makes critics
 suspicious.)
 ''Generally, it's an application the food industry looks forward
 to benefiting from,'' says Libby Mikesell, communications director
 at the International Food Information Council.
 Contrary to what critics assert, advocates of transgenic crops
 say the result could be a reduction in the use of pesticides and
 fertilizers. The food-information council is promoting
 ''environmentally friendlier squash plants ... that do not require
 chemical sprays to combat viruses.'' And by the end of the decade,
 the industry association predicts: ''Consumers will enjoy better
 flavor and quality,'' as well as a year-round supply, no matter
 where they live.
 Despite the warning of UCS scientists and others, federal
 agencies like the USDA and the EPA seem content with current
 regulations applying to ''designer'' crops.
 It seems likely that transgenic tomatoes, squashes, and other
 products will soon be seen in the produce sections of local food
 stores.
 LOAD-DATE: January 7, 1994, Friday
 Scientists hope genetically engineered vegetables, like these
 tomatoes, will soon be available in grocery-store produce
 sections., ROBERT HARBISON - STAFF/FILE
             Copyright 1994 The Christian Science Publishing Society









Document Number: 120
 
                               The Bismarck Tribune
                            December 23, 1993 Thursday
 LENGTH: 533 words
 WASHINGTON (AP)  The government should halt approval of crops derived from
 genetic engineering until it comes up with more proof the plants won't hurt the
 environment, says a group of scientists critical of the technology. The Union of
 Concerned Scientists said in a report released Sunday that some hardier
 transgenic crops, as they are called, could create ""weeds''  plants like the
 notorious kudzu that seem to grow uncontrollably and are hard to wipe out. The
 group issued the report because several crops may soon find their way into
 commercial use.
 They include a tomato that can stay ripe longer, a squash that can resist
 viruses, and a cotton that tolerates certain herbicides. ""When you start
 talking about commercialization, you're talking about the uncontrolled and
 unmonitored use of the plants on huge numbers of acres,'' said Margaret Mellon,
 a lawyer and scientist who helped produce the report. The report noted that the
 possibility of a new kudzu, crabgrass or other weed coming out of genetic
 engineering is rare but worth guarding against. The Agriculture Department
 monitors 1,500 field tests of genetically engineered crops. But the small-scale
 trials don't look at how those crops will interact with the surrounding
 environment, the group alleges. The group urged more field tests that would put
 the crops next to their natural ""communities.'' The report also warned that too
 little is known about the risks of breeding plants to be virus-resistant or to
 produce their own pesticides. The report cautioned that some virus-resistant
 plants could make it easier for new, more resistant viruses to develop. It also
 said that plants being bred to produce drugs could poison birds or organisms
 that feed on those plants. The union generally opposes plant biotechnology on
 social and economic grounds. It says large corporations that develop the plants
 would control the world's food supply. The group favors sustainable agricultural
 practices that rely on fewer herbicides, pesticides and other artificial means.
 Other scientists dismiss the group's claims. They say transgenic crops pose less
 risk of becoming weeds than crops derived from traditional breeding. The traits
 that turn a plant into a weed won't come from the changes in one or a few genes
 that occur in bioengineering, they say, even if the new genetic material were to
 come from bacteria, fish and other animals or unrelated plants. ""The argument
 isn't new,'' said Richard N. Godown, senior vice president of the Biotechnology
 Industry Organization, an industry group. He said that plant scientists look out
 for weed characteristics already and eliminate undesirable traits when designing
 plants. New viruses are formed all the time in nature, according to the industry
 group. Plus, they say, the experiments with drug-or pesticide-producing plants
 have not created any substances that poison any but targeted pests such as
 caterpillars and beetles. The Union, however, claims there are crops closely
 enough related to weeds that a few changes in their makeup could push them over
 the edge. These include alfalfa, barley, lettuce, oats, potatoes, sorghum and
 wheat, as well as relatives of cucumbers and broccoli.
 LOAD-DATE: May 9, 2006
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
        Copyright 1993 The Bismarck Tribune, a division of Lee Enterprises
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 121
 
                                The New York Times
                 December 21, 1993, Tuesday, Late Edition - Final
 Science Group Asks Delay on Gene-Altered Foods
 BYLINE: By KEITH SCHNEIDER
 SECTION: Section A; Page 23; Column 1; National Desk
 LENGTH: 807 words
 With the first two genetically engineered crops a few months away from American
 food stores, a scientific policy organization called on the Government yesterday
 to delay commercial approval until the United States better understands the
 potential risks the plants may pose to the environment.
 In a study intended to provoke the Clinton Administration into reconsidering
 policies that were instituted in the Reagan and Bush years, the organization,
 the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that the new plant technologies were not
 being adequately controlled by the Government.
 Responding to the study, Greg Simon, the Administration's top biotechnology
 policy coordinator, said most of the issues it raised had been debated
 extensively within the Government and among scientists.
 "The Department of Agriculture has done a very good job with the review of
 genetically engineered plants and on the environmental assessments of those
 plants," said Mr. Simon, the chief domestic policy adviser for Vice President Al
 Gore.
 Roger Salquist, the chief executive officer of Calgene Inc., a plant
 biotechnology company in Davis, Calif., said that since 1986, when the
 Government instituted new procedures for testing genetically engineered plants
 outdoors, not a single experiment had indicated that the crops were an
 environmental threat. "If there had been even the slightest problems, they would
 have appeared in one of those tests," said Mr. Salquist, whose company developed
 a new tomato that is awaiting approval by the Food and Drug Administration so it
 can be marketed.
 An F.D.A. spokesman said yesterday that the agency was expected to complete its
 review some time in the next two weeks, and the new tomato could be in food
 stores in a few months. A variety of squash is also near final approval.
 The study, "Perils Amidst the Promise," is part of a new project at the Union of
 Concerned Scientists to identify technologies and develop policies to help make
 modern agriculture less destructive of the environment. In a preface, the
 chairman of the group, Henry W. Kendall, said he hoped the report would provoke
 "serious public discussion of whether transgenic crops are likely to advance or
 retard progress towards a more sustainable agriculture."
 In the study, Dr. Margaret G. Mellon, a molecular virologist, and Dr. Jane
 Rissler, a plant pathologist, indicated that they had doubts that biotechnology
 would be as safe as the Government and the industry have said. Both scientists
 recently moved to the Union of Concerned Scientists from the National Wildlife
 Federation, one of the nation's largest conservation groups, where they were
 well-known critics of biotechnology.
 Among the many concerns that Dr. Mellon and Dr. Rissler raised about the safety
 of plant biotechnology were two basic issues: the unknown effects of using
 genetic material from plant viruses, and the possibility of creating plants that
 were so hearty they could become pests themselves.
 They said scientists are inserting genes from plant viruses into crops as a way
 of enhancing immunity to plant diseases. Dr. Mellon and Dr. Rissler argue that
 not nearly enough research has been conducted to say whether the technique is
 entirely safe, especially when used on a commercial scale of thousands of acres
 of new crops. There is the potential, they said, for genetic engineering to lead
 to the formation of new plant viruses that threaten crops across an entire
 region.
 "There are experiments you could do to determine whether risks are real or not,"
 said Dr. Mellon. "We are not doing them. We are assuming the risks are
 nonexistent, and with a technology this new, that's not good enough."
 Dr. Rod Townsend, a plant pathologist, and director of regulatory affairs at
 Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a crop breeding company in Des Moines, said that
 scientists had studied this issue and that field testing of crops with viral
 genes had not produced any problems.
 Dr. Mellon's and Dr. Rissler's second main concern involved the potential
 creation of a sort of super plant that could outcompete its natural relatives
 and itself become a weed. The two scientists urged the Government to require
 more extensive testing to prevent such a possibility.
 Since 1987, the Department of Agriculture has regulated the outdoor testing of
 genetically engineered crops. The department reports that in that time, almost
 500 such crops have been field tested and none have resulted in environmental
 damage.
 But Dr. Mellon said the field tests had been conducted under conditions too
 carefully prescribed to determine long-range environmental risks. For instance,
 if the Government was interested in knowing whether a genetically engineered
 crop might become a weed, it should require that some plants be placed at the
 edges of a field near real weeds.
 LOAD-DATE: December 21, 1993
                    Copyright 1993 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 122
 
                         The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon)
                               July 6, 1993 Tuesday
                                  FOURTH Edition
 BYLINE: WILLIAM K. STEVENS, New York Times News Service <
 SECTION: FOODDAY; Pg. FD03
 LENGTH: 684 words
 Tuesday, July 6, 1993 BRITISH STUDY FINDS GENETICALLY ALTERED PLANT HAS NO
 Summary:
 Project may become prototype for testing
 British ecologists have found that a genetically engineered crop poses no  more
 risk to the environment than the natural, unmodified version.
 The experiment was reported in the journal Nature by Dr. Michael J.  Crawley, an
 ecologist at Imperial College on the outskirts of London, and four colleagues.
 As Crawley said in an interview, the fear has been that genetic  engineering
 might ``create monsters that would do wholly unexpected things.''
 They conducted a three-year study of oilseed rape, from which canola oil is
 derived and whose potential to spread into natural habitats has caused
 particular concern.
 Environmentalists fear the transgenic plants could run rampant, crowding  out
 wild plant species at a time when many are already threatened with  extinction.
 Some agricultural experts disagree, saying that crops have long  been altered
 through classic breeding techniques with no such consequences.  But proving
 either case has been difficult.
 The scientists sowed both genetically altered and unaltered seeds of  oilseed
 rape in 12 spots in three areas of England and Scotland, then compared their
 behavior for three growing seasons.
 - Prototype method
 Some biotechnology experts say the experiment could be the prototype of a
 general method for testing the ecological impact of transgenic plants, thereby
 transforming an argument that has often rested more on assertion than  evidence.
 By providing a rigorous way to assess the ecological risk posed by  transgenic
 plants, the pioneering British study will bring the debate ``into  the realm of
 rational discourse,'' Dr. Peter Kareiva, an ecologist at the  University of
 Washington, wrote in a commentary in Nature.
 The report comes at a fortunate time for the United States, he said, since  the
 Department of Agriculture recently published a new set of guidelines  requiring
 that before a transgenic crop can be approved for the market, firm  evidence
 must be produced that it poses no greater risk than the unmodified  plant from
 which it is derived.
 Although more than 370 permits for field trials of transgenic plants have  been
 issued, no such crop is yet on the market. One, the Flavr Savr tomato  created
 by Calgene Inc. of Davis, Calif., has been approved for the market by  USDA. The
 tomato has been genetically altered to slow the ripening process and retard
 spoilage. Calgene said it hopes to market the tomato this year, but is  waiting
 for the Food and Drug Administration to approve it as safe for  consumers.
 The scientists believed that the modified and unmodified plants would  behave in
 the same manner. By measuring the germination rate of the seeds and  the growth
 rate of the plants, the scientists confirmed their hypothesis.  Under no set of
 conditions did the transgenic plants exhibit different rates  of population
 growth from the unmodified ones.
 - No harm seen
 The bottom line, Crawley said, is that there are ``no convincing data at  all
 that genetic engineering increased the invasive tendency of the oilseed  rape in
 any of the ecological characteristics we measured.''
 But Crawley warned it would be prudent to reserve judgment on the risks  posed
 by other crop species or different genetic manipulations. For instance,  plants
 modified to enhance their resistance to drought or insect pests might  have a
 competitive advantage if they escaped from a farm field into a natural
 ecosystem.
 Moreover, Kareiva said, risks other than invasiveness must be considered,
 including the possibility that genes could escape through pollen dispersal and
 enhance the vigor of existing, fast-spreading weeds. He wrote that ``by no
 means'' do the results of the Crawley experiment ``provide definitive answers
 for genetically engineered crops in general.''
 Dr. Val Giddings, a USDA biotechnology authority, called the Crawley paper
 ``significant'' but said it contained no major breakthrough. He said it
 confirmed conclusions that USDA scientists had already reached based on other
 data.
 LOAD-DATE: April 5, 2006
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                           Copyright 1993 The Oregonian
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 123
 
                                The New York Times
                   June 22, 1993, Tuesday, Late Edition - Final
 Are Gene-Altered Plants an Ecological Threat? Test Is Devised
 BYLINE: By WILLIAM K. STEVENS
 SECTION: Section C; Page 4; Column 1; Science Desk; The Environment Page
 LENGTH: 1404 words
 GENETICALLY engineered crops may eventually bring about an agricultural
 revolution, but they continue to provoke spirited argument about their potential
 effects on natural ecosystems.
 Environmentalists fear the transgenic plants could run rampant, crowding out
 wild plant species at a time when many are already threatened with extinction.
 Some agricultural experts disagree, pointing out that crops have long been
 altered through classic breeding techniques with no such consequences. But
 proving either case has been difficult.
 Now British ecologists have found that a genetically engineered crop called
 oilseed rape, whose potential to colonize natural habitats has caused particular
 concern, is no more invasive than the natural, unmodified version.
 The scientists sowed both genetically altered and unaltered seeds of oilseed
 rape, from which canola oil is derived, in 12 natural habitats under a variety
 of ecological conditions in three widely separated areas of England and
 Scotland, then compared their behavior for three growing seasons.
 The study, reported in the current issue of the British journal Nature, is said
 to be the first in which transgenic plants have been intentionally grown in
 natural habitats and the largest field study of a plant population ever
 reported.
 Some biotechnology experts say the experiment could be the prototype of a
 general method for testing the ecological impact of transgenic plants, thereby
 transforming an argument that has often rested more on assertion than evidence.
 Test Seen as Milestone
 By providing a rigorous way to assess the ecological risk posed by transgenic
 plants, the pioneering British study will bring the debate "into the realm of
 rational discourse," Dr. Peter Kareiva, an ecologist at the University of
 Washington in Seattle, wrote in a commentary in Nature.
 The experiment itself was reported by Dr. Michael J. Crawley, an ecologist at
 Imperial College on the outskirts of London, and four colleagues. Dr. Kareiva
 called the report a "landmark paper."
 "You go to conferences and people just argue and argue" about the impact of
 transgenic plants on natural ecosystems, Dr. Kareiva said in an interview. "This
 shows you can answer the question with a good experiment."
 The report comes at a fortunate time for the United States, he said, since the
 Department of Agriculture recently published a new set of guidelines requiring
 that before a transgenic crop can be approved for the market, firm evidence must
 be produced that it poses no greater risk than the unmodified plant from which
 it is derived.
 Although more than 370 permits for field trials of transgenic plants have been
 issued, no such crop is yet on the market. One, the "Flavr Savr" tomato created
 by Calgene Inc., a biotechnology company in California, has been approved for
 the market by the Agriculture Department. The tomato has been genetically
 altered to slow the ripening process and retard spoilage, Calgene hopes to
 market the tomato this year, but is waiting for the Food and Drug Administration
 to approve it as safe for consumers.
 Dr. Crawley and his colleagues set out to test the invasive properties of
 transgenic plants directly. They sowed some 2,000 seeds each in the spring of
 1990, 1991 and 1992. The sowings took place in Cornwall in southwest England,
 where winters are mild and the growing season starts early; in Berkshire in
 southeast England, where winters are cold and summers dry, and in Sutherland in
 northeast Scotland, where the growing season starts late and summer days are
 long.
 In each locality, four habitats typical of the region were selected for the
 experiment -- Cornish heath, for instance, and Scottish moors and Berkshire
 grassland. The habitats were selected further to provide contrasts of sun and
 shade, wetness and dryness.
 In each habitat the same procedures were followed. Both unmodified seeds and
 seeds that had been genetically modified to resist an antibiotic and a herbicide
 were sown. Neither antibiotics nor herbicides were actually applied to the
 plots, since the purpose of the experiment was simply to test whether the
 process of genetic modification itself would give the plant an unexpected
 advantage. As Dr. Crawley put it in an interview, the fear has been that genetic
 engineering might "create monsters that would do wholly unexpected things."
 Each habitat was divided into plots in which different ecological conditions
 were manipulated. Some, for example, were fenced against plant-eaters like
 rabbits and deer while others were not. Some were plowed and cultivated, some
 not. Still others were treated against pests and fungi, and some were not.
 Sixteen different biological manipulations of this sort were carried out in each
 habitat. The object, said Dr. Crawley, was to create growing conditions ranging
 from "extremely benign" to "extremely hostile" for both transgenic and
 unmodified plants.
 "It was an incredible setup," said Dr. Kareiva.
 The hypothesis was that the modified and unmodified plants would behave the
 same. By measuring the germination rate of the seeds and the growth rate of the
 plants, the scientists found their hypothesis borne out: under no set of
 conditions did the transgenic plants exhibit different rates of population
 growth from the modified ones.
 The bottom line, Dr. Crawley said, is that there are "no convincing data at all
 that genetic engineering increased the invasive tendency of the oilseed rape in
 any of the ecological characteristics we measured."
 Warning on Misinterpretation
 But Dr. Crawley warned that it would be prudent to reserve judgment on the risks
 posed by other crop species or different genetic manipulations. For instance,
 plants modified to enhance their resistance to drought or insect pests might
 have a competitive advantage if they escaped from a farm field into a natural
 ecosystem.
 Moreover, Dr. Kareiva said, risks other than invasiveness must be considered,
 including the possibility that genes could escape through pollen dispersal and
 enhance the vigor of existing, fast-spreading weeds. He wrote that "by no means"
 do the results of the Crawley experiment "provide definitive answers for
 genetically engineered crops in general."
 But, he said, the experiment shows the way toward the development of testing
 procedures that for the first time can assess the ecological risks of any given
 transgenic plant. Much work nevertheless remains before operational testing
 protocols, as they are called, can be derived from the British work.
 "The Crawley study is an excellent prototype, but further methods development is
 warranted," said Dr. Julie Lindemann, a plant pathologist for the Calgene
 company who specializes in regulatory matters. "We don't think it means every
 company should have to go out and do a three-year study to duplicate Crawley,"
 she went on, explaining that the testing procedure should be pared down to focus
 on critical elements. "That doesn't mean the Crawley study wasn't good," she
 said. "It was fabulous. But in terms of regulatory requirements we think there
 can be some streamlining."
 Dr. Val Giddings, a biotechnology expert at the Agriculture Department, called
 the Crawley paper "significant" but said that in his opinion it contained no
 major new breakthrough. He said it confirmed conclusions that departmental
 scientists had already reached based on other data, "and does so in a way that I
 think is irrefutable."
 He said the canola crop had widely been expected "to be the most problematic"
 among major global crops with respect to its ability to colonize natural
 habitats. But the Crawley study, he said, showed that "this is in fact unlikely,
 and indeed much less likely than many had supposed."
 Both Dr. Kareiva and Dr. Crawley believe the British experiment is indicative of
 the role population ecologists can play in addressing important environmental
 problems. It shows, Dr. Crawley said, that "ecologists aren't people interested
 in recycling aluminum cans; that they're scientists with a body of theory that
 enables them to make predictions."
 Academic ecologists, Dr. Kareiva wrote, are renowned for arguing among
 themselves about all the things they do not know. "But when it comes to
 designing an experiment to measure invasiveness or community impacts, or
 quantifying the likelihood of gene escape, population biologists and ecologists
 know what to do," he said.
 LOAD-DATE: June 30, 1993
 GRAPHIC: Diagram: "Field Trials for a Valuable Plant"
 In an experiment to measure the invasiveness of a genetically engineered plant,
 it was grown under a variety of carefully calibrated circumstances in 16
 combinations of ecological conditions in 12 natural habitats in three areas of
 England and Scotland.
 (Source: Nature)
                    Copyright 1993 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 124
 
                         The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon)
                               May 25, 1993 Tuesday
                                  SECOND Edition
 BYLINE: The Associated Press
 SECTION: NORTHWEST; Pg. C10
 LENGTH: 429 words
 DATELINE: PULLMAN, Wash.
 Tuesday, May 25, 1993 PEA GENE FIGHTS A KILLER FUNGUS, KEEPS SPUD EYES OPEN
 Summary: Washington State University researchers cite longer potato  life and an
 increased yield
 A gene that Washington State University researchers have transferred from  split
 peas to two varieties of potatoes could improve the potato's resistance  to a
 fungal disease and boost yields, WSU officials say.
 The gene gives potatoes added protection against verticillium wilt, a  soilborne
 disease caused by fungus, WSU said in a statement.
 The disease is found in most temperate regions of the world. In the Pacific
 Northwest, it affects crops ranging from potatoes to eggplant and roses.
 A team of WSU scientists, led by plant pathologist Lee Hadwiger,  transferred a
 gene present in split peas to both Russet Burbank and Shepody  potatoes, WSU
 said.
 Under field conditions, the gene has added two more weeks of life to potato
 plants before they succumb to the disease, Hadwiger said.
 ``Any time that you can add to the life of the potato after tubers start to
 develop, you can potentially increase yield,'' Hadwiger said.
 In field tests last year at a WSU agricultural research center in Prosser,
 Shepody potatoes with the resistance gene produced yields in soil with the
 disease-causing fungus that in some cases were double those of unprotected
 potatoes.
 Hadwiger cautioned that more research is needed.
 ``It's hard to predict how this small test will translate to a larger
 acreage,'' he said.
 Shepody potatoes are commonly used to produce french fries, and account for
 about 10 percent of Washington's potato tonnage.
 Research on the effect of the pea gene in Russets still is in its infancy.  The
 variety accounts for 70 percent of Washington's $300 million-a-year potato
 industry, said Robert Thornton, a WSU extension horticulturist.
 ``We don't yet have the data to indicate if the Russet Burbank containing  the
 pea gene will perform in field tests,'' Hadwiger said.
 The extra resistance could allow farmers of Russet Burbank potatoes to  reduce
 the amount of nitrogen fertilizer and pesticides needed to protect  their crops,
 Thornton said.
 Potatoes with the pea gene will be planted in a demonstration plot near  Othello
 this year to show growers what the transgenic crop looks like and find out how
 the engineered potato reacts to other diseases.
 Verticillium wilt clogs the vascular system of host plants and blocks  movement
 of water, causing the plants to turn yellow and die prematurely. In  potatoes,
 the disease spreads as tubers are still developing, stopping growth  and
 reducing yields.
 LOAD-DATE: April 5, 2006
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                           Copyright 1993 The Oregonian
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 125
 
                       The Atlanta Journal and Constitution
                           September 26, 1992, Saturday
 WHEN BUGS FIGHT BACK An Occasional Series Herbicide-resistant weeds a serious
 threat to agricultural yields Experts work on tougher crops, chemicals
 BYLINE: By Mike Toner STAFF WRITERhorticulture; reviews; science; aid;
 technology; organizations; atlanta/journal/constitution; series; environment
 SECTION: SCIENCE; Section E; Page 1
 LENGTH: 1375 words
 Weeds have been the object of farmers' wrath since biblical times, when they
 used salt brine and ashes to sterilize their fields. Since the introduction of
 organic herbicides in the 1940s, however, farmers have grown increasingly
 dependent on chemicals to control the weeds that strangle their crops, deplete
 the soil, and impede the harvest.
 But the more farmers use these "chemical hoes," the tougher the weeds have
 become. A decade ago, 12 weed species were resistant to herbicides. Today, more
 than 100 species are resistant and the number is still growing.
 Some experts believe that by the mid-1990s, resistant weeds will be a more
 serious threat to agriculture than insecticide-resistant pests. Within the last
 few years, in fact, farmers have already encountered the first "megaweeds" -
 hardy species that can resist as many as seven herbicides.
 In Australia, more than 1 million acres of wheat have been invaded by
 multiresistant ryegrass, which reduces yields by 30 percent to 50 percent. In
 parts of southeastern Australia, farmers have run out of herbicides that work.
 "There are a couple of thousand large wheat farms in Australia where ryegrass
 can no longer be controlled," says Jonathan Gressel, a plant geneticist at
 Israel's Weizmann Institute of Science. "They can't get rid of it, and the
 problem is growing exponentially."
 Dr. Gressel says the emergence of superweeds to other wheat-growing regions
 -Russia, China, Canada and the United States - could seriously undermine
 production of one of mankind's most important food crops.
 Potential for problems
 U.S. farmers are already getting a taste of what can happen when weeds fight
 back. And no segment of agriculture is immune. Wheat farmers in the Great Plains
 are having trouble controlling herbicide-resistant tumbleweeds.
 Atrazine-resistant pigweed has invaded 1 million acres of crops in the Middle
 Atlantic states. And trifluralin-resistant goose grass, a major pest of cotton,
 is being reported with increasing frequency throughout the South, including
 Georgia.
 "Herbicide-resistant weeds have the potential to become a tremendous problem in
 world agriculture," says Ronald L. Ritter, a weed control specialist at the
 University of Maryland. "We're still ahead of things, but the way we use
 herbicides, it's only a matter of time."
 Many experts say farmers' overuse of herbicides has accelerated the problem.
 U.S. farmers treat 250 million acres of land a year with 500 million pounds of
 weedkillers. Herbicide use has doubled in the last decade, but the damage done
 by weeds has barely changed. Farmers are still losing about 10 percent of their
 harvest to old enemies such as pigweed, foxtail and lamb's-quarters.
 Virtually every commercial crop in the country is sprayed with herbicides at
 least once a year. But because 80 percent of all weedkilling chemicals in the
 country are used on corn and soybeans, the Midwest is a classic example of how
 the race with weeds has become a technological treadmill.
 Ground water contaminated
 Because the earliest weedkillers, such as 2,4-D, were difficult to use in
 densely planted rows, farmers switched to spraying the soil with pre-emergence
 weedkillers. The newer herbicides, called triazines, were more convenient to use
 - and far more persistent.
 They not only lingered in the soil, but in the water. Triazine herbicides have
 contaminated ground water beneath millions of acres of farmland. And they were
 so widely used over the last decade that 55 species of weeds developed
 resistance to them.
 As a result, many Midwestern farmers are switching to a new class of herbicides
 called imidazolinones. They are reliable and, in comparison to earlier
 herbicides, relatively low in toxicity. Because they persist in the soil for
 months at a time, a single treatment can give farmers lasting weed control.
 In their rush to embrace these new compounds, however, farmers have stumbled
 onto a new problem. Under some conditions, the herbicides are too persistent.
 Used in soybean fields one year, they can linger in the soil so long that they
 stunt corn planted in the same field the following year. In a region where tens
 of millions of acres are rotated each year from soybeans to corn, the potential
 for damage is enormous.
 Crops resisting weedkiller
 Rather than change chemicals or the way they are used, however, industry is
 planning to change the crop. This year, two major seed companies - Pioneer
 Hi-Bred International and ICI Seeds - began selling the first corn that not only
 will tolerate the herbicide residue from last year's soybean fields, but will
 enable farmers to spray corn with the same chemical - which once would have
 ruined it.
 This year's plantings of imidazolinone-resistant corn were relatively small -
 100,000 acres in seven states. But before long, herbicide-resistant corn could
 be growing on millions of acres.
 Good news? Weed experts don't think so. Midwestern farmers have traditionally
 enjoyed a slight edge in the race against weeds because when they rotated crops
 each year, they also rotated herbicides. Each year, any weeds that had developed
 resistance to one herbicide were thrown off balance.
 "Herbicide-resistant crops could make things worse," says Jack Dekker, a
 biologist at Iowa State University. "Some acreage will almost continuously be
 exposed to the same chemical. We can predict what's going to happen. Sometime in
 the next three to five years, the weeds are going to develop very severe
 resistance."
 Jane Rissler, a biotechnology specialist with the National Wildlife Federation,
 contends that herbicide-resistant crops are merely a "ruse" by industry to
 increase herbicide use.
 Far-reaching implications
 American Cyanamid, the leading manufacturer of imidazolinone herbicides,
 routinely warns farmers not to use the same chemicals year after year. Cyanamid,
 however, has worked closely with Pioneer to develop the current strains of
 herbicide-resistant corn and is now seeking federal approval to expand the use
 of the compounds from soybeans to corn.
 The issue has far-reaching implications. Although the herbicide- resistant corn
 now being harvested in the Midwest is the product of conventional breeding
 techniques, at least 27 companies are developing new generations of crops that
 have been genetically engineered to tolerate herbicides.
 Dozens of "transgenic" crops - herbicide-resistant flax, raspberries, soybeans,
 tobacco and tomatoes - have already been field- tested. Some of them, including
 a herbicide-resistant strain of transgenic cotton, may be ready for commercial
 use as early as next year.
 "The widespread adoption of herbicide-tolerant crops will mean increased
 applications of the herbicides to which the crops are tolerant," says Rebecca
 Goldburg, a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund.
 Congressional critics - led by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Al Gore
 (D-Tenn.) - want to slow the development of herbicide- resistant crops by
 halting all federal support for such research, which currently totals more than
 $ 8 million a year. So far, they haven't made a dent in the work.
 Trade group urges caution
 But even the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, a trade group that
 favors such research, wants industry to proceed cautiously in introducing
 herbicide-resistant crops - lest it backfire in the war on weeds.
 Some experts fear that genetically engineered herbicide resistance in crops
 could sow the seeds of a superweed disaster in an entirely unpredictable way: on
 the wind.
 Once encapsulated in a seed, the secrets of herbicide resistance that took some
 laboratory years to perfect become subject to nature's whims. Nature knows no
 patents. And when it comes to useful genes, nature believes in spreading the
 wealth around.
 "Many weeds share characteristics with the crops they thrive in - such as wild
 oats in cultivated oats, or wild mustards in rapeseed," says Dr. Dekker.
 "In any species that produces pollen, there are a lot of genes flowing around in
 a field, so there's always a chance that a resistance gene from one of these
 herbicide-resistant crops will find its way into a weed that we need to control.
 All it would take is one little event to create a new weed."
 LOAD-DATE: September 29, 1992
                     Copyright 1992 The Atlanta Constitution









Document Number: 126
 
                      Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA)
                           September 4, 1991, Wednesday
 'Engineered' Plants Are Put to Field Tests
 BYLINE: Christopher Andreae, Special to The Christian Science Monitor
 SECTION: SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY; Pg. 12
 LENGTH: 1286 words
 British researchers try to determine if transgenic crop strains present risks
 when released in a natural environment
 'PROSAMO" may sound like some sort of Japanese martial art or a pasta dish, but
 it's far from any such thing. It is a large-scale scientific program set up in
 Britain to assess certain risks that may - or may not - attend the release of
 genetically engineered organisms, such as crop plants like potatoes, maize, or
 oil-seed rape (canola).
 PROSAMO, which stands for Planned Release of Selected and Manipulated Organisms,
 is a four-year study, half funded by the British government and half by a
 consortium of interested companies, including Dupont and Imperial Chemical
 Industries (ICI).
 Some 60,000 seeds of canola, engineered to include a marker gene to render them
 resistant to Basta, a herbicide, and kanomycin, an antibiotic, have been sown by
 hand in four different British locations with a wide variety of conditions. The
 attention to detail is remarkable: In 25 meter-square sites, nine seeds are sown
 in each 25-centimeter square, each of which has two metal tags.
 "What's different about this experiment," says Jonathan Thomas, project
 coordinator, "is that it is released into a natural environment, as opposed to
 released onto a farm field." Other field studies of transgenic crop plants - and
 there have been many in the United States and Europe - are designed "to check
 that products worked - that they were disease-resistant for instance. Our study
 ignores that," Mr. Thomas says.
 The PROSAMO sites where the plants are being grown are woodland, marsh, downs
 grassland, and so on, sometimes cultivated, sometimes fenced, but not farm
 fields. At each site, four kinds of habitat are used - wet, dry, shady, and
 sunny. Some of the plants have received fungicide treatment, some insecticide.
 "The experiment is to check that the transgenic plants don't become persistent"
 in the wild, Thomas says. There has to date been no similar assessment
 experiment, certainly not on such a scale.
 Halfway through the experiment (though the plots will continue to be watched for
 a total of seven years), results so far, says Michael Crawley, "have given us no
 cause for concern." Dr. Crawley, who is in charge of the assessment, is a plant
 ecologist of London's Imperial College.
 Results at the end of the first year showed that "the transgenic rape plants
 behaved exactly the same as the nontransgenic ones... In no case did the
 transgenics produce, for example, more seed or survive better or germinate more
 freely. There has been no trend in a direction of them being more of a
 nuisance."
 Interviewed at Imperial College's outpost at Ascot, Berkshire (where one of the
 sites is - the other two are in Cornwall and Scotland), Crawley discussed his
 PROSAMO project at length. The risks being examined, he points out, are
 "conjectural." He names three: that transgenic plants might be a nuisance - more
 unruly - as crops. That they might become invasive of natural habitats in a way
 that nontransgenics do not. That they might transfer, through pollen, their
 transgenic attributes, to a related species that might then become more of a
 nuisance than it currently is (this is being assessed in another part of the
 PROSAMO program).
 Crawley is certain that only experiments outdoors can tell you what the relative
 size of such risks might be. "To do the work in the field is the only serious
 way to test these ecological questions," he says. "Not to do it in one place in
 one year, but to do it in many places over many years."
 What is being followed is a "step-by-step approach." The next question will be
 "to what extent you can generalize ... from a limited number of study sites to a
 wider geographic realm." Once such transgenic seeds have been let out on the
 commercial market, they are, according to Crawley, "going to get into far more
 places than they have ever got, even in the most thorough, comprehensive
 risk-assessment experiments."
 But the specific ones being tested, according to Keith Pike, spokesman for ICI's
 seeds division, have little or no commercial potential as such: They have been
 chosen simply because they were readily available in large numbers. Rigorous
 forms of legislation are being enacted in Britain to ensure caution, though in
 fact the European Community (EC) is the larger deciding body in this part of the
 world. Whether or not tests made in the British climate would be considered
 adequate to determine the behavior of plants in, for example, a Mediterranean
 climate like Spain's, remains an important and unanswered question.
 "What is needed," Crawley argues, "is world legislation. Once a seed is
 released, it will go everywhere. One country releasing transgenic seed could be
 responsible for problems in another country where tests have not been made."
 Though public fears can be characterized as "the triffid syndrome" (a fictional
 fantasy of plants getting grotesquely out of hand), Crawley nevertheless does
 acknowledge that "the environmental consequences are potentially very great if
 anything did go wrong with transgenic plants. When plants get out of hand, they
 do so in a big way." He cites strawberry guava on Hawaii, for example. It was
 introduced as a crop and is now seriously invasive of natural habitats. In other
 words, "we should be very cautious about plant introductions of all sorts. Not
 only transgenic plants... When plants do get out of hand, there is no
 cost-effective way of controlling them. People always imagine that because
 plants are big, you just go around and pull them up! People can be naive and
 have quite the wrong impression of what a serious weed problem is like."
 On the other hand, says Crawley, "the scientists who are making the products
 certainly don't think they are in any way hazardous, and they argue from
 evolutionary grounds." He refers to "the genetic baggage hypothesis." This means
 that "all changes in an organism that are caused by genetic changes have a cost:
 Organisms only have a certain number of resources. And if you put them into
 something new, it means you are taking them out of something else. For example,
 if you made a plant more herbicide resistant, this would tend to make it less
 competitive in other ways. The only conditions in which it will be more
 competitive will be those very special ones that you have modified."
 Herbicide resistance is certainly one aim of transgenic-plant production.
 "That's got a lot of publicity," Crawley observes. "It's a commercial fact of
 life," he agrees, "that some chemical companies that make the seeds will also
 sell the herbicide." The companies argue, however, that such seeds available to
 farmers would mean they will not need to use so much herbicide. But the gains
 may be modest. Keith Pike of ICI does not think there will be dramatic
 reductions in herbicide use because of transgenic-plant production.
 Crawley says that the real environmental benefits from genetic engineering "come
 in the much longer term. When, for example, you make a transgenic crop plant
 which requires virtually no chemical inputs." And "drought resistance would be a
 tremendous environmental benefit. And more complicated things like nitrogen
 fixation." Legumes can fix nitrogen by having a symbiosis in their roots with
 bacteria. "Now it would be wonderful if you could take that biochemical
 machinery and put it, say, into maize. Then third-world farmers could grow crops
 of maize without fertilizers. That's a worthy aim. But it's turned out to be
 much more difficult to move whole suites of genes from one thing to another" (as
 would be required in this case). "So that's many, many years away."
 All the same, by the phrase "many, many years," he confesses, he might mean
 "perhaps five years. In terms of the pace of technology, that's a very long
 time."
 SUBJECT: Interview--Michael Crawley GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS(91%);
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO: CANOLA: Oil-seed rape, like these plants growing in Britain, is
 one of the genetically altered crops being tested for potential hazards in
 field-grown conditions., NEAL J. MENSCHEL - STAFF
             Copyright 1991 The Christian Science Publishing Society
 total 321 documents









Document Number: 127
 
                               The Washington Post
                             March 9, 2011 Wednesday
                                 Regional Edition
 Lawmakers fear fast approval of genetically altered salmon
 BYLINE: Rob Hotakainen
 SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A21
 LENGTH: 703 words
 Fearing for the wild salmon industry in the Northwest, Sen. Patty Murray
 (D-Wash.) wants to stop the Food and Drug Administration from making a quick
 decision on whether to approve genetically modified Atlantic salmon for human
 consumption.
 Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) says that Congress cannot allow "these alien fish to
 infect our stocks."
 Murray and Young are part of a growing bipartisan coalition on Capitol Hill that
 is out to stop a Massachusetts biotechnology company from winning federal
 approval to sell its fast-growing fish, which critics are calling "Frankenfish."
 "I'm very concerned this is being rushed through with massive potential for
 negative ramifications," Murray said.
 Two pieces of legislation have been introduced in Congress: One would ban the
 fish outright, and the other would require it to be labeled as transgenic if the
 FDA approves it.
 The legislation has the backing of 64 environmental and other organizations,
 including fishing associations, retailers and the Center for Food Safety, an
 advocacy group.
 Andrew Kimbrell, the center's executive director, said Congress "has to step in
 to correct the failures of the Obama administration," which he criticized for
 allowing the FDA to proceed.
 "FDA's decision to go ahead with this approval process is misguided and
 dangerous for consumers, the environment and our economy," he said.
 But the fish are not without their fans.
 In November, Time magazine named the genetically engineered salmon one of the
 top 50 inventions of 2010, noting that Americans love to eat salmon but that
 wild populations are dwindling.
 That prompted a letter to the editor from Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), who
 chided the magazine for its selection.
 "Want more salmon?" he asked. "Here's a better idea: Protect its natural
 habitat, maintain water quality and manage wild stocks for sustainability.
 That's what Alaska has done for over 50 years."
 AquaBounty Technologies, the company that is seeking FDA approval, says the fish
 are safe and would not require labels because they would be indistinguishable
 from other salmon.
 Company officials said the eggs from the genetically modified fish include a
 growth-hormone gene from the Pacific chinook salmon, giving them the advantage
 of growing to market size in half the time of conventional salmon.
 "In all other respects, AquAdvantage salmon are identical to other Atlantic
 salmon," the company says on its Web site.
 The FDA has held a public hearing but has not said when it will make a decision.
 It is the first time it is considering an application for a genetically
 engineered animal intended for consumption, the agency said.
 Genetically modified plants, including corn and soybeans, are already grown and
 consumed in the United States.
 The chief sponsors of the bills are Young and Begich, who represent a state
 where the issue has become particularly potent. Last month, House of
 Representatives Democrats from the Alaska State Legislature introduced a
 resolution that urged the FDA to deny any application to sell genetically
 modified fish.
 When Begich introduced his legislation in January, he said the fish were called
 Frankenfish for good reason, describing them as "a monster that threatens our
 wild stocks and their habitat, our food safety" and does economic harm to
 Alaska's wild salmon fishermen.
 Murray, who is co-sponsoring both bills, called the salmon industry "extremely
 important to the Northwest, both from an economic standpoint and a cultural
 standpoint."
 "And it's a health issue," she said. "I do not want to see FDA rush through a
 rule that can undermine our economy and this important resource for Washington
 state - and actually for the world - without very thoughtful, smart decisions."
 Murray and Begich are three of 11 senators who support the legislation,
 according to the Organic Consumers Association. There are 31 supporters in the
 U.S. House of Representatives.
 The 11 senators have written to the FDA complaining that its review of the
 genetically modified fish has involved far too little scrutiny.
 If the FDA approves the fish and Congress does not ban them, Murray said,
 lawmakers should insist on labeling.
 "You have a right to know what you're buying - absolutely," she said.
 - McClatchy-Tribune
 LOAD-DATE: March 9, 2011
 DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2011 The Washington Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 128
 
                          The Christian Science Monitor
                               March 7, 2011 Monday
 Letters to the Editor - Weekly Issue of February 14, 2011;
 Readers write in about the book "O: A Presidential Novel" with a defense for O's
 elitism, the perils of genetically modified food, and the need to rethink gun
 control.
 LENGTH: 432 words
 In defense of O's 'elitism'
 In Josh Burek's Feb. 7 review ("A tart, perceptive 'history' of the 2012 race")
 of the book "O: A Presidential Novel," he says that the anonymous author's
 "psychological photorealism takes a toll, betraying O's insufferable elitism
 even in its praise." The book quotes O (the president) as believing, "It was
 always going to be hard, delicate work to convince Americans they needed
 government to protect them from themselves and not just criminals and natural
 calamities and foreign enemies."
 I see this sentiment less as elitism, but realism. The American electorate
 perseverates about the role of government and votes on our abstract fears and
 angers, forgetting the needed and actual role of government in educating our
 children, maintaining our transportation systems, providing sound monetary
 policy, and ensuring a just society. The fact that our leader is disappointed in
 us should cause us to reflect on ourselves.
 I can sympathize with O - a brilliant man trying to solve massive global and
 domestic problems. He must often feel that he is trying to nail jello to a tree
 when he tries to govern.
 Rachel Roy
 Claremont, Calif.
 GM food isn't the answer
 Regarding the Jan. 31 editorial, "Sowing less-expensive food," the contention
 that genetic engineering can "safely" increase yields is not supported by many
 scientific reports. There has been little testing of genetically modified (GM)
 food on humans, and there are plenty of red flags raised by studies that have
 been conducted.
 On the other hand, conventional breeding techniques are capable of increasing
 yields, drought resistance, and other desirable traits. All of our existing
 crops were developed using techniques consistent with natural selection.
 Jonathan Spero
 Lupine Knoll Farm
 Williams, Ore.
 Rethink gun control
 I am astounded at the drift toward expanding gun rights, as reported in the Jan.
 31 article, "Tucson reveals shift on gun laws." But I shouldn't be. It seems
 that a renewed interest in the founding of our country has so captured the
 imagination of "conditioned" supporters of today's powerful gun lobby as to make
 them equate current social conditions with 18th century challenges.
 But we are no longer a country in the throes of infancy, nor are we a
 third-world country lacking a legal system, imperfect as it may be, to resort to
 for protection. This invalidates the perceived right for private citizens today
 to carry concealed weaponry.
 It's time to "uncondition" ourselves to the perception that gun-carrying is an
 acceptable accouterment in a civil society.
 Julie Foskett
 Edmonds, Wash.
 LOAD-DATE: March 8, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
               Copyright 2011 Christian Science Publishing Society
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 129
 
                             Fresno Bee (California)
                               March 6, 2011 Sunday
 BYLINE: The Fresno Bee
 SECTION: LOCAL NEWS; Pg. B8
 LENGTH: 1330 words
 Kids Day Tuesday
 In January, Children's Hospital Central California treated more children than
 any month in its history. More than 16,400 precious lives received care because,
 here in the Valley, we give with our hearts.
 On Tuesday, our streets will be flooded once again with Kids Day volunteers,
 friends and neighbors who epitomize selfless service to others, graciously
 giving of their time for the benefit of children they will never know. They will
 be selling a special Kids Day edition of The Bee.
 I have been involved in fundraising for Children's Hospital for 20 years and the
 endeavor is humbling and inspiring. I have seen that in its purest form the
 unconditional gift flows quietly away from the giver. Grace lives in that
 wondrous act.
 I urge everyone to consider giving a gift to Children's Hospital and join the
 flow. A gift in any amount is a single act of kindness that truly does great
 good and has a ripple effect that spreads quickly.
 Please take time on Tuesday to toss a pebble of kindness into the pond of
 giving. It is, after all, our hospital, and they are our children.
 John Salenik
 Fresno
 Dyer is good for Fresno
 I can't help but think that if I earned $170,000-plus I wouldn't be trying to
 get my boss fired. Those two Fresno police officers are biting the hand that
 feeds them. All that aside, Chief Jerry Dyer is a good thing for this city.
 Leave him alone. Do your job and let him do his.
 Now these two are also criticizing our mayor. Mayor Ashley Swearengin is a
 strong, honorable, honest woman and serves Fresno well.
 Bethene Elliott
 Fresno
 Food risks hidden
 While I thank The Bee for the Feb. 25 Business section story regarding
 genetically modified foods and for bringing up this under-reported issue, the
 article hid the substantial dangers and lack of oversight of this technology.
 Most processed foods are genetically modified, and the risks have been
 intentionally hidden. The claim by the FDA and USDA that engineered foods are
 safe and equivalent to conventional varieties is false.
 Just as "Big Tobacco" (with government in its pocket) successfully suppressed
 information about the dangers of its products, Monsanto does the same,
 suppressing concerns over genetically modified foods and increasing its control
 over world food supplies.
 I recommend the book, "Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of
 Genetically Engineered Foods," by Jeffrey M. Smith, to all who care about food,
 human health, and the health of the planet.
 For background on Monsanto's transition from a chemical company producing
 chemical weapons to a company that increasingly controls the world's food
 supply, try "The War on Bugs," by Will Allen.
 Jan Balcom
 Prather
 Finding an Army buddy
 Pipkin Detective Agency honored my father and his long lost high school/Army
 buddy by flying his buddy out to California for a long overdue reunion of 39
 lost years. I have been searching for my father's buddy off and on for three
 years with no luck.
 I got in touch with Rocky at Pipkin Detective Agency and received a phone call
 back that day informing me that he was 98% sure he found my father's buddy.
 Within a couple of weeks, Rocky was able to give my father all the information
 that we were searching for. Pipkin Detective Agency's dedication to their
 clients and veterans is truly appreciated.
 Wendy Reddell
 Reedley
 Forming a union
 The present hordes of unemployed and underemployed workers are a blot on our
 nation and a devastating drag on our economy. It is a disaster. So now the
 Republicans are proposing more cuts, to put more people out of work.
 Nothing is more important right now than a bold U.S. program to make jobs.
 Deficit reduction makes sense only after everyone has a job.
 I keep reading about the report of the Commission on Debt Reduction. The trouble
 is, there was no report. The commission members could not agree on one. What we
 have seen is only the recommendation of the very conservative co-chairs.
 It has been clearly explained that Social Security has nothing to do with the
 deficit, but people keep wanting to cut it to reduce the deficit.
 The individual working person has no chance against the overwhelming power of
 business or government without a union. The right to organize is so fundamental
 that it is protected in U.S. law and in the United Nations Declaration of Human
 Rights: Article 13.4: "Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions
 for the protection of his interests."
 John R. Donaldson
 Fresno
 Wisconsin's true purpose
 What a contrast between The Bee's sensible "Lesson from Wisconsin for unions"
 editorial and Esther Cepeda's column "No apple for the teachers in Wisconsin,"
 both published Feb. 24.
 Add to that contrast The Bee's revelation of the Wisconsin governor's hypocrisy
 and deceptive "strategy" to bust the public worker unions.
 Where has Ms. Cepeda been? The Wisconsin teachers were willing to pay more for
 their pension and health benefits. The governor's "strategy" was revealed to be
 a transparent, bungled attempt to bust unions, not to resolve Wisconsin's budget
 deficit.
 Lawrence M. Fischbach
 Fresno
 Importing workers
 Perhaps, if elected officials refuse to talk to public employees and their
 unions, these officials should import low-cost teachers, firemen and police from
 other countries.
 Agriculture and the building industry have been doing this for years.
 Marion M. Young
 Auberry
 GOP loves bad economy
 Last week, The Bee reported that Goldman Sachs had conducted a study to find out
 how the GOP budget cuts would affect the economy. The study showed that economic
 growth would be reduced by 2%, which would pretty much kill economic growth for
 the year. The effect on unemployment would be 700,000 more jobs lost this year.
 So why is the GOP still pushing this course if it is so bad and costs more jobs?
 The fact is that a bad economy has been good for the GOP.
 It gives Republicans more power because they are able to blame the other guy for
 all the bad things. It also gives them a chance to push through the most radical
 legislation (bust unions, kill the EPA, FCC).
 There is a set of facts that tells all we need to know: More jobs were created
 during the two years of the Obama presidency, than during eight years of the
 Bush administration.
 If it's the deficit we need to worry about, well they cannot be believed there
 either since they fought tooth and nail to increase the deficit with the Bush
 tax cuts. I hope people start to take off their GOP-tinted glasses before it's
 too late.
 Gerlinde Noori
 Fresno
 SEIU muscling board
 Fresno County is in a dilemma. I'm reminded of the Great White sharks followed
 around by the tiny fish that cleans its massive jaws. In my minds eye, the SEIU
 is the Great White shark and Fresno County the insignificant little fish doing
 all the work.
 It's never been rocket science that the SEIU had its own interests in mind as it
 snatched dues away from union members and nonmembers alike, and with the
 county's tacit approval.
 Like lemmings, a great many county employees swallowed the SEIU Kool-Aid without
 even considering the obvious. We county employees are working for and to serve
 the interests of the public by providing necessary services. We are not here to
 serve the interests of the SEIU, which seems to be constantly dreaming up new
 issues to bargain for or complain about.
 For the first time, we see our county government telling the unions, "No more
 concessions folks, the well is dry."
 The people of Fresno deserve no less.
 D.J. Coates
 Fresno
 Trains to the Southland
 In response to the March 1 letter from Jerry Fisher regarding train travel to
 Los Angeles: In the 1950s, I took a Southern Pacific passenger train every
 summer to visit relatives in Southern California. The track goes through
 Tehachapi.
 I don't recall when passenger trains stopped running that route. As far as I
 know, freight trains still use the track to Southern California. If the track is
 still available, it makes more sense to me to use the track for passenger travel
 and forget the cost of high-speed rail.
 Howard Ray
 Clovis
 LOAD-DATE: March 9, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2011 McClatchy Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 130
 
                             Fresno Bee (California)
                               March 6, 2011 Sunday
 Food risks hidden
 LENGTH: 181 words
 While I thank The Bee for the Feb. 25 Business section story regarding
 genetically modified foods and for bringing up this under-reported issue, the
 article hid the substantial dangers and lack of oversight of this technology.
 Most processed foods are genetically modified, and the risks have been
 intentionally hidden. The claim by the FDA and USDA that engineered foods are
 safe and equivalent to conventional varieties is false.
 Just as "Big Tobacco" (with government in its pocket) successfully suppressed
 information about the dangers of its products, Monsanto does the same,
 suppressing concerns over genetically modified foods and increasing its control
 over world food supplies.
 I recommend the book, "Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of
 Genetically Engineered Foods," by Jeffrey M. Smith, to all who care about food,
 human health, and the health of the planet.
 For background on Monsanto's transition from a chemical company producing
 chemical weapons to a company that increasingly controls the world's food
 supply, try "The War on Bugs," by Will Allen.
 Jan Balcom
 Prather
 LOAD-DATE: March 6, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2011 Fresno Bee (California)
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 131
 
                          Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
                               March 6, 2011 Sunday
 Land O'Lakes makes case for more food
 BYLINE: JIM SPENCER; STAFF WRITER, STAR TRIBUNE (Mpls.-St. Paul)
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. 1D
 LENGTH: 781 words
 HIGHLIGHT:CEO Chris Policinski says policies to boost output would help global
 stability.
 WASHINGTON - In route to a day's worth of meetings with members of Congress to
 sing the praises of America's farmers, Land O'Lakes CEO Chris Policinski took
 the broad view of the world's skyrocketing food prices -- now at record highs.
 "We have to think about the world and the role that the U.S. plays in feeding a
 growing and hungry planet," said Policinski, who heads an Arden Hills-based
 farmer-owned cooperative with $11 billion in annual sales.
 The World Bank reports that rising food prices have driven 44 million people in
 developing nations into poverty since June. The World Bank also blamed
 instability in the food supply for helping spur anti-government riots in Egypt,
 Tunisia and other countries.
 America's ability to produce an abundance of safe, affordable food was what
 Policinski discussed last week with members of Congress.
 The highest world food prices in at least 20 years are only "the tip of the
 iceberg" in global food demand that will require a 70 percent increase in
 production by mid-century, Policinski predicted.
 "We see a connection between food security, economic stability and political
 stability," he explained before ducking into the office of Sen. Mike Johanns,
 R-Neb. "But it can go in the other direction. Food insecurity can ultimately
 lead to political instability. So as a society, we need to think this through."
 Unintended consequences
 Sending the wrong signals will prolong this crisis, said Devry Boughner, who
 directs international business relations at the Minnetonka-based agribusiness
 giant Cargill. "Policymakers in the face of crisis look for quick fixes,"
 Boughner said.
 Short-term solutions such as hoarding, stockpiling, banning exports or capping
 prices may help individual countries, but backfire in longer-term price
 increases worldwide, Boughner said.
 "Price is an important signal to farmers [about what and how much to plant],"
 she said.
 Price caps could limit production at the very time it needs to expand, said Jean
 Kinsey, a retired University of Minnesota economics professor who served on the
 International Food Policy Research Institute's board of directors.
 Boughner believes Saudi Arabia's recent decision to double its wheat stockpile
 is a mistake.
 Cargill stepped in last summer when Russia shut down wheat exports because of a
 drought, cutting off shipments bound for Egypt. Cargill quickly found another
 source of wheat and delivered it to Egypt, Boughner said.
 "If we can't move food across borders, it affects everyone," Boughner said.
 Food price spikes are inevitable because humans can't control weather and
 natural disasters, like drought in Russia, flooding in Australia or blizzards in
 America. The current price spike in some ways mirrors one in 2008.
 Spikes hurt most in the developing world. But the Great Recession swelled U.S.
 food stamp rolls by 13 million from October 2008 to December 2010, according to
 the Department of Agriculture, making Americans as vulnerable to food prices as
 they have been in decades.
 During Policinski's visit to Washington, he spoke Thursday at a breakfast his
 company sponsored called Women Thrive Worldwide. Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar
 co-hosted the event to encourage U.S. investment in impoverished female farmers
 in developing countries.
 Policinski said in his speech that the United States will need to be involved as
 the planet grows to 9 billion people.
 "There's no doubt that American farmers will play a major role in meeting this
 challenge," Policinski said. "Our farmers have proven that through the use of
 modern production practices and the application of safe, beneficial
 technologies, they can deliver amazing results. Over the past six decades, U.S.
 agriculture productivity has increased 250 percent."
 New solutions
 Kinsey, the former director of the University of Minnesota's Food Industry
 Center, said governments need to develop safety net programs with food reserves
 that don't disrupt markets the way hoarding does. However, growing demand,
 coupled with climate change, may warrant other extraordinary measures.
 Financial incentives that come from an emphasis on renewable energy drive
 farmers to grow corn for ethanol or other biofuels and to reduce acreage of
 other commodities, she said.
 A month ago, Kinsey wrote on the Food Industry Center's blog that the food
 crisis could force more countries to accept genetically modified food, a move
 considered environmental heresy in some parts of the world.
 "We may have to spread the growing areas of commodities into places they haven't
 grown before," Kinsey said in an interview. "We may need to engineer seeds to be
 more productive and to grow in what we now think of as impossible conditions."
 Jim Spencer - 612-673-4029
 (54%); FOOD STAMPS (50%) food; price
 LOAD-DATE: March 8, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                           Copyright 2011 Star Tribune
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 132
 
                              The Houston Chronicle
                               March 4, 2011 Friday
 Weedkiller-resistant alfalfa draws concerns;;Some organic growers fear
 cross-pollination;;
 BYLINE: By WILLIAM PACK, STAFF WRITER
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. 6
 LENGTH: 446 words
 Cameron Molberg with Coyote Creek Organic Feed Mill outside Austin likens
 genetically modified alfalfa to a plague. He says its increasing use means that
 pollen blown in or carried from the bioengineered alfalfa will contaminate
 organic alfalfa fields, forcing feed mills like his and organic dairies to find
 other feed stock to keep going. "The small, independent dairies reliant on
 organic alfalfa will be out of business," said Molberg.
 "There's really no way to stop it." The U.S. Department of Agriculture in late
 January cleared farmers to plant the altered alfalfa, which was genetically
 modified to withstand the effects of the weedkiller Roundup, after nearly four
 years of litigation. Alliance backed product The National Alfalfa and Forage
 Alliance endorsed the U.S. decision on Roundup Ready alfalfa, saying alfalfa
 growers need access to the newest technological advances to remain competitive.
 But the alliance also recognized that organic farming has become one of the
 fastest-growing sectors in agriculture, and organic alfalfa is an important
 component of that sector. It's a leading feed source for organic dairy
 producers, which needed about 450,000 tons of organic alfalfa and other organic
 grasses in 2006, said an alliance study. While Texas is the No. 1 producer of
 hay and forage in the nation, alfalfa, oftentimes considered the "queen of
 forages" because of its nutrient quality and the environmental benefits it
 provides, is not one of its top crops. Beth Nelson, the alliance's president,
 said organic alfalfa producers have expressed concerns about the possibility
 that pollen from genetically modified alfalfa would contaminate organic and
 conventionally grown alfalfa, destroying their value. Exporters also are worried
 about keeping foreign markets open to U.S. alfalfa if a country that limits
 importation of modified crops receives some by mistake. Still, Nelson thinks
 appropriate harvesting standards for the different types of alfalfa and close
 controls over the source of exports should resolve the issues. Another suit
 planned George Kimbrell, senior attorney for the Center for Food Safety, which
 filed suit against the USDA over its handling of genetically modified alfalfa in
 2007, said officials can not guarantee cross-contamination can be prevented. He
 said the center plans to sue the USDA to try to reverse its decision. Randy
 McGee, a Lubbock-area farmer and rancher, doesn't argue that genetically
 modified alfalfa will take over the industry like bioengineered corn and cotton
 have done before. But he sees it as a more of a boon than a plague. "It's one
 more tool that's available for producers," he said. wpack@express-news.net
 LOAD-DATE: March 4, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
             Copyright 2011 The Houston Chronicle Publishing Company
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 133
 
                      Marin Independent Journal (California)
                               March 4, 2011 Friday
 Sausalito storefront signs spur stares
 BYLINE: By Mark Prado Marin Independent Journal
 LENGTH: 284 words
 Grocery store signs advertising "mercury tainted salmon steaks" and "genetically
 engineered corn" in a Sausalito storefront have passersby buzzing and baffled
 precisely the plan of those behind the work.
 Inside there are more signs: "Grade A-ish Ground Beef," "Overpriced Organic
 Bananas" and "Not Even Close to Kosher Ham Hocks."
 There are no such products inside the building at 328 Pine St., but what is
 found is the ad agency Division of Labor, operated by business partners Josh
 Denberg and Paul Hirsch.
 The duo came up with the offbeat campaign to promote their ad style and to
 create a dialogue.
 "Some people just stare and they walk in, and other people peer in and some walk
 in and ask, 'what do you do here?'" Hirsch said. "We encourage our clients to
 try provocative ideas, and that's what we are doing here. We want to push
 interesting ideas out there."
 The pair said they were not pushing a point of view on food issues, but merely
 using it as a vehicle to create discussion.
 "People come in and say, 'That's gross, who would eat mercury-tainted salmon?'
 Well, I wouldn't know, who would?" Denberg, of Larkspur, said with a sly smile.
 "People start talking about corn and that it can be genetically altered. It
 starts a discussion."
 Those stopping and pondering the signs were intrigued.
 "That's pretty good," said Richard Allen with a chuckle as he read the signs.
 "It's interesting. I don't know what to think about it. I do like the humor."
 Said Elizabeth Garcia-Hollmann: "It's very clever, and I get a chuckle every
 time I walk by."
 More signs will be posted in the coming weeks, the duo said.
 "We will change things up every month," Hirsch said.
 Contact Mark Prado via e-mail at mprado@marinij.com
 LOAD-DATE: March 5, 2011
 GRAPHIC: Josh Denberg, left and Paul Hirsch of Division of Labor ad agency stand
 in front of bogus sales signs in their office on Friday, Mar. 04, 2011, in
 Sausalito, Calif. Similar signs in the front window hawk genetically engineered
 corn and mercury tainted salmon steaks. (IJ photo/Frankie Frost) Frankie Frost
 Elizabeth Garcia Hollmann, left, and Annie Cohn ponder bogus sales signs in the
 window of Division of Labor ad agency on Friday, Mar. 04, 2011, in Sausalito,
 Calif. The attention-grabbing signs caused double takes from passersby. Marina
 Garcia Hollmann, four, and Molly Cohn, seven, hang out as their moms talk. (IJ
 photo/Frankie Frost) Frankie Frost
 Josh Denberg, creative director for Divison of Labor ad agency, uses a video
 camera to photograph double takes of passersby at his office on Friday, Mar. 04,
 2011, in Sausalito, Calif. Bogus signs in the window advertise mercury-tainted
 salmon steaks and genetically engineered corn. (IJ photo/Frankie Frost) Frankie
 Frost
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
     Copyright 2011 Marin Independent Journal, a MediaNews Group publication
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 134
 
                              Voice of America News
                                  March 2, 2011
 Can Genetically-Modified and Organic Crops Co-Exist?
 BYLINE: Steve Baragona
 LENGTH: 729  words
 In the midst of lawsuits over genetically modified organisms, the U.S.
 Department of Agriculture is asking, "Can't we all just get along?"
 GMO opponents are suing USDA for its recent approval of crops they say are
 likely to cause contamination in organic fields. USDA wants to bring the
 opposing parties together to find ways for GMOs, conventional agriculture, and
 organic farming to co-exist.
 For crops such as maize, GMO and organics are already co-exisiting, if
 imperfectly. The United States raises more maize than any other country in the
 world, and almost all of it is genetically modified. There has been almost no
 evidence of health problems or environmental harm from GMO maize. But that does
 not mean everyone is okay with it.
 Opposition
 Lynn Clarkson runs Clarkson Grain and Clarkson Soy Products, two companies
 serving food and animal feed makers. At a recent USDA panel discussion, he
 described a conversation he had with a tortilla maker.
 "I'm in the food world," the tortilla maker told Clarkson. "I can get sued for
 all kinds of things and I have a conscience. I don't know if this is safe or
 not, and I don't want to find out."
 That was fine with Clarkson. His companies specialize in organic and non-GMO
 grains. Opposition to GMOs is one of the factors that have made organic products
 a $25-billion-a-year market in the United States.
 Challenge of co-existence
 That highlights a major challenge in American agriculture. How can these two
 profitable but mutually exclusive types of agriculture co-exist, when there are
 so many ways contamination can happen? Pollen can travel from a GMO field and
 contaminate a non-GMO crop. Grains can mix in storage, shipping, or processing.
 For the most part, the U.S. government has not gotten involved.
 "So far, we have operated under a market-driven system," says University of
 Missouri economist Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes. "And by and large, generally it
 has worked."
 Premium price for organic
 It has worked, he says, because customers are willing to pay a premium for
 organic and non-GMO products to businessmen like Lynn Clarkson who can provide
 them.
 "So if you wish [to have] non-GMO, it's perfectly fine with me," he says. "If
 you wish organic, or if you wish [to have] a crop raised under a blue moon, and
 are willing to pay for it, that's acceptable, too."
 Clarkson's customers are willing to pay him extra for the steps he has to take
 to keep GMOs out of his products. That includes making sure that everyone all
 along the supply chain uses separate or thoroughly cleaned equipment to grow,
 harvest, transport, store and process his crops.
 Contamination inevitable
 But the system is not perfect. Some contamination still happens. And Clarkson
 says many customers accept that.
 "If you deal with the tolerance standards out there today, zero is simply not an
 option," he says.
 Even the normally restrictive European Union is considering lifting its
 zero-tolerance standard for GMO contamination in imported animal feed. Clarkson
 says many producers aim for no more than one-tenth of one percent contamination.
 "Organic means no GMO"
 But attorney George Kimbrell with the Center for Food Safety says that is not
 good enough for many consumers.
 "If you talk to organic consumers, for example, for them, organic means no GMO,"
 he says. "It doesn't mean a little bit of GMO in it."
 He says the companies that produced and patented GMO crops should be the ones
 responsible for keeping them out of organic products, not the other way around.
 Kimbrell says it's hardly a novel legal concept.
 "If your bull breaks out of your barn and causes a ruckus [damage] in my field,
 you are liable for that," he says. "That liability should extend to the owners
 of these genetically engineered crop patents."
 Contamination likely?
 Opponents like Kimbrell say some genetically engineered crops are so likely to
 cause contamination that they should not be introduced anywhere.
 But the USDA believes it is possible for these crops to co-exist with non-GMOs.
 The department recently approved one of them -- alfalfa, and is nearing approval
 of another, sugar beets.
 The Center for Food Safety has sued USDA to try to keep these crops off the
 market. Those lawsuits are a big part of why USDA has been stepping up its
 efforts to promote co-existence.
 But the lawsuits continue. And comfortable co-existence between supporters and
 opponents of GMOs is a long way off.
 LOAD-DATE: March 2, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Journal
            Copyright 2011 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 135
 
                  The News & Observer (Raleigh, North Carolina)
                              March 1, 2011 Tuesday
 Seeds in need of independent research;
 Editorial
 BYLINE:  DOUG GURIAN-SHERMAN; MCT Information Services
 LENGTH: 972 words
 Soybeans, corn, cotton and canola - most of the acres planted in these crops in
 the United States are genetically altered. "Transgenic" seeds can save farmers
 time and reduce the use of some insecticides, but herbicide use is higher, and
 respected experts argue that some genetically engineered crops may also pose
 serious health and environmental risks. Also, the benefits of genetically
 engineered crops may be overstated.
 We don't have the complete picture. That's no accident. Multibillion-dollar
 agricultural corporations, including Monsanto and Syngenta, have restricted
 independent research on their genetically engineered crops. They have often
 refused to provide independent scientists with seeds, or they've set restrictive
 conditions that severely limit research options.
 This is legal. Under U.S. law, genetically engineered crops are patentable
 inventions. Companies have broad power over the use of any patented product,
 including who can study it and how.
 Agricultural companies defend their stonewalling by saying that unrestricted
 research could make them vulnerable to lawsuits if an experiment somehow leads
 to harm, or that it could give competitors unfair insight into their products.
 But it's likely that the companies fear something else too: An experiment could
 reveal that a genetically engineered product is hazardous or doesn't perform as
 well as promised.
 Whatever the reasons, the results are clear: Public sector research has been
 blocked. In 2009, 26 university entomologists - bug scientists - wrote a letter
 to the Environmental Protection Agency protesting restricted access to seeds.
 The letter went public, but not most of the writers' identities. They were
 afraid of retaliation from the companies that might further hamper their
 research.
 "No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical
 questions involving these crops," they wrote. Christian Krupke, a Purdue
 University entomologist who signed the letter, put it more succinctly to a
 reporter for a scientific journal. "Industry is completely driving the bus," he
 said.
 Beyond patent law, agricultural companies hold a pocketbook advantage in terms
 of research. For example, they fund much of the agricultural safety research
 done in this country. And when deciding whether to allow a genetically
 engineered crop onto the market, the Department of Agriculture and other
 regulatory agencies do not perform their own experiments on the performance and
 safety of the product; instead, they rely largely on studies submitted by the
 companies themselves.
 The dangers ought to be clear. In 2001, the seed company Pioneer, owned by Dow
 Chemical, was developing a strain of genetically engineered corn that contained
 a toxin to help it resist corn rootworm, an insect pest. A group of university
 scientists, working at Pioneer's request, found that the corn also appeared to
 kill a species of beneficial ladybug, which indicated that other helpful insects
 might also be harmed.
 But, according to a report in the journal Nature Biotechnology, Dow said its own
 research showed no ladybug problems, and it prohibited the scientists from
 making the research public. Nor was it submitted to the EPA. In 2003, the EPA
 approved a version of the corn, known as Herculex.
 Now, we may find out who was right in the field, possibly at the expense of a
 beneficial bug.
 Research restrictions also hamper scientists' ability to assess how genetically
 engineered crops perform against other modified crops, traditional crops,
 approaches such as organic farming and the seed companies' promises. There's
 reason to be suspicious. Using USDA and peer-reviewed data, the Union of
 Concerned Scientists analyzed corn and soybean yields since new seeds were
 introduced. We found increases due to genetically engineered traits that were
 marginal - not a result promoted by the industry.
 Monsanto, in its defense, will point to an agreement with the USDA that gives
 the agency's agricultural scientists access to its genetically engineered seeds
 for a wide range of research, and the company has also had limited agreements
 with some universities. Several other seed companies are said to be negotiating
 voluntary deals with universities in the wake of the entomologists' letter to
 the EPA, and the American Seed Trade Association, a trade group, is also
 developing guidelines to improve access to the new seeds.
 These are positive steps, but they don't go far enough. For one thing, the deals
 and the trade association rules are not binding. The companies can back out of
 them. They are also opaque; the public really has no idea how far these deals go
 or how common they are. And what about scientists at the universities and
 research institutions that aren't party to one of the voluntary agreements?
 They're still out in the cold.
 Moreover, few if any of the agreements guarantee opportunities for every kind of
 independent research. The Monsanto agreement with the USDA covers research into
 crop production practices, for example, not research into issues such as the
 health effects of genetically engineered crops.
 This is not how science should operate. Agricultural companies are still the
 gatekeepers, choosing who gets to do research and what topics are studied. To
 ensure that agricultural science serves the public, Congress should change
 patent law and create a clear exemption for agricultural research.
 The companies that produce the seeds claim that genetically engineered crops are
 safe and are better than traditional crops in a range of ways. It's time for
 these companies to back up their rhetoric. The only way to test their grand
 assertions is to let independent science take its course.
 Doug Gurian-Sherman is a plant pathologist and senior scientist at the Union of
 Concerned Scientists in Washington. He wrote this for the Los Angeles Times.
 LOAD-DATE: March 1, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
           Copyright 2011 The News & Observer (Raleigh, North Carolina)
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 136
 
                         Lewiston Morning Tribune (Idaho)
                             February 28, 2011 Monday
 Shoppers find genetically modified foods everywhere
 LENGTH: 1225 words
 WASHINGTON - You may not want to eat genetically engineered foods. Chances are,
 you are eating them anyway.
 Genetically modified plants grown from seeds engineered in labs now provide much
 of the food we eat. Most corn, soybean and cotton crops grown in the United
 States have been genetically modified to resist pesticides or insects, and corn
 and soy are common food ingredients.
 The Agriculture Department has approved three more genetically engineered crops
 in the past month, and the Food and Drug Administration could approve
 fast-growing genetically modified salmon for human consumption this year.
 Agribusiness and the seed companies say their products help boost crop
 production, lower prices at the grocery store and feed the world, particularly
 in developing countries. The FDA and USDA say the engineered foods they've
 approved are safe - so safe, they don't even need to be labeled as such - and
 can't be significantly distinguished from conventional varieties.
 Organic food companies, chefs and consumer groups have stepped up their efforts
 - so far, unsuccessfully - to get the government to exercise more oversight of
 engineered foods, arguing the seeds are floating from field to field and
 contaminating pure crops. The groups have been bolstered by a growing network of
 consumers who are wary of processed and modified foods.
 Many of these opponents acknowledge that there isn't much solid evidence showing
 genetically modified foods are somehow dangerous or unhealthy. It just doesn't
 seem right, they say. It's an ethical issue.
 "If you mess with nature there's a side effect somewhere," said George Siemon,
 CEO of Organic Valley, the nation's largest organic farming cooperative, which
 had more than $600 million in sales last year. "There is a growing awareness
 that our system makes us all guinea pigs of sorts."
 The U.S. government has insisted there's not enough difference between the
 genetically modified seeds its agencies have approved and natural seeds to cause
 concern. But Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, more so than his predecessors in
 previous administrations, has acknowledged the debate over the issue and a
 growing chorus of consumers concerned about what they are eating.
 "The rapid adoption of GE crops has clashed with the rapid expansion of demand
 for organic and other non-GE products," Vilsack said in December as he
 considered whether to approve genetically modified alfalfa. "This clash led to
 litigation and uncertainty ... Surely, there is a better way, a solution that
 acknowledges agriculture's complexity, while celebrating and promoting its
 diversity."
 Vilsack later approved the engineered alfalfa for use - along with sugar beets
 and a type of corn used in ethanol - to the disappointment of the organic
 industry, but he said the department would do additional research on ways to
 prevent contamination of natural seeds and improve detection of contamination.
 Organic companies have praised Vilsack for even acknowledging the issue, as
 large seed companies like Monsanto and the substantial chunk of agribusiness
 that use their seeds have long held sway at USDA.
 The organic industry has a lot to lose. USDA regulations do not allow
 genetically modified seeds to be used in organic production, and organic farmers
 say that as engineered crops become more common, it will be harder to prevent
 contamination. The industry also is concerned fears of contamination could hurt
 its sales, especially in Europe, where consumers have been extremely hesitant
 about biotech foods.
 While opponents of engineered foods haven't found federal agencies overly
 receptive to their concerns, they've been able to delay some USDA approvals with
 lawsuits. The alfalfa decision followed a lengthy court battle that was closely
 watched not only by the organic industry, but by consumers - a development that
 opponents believe will help their cause.
 "We're seeing a level of reaction that is unprecedented," said Jeffrey Smith, an
 activist who has fought the expansion of genetically engineered foods since they
 were first introduced 15 years ago and written two books on the subject. "I
 personally think we are going to hit the tipping point of consumer rejection
 very soon."
 Many consumers also have followed the Food and Drug Administration's
 consideration of an engineered salmon that grows twice as fast as the
 conventional variety. If the FDA approves the fish for sale, it will be the
 first time the government has allowed genetically modified animals to be
 marketed for humans to eat.
 Consumer interest in the issue has magnified in the past five years, along with
 interest in eating locally grown and organic foods, said Organic Valley's
 Siemon. Young, educated consumers who are driving much of the organic market
 have no interest in eating crops derived from a laboratory, he said. With as
 much as 80 percent of the foods in grocery stores containing some sort of
 engineered ingredient, according to the food industry, some companies have
 started labeling foods as non-modified to grab onto that share of the market.
 Genetically modified crops were introduced to the market in 1996. That year,
 engineered corn accounted for less than 5 percent of the total crop. Last year,
 the USDA estimated that 70 percent of the nation's corn acreage was planted with
 corn engineered to resist herbicides and 63 percent had been planted with
 insect-resistant seeds. Rates for soybeans and cotton are even higher.
 The federal government approves genetically modified plants and animals on a
 case by case basis, with the FDA and USDA looking at the potential effects on
 food safety, agriculture and the environment. Critics say the process needs to
 be more thorough and more research should be done with an eye on potential
 dangers. Agencies often rely on companies' own data to make their decisions.
 The genetic engineering industry says its products already receive far more
 scrutiny than most of the food people put in their mouths. It also says 15 years
 of consumption with no widely recognized health problems shows much of the
 concern is overhyped.
 David B. Schmidt, who heads the International Food Information Council
 Foundation, a food-industry funded group that has polled consumers on
 genetically modified foods, said their responses depend on how the issue is
 framed. When pollsters tell consumers that some foods can be engineered to have
 health benefits - such as biotech soybeans designed to reduce trans fats in
 soybean oil - they become more open to them. Most consumers are more open to
 modifications in fruits and vegetables than in animals, he added.
 Still, many people don't know what to think. About half of the consumers the
 foundation has polled recently have either been neutral on the subject or didn't
 know enough to have an opinion.
 Dan Barber, a well-known New York chef who grows his own food and sits on
 President Barack Obama's Council on Physical Fitness, Sports and Nutrition, said
 the growing popularity of organic foods has given an "economic legitimacy" to
 the criticism.
 He believes messing with nature will always have collateral damage. And, the
 more genetically modified crops are used, he said, the more pure crops will
 become compromised.
 "Once you head down that road you don't turn back," Barber said.
 Online:
 USDA Agricultural Biotechnology:
 http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Biotechnology/chapter1.htm
 LOAD-DATE: March 1, 2011
 GRAPHIC: No Caption: This 2010 photo provided by AquaBounty Technologies shows
 two same-age salmon, a genetically modified salmon (rear) and a non-genetically
 modified salmon (foreground).
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2011 Tribune Publishing Co.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 137
 
                   State Department Documents and Publications
                                February 25, 2011
 Statistics Show Large Gains for Biotech Agriculture in 2010
 BYLINE: Mark Trainer, Staff Writer
 LENGTH: 676  words
 25 February 2011
 Statistics Show Large Gains for Biotech Agriculture in 2010
 Washington -- Between 1996 and 2010, the production of biotech crops -- crops
 genetically modified to increase yield -- rose 87-fold, surpassing 1 billion
 hectares, according to new statistics from the International Service for the
 Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).
 The increase in hectares in 2010 alone was 10 percent. That year, the 15th
 anniversary of the plantings of the first commercialized biotech crops, 29
 countries planted biotech crops, up from 25 in 2009. Of these, 19 were
 developing countries. The United States was the leading grower of biotech crops
 at 66.8 million hectares, followed by Brazil (25.4 million) and Argentina (22.9
 million). For the first time, each of the top 10 countries grew more than 1
 million hectares of biotech crops.
 By far, the leading biotech crop is soybean, accounting for a full 50 percent of
 the biotech crops worldwide. Biotech maize is the second most common, accounting
 for 31 percent.
 Biotechnology has given the ability to impart beneficial characteristics to
 plants, making them more resilient to adverse conditions. Since the first
 commercial plantings in 1996, herbicide tolerance has been the dominant trait
 sought by farmers adopting biotech crops, and this continued in 2010. Crops with
 "stacked traits" use more than one genetic strand to allow multiple input traits
 (pest and drought resistance) and output traits (crops with enhanced provitamin
 A or high omega-3 oil), the ISAAA reported. The service sees stacked traits as
 an increasingly important feature of biotech crops, and says that 32.3 million
 hectares of stacked biotech crops were planted in 2010, up 3.6 million hectares
 from the 2009 level.
 Of the 15.4 million farmers planting biotech crops, 90 percent were small,
 resource-poor farmers in developing countries. Developing countries produced 48
 percent of global biotech crops. The ISAAA projects that 40 countries will have
 adopted biotech crops by 2015, and expects the trend toward an increased
 proportion of developing countries to continue. China, India, Brazil, Argentina
 and South Africa are the developing countries that lead in the adoption of
 biotech agriculture.
 A record number of countries from the European Union planted biotech crops last
 year. Six EU countries, led by Spain, continued to plant biotech maize. Three
 countries -- the Czech Republic, Sweden (the first Scandinavian country to plant
 biotech crops) and Germany planted the Amflora potato, the first biotech crop
 approved in the EU in 13 years. Other biotech potatoes are under development in
 EU countries (including one resistant to the blight that caused the Irish famine
 of 1845), and the ISAAA predicts their release before 2015.
 The ISAAA emphasizes the role biotech crops play in addressing global problems
 such as food security and self-sufficiency, alleviation of poverty and hunger
 and the challenges of climate change. By increasing productivity per hectare and
 reducing costs of production, biotech crops have generated approximately $65
 billion in economic gains between 1996 and 2009, ISAAA says. Additionally, its
 report asserts that the increase of efficiency in land use will conserve
 biodiversity and reduce agriculture's environmental footprint. Biotech crops
 reduce the need for water and the use of pesticides and fossil-based fuels. The
 ISAAA estimates that in 2009 this resulted in a savings of 17.6 billion
 kilograms of carbon dioxide, the equivalent of removing 7.8 million cars from
 the road.
 The ISAAA sees the greatest obstacle to the adoption of biotech agriculture in
 the developing world as the cumbersome regulatory systems of developing
 countries. "With the accumulated knowledge of the last 15 years it is now
 possible to design appropriate regulatory systems that are responsible, rigorous
 and yet not onerous, requiring only modest resources that are within the means
 of most developing countries," the group said.
 The executive summary of the report is available on the ISAAA website.
 LOAD-DATE: February 25, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Report
            Copyright 2011 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 138
 
                     Patriot News (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania)
                            February 24, 2011 Thursday
 Here's the latest in garden science
 BYLINE: OVER THE GARDEN FENCE  George Weigel
 SECTION: LIFE; Pg. B01, B12
 LENGTH: 901 words
 Let's take a tour of GardenScienceLand this week to see what recent research
 might benefit us this year.
 Weed control University of Massachusetts researchers have been testing ways to
 control roadside weeds other than chemical herbicide sprays.
 The best alternative turned out to be burning off the weeds with a propane torch
 and then covering the dead spots with 3 inches of bark or wood-chip mulch.
 Second best was treating weedy patches with organic, granular corn gluten meal,
 which doesn't kill existing weeds but does stop the reseeding of many new ones.
 Both options are available to home gardeners, although corn gluten's
 effectiveness drops about 70 percent after 10 weeks and needs to be reapplied,
 according to UMass.
 Organic products containing citric acid, pelargonic acid and clove oil were
 least effective.
 Tougher weeds If it seems your weeds aren't dying as fast as they used to even
 when you do spray, you're not imagining things.
 Penn State weed scientist David Mortensen recently told a U. S. House committee
 that 19 weeds are now resistant to the popular herbicide glyphosate - the active
 ingredient in Roundup.
 Mortensen says the advent of corn, soybean and cotton crops bioengineered to be
 resistant to glyphosate is largely to blame.
 That development allows farmers to spray fields with glyphosate to kill weeds
 without harming the bioengineered corn, soybeans and cotton.
 The problem:glyphosate is now used so much that many weeds are becoming
 resistant to it as well.
 Mortensen said that no weeds were resistant to glyphosate in 1995, but now at
 least 19 are - including common ones such as ragweed, horseweed, johnsongrass
 and several pigweeds.
 Agribusinesses are attempting to solve the problem by developing crops resistant
 to other herbicides, but Mortensen says those are even less enviro-friendly and
 cause more damage to non-target vegetation via spray drift.
 He suggests a better approach is to encourage a variety of weed-control measures
 instead of putting all of our eggs in the chemical basket.
 Note:No weeds have yet built up resistance to a shovel or hoe.
 Deer control Looking for a cheap way to discourage deer browsing on landscape
 plants? U. S. Department of Agriculture research in Colorado found that ordinary
 baby powder does a decent job at far less cost than commercial repellents.
 Researchers first sprayed gaultheria andWestern red cedar plants (two deer
 favorites) with a sticker spray (available in most garden centers) or diluted
 glue, then dusted the plants with one of three treatments - hydrolyzed casein
 (milk protein), baby powder (containing that same protein) and Deer Away brand
 repellent.
 Other plants weren't treated.
 After three weeks, the untreated plants were badly eaten. The ones treated with
 the hydrolyzed casein and the Deer Away weren't damaged at all. And about half
 of the ones treated with baby powder had some browsing damage.
 Best winterberries Longwood Gardens just completed a 12-year performance study
 of more than 30 varieties of winterberry holly, a native shrub best known for
 its showy clusters of bright red or gold berries in winter.
 The top performer was "Sparkleberry," which fruited long and heavy in the
 brightest red of any competitor.
 Other top varieties were "Scarlett O'Hara," "Maryland Beauty," "Winter Red,"
 "Red Sprite" and "Harvest Red" - all of which are typically carried by local
 garden centers.
 Remember:Only the females fruit. You'll need a suitable male blooming at the
 same time to get any of the above to produce.
 Blight-resistant tomatoes Home gardeners have run into problems with devastating
 late blight on their tomatoes the past two seasons.
 The fungus that causes it (the same one behind the 1840s potato famine in
 Ireland) takes down tomatoes in a matter of days. Only regular preventive
 fungicide sprays stop it- until now.
 Penn State horticulture researcher Mike Orzolek reports that two new tomato
 varieties are testing out as naturally resistant to late blight.
 "Mountain Magic" produces round, red, golf ball-sized fruits that score high in
 taste tests. It's also resistant to five other tomato diseases.
 "PlumRegal" is a late-maturing, plum-type tomato that's crack-resistant and
 resistant to five diseases in addition to late blight.
 Both are available in a variety of 2010 seed catalogs.
 Penn State researchers are working on additional blight-resistant varieties and
 currently have 13 other varieties in the testing pipeline.
 Bug-resistant azaleas Two raps against azaleas are their two-week bloom time and
 their susceptibility to lacebugs - a small bug that sucks the chlorophyll out of
 the leaves.
 Southern growers have flocked to the 25-color line of "Encore" azaleas because
 they rebloom in summer and even fall.
 Now, U. S. Department of Agriculture researchers report that 11 varieties of
 "Encore" azaleas also are at least moderately resistant to lacebugs.
 Central-Pennsylvania garden centers have largely shied away from "Encores"
 because of their borderline winter-hardiness.
 Earlier testing at the University of Tennessee found that at least 17 of the
 "Encore" line are winter-hardy down to Zone 6, which is us. That means we should
 be safe growing those through a normal winter.
 If you put the two lists together, these are the coldhardiest and most
 lacebugresistant "Encore" choices:"Autumn Amethyst," "Autumn Twist," "Autumn
 Royalty," "Autumn Sangria" and "Autumn Cheer." More
 information:www.encoreazalea.com.
 LOAD-DATE: February 24, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: hrn
                       Copyright 2011 The Patriot News Co.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 139
 
                              Voice of America News
                                February 22, 2011
 Genetically-Modified Maize Threatens Crunchy Snack Chips
 BYLINE: Steve Baragona
 LENGTH: 737  words
 A new type of genetically-modified maize intended for ethanol biofuel production
 has won approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
 The biofuels industry welcomes this new GM maize, created by the agriculture
 giant Syngenta. But opposition is coming from an unusual source - snack food
 makers.
 Maize-based snacks are a $6 billion business in the U.S. And the snack industry
 says the crunch of their chips is threatened by an enzyme genetically engineered
 into Syngenta's new maize.
 Easier ethanol
 The enzyme, known as alpha amylase, breaks down starch into sugar, which is then
 fermented into ethanol.
 According to Syngenta, having the enzyme built into the maize will help produce
 more ethanol while consuming less water and energy, which in turn will help
 reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
 A 2007 U.S. law requiring gasoline to be blended with renewable fuels has driven
 up demand for ethanol. This year, 40 percent of the U.S. maize crop went to
 ethanol production.
 Soggy cereal, crumbly chips
 But what is good for producing ethanol is not good for everyone.
 "We don't produce ethanol. We produce food products," says Mary Waters,
 president of the North American Millers Association, one of five major food
 industry groups that are, in their words, "deeply disappointed" with USDA's
 decision to approve the crop without restrictions.
 They are not worried about food safety. In a joint statement, they noted they
 have supported other genetically-engineered crops.
 The worry, Waters says, is that Syngenta's starch-busting maize could turn
 cereal soggy, snack chips crumbly or hurt other processed foods if even a tiny
 amount ends up in the human food chain.
 "It would only take one kernel in 10,000 to affect food processing," she says.
 History of contamination
 And it would not be the first time a genetically-modified product wound up where
 it did not belong. Unapproved GM maize turned up in the food supply in 2001, as
 did unapproved rice in 2006. Estimates vary widely, but the financial losses
 from these contamination cases ran into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
 The contaminated maize did not cause health problems. "But it did cause major
 disruptions in the availability of food grade [maize]," says Jim McCarthy,
 president of the Snack Food Association. "So, we do think this will have a major
 impact and we're urging Syngenta to rethink this."
 Not a 'major issue'
 "I don't really believe that there's much probability that there's going to be
 any kind of major issue with misdirection of the grain," Syngenta's Jack Bernens
 says.
 Bernens says the company will only sell the seeds to farmers who will deliver
 the crop to nearby ethanol plants. And they will not sell seed near where food
 facilities get their maize.
 Besides, Bernens says, the chance that a few stray kernels would create big
 problems is overblown. He says the enzyme is most active at specific conditions
 of temperature, moisture and alkalinity that are different from most food
 processing.
 "We've done a lot of work in that area," he says, "and for the most part, the
 processes don't come together under those conditions that would equal the most
 activity."
 'Restrictive' access to information
 The Snack Food Association's Jim McCarthy would like to see that research, but
 he says Syngenta won't share the data without strict conditions.
 "There have been some very restrictive allocations of data to this point," he
 says. "And that's one of the major concerns we have."
 Syngenta originally offered the trade groups access to their evidence, but only
 if they backed the company's application to the USDA for approval. The trade
 groups rejected that offer. Then Syngenta said they could have the data and
 samples to test, but only if they signed a confidentiality agreement.
 The company says that's standard business practice to protect trade secrets. But
 it didn't sit well the North American Millers Association's Mary Waters.
 "We can't have access to information predicated on support no matter what, and
 an inability to share it with our scientists," she says. "All we care about is
 the science."
 Syngenta notes that it has provided access to information to some in the
 industry who did sign confidentiality agreements. And the company is setting up
 an advisory council with members across the industry to resolve any contentious
 issues.
 But the food groups are not satisfied. They say they are now considering a
 lawsuit to protect the crunch of their chips.
 LOAD-DATE: February 22, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Journal
            Copyright 2011 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 140
 
                        St. Paul Pioneer Press (Minnesota)
                            February 17, 2011 Thursday
 Feds promote exports by smaller firms
 BYLINE: Pioneer Press
 LENGTH: 196 words
 Think exports, small companies.
 Top officials from the Obama administration visited Minneapolis on Thursday to
 promote ways that small and midsized companies can export their products.
 "We have a lot of big players who are doing well in the export market," said
 Kathleen Merrigan, deputy agriculture secretary. "The big companies have their
 own export-promotion staff people ... So how do you reach these small and
 medium-sized ag enterprises? It's very key because these guys cannot do it on
 their own, and they do need assistance from the federal government."
 In an interview, Merrigan also acknowledged the controversy over the USDA's
 recent decisions to approve genetically modified products like Roundup-Ready
 alfalfa and ethanol corn -- a disappointment to natural-foods advocates who
 admired Merrigan's background in organic foods.
 "We think biotechnology is an incredibly important technology and we support
 continued investment in," Merrigan said, adding, "We think the best and
 brightest (nations) should figure out a way that farmers can grow what they want
 to grow on their land. So we're working through our systems to figure out a way
 that can be the reality."
 -- Tom Webb
 LOAD-DATE: February 18, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2011 St. Paul Pioneer Press
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 141
 
                        Austin American-Statesman (Texas)
                           February 16, 2011 Wednesday
                                  Final Edition
 SECTION: LIFESTYLE; Pg. D03
 LENGTH: 1275 words
 Just a few years after former New York Times restaurant critic Frank Bruni named
 his Miami restaurant one of the top new restaurants in the country, chef Michael
 Schwartz has published "Michael's Genuine Food" (Clarkson Potter, $35), a
 collection of fresh spins on comfort food such as chile chicken wings with
 creamy cucumbers and stout-braised clams. Schwartz, whose face you might
 recognize after a judging stint on "Top Chef," rides the fine line between
 offering dishes that are clever enough to appear on a restaurant menu with those
 that are approachable enough to make at home. With the help of co-author Joann
 Cianciulli, Schwartz swaps chef shorthand for clearly written recipes that make
 the book appealing to home cooks who are ready to move on from the basics.
 - Addie Broyles
 Roasted Sweet Onions Stuffed With Ground Lamb and Apricots
 4 medium Vidalia onions (about 3 lb.)
 11/2 cups chicken stock
 1/2 cup dried apricots (about 16), cut into 1/4-inch pieces
 1 tsp. finely grated lemon zest
 5 Tbsp. unsalted butter, divided
 1/2 lb. ground lamb
 1 tsp. ground cinnamon
 1 tsp. ground cumin
 1 tsp. kosher salt
 1/2 tsp. freshly ground black pepper
 3 or 4 shakes hot sauce, to taste
 2 Tbsp. coarsely chopped fresh flat-leaf parsley
 2 Tbsp. coarsely chopped fresh mint
 2 Tbsp. fresh bread crumbs
 Arugula leaves
 Without peeling the onions, cut about 1 inch off the top of each and just enough
 off the bottoms so that the onions stand upright. Reserve onion tops and discard
 the bottoms. Remove all but the outer two layers of each onion by scooping out
 the centers with a spoon or melon baller. Set onion shells in a baking dish,
 along with the tops. Set aside. Finely chop the insides. Preheat the oven to 400
 degrees.
 In a small pot, combine stock, apricots and zest over medium heat. Gently simmer
 until apricots are plump and the liquid is reduced to 1/2 cup, roughly 10
 minutes.
 Melt 3 Tbsp. of butter in a skillet over medium-low heat. Stir in chopped onions
 and cook until soft, about 12 minutes. Add lamb, cinnamon and cumin to the
 onions.
 Raise heat to medium-high; season with salt and pepper. Cook, continually
 stirring with a wooden spoon, until lamb is crumbly, 7 to 8 minutes. Do not
 drain rendered fat; you need it to keep the onions moist. Remove pan from the
 heat. Stir in apricot mixture with its liquid, hot sauce to taste, parsley and
 mint. Let cool slightly.
 The lamb filling easily can be prepared a day in advance, covered, and
 refrigerated. Spoon lamb mixture into hollowed-out onions, pressing down with
 your hands to pack it in, and mound it over the onions. Sprinkle the bread
 crumbs on top and dot with the remaining 2 Tbsp. butter.
 Cover the pan tightly with aluminum foil and bake for 30 minutes. Remove the
 foil and continue to bake for 10 minutes, until the bread crumbs are brown.
 Serve immediately with a few leaves of arugula on the side.
 - Adapted from 'Michael's Genuine Food' by Michael Schwartz and Joann Cianciulli
 (Clarkson Potter, $35)
 Foodways Texas, the newly launched group dedicated to preserving Texas' food
 traditions, is hosting its first symposium at Texas A&M University at Galveston
 on Feb. 25-26. Panels featuring writers, photographers and chefs such as Joe
 Nick Patoski, Elizabeth Engelhardt, Jesse Griffiths and Jody Horton will give
 insight into not only the food that comes from the Gulf Coast, but the people
 who have built their livelihood around it and disasters that threaten it.
 Tickets ($175-$225 at foodwaystexas.com) also include several meals prepared by
 notable Texas chefs.
 * Open: J-Five Steakhouse, at the former site of the Backstage Steakhouse at
 21814 Texas 71 W., Spicewood. 428-5727, www.j5steakhouse.com. Co-owners Jaime
 and Jennifer Suddeth ran the Trading Bost Wine Bar and Grill in Bee Cave, which
 they closed in December to open J-Five, which draws two of its J's from their
 first names and the other three from the first names of their children. Jaime
 Suddeth said J-Five offers a full bar and handcut steaks and seafood and
 house-baked bread. Hours: 4 to about 9:30 or 10 p.m. (depending on business)
 Tuesdays-Saturdays.
 * Open: Parrain's Louisiana Kitchen, a casual restaurant with po' boys
 ($5.99-$13.99) including housemade sausage and boudin and fried shrimp, catfish
 and oysters. Plus gumbo, touffe and other Cajun dishes. 18653 RM 1431,
 Jonestown. 512-215-9319, www.parrainslouisiana
 kitchen.com. Open at 11 a.m. daily for lunch and dinner.
 * Open: Indian Spicy Kitchen, a restaurant serving food from India and Nepal at
 500 Canyon Ridge Drive. 828-6909.
 * In the works: The casual seafood chains Wyland's Ocean Blue
 (www.wylandsoceanblue.com) and Guy Harvey's Island Grill
 (www.guyharveysislandgrill.com), side by side at the Hill Country Galleria at
 12921 Hill Country Blvd., Bee Cave.
 * Open: Natural Grocers by Vitamin Cottage, the third Central Texas location of
 the Colorado-based grocery story chain at 1335 E. Whitestone Blvd. in Cedar
 Park. The store, which is open from 8:56 a.m. to 8:04 p.m. Monday through
 Saturday and until 6:06 p.m. on Sundays, features organic produce as well as
 grass-fed and pastured meats and dairy.
 - Mike Sutter, A.B.
 * When an organization of special events professionals throws a fundraiser, you
 know it's going to be a good one. The Austin Chapter of the International
 Special Events Society is hosting its annual CulinART event from 6 to 10 p.m.
 Thursday at the Austin Music Hall to benefit the Wright House Wellness Center,
 which provides support to Central Texans living with or who are at risk of HIV
 and other chronic illnesses. This year's theme is surrealist art, and the gala
 will feature a dinner created by chefs from Truluck's, Crave Catering, RK Group,
 Sterling Affairs and Delysia Chocolatier. Tickets are available online at
 isesaustin.com/culinart.
 * From 1 to 4 p.m. on Saturday, Spicewood Vineyards just off Texas 71 past
 Spicewood hosts its third annual "Pair It with Claret" chili cook-off, in which
 dozens of teams will see who can most adeptly incorporate one of Spicewood
 Vineyards' signature wines into a pot of chili. Tasting wristbands cost $15, and
 you can purchase wine by the glass or by the bottle. spicewoodvineyards.com
 * Join even more chili fans for the Kosher Chili Cook-off from 12:30 to 3 p.m.
 Sunday at the Dell Jewish Community Center, 7300 Hart Lane. Tickets are $15 ($6
 for kids) and include chili, music, beer or soda tickets and snacks.
 * Arizona author Rick Goeld's new novel, "Sex, Lies, and Soybeans" is a work of
 fiction, but the hot-button topic of genetically modified food is a very real
 issue that doesn't just affect scientists and farmers. Goeld will be in Austin
 at 7 p.m. Saturday for a talk and book-signing at BookPeople, 603 N. Lamar Blvd.
 www.sexliesand
 soybeans.com.
 * The San Antonio Wine Festival runs this weekend, with a $100 tasting at the
 St. Anthony Riverwalk Wyndham Hotel on Friday , a $75 champagne brunch there on
 Sunday and a $40 food-and-wine tasting at the Alamodome on Sunday . Tickets and
 details at www.sawinefest.com.
 * The 2011 legislative session is still young, and the state's lawmakers are
 already considering a number of food-related bills tackling subjects including
 craft beer and raw milk.
 From 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Monday in the Capitol Extension Auditorium, room
 E1.004, the Texas-based nonprofit Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance is hosting an
 education day when people can learn more about the bills and contact legislators
 who are involved with them.
 abroyles@statesman.com; 912-2504; msutter@statesman.com; 912-5902
 LOAD-DATE: February 20, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2011 The Austin American-Statesman
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 142
 
                Agriculture Department Documents and Publications
                                February 15, 2011
 Syngenta Seeds, Inc.; Determination of Nonregulated Status for Corn Genetically
 Engineered To Produce an Enzyme That Facilitates Ethanol Production
 LENGTH: 1109  words
 SUMMARY: We are advising the public of our determination that a corn line
 developed by Syngenta Seeds, Inc., designated as transformation event 3272,
 which has been genetically engineered to produce a microbial enzyme that
 facilitates ethanol production, is no longer considered a regulated article
 under our regulations governing the introduction of certain genetically
 engineered organisms. Our determination is based on our evaluation of data
 submitted by Syngenta Seeds, Inc., in its petition for a determination of
 nonregulated status, our analysis of available scientific data, and comments
 received from the public in response to our previous notice announcing the
 availability of the petition for nonregulated status and its associated
 environmental assessment and plant pest risk assessment. This notice also
 announces the availability of our written determination and finding of no
 significant impact.
 DATES: Effective Date: February 15, 2011.
 ADDRESSES: You may read the documents referenced in this notice and the comments
 we received in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the
 USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC.
 Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
 holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817
 before coming. Those documents are also available on the Internet at
 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/not_reg.html and are posted with the previous
 notices and the comments we received on the Regulations.gov Web site at
 http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetailandd=APHIS
 Other Information: Additional information about APHIS and its programs is
 available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Andrea Huberty, Biotechnology Regulatory
 Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 146, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301)
 734-0485, email: andrea.f.huberty@aphis.usda.gov To obtain copies of the
 documents referenced in this notice, contact Ms. Cindy Eck at (301) 734-0667,
 e-mail: cynthia.a.eck@aphis.usda.gov
 Background
 The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, "Introduction of Organisms and Products
 Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which
 There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests," regulate, among other things, the
 introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment)
 of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that
 are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such
 genetically engineered organisms and products are considered "regulated
 articles."
 The regulations in SEC 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to
 the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination
 that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and
 (c) of SEC 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of
 nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the
 petition.
 On October 7, 2005, APHIS received a petition seeking a determination of
 nonregulated status (APHIS Petition No. 05-280-01p) from Syngenta Seeds, Inc.,
 of Research Triangle Park, NC (Syngenta), for corn (Zea mays L.) designated as
 transformation event 3272, which has been genetically engineered to produce a
 microbial enzyme that facilitates ethanol production. The petition stated that
 Event 3272 corn is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and, therefore, should not
 be a regulated article under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340.
 In a notice /1/ published in the Federal Register on November 19, 2008 (73 FR
 69602-69604, Docket No. APHIS-2007-0016), APHIS announced the availability of
 the Syngenta petition and a draft environmental assessment (EA) for public
 comment. APHIS solicited comments on the petition, whether the subject corn is
 likely to pose a plant pest risk, and on the draft EA for 60 days ending on
 January 20, 2009. In a subsequent notice published in the Federal Register on
 June 4, 2009 (74 FR 26832-26835, Docket No. APHIS-2007-0016), we reopened the
 comment period until July 6, 2009.
 FOOTNOTE 1 To view the notice, petition, draft EA, the plant pest risk
 assessment and the comments we received, go to
 http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetailandd=APHIS
 APHIS received over 13,000 comments during the comment period, most of which
 conveyed opposition to the deregulation of the Event 3272 corn. APHIS has
 addressed the issues raised during the comment period and has provided responses
 to these comments as an attachment to the finding of no significant impact.
 National Environmental Policy Act
 To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of any
 potential environmental impacts associated with the determination of
 nonregulated status for Syngenta's Event 3272 corn, an EA has been prepared. The
 EA was prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of
 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Council
 on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40
 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b),
 and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). Based on our EA,
 the response to public comments, and other pertinent scientific data, APHIS has
 reached a finding of no significant impact with regard to the preferred
 alternative identified in the EA.
 Determination
 Based on APHIS' analysis of field, greenhouse, and laboratory data submitted by
 Syngenta, references provided in the petition, information analyzed in the EA,
 the plant pest risk assessment, comments provided by the public, and information
 provided in APHIS' response to those public comments, APHIS has determined that
 Syngenta's Event 3272 corn is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and should be
 granted nonregulated status.
 Copies of the signed determination document, as well as copies of the petition,
 plant pest risk assessment, EA, finding of no significant impact, and response
 to comments are available as indicated in the ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER
 INFORMATION CONTACT sections of this notice.
 Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80,
 and 371.3.
 Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of February 2011.
 Kevin Shea,
 Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
 Notice.
 Citation: "76 FR 8707"
 Federal Register Page Number: "8707"
 "Notices"
 LOAD-DATE: February 15, 2011
            Copyright 2011 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 143
 
                         The Oregonian (Portland Oregon)
                             February 13, 2011 Sunday
 GENETICALLY MODIFIED ALFALFA  22 million reasons   to regulate food
 BYLINE: Lisa H. Weasel
 LENGTH: 971 words
 By Lisa H. Weasel
 A fter more than five years of skirmishes, the battle over genetically modified
 alfalfa appears to have come to an abrupt end. Following weeks of cliff-hanger
 suggestions by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack that his agency might choose to
 pursue a novel and controversial path --one of conditional regulation for
 gentically modified alfalfa --he announced that the USDA will completely
 deregulate the planting of Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa. The ruling is
 likely to unleash thousands of tons of stockpiled GM alfalfa seed for planting
 this spring.
 So after years of ping-pong litigation that reached its crescendo in the
 echelons of the U.S. Supreme Court last summer, the case now seems settled:
 America the beautiful's amber waves of grain will now be of the genetically
 modified variety.
 In the context of more direct controversies currently under way over genetically
 modified food for human consumption --including AquaBounty salmon engineered to
 express exogenous growth hormones or Roundup Ready sugar beets --why should
 alfalfa, a livestock forage crop that makes only an occasional anachronistic
 appearance as human food in sprout form, register so passionately on the
 consumer radar screen?
 First, the fight over alfalfa has serious economic implications, for
 conventional and organic growers alike. This humble perennial pea-family plant
 is the world's most cultivated legume, blanketing approximately 22 million acres
 across the U.S. and bringing in an estimated $8 billion per year as the nation's
 fourth largest agricultural crop --after corn, wheat and soybeans. Its
 prominence in the form of silage and hay means that it stands at the base of the
 nation's pyramidal livestock food chain, upon which a large part of the
 country's dairy and meat production are precariously balanced. Any change in how
 alfalfa is cultivated and grown is certain to echo its way up the food chain.
 The fact that alfalfa is the first perennial GM field crop to seek commercial
 approval and is pollinated by native bees distinguishes its environmental
 profile from that of its prior GM commodity cousins --corn, soy, cotton and
 canola. That fact and the need to segregate non-GM alfalfa as an organic
 livestock feed --at a time when consumer demand and economic impact of organic
 dairy and meat is escalating --gave the organic industry a voice at the table
 that Vilsack recognized, if only for a fleeting moment.
 Ironically, perhaps, this momentary nod in the direction of organic interests
 intensified the infighting between rivals and friends alike, amplifying the
 debate to a level that garnered public notice. It was clear from the get-go that
 the USDA would never institute an all-out ban on GM alfalfa. But Vilsack's
 suggestion that it might conditionally regulate it --a lesser-of-two-evils
 option supported by major organic industry players such as Whole Foods and
 Organic Valley --led the Organic Consumer's Alliance to cry foul and accuse the
 "organic elite" of "surrendering to Monsanto," a move that made headlines and
 went viral across the nation, even before the USDA announced its more sweeping
 deregulation (which Big Org opposed).
 But beneath all of the attention that the controversy over GM alfalfa is
 garnering from consumers and the organic food industry, a deeper reason to more
 carefully regulate the spread of Roundup Ready alfalfa is being sidelined.
 Twenty-two million acres of cropland is nothing to scoff at, especially when the
 decision to deregulate means 22 million more acres of weeds upon which
 glyphosate herbicide will be doused.
 The short-term economic incentive to the makers of Roundup should be clear, but
 the potential disaster to the food-eating public may not be so apparent.
 Sprouting beneath what proponents may see as a clear short-term victory lie the
 roots of a deeper and more sinister long-term threat. Last May, the National
 Research Council joined a growing chorus of weed scientists in sounding an alarm
 on the threats from the upsurge in glyphosate-resistant weeds resulting from
 massive increases in Roundup's use on soy, corn and cotton crops since the
 introduction of GM varieties.
 "The single largest threat to production agriculture that we have ever seen,"
 one weed scientist told The New York Times last May in noting the potential
 havoc that glyphosate resistance could wreak on food prices, crop yields, farm
 costs and environmental pollution. Just last week, as the USDA was debating its
 decision, the Western Farm Press headlined an article likening the growth of
 glyphosate resistance to the threat of antibiotic-resistant MRSA.
 A commentary in the Proceeding of the National Academy of sciences last year
 similarly compared our agricultural dependence on glyphosate to the discovery of
 penicillin in fighting human disease. Of course, in an all-organic world,
 dependence upon glyphosate wouldn't be a concern. But in the current situation,
 where all of our food choices, organic or not, are dictated by the backdrop of
 conventional agriculture's tethering to chemicals like Roundup, the resistance
 factor is likely to continue to make big dents in our agricultural landscape.
 And now, with the approval of unregulated Roundup Ready alfalfa, 22 million more
 acres stand ready to join the massive experiment in the security of our food
 supply.
 That, more than any partisan politicking in favor of or against GM food, would
 have been the best reason for Vilsack to take the reins of GM alfafa and preside
 over careful regulation that might ensure that food supply's future.
 Lisa H. Weasel is an associate professor of biology at Portland State University
 and author of " Food Fray: Inside the Controversy over Genetically Modified
 Food." She served as a member of former Gov. Ted Kulongoski's Ad Hoc Committee
 on Biopharm Policy.
 LOAD-DATE: February 14, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: org
                           Copyright 2011 The Oregonian
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 144
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                            February 12, 2011 Saturday
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A10
 LENGTH: 2253 words
 Federal regulators announced Friday that farmers can plant a corn genetically
 engineered for ethanol production as early as thisspring.Butasthecornand
 ethanolindustriescelebratedthe decision, critics of genetically modified crops
 sounded warn- ings,sayingthecorncouldcon- taminatefoodsupplies.
 Thecorn,whichisdesignedto make ethanol processing more
 eicient,wasdevelopedbyMon- santocompetitorSyngentaAG,
 basedinSwitzerland.Monsanto, basedinCreveCouer,doesnot
 marketacornspecificallymodi- fiedforethanolgrowthorpro-
 duction,butdoessellahybrid varietygearedtoethanol. ForMidwesterncorngrowers, the
 announcement by the U.S. DepartmentofAgriculture'sAni-
 malandPlantHealthInspection Servicecameasgoodnews. "What it means for produc-
 ersisthatthere'sanewspecialty marketthat'sbeingdeveloped,"
 saidNathanFields,aspokesman fortheChesterfield-basedNa-
 tionalCornGrowersAssociation. "Thisgivesthemachancetodi- versify."
 Lastyear,86percentofAmeri- can corn was grown with ge-
 neticallymodifiedseed.About 40percentofthenation'scorn
 isconvertedtoethanol.Butthe Syngenta corn will be the first
 onthemarketthatisengineered specificallyforethanolandpro- cessingimprovements.
 Thecorn,whileitwillnotbe marketedforfood,wasdeemed safeasfoodorfeedbyregulators
 in 2007. But the food industry, particularlycornmillers,havesaid
 thatanycross-contaminationinto the food supply could be ruin-
 oustotheirbusinesses,becauseit coulddiminishthequalityofcorn
 products,andcouldbedamaging toexportmarketsthatdon'tallow
 geneticallymodifiedfoods. Syngentahassaidthatfarm- erswhogrowthecornwillenter
 into "closed loop" agreements thatrequirethemtosellthecorn
 onlytocertainethanolproces- sors,therebyminimizingtherisk ofcontamination.
 TheCanadiangovernmenthas alsoapprovedthecultivationof theSyngentacorn.Thecompany
 planstoworkwithsmallgroups ofgrowersandplantsinwestern Nebraska and Kansas,and
 will broadenproductionnextyear. Advocacygroupspointtopre- vious control
 problems. From 2001to2004,Syngentaacciden- tallysoldacornvariety, called
 StarLink,to American farmers withoutapprovaltodoso. "TheresemblancetoStarLink
 isuncanny,"saidBillFreese,of theWashington-basedadvocacy
 group,theCenterforFoodSafety. "MuchlikeStarLink,Syngenta's
 cornposesallergyconcernsandis notmeantforhumanfooduse."
 MargaretMellon,oftheUnion ofConcernedScientists-anon- profit science advocacy
 group thatseeksgreaterregulationof geneticallymodifiedfood-ar- gues current
 safeguards won't preventcontamination. "Thereisnowaytoprotectfood
 corncropsfromcontamination by ethanol corn," Mellon said. "Even with the most
 stringent precautions,thewindwillblow andstandardswillslip.Thereare
 norequiredprecautions." A10 o ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH M 1 o SATURDAY o
 MONTHS 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 F In billions In billions NYSE VOLUME 6
 DOW 6 MONTHS privatemoney. "It'scleartheadministration
 wantstheprivatesectortotakea moreprominentroleinthemort-
 gagerates,andinorderforthat tohappen,mortgagerateshave
 togoup,"saidThomasLawler,a housingeconomistinVirginia.
 AbolishingFannieandFreddie wouldrewrite70yearsoffederal housing policy, from
 Fannie's creationaspartoftheNewDeal to President George W. Bush's driveforan
 "ownershipsociety" inthe2000s.Itwouldtransform howhousesareboughtandrede-
 finewhocanafordthem. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the plan would
 probablynothappenforatleast five years and would proceed
 "verycarefully."Inthemeantime, hesaidthecompanieswouldhave
 thecashtheyneedtomeettheir existingobligations. "We thinkthere'sverybroad
 consensusontheHillandinthe broaderprivatemarketthatthere
 needstobeatransitiontoamuch smallerroleforthegovernment," hesaid.
 Eversincethehousingmarket wentbustandthecountryfell
 intoafinancialcrisis,pressure hasbeenbuildingforthegovern-
 menttodoawaywithFannieand Freddieandreducetaxpayerex- posuretorisk. Fannie and
 Freddie own or guaranteeabouthalfofallmort- gagesintheUnitedStates.Along
 withotherfederalagencies,they playedsomepartinalmost90 percentofnewmortgagesover
 thelastyear. Thetwoagenciesbuymort- gageloansfromprimarylenders,
 poolthemandsellthemwitha guaranteethatinvestorswillbe
 paidevenifborrowersdefault. Theideaistogivepeopleachance
 tobuyhousesatafordableinter- estrates. Butthetwonearlycollapsedin
 2008,afterthesubprimemort- gage marketcollapsedandde-
 faultsandforeclosurespiledup. Sofar,theyhavecosttaxpayers
 almost$150billionandcouldcost up to $259 billion, the Federal
 HousingFinancingAgencysays. Thefirstoptionproposedby the administration would
 give thegovernmentnorolebeyond helpingpoorerandmiddle-class
 borrowersthroughagencieslike theFederalHousingAdministra-
 tion,whichprovidesinsurance onmortgageloans. Thesecondandthirdoptions
 wouldgivethegovernmentarole asaninsurerofmortgages,and each would prompt
 mortgage companiestopassalongfeesto borrowers. Under one, the government
 wouldstepintoguaranteepri- vatemortgagesduringasevere economicdownturn,suchasan-
 otherhousingslump,butwould providelimitedsupportduring normaltimes. The third
 option would be morecomplex.Thegovernment wouldinsureatargetedrangeof mortgage
 investments already guaranteedbyprivateinsurers- servingasa "reinsurance"bro-
 kertothosefinancingcompanies. Intheeventtheprivateinsurers
 couldn'tpaytheownersofthe mortgageinvestments,thegov- ernmentinsurancewouldpay.
 Thethirdoptionwouldleave the government with the larg- est role and probably
 have the smallest impact on mortgage rates.Whilelenderswouldhave
 topayfees,whichwouldordinar- ilydriverateshigher,thegovern-
 mentguaranteesalsowouldmake mortgages a safer investment.
 Thatwouldattractmoreprivate moneyandholdratesdown. "Comparedtothewaythings
 operatedinthepast,creditwould bealittlelesseasytoobtain,and
 thetermswouldbealittlelessat- tractive,"saidNigelGault,chief
 U.S.economistwithIHSGlobal Insight. Thisoptionwouldfacesharp
 oppositionfromlawmakers.They fearthatprivatelenderswould
 inevitablytakeontoomuchrisk iftheyhadthegovernmentasa backstop.Democrats and
 con- sumer groups said they feared rates would soar if the system
 werelefttotheprivatemarket. Thechangeswouldbefeltby nearly everyone applying for
 a mortgage,fromfirst-timehome buyers to middle-age buyers
 tradinguptoolderbuyersscaling back,saidJosephMurin,afor-
 merpresidentofGinnieMae,the government-ownedcorporation
 thatguaranteesbondsbackedby homemortgages. Gaultsaidthereisanupsideto
 makinghousingalessattractive investment:Peoplewhocan'taf-
 fordhouseswouldbelesslikely tobuythem.Bankerswouldpre- sumablylendmorecarefully.
 Removingthosebuyers from the market could cause home pricestofall,however-which
 would help first-time buyers buthurtthosewhoalreadyown homes.
 BysendingCongressthreepro- posals,theadministrationside-
 stepsapoliticallydelicatetask thatthenewfinancialoverhaul
 lawleftundone.Italsoputspres- sureonRepublicansinCongress, who have blamed
 Fannie and Freddieforthecrisisbuthaveyet tooferaplanforreformingthem.
 DemocratscontroltheSenate,so anynewpolicywouldhavetobe approvedbyasplitCongress.
 The administration can take some steps without Congress'
 approval.Itcouldrequirebigger down payments for loans that
 getfederalguarantees,barFannie andFreddiefrombuyingmort-
 gagesthataretoobig,orincrease thefeestheycharge. Thosestepswouldmakeagov-
 ernment-backedmortgagemore expensiveanddrawmoreprivate moneyintothemarket. "When
 the administration stopstalkingtaskforcesandbe- ginstofleshthisout,you'llsee
 significantprivatecapitalinjected intothemortgagemarket,"said
 KarenShawPetrou,whoadvises banksongovernmentpolicyfor FederalFinancialAnalytics.
 Treasury fl oats proposal that would cut federal role in mortgages, force more
 reliance on private money Corn grown only for ethanol gets OK Critics of
 genetically modified crops say it could contaminate food supplies, diminish
 export market. BY GEORGINA GUSTIN o ggustin@post-dispatch.com > 314-340-8195 GM
 lures lease holders with incentives to buy Automaker offers to waive last 3
 months of payments if they purchase new vehicle. GeneralMotorsCo.isofering
 towaivethelastthreepayments onexistingleasesifholdersbuy
 anewcar,addinganincentive ontodealsthatlastmonthex- ceededofersmadebyrivals. The
 promotion began this month and is valid on most modelswithleasesthatexpire
 betweennowandAug.31,ac- cordingtothecompany. GMraisedincentivespending
 inJanuaryby16percenttoan averageof$3,663pervehicle, thehighestamongmajorcar-
 makers,accordingtoresearcher AutodataCorp.GMsalesout- pacedtheindustrythatmonth.
 GMsaidinavideopresenta- tionforitsinitialpublicofering inNovemberthatitintended
 to offerfewerincentivesthat crimped margins and created an impression that price
 was themainsellingpoint.Early- returnleasingdealsmaycon-
 flictwiththatpledge,saidJes- sicaCaldwell,ananalystatEd- munds.com.
 "Ihopethey'renotwalking downthatroad,"Caldwellsaid. Sales at Detroit-based GM
 rose22percentlastmonth,top- pingtheindustry's16percent gain.DonJohnson,GM'svice
 president of U.S. sales, said duringthecompany'smonthly
 salesconferencecallthatthe companywouldbegindiscuss- ingincentives
 "directionally" ratherthangivingspecificdata onamonth-to-monthbasis.
 "Iamnotseeinganyinternal behaviorthatsuggestswehave gone back to old ways," Rick
 Scheidt, GM's vice president of Chevrolet marketing, said
 earlierthisweekattheChicago AutoShow. "It'sstillwaytooclosetothe
 bankruptcyforustobesliding backintobadhabits.Weknow everybody'swatching."
 GMisbeingsmartaboutin- centives,saidDuanePaddock, whoownsPaddockChevrolet
 inKenmore,N.Y.Hisdealership advertises a Chevrolet Cruze compactfor$119amonthand
 the Chevrolet Equinox sport utilityvehiclefor$219,includ- ingotherincentives.
 The promotions fend off HondaMotorCo.andToyota Motor Corp., both of which have
 drawn customers away with attractive lease offers, Paddocksaid.
 Toyota,whichhalteddeliv- eriesayearearlierduetoare- call,raisedincentivespending
 inJanuaryby24percenttoan estimated$1,962asale.Honda boosted discounts 41 percent
 to$2,016.GMhadincreasedits promotionsby$498,or16per- cent.
 TheincentivesmaybeGM's wayofsignalingit'sbackinthe leasingbusinessafterspend-
 ing$3.3billionlastyeartobuy General Motors Finance,said Nicholas Colas, chief
 market strategist at BNY ConvergEx GroupinNewYork. "Idon'tthinktheseincen-
 tiveshaveasmuchtodowith overalldiscountingastheyhave to do with messaging to the
 marketplace,"Colassaid. Leasingwasabout14percent ofGM'sdeliveriesinJanuary,up
 fromlessthan5percentduring therecession,Johnson,theU.S.
 saleschief,said.GMremains belowtheindustryaverageof 20percent,hesaid. GM's
 leasing partners also includeAllyFinancialInc.,for- merlyknownasGMACFinan-
 cialServices,andservedasthe captivelendingarmoftheau- tomaker'spredecessor. BY
 DAVID WELCH AND CRAIG TRUDELLo Bloomberg News Cell towers may become extinct
 Wireless industry is planning antennas as small as a hand with better service.
 As cell phones have spread, so have large cell towers - those unsightly stalks
 of steel topped bytransmittersandotherelec- tronicsthatsproutedacrossthe
 countryoverthelastdecade. Nowthewirelessindustryis planningafuturewithoutthem,
 oratleastwithoutmanymoreof them. Instead,it's lookingatmuch smaller antennas,
 some tiny enoughtoholdinahand.These could be placed on lampposts,
 utilitypolesandbuildings-vir- tuallyanywherewithelectrical
 andnetworkconnections. If the technology overcomes some hurdles, it could upend
 thewirelessindustryandoffer seamlessservice,withfewerdead
 spotsandfasterdataspeeds. Somebignamesinthewire- lessworldaresettodemonstrate
 "smallcell"technologiesatthe Mobile World Congress, the
 world'slargestcellphonetrade show, which starts Monday in Barcelona,Spain.
 "Weseemoreandmoretowers thatbecomebiggerandbigger, withmoreandbiggerantennas
 thatcometoobstructourview andclutterourlandscapeandare
 simplyugly,"saidWimSweldens, presidentofthewirelessdivision
 ofAlcatel-Lucent,theFrench- U.S.makeroftelecommunica- tionsequipment.
 Alcatel-Lucentwillbeatthe showtodemonstrateits "light-
 Radiocube,"acellularantenna aboutthesizeandshapeofaRu- bik's cube,vastly smaller
 than theironing-board-sizedanten- nasthatnowdecoratecelltowers.
 ThecubewasdevelopedatBell LabsinNewJersey,birthplaceof manyotherinventionswhenit
 wasAT&T'sresearchcenter. In Alcatel-Lucent's vision, thesecubescouldsoonbeginre-
 placingcelltowers.Singlecubes or clusters of them could be
 placedindoorsoroutandbeeas- ilyhiddenfromview. Thecube,Sweldenssaid,can make the
 notion of a conven- tionalcelltower "goaway." Al- catel-Lucentwillstarttrialsin
 September.Thecompanyhopes tomakeitcommerciallyavailable nextyear.
 Forcellphonecompanies,the benefits of dividing their net- worksintosmaller
 "cells," each oneservedbysomethinglikethe cubeantenna,gofarbeyondes-
 thetics.Smallercellsmeanvastly highercapacityforcallsanddata traic. Instead of
 having all phones withinamileortwoconnectto thesamecelltower, thetraffic
 couldbedividedbetweensev- eralsmallercells,sothere'sless
 competitionforthecelltower's attention. BY PETER SVENSSONo Associated Press AP A
 wireless Internet transmitter tower, serving the Coeur d'Alene Indian
 reservation, is on a mountaintop near Plummer, Idaho. The spread of cell phones
 has meant the spread of big cell towers. The wireless industry is looking at
 putting small antennas on lampposts, utility poles and buildings. FANNIE MAE o
 LOAD-DATE: February 13, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2011 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 145
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                            February 12, 2011 Saturday
 Corn grown only for ethanol gets OK Critics of genetically modified crops say it
 could contaminate food supplies, diminish export market.
 BYLINE: BY GEORGINA GUSTIN o ggustin@post-dispatch.com > 314-340-8195
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. A10
 LENGTH: 481 words
 Federal regulators announced Friday that farmers can plant a corn genetically
 engineered for ethanol production as early as this spring. But as the corn and
 ethanol industries celebrated the decision, critics of genetically modified
 crops sounded warnings, saying the corn could contaminate food supplies.
 The corn, which is designed to make ethanol processing more efficient, was
 developed by Monsanto competitor Syngenta AG, based in Switzerland. Monsanto,
 based in Creve Couer, does not market a corn specifically modified for ethanol
 growth or production, but does sell a hybrid variety geared to ethanol.
 For Midwestern corn growers, the announcement by the U.S. Department of
 Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service came as good news.
 "What it means for producers is that there's a new specialty market that's being
 developed," said Nathan Fields, a spokesman for the Chesterfield-based National
 Corn Growers Association. "This gives them a chance to diversify."
 Last year, 86 percent of American corn was grown with genetically modified seed.
 About 40 percent of the nation's corn is converted to ethanol. But the Syngenta
 corn will be the first on the market that is engineered specifically for ethanol
 and processing improvements.
 The corn, while it will not be marketed for food, was deemed safe as food or
 feed by regulators in 2007. But the food industry, particularly corn millers,
 have said that any cross-contamination into the food supply could be ruinous to
 their businesses, because it could diminish the quality of corn products, and
 could be damaging to export markets that don't allow genetically modified foods.
 Syngenta has said that farmers who grow the corn will enter into "closed loop"
 agreements that require them to sell the corn only to certain ethanol
 processors, thereby minimizing the risk of contamination.
 The Canadian government has also approved the cultivation of the Syngenta corn.
 The company plans to work with small groups of growers and plants in western
 Nebraska and Kansas, and will broaden production next year.
 Advocacy groups point to previous control problems. From 2001 to 2004, Syngenta
 accidentally sold a corn variety, called StarLink, to American farmers without
 approval to do so.
 "The resemblance to StarLink is uncanny," said Bill Freese, of the
 Washington-based advocacy group, the Center for Food Safety. "Much like
 StarLink, Syngenta's corn poses allergy concerns and is not meant for human food
 use."
 Margaret Mellon, of the Union of Concerned Scientists - a nonprofit science
 advocacy group that seeks greater regulation of genetically modified food -
 argues current safeguards won't prevent contamination.
 "There is no way to protect food corn crops from contamination by ethanol corn,"
 Mellon said. "Even with the most stringent precautions, the wind will blow and
 standards will slip. There are no required precautions."
 LOAD-DATE: February 14, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2011 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 146
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                            February 10, 2011 Thursday
 BYLINE: Jeffrey Tomich, Lisa Brown (St. Louis Post-Dispatch)
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. A9
 LENGTH: 801 words
 Ameren shuffles execs; Foss retires - Ameren Corp. on Wednesday announced a
 reshuffling of several senior officers. The St. Louis-based company also said
 Karen Foss, the company's senior vice president of communications and brand
 management, will retire. The following moves are effective March 2: Charles D.
 Naslund will become senior vice president of generation and environmental
 projects for Ameren Missouri. He had been CEO of Ameren Energy Resources Co.;
 Steven R. Sullivan, formerly Ameren's general counsel, will take over as head of
 Ameren Energy Resources, the company's merchant generating unit; and Gregory L.
 Nelson will take Sullivan's place as vice president and general counsel. Foss, a
 well-known news anchor for 25 years at KSDK (Channel 5) in St. Louis, joined
 Ameren four years ago and was promoted to senior vice president in 2009. She did
 most of her work for the utility off-camera, but did make an occasional cameo.
 In 2007, Foss starred in an infomercial produced by Ameren to help repair the
 company's image in the wake of the Taum Sauk disaster. Two years later, she
 appeared in television commercials to help build support for legislation that
 would pave the way for a second nuclear reactor in Callaway County. (Jeffrey
 Tomich)
 Energizer ponders closing Switzerland plant - Energizer Holdings has set a March
 deadline to decide whether it will close an alkaline battery manufacturing and
 packaging plant in Switzerland. The potential closure is part of a restructuring
 effort of its global battery operations that Town and Country-based Energizer
 initiated last November. One of the goals of the restructuring plan is to
 streamline the company's worldwide manufacturing operations. The battery plant
 in La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland, has 226 employees. (Lisa Brown)
 Nokia, Microsoft could challenge Google - Nokia Oyj is close to announcing a
 software partnership with Microsoft Corp., a bet that together the two companies
 can better challenge Google Inc. and Apple Inc., according to a person with
 knowledge of the discussions. Nokia Chief Executive Stephen Elop has held talks
 with Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer about putting Microsoft's mobile operating
 system on Nokia phones, said the person, who asked not to be identified because
 the discussions were private. Elop will unveil a new strategy for Nokia at an
 event in London today.
 Beekeepers near maize can't sell honey in European Union - Beekeepers with hives
 close to fields of Creve Coeur-based Monsanto Co.'s genetically modified maize
 can't sell their honey in the European Union without regulatory approval, an
 adviser to the EU's highest court said. The unintentional presence in honey
 "even of a minute quantity of pollen" from the maize is sufficient reason to
 restrict its sale, said Advocate General Yves Bot of the European Court of
 Justice in a non-binding opinion Wednesday. "Food containing material from a
 genetically modified plant, whether that material is included intentionally or
 not, must always be regarded as food produced" from modified plants, Bot said.
 The Luxembourg-based EU tribunal follows such advice most of the time.
 Allstate Corp. said its net income fell 43 percent in the fourth quarter. The
 auto and home insurer earned $296 million, or 55 cents per share, down from $518
 million, or 96 cents, a year ago. Revenue rose to $8.09 billion.
 Cisco Systems Inc. said its net income fell 18 percent in the second quarter.
 The world's largest maker of computer-networking equipment earned $1.5 billion,
 or 27 cents per share, compared with $1.9 billion, or 32 cents, a year ago.
 Revenue rose 6 percent to $10.4 billion.
 Coca-Cola Co.'s fourth-quarter net income more than tripled. The world's largest
 drink maker earned $5.77 billion, or $2.46 per share, up from $1.54 billion, or
 66 cents, last year.
 MetLife Inc. said fourth-quarter net income fell. The life insurance company
 earned $51 million, or 5 cents per share, compared with $289 million, or 35
 cents, a year ago. Revenue rose 4 percent to $12.84 billion.
 Northrop Grumman said fourth-quarter profit fell 9 percent. The defense
 contractor earned $376 million, or $1.27 per share, compared with $413 million,
 or $1.31, a year ago. Revenue dropped 4 percent to $8.61 billion.
 Sigma-Aldrich Corp. said net income grew 1 percent. The St. Louis-based
 biochemicals company earned $94 million, or 76 cents per share, up from $93
 million, or 75 cents, a year ago. Revenue rose to $582 million.
 Whole Foods Market Inc.'s comeback continued in the first quarter as stronger
 sales drove its net income up 79 percent. The grocer earned $88.7 million, or 51
 cents per share, up from $49.7 million, or 32 cents, last year. Revenue rose 14
 percent to $3 billion.
 - Full versions of these stories and more can be found at stltoday.com/business.
 LOAD-DATE: February 10, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2011 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 147
 
                      The Pantagraph (Bloomington, Illinois)
                            February 05, 2011 Saturday
 Your Views
 SECTION: OPINION; Pg. A6
 LENGTH: 773 words
 Lame ducks dilute principle of 'consent'
 One of the most noble principles of our American government is the "consent" of
 the governed. In this, tyrants, dictators, warlords or kings do not rule. "We
 the people" govern through our elected representatives.
 Congressional representatives, senators and the president on a national level,
 along with state representatives, state senators and governors on a state level
 rule via the consent of the people.
 Deviance from this principle is less than noble. When the people's will is not
 heeded, this tends to diminish the ideal of government by consent of the
 citizenry.
 "Consent" was somewhat reduced after the recent November election when lame duck
 representatives trekked back to their legislative seats. Many had been defeated
 in their localities. Yet, because the current legislative session still had five
 or six weeks left, they could still vote.
 Both nationally and in Illinois, legislation was passed that seemed against the
 will of the people. The people's consent was muted, although the voting was not
 illegal - unethical perhaps.
 Rushing bills through Legislatures late at night and offering "deals" to get
 votes reeks in light of the great principle of the consent of the governed. A
 better system than lame duck voting in legislative bodies should somehow be
 devised.
 Legislatures should close down for 20 to 30 days following an election. Then, a
 new one can convene, duly elected, to better represent citizen "consent."
 The nation and the states can once again be operated by the consent of the
 governed.
 Perry A. Klopfenstein
 Gridley
 Nation headed for financial meltdown
 It may come next week or several months from now, but it is coming: The meltdown
 of our nation's financial stability.
 So far, the political courage of our national leaders and the realization by
 citizens of the crisis nature of the problem simply isn't there. Before long,
 all of the revenues the national government collects will be needed just to pay
 the interest on the national debt.
 President Obama stated - as most presidents do - that the state of the union is
 strong. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are on the precipice of
 fiscal catastrophe.
 He proposed freezing spending at current levels. Whoopee! That means the
 national debt - now at $14 trillion - would continue to grow at "only" $1
 trillion a year.
 But I guess that's OK; the Federal Reserve can keep on creating money from thin
 air by running the printing presses.
 Although the chairman said the Fed would never monetize the debt, that is
 exactly what it is doing. Our money will keep losing value.
 So far, there have been suggestions by a few of our "leaders" that we are on an
 unsustainable path - no kidding? - but no realistic measures to avert a disaster
 have been forthcoming.
 It's time for voters to demand that serious - albeit painful - actions be taken.
 There is no time remaining to "kick the can" down the road one more time.
 James Ensign
 Bloomington
 We are starving for nutritious food
 More Americans are starving than ever before. So many Americans are starving
 that two-thirds are either fat or obese. We are starving for nutritious foods.
 We literally cannot eat enough good nutritious food so that our bodies are
 satisfied. Our food no longer contains sufficient amounts of micro minerals and
 many other nutrients; it is calorie rich and nutrient poor.
 Without supplements, our health is forfeit. Our food supplies are primarily
 controlled by corporations who value profit over real service to people.
 The FDA is supposed to regulate our food so that it benefits the populace.
 However, the Food and Drug Administratio is a government institution and, like
 the Congress and president, it's put in place to serve corporations rather than
 the people.
 The onslaught on our food supply was greatly increased during the Reagan
 administration when Donald Rumsfeld put his man at the head of the FDA to
 legalize aspartame. We now have added aluminum and genetically modified food to
 our famine.
 Germans and Russians have both done studies comparing rats that eat genetically
 modified corn versus hybrid corn and have found that the rats eating genetically
 modified corn die six times faster. Even rats can't thrive on the stuff.
 I wish people could realize what is happening to our food, but starving people
 can't think very well as their minds are no longer being kept healthy by
 nutritious food.
 Victor Connor
 Normal
 PUB:  The Pantagraph
 Section:  Opinion
 EDITION:  Main
 XMLFILE:  59787203.txt
 DOC NAME:  A06 020511 letters SATURDAY
 LOAD-DATE: February 10, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2011 The Pantagraph









Document Number: 148
 
                      The Santa Fe New Mexican (New Mexico)
                             February 4, 2011 Friday
 SECTION: PASATIEMPO; Pg. PA-17
 LENGTH: 583 words
 Son of a Farmer, Child of the Earth by Eric Herm, Dreamriver Press,
 248 pages
 When fourth-generation farmer and former broadcast journalist Eric Herm isn't
 tending to his cotton fields on the dusty plains of West Texas, he's trying to
 convince anyone who will listen -- including his father, who has since become at
 least somewhat convinced of the effectiveness and economic viability of
 sustainable farming practices -- that the current state of agriculture and
 large-scale food production is literally killing us from the ground up. And he
 holds his and his fellow farmers' feet to the fire for it.
 "If we persist in following the model of commercial agriculture, we are destined
 to fail," he writes. "As farmers, we've transformed into part of the problem
 rather than the solution. Without immediate and radical changes in our mentality
 and agricultural practices, nobody should pity us.  Our problems cannot all be
 blamed on governments and corporations. We have allowed this hostile takeover."
 That isn't to say that governments and corporations get off easy in Herm's
 illuminating look at big agribusiness and its tight embrace of genetically
 modified organisms (GMOs) and pesticides. Much page space is devoted to
 Monsanto's and other corporations' dangerous control over and manipulation of
 the seed and fertilizer industries, and Herm breaks this and other bad news to
 readers with a staggering amount of statistical data that is both frightening
 and frustrating to absorb.
 For instance, in 1999, according to the USDA, 57 percent of the soy acreage in
 the U.S. was genetically modified. By 2007, according to Jeffrey M. Smith,
 author and executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology (which
 oversees the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America), "the [genetically
 modified] variety that is planted in 89 percent of U.S. soy acres gets its
 foreign gene from bacteria (with parts of virus and petunia DNA as well)."
 That's a genetically modified acreage increase of
 51 percent in just eight years.
 Son of a Farmer also includes chapters on rain and clean water and soil
 degradation/restructuring, each disturbing point driven home with plenty of
 statistics and a few creative solutions. But it is at the halfway point in the
 book that Herm -- who describes himself as "a naturalist and a survivalist 
 redneck and hippie  cowboy and Indian" -- veers a little too far off the farm
 to keep his messages about big agriculture, and how to remedy or sidestep it,
 fresh in the mind. His anecdotes and memories of earlier days are interesting
 and entertaining, but they don't mesh snugly with the data regurgitation that
 surrounds them.
 After a little nostalgic detour and a useful chapter on "Knowledge of Nature and
 Self" that really brings out Herm's inner hippie, readers are treated to
 suggestions about the necessity for alternative currencies; advice for the Tea
 Party, a group that Herm initially found encouraging as an "anti-tax group" but
 that has since been "hijacked by the by the Republican Party and Fox News"; and
 frustrations with farm subsidies, the Food Safety Enhancement Act, and the Food
 Safety Modernization Act. Much of this information is useful, but it is too
 often framed as an angry manifesto or dire warning rather than as a clear-headed
 "path to agriculture's higher consciousness," as stated on the cover.
 -- Rob DeWalt
 Eric Herm discusses and signs copies of 'Son of a Farmer' at 6 p.m. Friday,
 Feb. 4, at Collected Works Bookstore, 202 Galisteo St., 988-4226.
 LOAD-DATE: February 4, 2011
 GRAPHIC: See pdf's for exact rendition, caption, graphics and photographer info.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                     Copyright 2011 The Santa Fe New Mexican
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 149
 
                        Alamogordo Daily News (New Mexico)
                            February 3, 2011 Thursday
 Watch for genetically-altered foods
 BYLINE: Alamogordo Daily News By Dr. Linda Johnson, For the Daily News
 LENGTH: 689 words
 How would you feel if you knew you and your family were regularly consuming food
 that animals have refused to eat?
 If animals won't eat food they usually eat, there is a serious issue with that
 food.
 Genetically modified organisms have been in your food for a long time. This is
 nothing new, but most are just hearing about this technology. Technology is good
 when it helps people live a healthier, more productive life. When technology
 changes food into something that can cause immune problems, such accelerated
 aging, faulty insulin regulation, infertility and changes in major organs,
 including the gastrointestinal system, many physicians recommend their patients
 avoid GMO foods.
 GMOs are made by forcing genes from one species like viruses and bacteria into
 the DNA of a vegetable or fruit to change how it responds to pesticides,
 diseases and drought. Some of this sounds pretty good if corn no longer is
 affected by certain bugs or soy can also be immune to detrimental organisms.
 However, the changes implanted in GMO food goes way beyond the good stuff. Corn
 and soy are the two biggest GMO foods. Just try to find any manufactured food
 without at least one of these in it.
 Ninety percent of all corn planted in the U.S. is genetically modified. This
 corn seed is specially made by Monsanto and engineered to ward off root worm by
 producing its own pesticide, which you then consume.
 So you say you don't eat corn? If you eat animals that eat corn and they managed
 to force this food on them, you are eating GM food. Specific animal studies
 showed that when rats were fed this corn, they developed many reactions that
 included anemia, increased blood sugar levels, kidney inflammation, blood
 pressure issues, increased white blood cells and more.
 It's very likely these health problems are affecting humans as well. Since the
 FDA doesn't think GM food need to be examined for humans to eat safely, it's
 been on the market for a long time.
 Interestingly, European countries feel there is something wrong with this
 manipulation of food and they don't allow it in their countries.
 In other parts of the world, farmers reported their animals getting sick after
 eating GM crops and some had many cows, sheep and pigs die. When they suspected
 the food was the cause, some ran their own experiments by turning the animals
 loose to feed on a non-GMO crop. When that field was gone, they watched the
 animals move on to the GMO planted crops. They saw the animals begin to eat the
 crops, then turn away and leave the area. Even the animals can tell there is
 something extremely wrong with this manipulated food.
 Besides corn and soy, other GMO foods are cottonseed (used in vegetable cooking
 oils), canola, sugar from sugar beets, Hawaiian papaya, zucchini and yellow
 squash. In many countries when these foods were being harvested, many workers
 became sick and symptoms continued even after they weren't in the fields.
 The only way you can protect your family and yourself from this travesty is to
 buy organic produce and food products. Make sure it says non-GMO on the package
 because even if it's in a natural food store, it doesn't mean it's non-GMO. The
 government is very supportive of Monsanto and the GMO food movement and does not
 require GMO labeling, making it very hard for you to know what you are eating.
 It is not known what the long-term ramifications of eating food daily that has
 been genetically modified. What are the damaging effects of a newborn ingesting
 nothing but formula made with GM ingredients?
 No one knows. What bothers me is how long just about everyone has been eating
 them already, with no knowledge. Knowing what GM foods are is only half the
 battle. The other half is being able to identify them without clear labeling.
 If possible, grow as much of your own produce as possible, shop at health food
 stores regularly and remember to look for the non-GMO print.
 It's impossible to avoid it completely, but whenever you can I feel it will
 prove beneficial to your health. Time will tell.
 Dr. Linda Johnson is a naturopathic doctor based in Alamogordo. Contact her at
 434-6400 or via e-mail at balancedhealth@live.com
 LOAD-DATE: February 3, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
        Copyright 2011 Alamogordo Daily News, a MediaNews Group Newspaper
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 150
 
                               The Bismarck Tribune
                            February 3, 2011 Thursday
 Draft proposes allowing biotech crops on refuges
 SECTION: DAKOTA WIRE; Pg. 1B
 LENGTH: 129 words
 DENVER (AP) - Federal officials have completed a draft environmental assessment
 of the potential effects of planting Roundup Ready crops on land in the National
 Wildlife Refuge System.
 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says farming on those lands can help control
 noxious weeds before those areas can be reseeded with native plants.
 In 2009, farmed refuge system land in a region covering Colorado, Kansas,
 Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming included about
 6,175 acres of genetically modified corn and soybeans.
 The Fish and Wildlife Service says it's taking another look at the use of those
 crops, now that more farmers are using them. The draft assessment proposes
 continuing to allow the crops.
 The public can comment on the draft through March 4.
 LOAD-DATE: February 3, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
        Copyright 2011 The Bismarck Tribune, a division of Lee Enterprises
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 151
 
                         Lincoln Journal Star (Nebraska)
                            February 3, 2011 Thursday
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. A4
 LENGTH: 387 words
 Dick's, former worker settle over pay
 OMAHA - Dick's Sporting Goods has reached a settlement with a former employee
 over just payment for her work.
 Court records show U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon dismissed the lawsuit
 filed by Dannette Stackhouse, citing the settlement.
 Stackhouse said in her lawsuit that employees were forced to work through
 breaks, were unpaid for overtime and sometimes were locked in the store until
 work was finished, all in violation of state law. Her lawsuit was filed on
 behalf of roughly 900 Dick's workers in Nebraska and sought class-action status.
 Stackhouse worked in the sporting goods retailer's Papillion location.
 Verizon names head of Lincoln call center
 Verizon Wireless has named Kristen Wright director of customer service for its
 customer service center in Lincoln.
 Wright assumed the position previously held by Bonnie Edwards, who moved to
 South Carolina for another position within Verizon.
 In her new role, Wright will direct and manage the overall activities of the
 Lincoln customer service center, the company said. The center primarily provides
 customer support for inbound customer calls with questions on billing,
 price-plan changes, voice and data products, and technical support for
 equipment.
 MUD gets grant for natural gas stations
 OMAHA - The Metropolitan Utilities District plans to use federal stimulus money
 to build two natural gas fueling stations for vehicles in Omaha.
 U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson says MUD received a $2.2 million loan for the project.
 The new stations will be the first in the area to sell compressed natural gas to
 the public.
 Feds look at effects of biotech crops, refuges
 DENVER - Federal officials have completed a draft environmental assessment of
 the potential effects of planting Roundup Ready crops on land in the National
 Wildlife Refuge System.
 In 2009, farmed refuge system land in a region covering Colorado, Kansas,
 Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming included about
 6,175 acres of genetically modified corn and soybeans.
 The Fish and Wildlife Service says it's taking another look at the use of those
 crops, now that more farmers are using them.
 The public can comment on the draft through March 4. The draft assessment can be
 found at www.fws.gov/sandlake/gm/ web-gmo-draftea-02-01-11.pdf.
 - From staff and wire reports
 LOAD-DATE: February 4, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2011 Lincoln Journal Star
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 152
 
                          Brattleboro Reformer (Vermont)
                             January 28, 2011 Friday
 Leahy blasts USDA over biotech alfalfa
 LENGTH: 917 words
 Friday January 28, 2011
 WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Agriculture Department is allowing widespread planting of
 genetically modified alfalfa, attempting to bring to a close a lengthy legal and
 regulatory process in which organic producers attempted to curtail the use of
 the modified crop.
 The decision announced Thursday is a blow to the organic foods industry, which
 complains that modified seeds can contaminate their organic crops through
 pollination, bringing genetically modified foods into their fields.
 Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., said in a joint
 statement saying that organic dairy farmers and organic consumers will pay the
 price.
 "USDA officials had an opportunity to address the concerns of all farmers,
 whether they choose to farm genetically altered crops, conventional crops, or
 organic crops, and to find a way for them to coexist. Instead, what we now have
 is a setback for the nation's organic and conventional agriculture sectors.
 Instead of settling this issue, USDA's decision regrettably guarantees further
 rounds in the courts," stated Leahy and DeFazio.
 "This is a big payday for the giant firms that pushed for this rollback.
 Unfortunately, consumers and hardworking farmers who choose not to use these
 genetically engineered crops will be handed the tab. Organic feed already is
 expensive and in short supply. This will compound that problem while creating
 many more.
 "America's biotech industry and organic agriculture can coexist and thrive, but
 only if there are clear rules to referee their conflicting needs and interests,"
 they stated.
 The Agriculture Department has said the modified alfalfa -- used primarily for
 hay for cattle -- is safe, but some consumers don't want to eat foods derived
 from it, including milk or beef. The growing organic industry and its millions
 of consumers have long been wary of genetically modified seed companies such as
 Monsanto, citing the purity of natural seeds, the ethics of eating modified
 foods and possible environmental damage from creating new varieties of crops.
 Farmers who use the seeds say they boost their crop yields and help reduce
 prices for consumers in the grocery store. The biotech companies say they are
 doing their part voluntarily to restrict where their alfalfa crops are planted
 so they don't contaminate other, non-engineered crops.
 Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack had said in December that the department was
 considering, as one of several options, government restrictions on planting of
 the modified alfalfa, giving producers of organic and other non-engineered
 alfalfa hope. But the department came under sharp criticism for that proposal
 from the genetically engineered-seed companies and Congress. In a hearing last
 week, several members from farm states questioned the proposal, saying it
 politicized the regulatory process. Because the alfalfa is safe, its planting
 should be allowed, they argued.
 Vilsack disagreed that the issue had been politicized, saying the department is
 simply trying to help two large agricultural industries -- organics and biotech
 companies -- peacefully coexist. He said Thursday the department will make other
 efforts to ensure that organic and other non-modified alfalfa seeds remain pure
 by doing additional research on preventing cross contamination of seeds and
 improving detection of that contamination. He said the department will make
 efforts to ensure that pure varieties of the alfalfa seeds are preserved.
 The organic industry said it wasn't enough.
 "Consumers will not tolerate the accidental presence of genetic engineered
 materials in organic products, yet GE crops continue to proliferate unchecked,"
 said Christine Bushway, director and CEO of the Organic Trade Association.
 George Siemon, CEO of Organic Valley, one of the country's largest organic food
 companies, worked with the USDA as it made the decision. He said the controversy
 over the alfalfa has swirled as organics have grown exponentially and biotech
 crops have prospered as well. A large number of crops -- including soybeans and
 corn -- are made from some sort of genetically engineered component.
 "Organics have succeeded and also the biotechnology sector has succeeded, and
 it's naturally coming to a head right now," he said. "There's no doubt that in
 the last five years, right or wrong, consumer concerns about this technology has
 just magnified."
 USDA's decision on the alfalfa -- which is genetically engineered to be
 resistant to the popular weed killer Roundup, so it can be used without hurting
 the crop -- has wound through the regulatory process and the courts. A 2007
 federal court decision said the USDA had not given enough consideration to the
 effects of the modified alfalfa, and a judge placed an injunction on planting
 the crop. The U.S. Supreme Court said last year that decision had gone too far.
 There are several other USDA decisions on modified crops coming soon, Vilsack
 said, including on modified sugar beets and corn amylase, which is made to
 produce ethanol fuel. But he insisted that each crop is unique and the decision
 to allow unrestricted planting of alfalfa is not a precedent for the others.
 Despite Vilsack's assurances, many in the agriculture industry have closely
 watched the decision.
 "I think there's a general sigh of relief in U.S. agriculture that this is the
 right decision," said Mark McCaslin, President of Forage Genetics International,
 a co-developer of the Roundup Ready alfalfa. "I am sure there were a lot of
 people who were nervous."
 LOAD-DATE: January 28, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
    Copyright 2011 MediaNews Group, Inc. and New England Newspaper Group Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 153
 
                         Lewiston Morning Tribune (Idaho)
                             January 28, 2011 Friday
 LENGTH: 739 words
 Nation
 Police: U.S. missionary possibly killed over truck
 MONTE ALTO, Texas - A Texas couple who were attacked at an illegal roadblock in
 one of Mexico's most violent areas had been delivering babies and doing
 missionary work in the country for three decades, and they had come to expect
 such confrontations, the couple's son said Thursday.
 Nancy Davis, 59, was shot in the head Wednesday while her husband, Sam, was
 trying to speed away from suspected drug cartel gunmen who may have wanted to
 steal their pickup truck, authorities said. Sam Davis frantically raced to the
 Pharr International Bridge border checkpoint with his wife bleeding beside him,
 but she was declared dead at a McAllen hospital.
 "It would be easier to count the times they weren't chased," the couple's son,
 Joseph Davis, told The Associated Press outside his family's home in the remote
 South Texas town of Monte Alto.
 Sam Davis' mother, Francille Davis, told the AP that her son and daughter-in-law
 were in Mexico Wednesday to visit pastors in some of the village churches the
 family had established, but that they had recently put off trips to Mexico
 because of the spiraling violence.
 USDA will allow planting of genetically modified alfalfa
 WASHINGTON - The Agriculture Department is allowing widespread planting of
 genetically modified alfalfa, attempting to bring to a close a lengthy legal and
 regulatory process in which organic producers attempted to curtail the use of
 the modified crop.
 The decision announced Thursday is a blow to the organic foods industry, which
 complains that modified seeds can contaminate their organic crops through
 pollination, bringing genetically modified foods into their fields. The
 Agriculture Department has said the modified alfalfa - used primarily for hay
 for cattle - is safe, but some consumers don't want to eat foods derived from
 it, including milk or beef. The growing organic industry and its millions of
 consumers have long been wary of genetically modified seed companies such as
 Monsanto, citing the purity of natural seeds, the ethics of eating modified
 foods and possible environmental damage from creating new varieties of crops.
 Illinois high court: Emanuel can run for Chicago mayor
 CHICAGO - Illinois' highest court put Rahm Emanuel back in the race for Chicago
 mayor Thursday, three days after a lower court threw the former White House
 chief of staff off the ballot because he had not lived in the city for a full
 year.
 The state Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Emanuel's favor, saying an appeals
 court decision that said the candidate needed to be physically present in
 Chicago was "without any foundation in Illinois law."
 Emanuel lived for nearly two years in Washington working for President Barack
 Obama. He moved back to Chicago in October, after Mayor Richard M. Daley
 announced he would not seek another term.
 Indian leader: Unleash energy on tribal lands
 WASHINGTON - To achieve energy independence, the United States should focus on
 tribal lands with vast untapped supplies of coal, natural gas, oil and wind, the
 leader of the nation's largest Indian organization said Thursday.
 Jefferson Keel, president of the National Congress of American Indians, said
 tribal lands contain about 10 percent of U.S. energy resources, but provide less
 than 5 percent of national energy production. He blamed bureaucratic obstacles
 that prevent tribes from generating an estimated $1 trillion in revenue from
 energy sources.
 Keel cited at least 49 bureaucratic steps in the Interior Department alone that
 deter energy development. He called for Congress and the Obama administration to
 unleash the potential of Indian energy resources throughout the nation.
 Keel's speech came as Senate Democratic leaders announced that Sen. Daniel
 Akaka, D-Hawaii, is the new chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee.
 Potential scams top 7,000 in BP spill compensation
 NEW ORLEANS - The $20 billion fund responsible for compensating victims of BP's
 Gulf of Mexico oil spill has received more than 7,000 potentially fraudulent
 claims, many of which have been referred to the Justice Department for criminal
 investigations, the fund's administrator told a Senate panel on Thursday.
 Attorney Kenneth Feinberg, who is overseeing the Gulf Coast Claims Facility,
 said of more than 481,000 claims filed, 7,575 are considered potentially
 fraudulent. The Justice Department has already indicted eight claimants.
 From wire service reports
 LOAD-DATE: January 28, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2011 Tribune Publishing Co.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 154
 
                         Lincoln Journal Star (Nebraska)
                             January 28, 2011 Friday
 Monsanto wins one, loses one;
 Decisions allow genetically modified alfalfa, deny pilot planting in Mexico.
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. A5
 LENGTH: 400 words
 Monsanto won a big U.S. regulatory case that will allow the widespread planting
 of its genetically modified alfalfa, but lost a smaller case in Mexico.
 The USDA decision announced Thursday is a blow to the organic foods industry,
 which complains that modified seeds can contaminate their organic crops through
 pollination. The Agriculture Department has said the modified alfalfa - used
 primarily for hay for cattle - is safe, but some consumers don't want to eat
 foods derived from it, including milk or beef.
 Farmers who use genetically modified seeds say they boost their crop yields,
 help reduce their own costs and lower prices for consumers. The genetically
 modified alfalfa resists the herbicide Roundup, which allows it to be used to
 kill weeds with no harm to the crop.
 Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack had said in December that the department was
 considering, as one of several options, restrictions on planting of the modified
 alfalfa. But the department came under sharp criticism for that proposal from
 the genetically engineered-seed companies and Congress.
 In a hearing last week, several members from farm states said it politicized the
 science that contributed to the regulatory process. Because the alfalfa is
 considered safe, its planting should be allowed without restriction, they
 argued.
 Vilsack said Thursday the department will make other efforts to ensure that
 organic and other non-modified alfalfa seeds remain pure by doing additional
 research on preventing cross-contamination of seeds and improving detection of
 that contamination.
 The alfalfa decision has wound through the regulatory process and the courts for
 years. A 2007 federal court decision said the USDA had not given enough
 consideration to the effects of the modified alfalfa, and a judge placed an
 injunction on planting the crop. Several hundred acres of it were planted at the
 time in Nebraska.
 The U.S. Supreme Court said last year that decision had gone too far.
 In a decision announced Wednesday, a Mexican regulatory body denied an
 application from Monsanto to expand to pilot planting projects of genetically
 modified corn in northern Mexico.
 Reynaldo Alvarez Morales, the head of Mexico's interagency commission on
 genetically modified crops, said companies will have to plan at least another
 cycle of planting in small plots of about 2 acres before they can move on to
 "pilot" plots of as much as 124 acres.
 LOAD-DATE: January 28, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2011 Lincoln Journal Star
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 155
 
                              The Houston Chronicle
                            January 27, 2011 Thursday
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. 3
 LENGTH: 259 words
 Chavez threatens Spanish bank
 President Hugo Chavez threatened to expropriate a Spanish-owned bank on
 Wednesday, arguing that its managers have refused to grant loans to
 cash-strapped Venezuelans seeking to purchase homes amid a nationwide housing
 deficit.
 During a televised speech, Chavez called the president of Banco Provincial and
 publicly accused him of refusing to offer loans. He raised the possibility of
 seizing control of the bank.
 Banco Provincial belongs to Spanish banks Banco Santander and Banco Bilbao
 Vizcaya Argentaria. Banco Provincial denied the bank has turned its back on
 clients seeking loans.
 Mexico's state-run oil monopoly, Pemex, said its crude production fell slightly
 last year from 2009. But it said last year's results show that production has
 stabilized after years of decline. Oil production averaged about 2.57 million
 barrels a day in 2010, down 1 percent from 2.6 million barrels a day from the
 previous year, Pemex said.
 A Mexican regulatory body has denied an application from U.S. seed giant
 Monsanto Co. to expand to pilot planting projects of genetically modified corn
 in northern Mexico. Mexico is considered the birthplace of corn, and scientists
 and activists worry that modified strains could contaminate or displace native
 varieties.
 China said it is fining U.S.-based Wal-Mart Stores and French-based Carrefour
 stores up to $75,900 each for overpricing. China is concerned about inflation,
 particularly ahead of the Lunar New Year holiday next week. The stores couldn't
 be reached for comment.
 LOAD-DATE: January 27, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
             Copyright 2011 The Houston Chronicle Publishing Company
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 156
 
                             Saginaw News (Michigan)
                             January 21, 2011 Friday
 Your voices
 SECTION: A; Pg. 6
 LENGTH: 590 words
 Kid Rock shouldn't fly Confederate flag at Saginaw concert
 Voice: Kenneth Hreha, Dryden
 With great pleasure, I read the Rev. Daniel Buttry's commentary "Respect others
 in the new year" published in The Detroit News.
 His enlightened opinion rightly points out, "We don't like our buttons pushed by
 familiar code words that speak lightly of our suffering, that disparage our
 people or that limit our humanity to what is degrading and demeaning."
 Only the ignorant would disagree with Buttry's perspective.
 It also serves to ask why Michigan's widely popular music star Kid Rock pays
 honor to the Confederate flag during his concert performances by flying it in
 front of thousands of impressionable fans. Does he not know of the fight for
 freedom in the U.S. civil rights movement?
 Is it fair to ask if Kid Rock's insensitive action is code for saying that his
 heart believes in what Jim Crow stood for? Because listening to Kid Rock sing
 "All Summer Long" and "Sweet Home Alabama" most certainly is.
 In fairness, a close friend of the music star recently advised me Kid Rock flies
 the Confederate flag because he was innocently influenced by watching the "Dukes
 of Hazzard" as a youth and nothing more.
 I suggested Kid Rock is now a quarter-century removed from adolescence and
 should know the unforgivable reality that for too many black Americans there was
 no sweet home Alabama, nor was being born free in America an equal and fair
 option as it was for him in his rural middle-class upbringing.
 Not bringing the Confederate flag to his Jan. 21-22 Saginaw concert would not
 only heed the advice and words of Rev. Buttry, it would pay respect to the life
 and legacy of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
 I respectfully suggest Kid Rock put away his Confederate flag and that his
 legions of dedicated fans think long and hard when singing along with his
 signature song and new release "Born Free" and realize that the fight for U.S.
 civil rights freedom came with tragic, sorrowful scars on our national history
 such as the 1965 Birmingham, Ala., church bombing that murderously ended the
 lives of four innocent little girls.
 Genetically modified sugar beets should wait for USDA study
 Voice: Doug Downhour, Mount Pleasant
 It was shocking to see the editorial advocating the planting of genetically
 modified sugar beets before the U.S. Department of Agriculture study is
 complete.
 Other modified crops have proven harmful to animals in tests, so why would sugar
 beets have a different result? There is a reason genetically modified organisms
 (GMO) are called frankenfoods.
 In my view, the USDA is advocating peaceful co-existence with Monsanto, which in
 effect means we get to live with whatever Monsanto wants.
 The Food and Drug Administration has a lousy track record in terms of looking
 out for the safety of the public (Vioxx, Gardasil, etc.).
 Many groups are fighting this idea; thus the lawsuit.
 Farmers in Missouri face lawsuits from Monsanto lawyers over seed saving, GMO
 seeds blowing from one field to a non-GMO field, etc.
 Arkansas farmers face superweeds that appear to have no remedy.
 So why are sugar beet farmers so eager to use this seed? They would be better
 served to plant regular seed and risk a so-called loss of production.
 If they go the GMO route, they will not get the harvest they think they will,
 and as more consumers discover how dangerous GMO "food" is to one's health,
 sales will drop.
 Suffice it to say, if Michigan Sugar puts out a GMO product, they have lost a
 customer. We will stick to xylitol, organic cane sugar or palm sugar.
 LOAD-DATE: January 21, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: fjl
                           Copyright 2011 Saginaw News
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 157
 
                            Investor's Business Daily
                             January 18, 2011 Tuesday
 Food Shortages That Don't Have To Be
 SECTION: ISSUES & INSIGHTS; EDITORIALS; Pg. A14
 LENGTH: 711 words
 Feed The World: Warnings of a global food shortage are cropping up in the news.
 This should not be happening in 2011. But while our technologies have advanced,
 our politics are still prehistoric.
 Our world should be a land of plenty. But we're being told that global food
 prices are rising as supplies become increasingly tight. Analysts cite a
 combination of growing demand and poor weather.
 Food riots in Tunisia are getting the most media attention now, but that's not
 the only country being affected. Argentina's soybean harvest has been diminished
 by hot, dry weather, while flooding in Australia has severely hurt the wheat
 crop Down Under.
 In the U.S., inventories of corn have fallen because of weather problems, and
 soybean reserves, according to the Agriculture Department, are at a three-decade
 low. Heavy rain in Canada and Pakistan was not offset, but instead was
 exacerbated, by drought in Russia.
 Man cannot control the weather. But famine today is as much man-made as it is a
 force of nature.
 Zimbabwe, for instance, was once considered the breadbasket of Africa. It
 exported wheat, corn and sugar cane across the continent and beyond. But the
 country's agriculture industry has been destroyed by a Marxist government that
 has seized privately owned farms in the name of "land reform."
 Under the regime of Robert Mugabe, the annual corn harvest shriveled from more
 than 1.5 million tons in 2000 to 500,000 tons in 2003. By 2010, production was
 still around 600,000 tons. Wheat production also collapsed, from 309,000 tons in
 2000 to 27,000 tons in 2003. Last year it was roughly 18,000 tons.
 Over a short period, Zimbabwe went from being a net exporter of food to a
 country dependent on international handouts. The once-fertile nation is in a
 perpetual man-made famine, where more than 2 million go hungry in a population
 of 11.4 million.
 Less known is the story of Malawi. Earlier this decade, kleptocrats within the
 government sold off the nation's grain and kept the profits for themselves.
 Governments promote famine in more passive ways as well. Another African nation,
 Zambia, declined food aid, mostly corn, from the U.S. in 2002, even though it
 was facing a famine that would affect nearly one-third of its people.
 Why? Because America was offering genetically modified food, and it was the
 country's policy -- based on Europe's unfounded fear of such products -- to
 reject it.
 Four years later, Friends of the Earth publicly asked governments in the hungry
 African countries of Ghana and Sierra Leone to recall U.S. food aid that
 contained genetically modified rice. Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa set the
 wrong tone in 2002 when he called the food offered to his famished nation
 "poison" and "intrinsically dangerous."
 Such foolish statements could be passed off as ignorance, but what do we say
 about wags in the developed world who have named genetically modified crops
 "frankenfood"? They are spreading a fear and superstition about genetically
 modified foods that doom humans to suffering and even death.
 Through genetically altered organisms, which pose no health problems to humans,
 farmers are able to plant seeds that grow into crops which are resistant to
 drought, cold weather, insect damage, herbicides and disease. Nutrition can even
 be improved through genetic modification.
 Genetically modified crops have another significant advantage: They can produce
 more per acre than is possible with conventional crops. Norman Borlaug, the
 agronomist who launched the Green Revolution through his decades of biotech
 work, believed that genetically modified food crops would stop world hunger. He
 was eventually able to coax sixfold yields from some crops.
 When he died in 2009, Josette Sheeran, executive director of the United Nations
 World Food Program, put Borlaug's work in context: He had "saved more lives than
 any man in human history."
 Some say Borlaug actually saved as many as a billion lives. Yet genetically
 modified foods are looked on with skepticism and are still banned by
 governments.
 Given that we have the technology to grow larger crops on smaller parcels and
 fly fresh food around the world to where it's needed in a matter of hours, the
 obstructionism is inexcusable. We need policymakers who are as advanced as
 today's technology.
 LOAD-DATE: January 14, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2011 Investor's Business Daily, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 158
 
                        The Chronicle of Higher Education
                             January 16, 2011  Sunday
 Synthetic Biology Makes Scary Headlines, but Universities Promote It as a
 Lifesaver
 BYLINE: Paul Basken
 SECTION: RESEARCH; Faculty
 LENGTH: 1728  words
 The discipline is a tactical upgrade in the search for better medicines, making
 computerized machines out of living cells.
 The renowned scientist J. Craig Venter got top-shelf attention last spring when
 his lab implanted modified DNA into growing bacteria and he pronounced it "the
 first synthetic species" of life.
 On Capitol Hill, lawmakers convened a hearing to study the implications. Down
 Pennsylvania Avenue, President Obama asked his bioethics commission to
 investigate, saying the event raised "genuine concerns."
 But there is a far more compelling story about how this field, known as
 synthetic biology, is taking shape, largely on university campuses. It is not
 primarily about making new life forms. It is, rather, a major tactical upgrade
 in the long-running search for better medicines, fuels, and renewable materials.
 The idea involves sophisticated new gene-altering techniques that essentially
 make computerized machines out of tiny living cells.
 These biological devices may be able to detect and kill cancer cells and treat
 malaria. "The power to do this kind of stuff is getting better pretty quickly,"
 said Sean R. Eddy, leader of a computational-genomics group at the
 Virginia-based Janelia Farm Research Campus of the Howard Hughes Medical
 Institute, which finances research at more than 50 U.S. universities.
 The technology is also highly complex, and successes will be incremental,
 stretching across years and decades, experts say. Experimentation with genetic
 structures, after all, goes back centuries, to breeding animals and plants for
 specific traits. In the 1970s, scientists learned how to insert foreign genes
 into organisms, and we began to see things like genetically modified corn. In
 the late 1990s, they discovered how to rework multiple genes to give organisms
 completely new functions. "That is," said James J. Collins, a professor of
 biomedical engineering at Boston University, "to make them programmable."
 That means that synthetic biology practitioners such as Mr. Collins have been
 able to coax cells to take a complicated series of actions when confronted with
 specific circumstances, such as making a group of proteins in a specific amount
 upon receiving a chemical signal.
 As with computers, the applications are widespread and profound. At the
 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ron Weiss hopes for nothing less than
 curing cancer. Mr. Weiss, an associate professor of biological engineering, is
 designing detector cells that can read the complex chemical signatures of a
 cancer cell. The detectors would give a signal that triggers a chemical process
 in the body that kills the malignant cell.
 The detectors consist of a network of cells, with elements genetically
 programmed to react in different ways to each of six different chemical
 characteristics of an analyzed cell. Just as the police combine measurements
 such as height, weight, and fingerprints to narrow their choice of a crime
 suspect, the combination of six chemical outputs from Mr. Weiss's detector cells
 would greatly improve the accuracy of identifying a suspected cancer cell.
 His innovation is to create a linked network of the six chemical outputs that,
 in a cascading chain of genetically programmed responses, combines them into a
 final signal. That final chemical signal, for each cell being analyzed in the
 patient's body, either triggers or cancels a chemical reaction that would kill
 the analyzed cell.
 That kind of treatment may be years from reaching patients. But a malaria drug
 developed with synthetic-biology techniques may be a lot closer. Malaria sickens
 more than 200 million people a year and kills nearly 800,000, according to the
 World Health Organization. A drug made from artemisinin, derived from the sweet
 wormwood plant, is known to be highly effective. Sweet wormwood, however,
 produces artemisinin only in highly limited locations and conditions.
 So over the past several years, a team led by Jay D. Keasling, a professor of
 chemical and biomolecular engineering at the University of California at
 Berkeley, has been taking the necessary genes from the wormwood, implanting them
 into a strain of E. coli bacteria, and growing large quantities of artemisinin.
 "This has the potential for revolutionizing the treatment of a very deadly and
 prevalent disease," said the head of President Obama's bioethics commission, Amy
 Gutmann, president of the University of Pennsylvania.
 The basic method of using genetic manipulation to make a drug, by growing an
 important protein inside bacteria, is well developed. But cases such as
 artemisinin are trickier, requiring a complex interplay among several genes. Mr.
 Keasling solved that by figuring out how to cobble together a network of such
 processes, in which one gene leads to a protein that then needs to be processed
 by other proteins.
 With the malaria drug now going through its final safety approvals and expected
 to reach mass production late this year, Mr. Keasling is busy applying
 synthetic-biology techniques in his new role as head of the Joint BioEnergy
 Institute, four miles from the Berkeley campus, one of three federally financed
 research centers established nationwide to develop renewable fuels.
 As with artemisinin, Mr. Keasling is trying to solve a shortage of a natural
 compound-in this case, the yeasts that ferment sugars into biofuels-by altering
 the genes of micro-organisms so that those micro-organisms can pump out needed
 compounds.
 "Doing chemistry inside microbes is very powerful," Mr. Keasling said. "We can
 produce drugs or fuels that we might not get through other routes."
 It can also be drawn out and tedious, far less likely to attract the headlines
 garnered by Mr. Venter. Already a celebrity from racing against the government
 to sequence the human genome, Mr. Venter-president of the 400-scientist-strong
 J. Craig Venter Institute-spent 15 years and $40-million to take more than 1,000
 sections of DNA from one type of bacteria and insert that DNA package, without
 making any meaningful changes in its function, into a different type of
 bacteria.
 That achievement, while impressive and attention-grabbing, didn't necessarily
 advance the immediate practical goals of the field, several university
 scientists said. George M. Church, a professor of genetics at Harvard
 University, used the analogy of designing a new car: Researchers such as Mr.
 Keasling have been trying to modify and improve the parts and processes, such as
 the engine and the transmission, while Mr. Venter essentially showed how to
 carve a new car out of a single chunk of metal.
 The Venter lab's replacement of an entire genome might eventually prove itself a
 useful technique, Mr. Church said. But for now, he said, it seems an unnecessary
 diversion given the more immediate value of identifying the specific genes that
 cause a specific function in a micro-organism, and then learning how to alter
 those genes and functions. "Almost nobody else wanted to do that," Mr. Church
 said of Mr. Venter's work.
 Private industry appears to share Mr. Church's sentiment. Several companies,
 large and small, are already heavily invested in exploiting some of the same
 basic techniques used by Mr. Keasling to fight malaria and pursued by Mr. Weiss
 to fight cancer.
 The DuPont chemical company, after 10 years of research, has opened a facility
 in Tennessee that uses advanced genetic technology to convert corn sugar into a
 chemical that replaces a compound previously obtained from oil. The chemical is
 essential to making a variety of common consumer products, including clothing,
 cosmetics, lotions, and carpets.
 Basic research such as that pursued by Mr. Church and Mr. Collins is key to
 enabling that kind of discovery, whether in corporate or university labs. Mr.
 Collins is working to mold micro-organisms into generic "switches" that, like
 the common transistor, can be used in a limitless variety of applications. Mr.
 Church helped initiate the Human Genome Project, and now he's leading the push
 for next-generation methods of quickly and comprehensively identifying the
 genetic makeup of various organisms. That would give synthetic biologists a
 robust tool kit for their field.
 In some cases, the work is taking university scientists themselves into the
 corporate world. Kevin A. Jarrell, a former professor of biochemistry at
 Harvard, is now chief executive of Modular Genetics Inc., which has developed
 micro-organisms to convert agricultural waste into the chemicals needed to make
 personal-care products. Researchers from the University of Colorado founded OPX
 Biotechnologies Inc., which makes substitutes for petroleum-based acrylic. Mr.
 Keasling founded Amyris Biotechnologies Inc. to further his work with biofuels.
 As is often the case with basic research, big-money payoffs aren't certain, or
 even central. In the case of the malaria drug, Mr. Keasling and Berkeley
 researchers were supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and they are
 licensing the technology at no cost to Sanofi-Aventis S.A. so that the French
 drug maker can mass-produce the life-saving medicine at the lowest possible
 cost.
 And the political climate, despite the concern generated by Mr. Venter's
 announcement last May, looks favorable. Mr. Keasling and his colleagues have
 largely escaped the kind of public opposition that's entangled researchers
 working with human embryonic stem cells and many genetically modified foods.
 The ethics commission led by Ms. Gutmann reported back to President Obama last
 month, suggesting that government agencies scrutinize synthetic biology more
 carefully but saying that no new federal laws seemed necessary for the time
 being. Major religious groups largely agreed.
 Many people, it seems, are treating synthetic biology as meaningfully different
 from genetic experimentations with their embryos and their food, said Gregory E.
 Kaebnick, a research scholar at the Hastings Center, a nonprofit group that
 studies the ethics of biotechnology.
 The reflexive alarm over Mr. Venter's claim to have created a new species of
 life does suggest some eventual limit to how much the public will tolerate
 synthetic biology, Mr. Kaebnick said. For now, however, the most sophisticated
 work in the field largely involves mere micro-organisms, on the scale of
 bacteria and yeast cells.
 "It just hasn't led to a lot of opposition," he said, "and I don't expect it
 to."
 NATIONS INSTITUTIONS (71%); AGRICULTURE (69%) Biology; Synthetic Biology;
 Malaria drug; Cell; Chemical process; Synthetic-biology techniques; Technology;
 Computerized machines; University scientists; Detector cells; Tactical upgrade;
 Sweet wormwood; Chemical; Scary Headlines; Financed research centers; Bacteria;
 Synthetic biology practitioners; Research; Cancer cells; Genetic digital logic;
 Embryonic stem cells; Malaria; Tiny living cells; Malaria sickens; Government
 agencies; Researchers; University campuses; Micro-organism; French drug maker;
 Treat malaria; Synthetic species; Gene; Coli bacteria; Yeast cells; Synthetic;
 Research scholar; Doing chemistry; University; Final safety approvals; Cell
 networks; Genetic; Consumer products; Experimentation; Sweet wormwood plant;
 Religious groups; Artemisinin; Corn sugar; Technique; Life forms; Biomolecular
 engineering; Malignant cell; Cancer; Next-generation methods; Personal-care
 products; Drug; Synthetic-biology; Multiple genes; Synthetic biologists;
 Prevalent disease; Micro-organisms; Natural compound-in; Human genome; Federal
 laws; Reflexive alarm; Chief executive; Chemical signal; Petroleum-based
 acrylic; Advanced genetic technology; Biomedical engineering; Biological
 engineering; Missing cancerous cells; Gene-altering techniques; Chemical
 markers; Genetic experimentations; Genuine concerns; Renewable materials;
 Immediate practical goals; Chemical signatures; Political climate; Genetic
 manipulation; Chemical company; Genetic structures; Chemistry inside microbes;
 Genetic makeup; Biological devices; Unnecessary diversion; Back centuries;
 Healthy cells; Meaningful changes; Protein inside bacteria; Foreign genes;
 Particular marker; Sophisticated work; Single chunk; Eventual limit; Growing
 bacteria; Human embryonic stem; Agricultural waste; Renewable fuels; Lowest
 possible cost; Private industry; Life-saving medicine; Limitless variety;
 Long-running search; Associate professor; Immediate value; Corporate world;
 Public opposition; Robust tool; Nonprofit group; Big-money payoffs; Entangled
 researchers; Complicated series; Renowned scientist; Programmed cells; Needed
 compounds; Modified corn; Science (general); Medical conditions; Genetics;
 Technology (general)
 Howard Hughes Medical Institute; Boston University; Massachusetts Institute of
 Technology; World Health Organization; University of California at Berkeley;
 University of Pennsylvania; Joint BioEnergy Institute; J. Craig Venter
 Institute; George M. Church; Harvard University; Modular Genetics; University of
 Colorado; OPX Biotechnologies; Amyris Biotechnologies; Bill & Melinda Gates
 Foundation; Sanofi-Aventis S.A.; Hastings Center
 PERSON: BARACK OBAMA (91%) Venter; Obama; Jay D. Keasling; James J. Collins;
 Paul Basken; Ron Weiss; J. Craig; Sean R. Eddy; Amy Gutmann; DuPont; Kevin A.
 Jarrell; Gregory E. Kaebnick
 CALIFORNIA, USA (93%); MASSACHUSETTS, USA (92%); VIRGINIA, USA (92%) Capitol
 Hill; Down Pennsylvania Avenue; Virginia; U.S.; Berkeley; Tennessee UNITED
 LOAD-DATE: January 18, 2011
 GRAPHIC: Jay D. Keasling, a professor at the U. of California at Berkeley and
 head of the Joint BioEnergy Institute in Emeryville, Calif., uses the
 gene-altering techniques of synthetic biology in efforts to develop biofuels and
 a plant-related drug for fighting malaria.
 Alison Yin for The Chronicle
 Synthetic Biology Makes Scary Headlines, but Universities Promote It as a
 Lifesaver 1
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                 Copyright 2011 The Chronicle of Higher Education
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 159
 
                              Missouri Lawyers Media
                             January 16, 2011 Sunday
 Missouri Lawyers Awards 2011: Legal Champion: Don Downing, reaped victories for
 rice farmers
 BYLINE: Allison Retka
 LENGTH: 612  words
 The rolling cotton fields of southeast Missouri led Don Downing to rice. And
 rice led Downing to a string of impressive plaintiff victories against one of
 the largest biotech companies in the world, Bayer CropScience.
 By the end of 2010, his leadership of four "bellwether" trials over a 2006
 contamination of the U.S. rice supply had netted $4.29 million for rice farmers.
 Downing is still participating in upcoming trials this year, but his focus has
 shifted to hammering out a possible global settlement with Bayer for all farmers
 affected by the contamination.
 Missouri rice farmers started calling up Downing soon after the USDA announced
 that farmers had discovered Bayer's modified rice in their own crops.
 The farmers knew Downing because, years earlier, he had represented cotton
 farmers near his southeast Missouri hometown of Kennett. In that suit, cotton
 farmers sued over a defective seed variety sold by Monsanto. Downing first heard
 about that case while strolling through the cotton fields of his cousin and
 future client, Charles Parker, who pointed out the "bronze wilt" condition
 afflicting the Monsanto seedlings.
 "Farmers are not normally litigious people," Downing says. "But there is a
 culture down there that if you do something to harm a neighbor, you make it
 right. "
 In the case over the rice contamination, U.S. farmers took Bayer to court to
 make it right, he says. They claimed that a genetically modified rice variety
 that Bay-er had planted in test fields in Missouri and Arkansas had turned up in
 the rice supplies of farmers across five states.
 The tainting of the U.S. rice supply particularly affected the overseas markets
 for the crop; European consumers are averse to eating genetically modified
 foods. Downing says in the weeks after the contamination, rice farmers found
 themselves harvesting acres of unsellable crops.
 Each of the monthlong federal trials over the rice litigation featured some of
 the same expert witnesses, who testified about the agriculture science behind
 the contamination. But Downing says he also tried to bring out the personal
 details of the farmers involved.
 Because of the back-to-back nature of the trials, U.S. District Judge Catherine
 Perry sometimes concluded a trial day by taking up pretrial motions for the next
 scheduled trial.
 As co-lead counsel for the litigation with Chicago attorney Adam Levitt, Downing
 says he acted as quarterback for the proceedings. He led voir dire, handled some
 of the most important witness testimony and presented opening statements and
 closing arguments.
 "I tried to make sure we were telling a coherent story to the jury, and that
 everyone's witnesses were in sync," he says.
 Downing recalled one memorable moment from the first bellwether trial, which
 ended in December 2009. After the jury announced its $2.2 million plaintiff
 verdict, Downing walked to the back of the federal courtroom. There stood Ken
 Bell, one of the lead plaintiffs in that first case, a tough 250-pound Missouri
 farmer with tears streaming down his face. Downing says Bell scooped him up into
 a bear hug.
 In another emotional moment in the first trial, Downing presented his closing
 argument to the jury. He talked about the strong ethical values of the Missouri
 farmers at the center of the case. In speaking those words, Downing says he
 suddenly thought of his father, Vic Downing, who had managed farmland in the
 same area and had passed away just two weeks before the first rice trial.
 Downing says he put down his notes and found himself choking up.
 "That's never happened before," he says.
 "I've done a lot of these cases. It's a very rewarding experience when we're
 able to get recovery for them. "
 LOAD-DATE: January 23, 2011
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: General news
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2011 Missouri Lawyers Media









Document Number: 160
 
                          Portland Press Herald (Maine)
                              January 9, 2011 Sunday
                                  FINAL Edition
 Organic farmers push for larger role;
 The association criticizes a state agency for not including it in trade show
 sustainability workshops.
 BYLINE: AVERY YALE KAMILA Staff Writer
 SECTION: MAINE/NEW ENGLAND; Pg. B1
 LENGTH: 787 words
 A series of workshops billed as an opportunity to bring conventional and organic
 farmers together is raising concerns in Maine's organic agriculture community.
 The Maine Farm Bureau will host a workshop, ''Convergence = Sustainability,''
 each day of the Maine Agricultural Trades Show, scheduled for Tuesday through
 Thursday at the Augusta Civic Center.
 While organizers say each workshop will address ''food safety, biotechnology and
 the challenges of organic and modern farmers,'' Maine's largest organic farming
 organization won't be represented at the three sessions.
 ''This is the second year in a row where the Farm Bureau has put on this
 program, and in neither case have we been invited to be part of the conversation
 about moving toward common ground,'' said Russell Libby, executive director of
 the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association.
 MOFGA, which has more than 6,300 members, oversees organic certification in the
 state. It will hold its own workshops at the trade show.
 Jon Olson, the Maine Farm Bureau's executive secretary, said MOFGA and other
 sustainable agriculture organizations weren't involved in planning the workshops
 because ''we deal with individual farmers. We don't deal with commodity
 groups.''
 Founded in 1971, MOFGA is the oldest and among the largest organizations of its
 kind in the nation. It is probably best known for hosting the annual Common
 Ground Country Fair in Unity.
 Certified organic foods are produced without synthetic pesticides, chemical
 fertilizers, antibiotics or genetically engineered ingredients. According to the
 national Organic Trade Association, 2009 sales of organic products in the U.S.
 reached $26.6 billion, an increase of 5.3 percent from the previous year.
 The Maine Farm Bureau was founded in 1951 and represents 2,200 members. It is
 part of a national network of farm bureaus that lobby on behalf of farmers and
 agricultural issues.
 In organizing the trade show, Olson said, ''our intent is to have common ground
 and have all farmers in Maine come together and find solutions. ... together,
 we're much more successful.''
 Coincidentally, the Farm Bureau scheduled the first of its three workshops at
 the same time that MOFGA holds its annual meeting and the Maine Sustainable
 Agriculture Society hosts two of its three sessions.
 Olson said the Bureau was not aware of the conflicts when it scheduled its
 sessions.
 ''We try to pack in a lot of organizations in those three days,'' said John
 Harker, director of market development for the Maine Department of Agriculture,
 which is in its 70th year of hosting the trade show. ''So there are a lot of
 conflicts.''
 Judy Blaisdell, who handles all the scheduling for the trade show as the
 department's agricultural promotions coordinator, said organizations request
 specific time slots, and she does her best to accommodate them.
 She pointed out that the Maine Milk Commission and the Maine Cheese Guild ended
 up scheduling their sessions at the same time this year as well.
 ''There's always somebody who's upset, but I try to stay out of the politics of
 it,'' she said.
 This year's trade show includes 108 vendors and more than 100 workshops.
 Blaisdell estimates it will attract 5,000 attendees.
 ''MOFGA probably has the biggest meeting (at the trade show),
 association-wise,'' Blaisdell said.
 Bob St. Peter heads Food for Maine's Future, which promotes small family farming
 and nonpolluting agricultural practices, and he is a frequent opponent of the
 biotechnology industry and genetically engineered crops.
 He worries that the ''Convergence'' sessions are actually designed to promote
 conventional agriculture at the expense of organic farming methods.
 ''Not having the leading organic farming organization in the country or even our
 organization, that has been a leading critic of biotech, at the workshop tells
 me this session is about a particular agenda,'' St. Peter said. ''It's difficult
 for me to believe they're really after convergence.''
 Food for Maine's Future intends to hold a rally and press conference at the
 State House at 11 a.m. Monday that will urge the Legislature and the LePage
 administration to take steps to support family farmers and environmentally
 responsible agriculture.
 Olson said the Maine Farm Bureau's workshops will focus on labor issues,
 farmland protection and taxation.
 A scheduled address by the head of the pro-pesticide Crop Protection Research
 Institute has been canceled and replaced by an open forum where farmers will be
 asked to suggest instances of regulatory red tape that hinder their businesses.
 The information gathered at the session will be forwarded to the LePage
 administration.
 Staff Writer Avery Yale Kamila can be contacted at 791-6297 or at:
 akamila@pressherald.com
 LOAD-DATE: January 10, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2011 MaineToday Media, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 161
 
                           The Times-Union (Albany, NY)
                              January 9, 2011 Sunday
                              Final Edition EDITION
 SECTION: PERSPECTIVE; Pg. B4
 LENGTH: 241 words
 I applaud Jared Cunningham's Dec. 28 letter, which encourages schools to add
 environmental health studies. Our 9-year-old Next Generation Earth Care Program
 has been taught in Capital Region schools and after-school programs to educate
 tomorrow's leaders about mankind's impact on the environment.
 We have discovered that by teaching children as young as third-graders, students
 become aware of and sensitive to the environmental health of our planet.
 Recycling, health risks from pesticides and other chemicals, pollution, global
 warming, acid rain, genetically engineered food and sustainable development are
 important issues young developing minds learn about in a challenging and
 creative setting.
 Children want to learn about the environment and about the food they eat. As a
 result, our curriculum also reveals to children the health risks of junk foods
 and diets high in sugar, salt and fat, and suggests alternatives to unhealthy
 foods. Our lessons also teach students about genetically engineered foods and
 scientific concerns in regard to ecology and health.
 Jared Cunningham is right. Schools can play an important role in educating our
 next generation to understand the sensitive balance between human development
 and environmental/human health, and thus, help to make this planet a healthier
 place for every living being.
 Lois J. Shapiro Canter, J.D.
 Saratoga Springs
 The writer is president of the Saratoga Foundation for Women WorldWide Inc.
 LOAD-DATE: January 11, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2011 The Hearst Corporation
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 162
 
                           Kalamazoo Gazette (Michigan)
                              January 7, 2011 Friday
 Headline here
 LENGTH: 466 words
 Increase seals strong holiday for retail
 NEW YORK -- The holiday shopping season was the best since 2006, as a strong
 November more than offset spending that tapered off in late December. The
 strength of holiday sales from Oct. 31 through Jan. 1 suggests a recovery in
 consumer spending. For investors, whose expectations were riding high after a
 stronger-than-expected November, the December figures were disappointing. That
 hurt retail stocks Thursday. Early holiday discounts, which started in late
 October, drove big sales early in the season but also had shoppers finishing
 more gift-buying before December. A lull early in December and a blizzard Dec.
 26 in the Northeast also took bites out of sales.
 Mortgage rate dips
 NEW YORK -- Rates on fixed mortgages dipped this week after rising steadily over
 the last two months. Freddie Mac said Thursday the average rate on the 30-year
 mortgage dropped to 4.77 percent from 4.86 percent the previous week. It hit a
 40-year low of 4.17 percent in November. The average rate on the 15-year loan
 slipped to 4.13 percent from 4.20 percent. It reached 3.57 percent in November,
 the lowest level on records starting in 1991.
 Rates have been rising since November. Investors have shifted money out of
 Treasuries and into stocks. Many expect the tax-cut plan will fuel economic
 growth and increase inflation. Yields tend to rise on inflation fears.
 Mortgage rates tend to track the yield on the 10-year Treasury note. Those rates
 have been fluctuating in recent weeks.
 Stocks end lower
 NEW YORK -- Stocks slipped Thursday after the government reported an increase in
 applications for unemployment benefits last week. The Labor Department said
 Thursday that 409,000 people made first-time claims for benefits. That's up
 18,000 from the previous week, when applications fell to their lowest level in
 more than two years. The number of applications suggests that companies are
 adding jobs, but slowly.
 The report came a day after ADP estimated that companies added nearly 300,000
 jobs last month, far more than the 100,000 economists expected. That report
 pushed stock prices higher and Treasury prices lower as investors became more
 optimistic about the job market.
 Monsanto posts profit
 ST. LOUIS -- Monsanto Co. on Thursday said it returned to profitability in the
 fiscal first quarter as sales of genetically modified corn, soybean, and cotton
 sales climbed.
 The St. Louis company reported higher sales of corn, soybean, vegetable and
 cotton seeds. It also posted higher sales of its Roundup weed-killer despite
 tight competition from a variety of generic versions. Monsanto reported net
 income of $6 million, or 2 cents per share, for the quarter ended Nov. 30,
 compared with a loss of $19 million, or 2 cents a share, in the year-ago period.
 -- The Associated Press
 LABOR DEPARTMENTS (63%); MUSIC (59%); TAX RELIEF (50%) Consumer
 behaviour,Retailing,Shopping,Christmas music,Business_Finance
 LOAD-DATE: March 2, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: zoo
                         Copyright 2011 Kalamazoo Gazette
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 163
 
                      The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC)
                              January 7, 2011 Friday
                                  Final Edition
 BYLINE: Staff and wire reports
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. B7
 LENGTH: 617 words
 Dow, S&P slide lower as
 jobless claims increase
 NEW YORK - Stocks slipped Thursday after the government reported an increase in
 applications for unemployment benefits last week.
 The U.S. Labor Department said Thursday that 409,000 people made first-time
 claims for benefits. That is up 18,000 from the previous week, when applications
 fell to their lowest level in more than two years. The number of applications
 suggests that companies are adding jobs, but slowly.
 The report came a day after ADP estimated that companies added nearly 300,000
 jobs last month, far more than the 100,000 economists expected. That report
 pushed stock prices higher and Treasury prices lower as investors became more
 optimistic about the job market.
 In a week with several reports on employment, the most important one will arrive
 this morning when the Labor Department releases its monthly survey of all U.S.
 payrolls and the unemployment rate. The rate fell to 9.7 percent in December
 from 9.8 percent in November.
 --The Dow Jones industrial average fell 25.57 points, or 0.22 percent, to close
 at 11,697.31.
 --The Standard & Poor's 500 index fell 2.71, or 0.21 percent, to close at
 --The Nasdaq composite index rose 7.69, or 0.28 percent, to 2,709.89.
 Rates on mortgages dip
 after weeks of increases
 NEW YORK - Rates on fixed mortgages dipped this week after rising steadily over
 the last two months.
 Freddie Mac said Thursday that the average rate on the 30-year mortgage dropped
 to 4.77 percent from 4.86 percent the previous week. It hit a 40-year low of
 4.17 percent in November.
 The average rate on the 15-year loan slipped to 4.13 percent from 4.20 percent.
 It reached 3.57 percent in November, the lowest level on records starting in
 Low mortgage rates did little to boost home sales last year, and higher rates
 now could hamper a robust recovery.
 Monsanto swings profit
 on increased sales
 ST. LOUIS - Monsanto on Thursday said it returned to profitability in the fiscal
 first quarter as sales of genetically modified corn, soybean and cotton sales
 climbed.
 The company also posted higher sales of its Roundup weed-killer despite tight
 competition from a variety of generic versions.
 Monsanto reported net income of $6 million, or 2 cents a share, for the quarter
 ended Nov. 30, compared with a loss of $19 million, or 2 cents a share, in the
 year-ago period.
 Revenue increased 8 percent to $1.83 billion.
 Judge delays trial of financier
 accused of Ponzi scheme
 HOUSTON - A judge has delayed the trial of former Texas billionaire and
 financier R. Allen Stanford, who is accused of bilking investors out of $7
 billion in a Ponzi scheme.
 U.S. District Judge David Hittner determined Thursday that Stanford is not
 mentally competent to go forward with his case. The trial had been set to begin
 Jan. 24.
 The judge agreed to delay the start of the trial until Stanford can be treated
 for medical problems affecting his competency.
 Hittner ruled after a hearing during which three psychiatrists testified that
 Stanford is not competent because of medical issues, including a brain injury he
 suffered during a jail fight in September 2009.
 Barsa, new tapas place
 on upper King, is open
 After months of renovation, upper King Street's newest restaurant and bar is now
 open.
 Barsa Tapas Lounge and Bar, at King and Line streets, opened Thursday. Hours are
 from 4 p.m. to 2 a.m. each day except Sunday, when it is open from 11 a.m. to 7
 p.m. for brunch. The bar opens at 4 p.m., and dinner is served from 5 p.m. to 1
 a.m. six days a week.
 The new establishment is the product of owner Drazen Romic, who is a partner in
 Lana's Restaurant on Rutledge Avenue. Romic has been renovating the former Shine
 restaurant at 58 Line St. since August.
 LOAD-DATE: January 10, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
               Copyright 2011 The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC)
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 164
 
                     The San Francisco Chronicle (California)
                              January 7, 2011 Friday
                                  FINAL Edition
 Bill seeks to clearly label bioengineered salmon;
 BYLINE: Stacy Finz, Chronicle Staff Writer
 SECTION: Metro; Pg. C2
 LENGTH: 312 words
 Assemblyman Jared Huffman isn't taking any chances. If the U.S. Food and Drug
 Administration approves a bid to allow the human consumption of genetically
 engineered Atlantic salmon, the San Rafael Democrat wants every Californian to
 know what he or she is getting at the checkout aisle.
 Consumers have the right to know if their food comes from the wild or was
 bioengineered, said Huffman, who introduced AB88 on Thursday to require the
 salmon, which many environmentalists call "Frankenfish," to be clearly labeled.
 "This is not a new issue. Genetically engineered food has been a controversy for
 a long time," he said.
 The FDA has yet to decide whether to legalize salmon made by AquaBounty
 Technologies Inc. The Massachusetts company has been experimenting for 15 years
 with salmon growth hormone genes and DNA to create a salmon that grows quickly
 in a farm environment. The FDA closed its two-month public comment period in
 November and is nearing its final review.
 If the fish is approved, it would be the first genetically engineered animal
 that is legal for humans to eat.
 "We don't think it's premature," said Rebecca Spector, West Coast director of
 the Center for Food Safety and co-sponsor of the bill. "We want to send a
 message to the FDA that Californians don't want bioengineered salmon, or at
 least want it to be labeled."
 Opponents and environmentalists fear that the bioengineered salmon could ruin
 the species if it bred with wild salmon, which they say is inevitable. There is
 also concern that the fish could spread disease in humans.
 Ron Stotish, the chief executive officer for AquaBounty, has told The Chronicle
 that as long as the "seas are fished to the verge of extinction, we have an
 ethical obligation to use every tool in our toolbox to explore alternatives to
 meet demand for seafood."
 The bill is scheduled to go to committee hearings in the spring.
 COMPANY: PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP INC (70%) AquaBounty Technologies Inc.
 PERSON: Jared Huffman; Ron Stotish; Rebecca Spector
 LOAD-DATE: January 7, 2011
 GRAPHIC: Assemblyman Jared Huffman on his bill: "This is not a new issue."
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2011 San Francisco Chronicle
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 165
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                              January 7, 2011 Friday
 Monsanto posts 1st-quarter profit, sees strength after dismal 2010
 BYLINE: BY GEORGINA GUSTIN o ggustin@post-dispatch.com > 314-340-8195
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. B1
 LENGTH: 383 words
 CREVE COEUR - After a rough 2010, biotech giant Monsanto launched into its new
 fiscal year on a slight rebound.
 The company posted a net profit of $6 million, a bright contrast to its $19
 million loss in the same quarter the previous year. On Thursday, Monsanto stock,
 which lost nearly 20 percent of its value in 2010, rose 2.4 percent to $70.79.
 The company's 2010 was marred by troubles, coming from farmers who balked at
 higher prices for a newly launched biotech corn, and from farm fields, where
 weeds proved increasingly resistant to the company's Roundup Ready system.
 The company cut seed prices in 2010 and scaled back some of its announced goals
 for coming years.
 But the company's first fiscal quarter, ending Nov. 30, saw overall sales
 growing by nearly 8 percent, and seed sales growing by 13 percent. The growth
 stems from new acreage in South America and higher purchases from American
 farmers.
 "Our first quarter tracked well with our operating plan across the crops,
 geographies and products we expect to be drivers in 2011," said Hugh Grant,
 president and CEO, in a statement. "
 We're executing against the areas most important to our business growth,
 particularly our seeds-and-traits focus in Latin America and delivering on our
 seed strategy in the United States. Our early U.S. order books show farmers are
 interested in our newest products. ... And our R&D pipeline remains strong,
 leaving the company well positioned for long-term growth."
 In its annual pipeline update Thursday, the company announced nine new advances,
 including four new projects added to the pipeline.
 "I'm proud to say I've never seen our pipeline as well-balanced and deep as it
 is today," said Steve Padgette, the company's vice president for biotechnology.
 Key advances are in a new herbicide-tolerant soybean, higher-yielding soybeans
 and higher-yielding, stress-tolerant wheat.
 Padgette said the company also would focus on offering new "herbicide packages"
 to farmers struggling with weed resistance.
 The company continues to face regulatory and legal issues. The planting of its
 genetically modified sugar beets is being held up by court challenges.
 The U.S. Justice Department also is continuing an antitrust investigation into
 competition in the seed business, though Monsanto has not been named directly.
 LOAD-DATE: January 7, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2011 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 166
 
                Agriculture Department Documents and Publications
                                 January 3, 2011
 Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.; Availability of Petition and Environmental
 Assessment for Determination of Nonregulated Status for Corn Genetically
 Engineered To Produce Male Sterile/Female Inbred Plants
 LENGTH: 1463  words
 SUMMARY: We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
 Service has received a petition from Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.,
 seeking a determination of nonregulated status for corn designated as
 DP-32138-1, which has been genetically engineered to produce male sterile/female
 inbred plants for the generation of hybrid corn seed that is non-transgenic. The
 petition has been submitted in accordance with our regulations concerning the
 introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms and products. In
 accordance with those regulations, we are soliciting comments on whether this
 genetically engineered corn is likely to pose a plant pest risk. We are also
 making available for public comment an environmental assessment for the proposed
 determination of nonregulated status.
 DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before March 4, 2011.
 ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
 * Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
 http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetailandd=APHIS
 -2010-0041 to submit or view comments and to view supporting and related
 materials available electronically.
 * Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send one copy of your comment to
 Docket No. APHIS-2010-0041, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,
 Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please
 state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2010-0041.
 Reading Room: You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our
 reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South
 Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal
 reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
 holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817
 before coming.
 Other Information: Additional information about APHIS and its programs is
 available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Rick Coker, Regulatory Analyst,
 Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale,
 MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-5720, e-mail: richard.s.coker@aphis.usda.gov To obtain
 copies of the petition, draft environmental assessment, or plant pest risk
 assessment, contact Ms. Cindy Eck at (301) 734-0667, e-mail:
 cynthia.a.eck@aphis.usda.gov Those documents are also available on the Internet
 at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/08_33801p.pdf,
 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/08_33801p_dea.pdf, and
 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/08_33801p_dpra.pdf.
 Background
 The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, "Introduction of Organisms and Products
 Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which
 There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests," regulate, among other things, the
 introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment)
 of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that
 are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such
 genetically engineered organisms and products are considered "regulated
 articles."
 The regulations in SEC 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to
 the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination
 that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and
 (c) of SEC 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of
 nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the
 petition.
 APHIS has received a petition (APHIS Petition Number 08-338-01p) from Pioneer
 Hi-Bred International, Inc. (Pioneer) of Johnston, IA, seeking a determination
 of nonregulated status for corn (Zea mays L.) designated as DP-32138-1, which
 has been genetically engineered to produce male sterile/female inbred plants for
 the generation of hybrid corn seed that is non-transgenic, stating that corn
 event DP-32138-1 is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and, therefore, should
 not be a regulated article under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340.
 As described in the petition, the controlled expression of a seed color marker
 gene and pollen fertility and sterility genes allows for the generation of red
 transgenic seed for seed increase of male sterile-female inbred lines and for
 the production of non-transgenic fertile pollen for use in non-transgenic hybrid
 commercial seed production. Corn event DP-32138-1 is currently regulated under 7
 CFR part 340. Interstate movements and field tests of corn event DP-32138-1 have
 been conducted under permits issued or notifications acknowledged by APHIS.
 Field tests conducted under APHIS oversight allowed for evaluation in a natural
 agricultural setting while imposing measures to minimize the risk of persistence
 in the environment after completion of the test. Data are gathered on multiple
 parameters and used by the applicant to evaluate agronomic characteristics and
 product performance. These data are used by APHIS to determine if the new
 variety poses a plant pest risk. Pioneer has petitioned APHIS to make a
 determination that corn event DP-32138-1 shall no longer be considered a
 regulated article under 7 CFR part 340.
 In section 403 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), "plant pest"
 is defined as any living stage of any of the following that can directly or
 indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plant or plant
 product: A protozoan, a nonhuman animal, a parasitic plant, a bacterium, a
 fungus, a virus or viroid, an infectious agent or other pathogen, or any article
 similar to or allied with any of the foregoing. APHIS has prepared a plant pest
 risk assessment to determine if corn event DP-32138-1 is unlikely to pose a
 plant pest risk.
 APHIS has also prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) in which it
 presents two alternatives based on its analyses of data submitted by Pioneer, a
 review of other scientific data, and field tests conducted under APHIS
 oversight. APHIS is considering the following alternatives: (1) Take no action,
 i.e., APHIS would not change the regulatory status of corn event DP-32138-1 and
 it would continue to be a regulated article, or (2) grant nonregulated status to
 corn event DP-32138-1 in whole.
 The draft EA has been prepared to provide the APHIS decisionmaker with a review
 and analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed
 determination of nonregulated status for corn event DP-32138-1. The draft EA was
 prepared in accordance with (1) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on
 Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR
 parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and
 (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).
 In accordance with SEC 340.6(d) of the regulations, we are publishing this
 notice to inform the public that APHIS will accept written comments regarding
 the petition for a determination of nonregulated status from interested or
 affected persons for a period of 60 days from the date of this notice. We are
 also soliciting written comments from interested or affected persons on the
 draft EA prepared to examine any potential environmental impacts of the proposed
 determination for the deregulation of the subject corn line, and the plant pest
 risk assessment. The petition, draft EA, and plant pest risk assessment are
 available for public review, and copies of the petition, draft EA, and plant
 pest risk assessment are available as indicated under ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER
 INFORMATION CONTACT above.
 After the comment period closes, APHIS will review all written comments received
 during the comment period and any other relevant information. All comments
 received regarding the petition, draft EA, and plant pest risk assessment will
 be available for public review. After reviewing and evaluating the comments on
 the petition, the draft EA, plant pest risk assessment, and other data, APHIS
 will furnish a response to the petitioner, either approving or denying the
 petition. APHIS will then publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing
 the regulatory status of corn event DP-32138-1 and the availability of APHIS'
 written environmental decision and regulatory determination.
 Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80,
 and 371.3.
 Done in Washington, DC, this 27th day of December, 2010 .
 Gregory L. Parham,
 Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
 Notice.
 Citation: "76 FR 83"
 Federal Register Page Number: "83"
 "Notices"
 LOAD-DATE: January 3, 2011
            Copyright 2011 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 167
 
                   The Republican (Springfield, Massachusetts)
                            December 28, 2010 Tuesday
 Seeking real food in our modified time
 SECTION: OPINION; Pg. C04
 LENGTH: 269 words
 So this guy walks into the supermarket and asks for directions to the unnatural
 foods department.
 You know, he says to the clerk, the genetically modified stuff, the items that
 might as well have been made in a laboratory, the Frankenfoods.
 Well, the store employee patiently explains, those items are not all displayed
 in one section, but are scattered throughout the market. In fact, many are not
 even labeled in ways that make their heritage clear.
 That's exactly the problem, the man says turning to leave for what he hopes will
 be greener pastures.
 It's a question of choice: Consumers who don't want to buy genetically modified
 foods shouldn't be forced to do so. This has been getting increasingly
 difficult, even for those who are exceedingly careful, as modified foods have
 become more commonplace. If you go into a supermarket and pick up some corn, the
 odds are that you are buying a genetically modified product.
 Up until now, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has simply said yes or no,
 giving unrestricted approval or denying requests to grow modified crops. The
 USDA didn't say where or when or how those crops could be grown, which presented
 an obvious problem for, say, an organic farmer across the street from a grower
 buying his seeds from a chemical company.
 Thankfully, the USDA has been looking into changing that practice. If it does,
 it would no longer give blanket approvals, but would give the green light to
 growers with restrictions.
 This is absolutely the way to go - and the way to grow. Consumers who want their
 food grown as nature intended should be able to find what they are looking for.
 LOAD-DATE: January 4, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: sun
                          Copyright 2010 The Republican
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 168
 
                      The Pantagraph (Bloomington, Illinois)
                             December 27, 2010 Monday
 Your Views
 SECTION: OPINION; Pg. A6
 LENGTH: 734 words
 Dubious statements about use of GMOs
 The article on GMOs - genetically modified organisms - in The Pantagraph (Nov.
 24, Page D1, "Recipe for disaster?) contains much big agribusiness
 misinformation and many scientifically dubious statements. I can only dispute
 briefly some of their major claims.
 First, they attempt to blur the clear biological demarcation between organisms
 derived by classical breeding techniques - all the genes are typically from one
 species - and those derived by genetic engineering techniques - genes from one
 or more species are inserted into another species. The latter equals GMOs.
 Second, they liken classical breeding to using a "sledgehammer" and genetic
 engineering to using a scalpel, even though GMO technology causes hundreds to
 thousands of mutations in the resulting GMO's DNA.
 Third, they present Norman Borlaug's "green revolution" as an unqualified
 success. It has not been because his plants require unsustainable amounts of
 irrigation and expensive fertilizers and pesticides.
 Fourth, they claim that GMOs are safe for consumption by humans and farm
 animals. To the contrary, I know of not one peer-reviewed publication of a
 properly designed and replicated laboratory animal feeding study of a GMO.
 Fifth, James Murray is cited as saying that the fears of food from GMOs sounds
 similar to previous concerns about microwave ovens.
 My and others' concerns about the safety of GMOs are much more similar to
 concerns about the safety of pesticides; in both cases, our concerns are well
 founded.
 Mr. Murray also is cited as claiming that GMOs are the only hope to avoid human
 starvation. This is untrue, as evidenced by the peer-reviewed scientific
 literature.
 Herman Brockman
 Rural Congerville
 Congress should have passed Dream Act
 Should we call this letter "Saturday at the Senate"? You decide.
 After 17 years of legalized bigotry, "don't ask, don't tell" is gone. Thank you.
 However, the Republicans cried, "The Dream Act is being forced on us in this
 lame duck session."
 Yeah, right, try again.
 The Dream Act would allow, with restriction, residents who were brought here
 when they could not refuse or agree to come - because of their age - the right
 to get on a path to citizenship. This act would require education or military
 service and good moral standing. What could possibly be more American?
 This is not a free ride, it is facing a reality. Are any of you willing to send
 a young person back to some place where they might not even speak the language,
 have no ties and would be left out on their own - or would you prefer they get a
 chance to prove themselves and become a solid legal citizen?
 This is a no-cost way to chip away at our vexing immigration problem - and allow
 the best to stay without fear of deportation.
 I sincerely hope that on the first day of the new Congress, the Democrats
 require that filibustering not be allowed in its present form. I hope they
 require objections to be brought to the floor and voiced to accomplish
 filibuster. Otherwise, stop being obstructionist - Democrat and Republican
 alike.
 Robert Russano
 Bloomington
 Two restaurants should swap spaces at airport
 I agree with about 90 percent of the Dec. 20 Pantagraph editorial ("Airport
 liquor license decision makes no sense.")
 The airport is everything it said: attractive, busy, clean and growing. I would
 like to see it as big and busy as O'Hare - although that is not likely - for
 several reasons.
 But the Bloomington City Council deserves a pat on the back for not turning its
 back on the current liquor license holders who have been there all these years -
 probably many lean years - but they have been holding on.
 Then the Airport Authority board wants to slap them in the face by dropping a
 bomb and giving Tailwind a license beyond security.
 If the airport wants liquor beyond security, give it to the present people and
 let Tailwind have the space before security. That is a very simple way to do it.
 I am sure the council and liquor commission would approve Tailwind swapping
 places. Then the chairman of the Airport Authority board would not be so
 "shocked" with the decision to treat your friends like you would like to be
 treated.
 Enough said.
 Gus Miller
 Heyworth
 PUB:  The Pantagraph
 Section:  Opinion
 EDITION:  Main
 XMLFILE:  58582252.txt
 DOC NAME:  A06 122710 letters MONDAY
 LOAD-DATE: January 12, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2010 The Pantagraph









Document Number: 169
 
                                Los Angeles Times
                             December 20, 2010 Monday
                                   Home Edition
 Does 'H' in HN stand for hokum?;
 Holistic nutrition is weak on science, and many advisors sell supplements.
 BYLINE: James S. Fell
 SECTION: HEALTH; Features Desk; Part E; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 1181 words
 "Holistic nutrition." You may not know the term, but you've surely heard its
 claims. Among other things, holistic nutritionists (or HNs, as they call
 themselves) may teach that fluoride and pesticides are lethal, that most
 diseases and detrimental behaviors are diet-related and that many people would
 benefit from taking numerous supplements. I've read plenty of articles by HNs in
 which they assert that they are disparaged by mainstream medicine and warn you
 not to trust modern medicine.
 As a fitness trainer, I care about the nutrition advice my clients get. Health,
 after all, takes multifaceted effort -- and more than a few of the people I work
 with seem to be swayed by holistic nutrition bunk.
 I'm not the only one in my field to get burned up by it: Leigh Peele, a personal
 trainer certified by the National Assn. of Sport Medicine, coined the term
 "shock nutrition" to describe the scare tactics many HNs espouse.
 "Fear sells well," Peele told me. "It's not that the glass is half empty -- it's
 paranoia that the glass is going to jump off the counter and kill you."
 I consulted Dr. Stephen Barrett, the retired psychiatrist and consumer advocate
 who operates the website QuackWatch.org, "an international network of people who
 are concerned about health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and
 misconduct." When I asked about the field of holistic nutrition, he replied: "I
 wouldn't call it a field -- I would call it a marketing term. I've never
 encountered a science-based practitioner who referred to themselves as
 'holistic.' I regard it as a red flag."
 Barrett added that although some HNs offer solid dietary advice, the "vast
 majority" are more focused on "selling dietary supplements. You pay for a
 consultation and end up spending hundreds or thousands of dollars on pills that
 you don't need and which may not be safe."
 He's also critical of the training HNs get, usually online. "What is missing
 from correspondence schools is ... clinical experience," he said. Anyone
 studying to become a registered dietitian spends at least a year working with
 patients under close supervision from an experienced professional. There is no
 such requirement for students training to be HNs.
 Barrett said no HN program he knows of is accredited by an organization
 recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. The Federal Trade Commission
 asserts on its website that, with few exceptions, legitimate institutions are
 accredited by Department of Education-recognized organizations.
 So what do aspiring HNs study? I did some searching and was bombarded by ads for
 one in particular -- Hawthorn University, an online school offering master's and
 doctorate degrees in holistic nutrition from Whitethorn, Calif. From its
 website:
 * "Students examine holistic, systemic cleansing and detoxification support
 options such as specific dietary and herbal protocols, juicing, fasting,
 hydrotherapy and the use of saunas."
 (An article at MayoClinic .com by gastroenterologist Michael Picco states that
 colon cleansing is "generally unnecessary and at times may even be harmful";
 toxicologist Alan Boobis from Imperial College in London stated on the website
 Sense About Science: "The body's own detoxification systems are remarkably
 sophisticated and versatile.... It is remarkable that people are prepared to
 risk seriously disrupting these systems with unproven 'detox' diets.")
 * "With individualized diet and lifestyle recommendations, most thyroid
 conditions will resolve without medication."
 (When my wife, a family physician, read this she made a reference to male bovine
 droppings.)
 * "Discover how genetic engineering works, understand the health risk associated
 with genetically modified foods, and recognize how you and your children are at
 risk .... students will examine what they can do to reduce the risk of disease
 resulting from GM foods and how to alter the continuation of the fraud and
 deception within the food industry."
 (Tufts University professor of nutrition Jeffrey Blumberg told me, "I would not
 have a problem eating them. Almost everyone in North America already does.")
 Hawthorn school director Paula Bartholomy told me, "Holistic refers to taking
 into consideration the whole person." On supplements, she said, "students are
 taught that food is the first viable solution" but "students are made aware of
 quality supplement product lines."
 Hawthorn's programs are recommended by the National Assn. of Nutrition
 Professionals, or NANP. But the university is not listed in the Department of
 Education's database of accredited postsecondary institutions and programs.
 I spoke with NANP media relations advisor Jonny Bowden (who holds a
 correspondence PhD in holistic nutrition from the now-defunct Clayton College of
 Natural Health, which was accredited by the American Assn. of Drugless
 Practitioners and the American Naturopathic Medical Accreditation Board, neither
 of which is recognized by the secretary of Education).
 Bowden said, "We don't want to be too worshipful of science, because there are
 no scientific studies that prove water puts out fire, but fire departments use
 it," and "doctors are getting a biased view because of Big Pharma." When I asked
 him whether holistic nutritionists have a similar bias from selling supplements,
 he said that there is good evidence supporting supplementation. "There is
 nothing wrong with making a profit from providing good information," he added.
 Bowden provides lots of that "good information" on his website, where he offers
 more than 200 supplements for sale. (One is called PaleoCleanse, which I guess
 is for flushing out undigested saber-tooth tiger steaks.)
 Barrett isn't the only one who takes issue with holistic nutritionists. Blumberg
 said, "Anyone can call themselves that. I am unaware of any licensing
 requirement and there are no standards, so it is really meaningless."
 While I agree that people should focus on eating foods in their natural state
 rather than processed garbage, HNs take that ball and run with it into the deep
 end of a pool of quinoa and goji berries. Taking nutrition advice from the
 graduates of HN schools makes as much sense as hiring Ozzy Osbourne to drive a
 school bus.
 I recommend science-based practitioners to my clients -- such as registered
 dietitians, who have real degrees from accredited universities. RDs aren't
 always perfect either: Their pro- fessional organization, the American Dietetic
 Assn., has an overly cozy relationship with the food industry, receiving
 substantial funding from companies such as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Kellogg's, the
 National Dairy Council and the National Cattlemen's Beef Assn.
 There are bad medical doctors and bad RDs, but I'm willing to bet the majority
 of them provide sound advice. It makes sense to listen to people who base their
 nutritional recommendations on science rather than those who believe that
 illnesses like autism, depression and thyroid conditions can be cured with
 vitamins and herbs.
 Vitamins and herbs that they will happily sell you.
 Fell is a certified strength and conditioning specialist in Calgary, Canada.
 james@bodyforwife.com
 LOAD-DATE: December 20, 2010
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO: CONFLICT? One problem with holistic nutritionists is that they
 often sell the products they endorse.  PHOTOGRAPHER:Ricardo DeAratanha Los
 Angeles Times
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                         Copyright 2010 Los Angeles Times
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 170
 
                             Buffalo News (New York)
                             December 19, 2010 Sunday
 Science Notes / Aquaculture and biology
 SECTION: SCIENCE/ENVIRONMENT; Pg. G6
 LENGTH: 474 words
 Salmon issue sizzles
 The Food and Drug Administration's public comment period for labeling
 requirements for a genetically engineered salmon ended not so quietly, with a
 flurry of press releases leading up to the deadline.
 They included an announcement by a group of lawmakers from Alaska and the
 Northwest of legislation that would prohibit FDA approval of a GE salmon, or
 require that it be labeled as genetically engineered in the event regulators
 approved the fish.
 A letter from a dozen environmental, science and consumer groups urged FDA
 Commissioner Margaret Hamburg to look carefully at possible adverse ecological
 consequences as it evaluates a Massachusetts firm's application for a GE salmon
 for human consumption. It would be the first GE food animal.
 AquaBounty Technologies' AquAdvantage salmon reaches market weight in about half
 the time of a regular North Atlantic salmon. Opponents fear the fish could
 escape confinement, and they lean heavily on perhaps the most hotly disputed
 evidence in the GE salmon debate -- the so-called Trojan gene effect, in which a
 specific genetic advantage enables it to outcompete unaltered salmon, leading to
 their demise. Supporters counter that the size advantage is only temporary, and
 that the full-size salmon seem to be lousy at mating.
 -- Los Angeles Times
 The physiology of fear
 Fear is a complicated emotion, and scientists have recruited a scary laboratory
 aide to map out how the feeling is processed in the brain: the Brazilian salmon
 pink tarantula.
 Using video of the 8.7-inch-long arachnid, British researchers showed that the
 brain engages several different systems when evaluating threats. For instance,
 the part of the brain that engages when a threat is approaching is different
 than the part that is activated when a threat is receding, they reported.
 The researchers chose a spider species for their test because the
 creepy-crawlies are responsible for one of the most common phobias in human
 beings, said Dean Mobbs, the study's lead author and an affective neuroscientist
 at the Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit at the Medical Research Council in
 Cambridge, England.
 The researchers placed volunteers in a functional MRI machine to watch which
 parts of their brains were activated during different stages of the experiment.
 Each volunteer was asked to place a shoeless foot into a box that was connected
 to a row of five other boxes, and were shown videos of the tarantula entering
 the boxes.
 As the video spider advanced toward people's feet -- unknown to them, no
 tarantulas actually were present -- the volunteers' brains switched from anxiety
 to panic. In addition, as the tarantula appeared to recede, the MRI machine
 registered increased activity in the orbitofrontal cortex. Mobbs said this area
 might emit a "safety" signal that dispels the fear signal.
 -- Los Angeles Times
 LOAD-DATE: December 20, 2010
 GRAPHIC: Washington Post Salmon may be the first genetically engineered food
 animal.
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Briefs
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                         Copyright 2010 The Buffalo News
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 171
 
                            December 11, 2010 Saturday
 SECTION: Section A; Column 4; Pg. 2
 LENGTH: 12 words
 Correction of Dec 9 article about use of genetically modified corn in Mexico
 BIOTECHNOLOGY & GENETIC SCIENCE (86%) Corn; Correction Stories; Genetics and
 Heredity
 GEOGRAPHIC: Mexico
 LOAD-DATE: December 13, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Abstract
                    Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company
                               All Rights Reserved
                            Information Bank Abstracts









Document Number: 172
 
                            December 9, 2010 Thursday
 BYLINE: Jean Guerrero
 SECTION: Section B; Column 1; Pg. 8
 LENGTH: 64 words
 Mexico is edging toward use of genetically modified varieties of corn to lower
 its dependence on imports, but strong opposition from some growers and
 environmentalists has slowed transition; Monsanto, DuPont's Pioneer Hi-Bred unit
 and Dow Chemical's Dow AgroSciences recently completed small, controlled
 experiments with genetically modified corn in northern Mexico; map; graph; photo
 FOOD (88%); ENVIRONMENTALISM (84%); AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS MFG (84%) Corn;
 Genetics and Heredity
 ORGANIZATION: Monsanto Co; Dupont Co; Dow Chemical Co
 PERSON: Jean Guerrero
 GEOGRAPHIC: MEXICO (95%) Mexico
 LOAD-DATE: December 10, 2010
 GRAPHIC: Combination
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Abstract
                    Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company
                               All Rights Reserved
                            Information Bank Abstracts









Document Number: 173
 
                           Sacramento Bee (California)
                             December 5, 2010 Sunday
 Nutrition quiz
 BYLINE: Sam McManis smcmanis@sacbee.com
 SECTION: LIVING HERE; Pg. I16
 LENGTH: 282 words
 "Frankenfoods" -- you know, genetically modified fruits, vegetables and meats --
 are back in the news. This time, apples are the center of attention. Take our
 quiz to find out more.
 1. What has a Canadian biotechnology firm done to "improve" the seemingly
 already perfect apple -- an improvement that it is trying to get the USDA to
 approve?
 a) It found a way to keep worms from, well, worming their way in. b) It
 manipulated the growing process so there is no core. c) It created an apple that
 browns more slowly after being sliced.
 2. Sliced apples, used in children's lunchboxes and in salads, can be rendered
 brownless by "silencing" the genes responsible for producing a certain enzyme.
 What is the name of the new apple that researchers have developed?
 a) Freshfaced b) Arctic c) Everwhite
 3. The Canadians licensed non-browning technology from Australian researchers
 who perfected it in what crop?
 a) Potatoes b) Bananas c) Pears
 4. One critic of the genetically modified apple is Andrew Kimball of the Center
 for Food Safety, a nonprofit public interest group, who told the Associated
 Press ...?
 a) "Brown is beautiful in an apple." b) "I'm tired of biotech firms treating
 produce like Cher's body, something to be altered." c) "A Botox apple is not
 what people are looking for."
 5. What does Crunch Pak, the country's top sliced-apple packaging producer, do
 now to keep the product fresh?
 a) Freeze-dry the apples moments after slicing, then thaw before shipping to
 grocery stores b) Rinse the apples in a combination of calcium and ascorbic acid
 or vitamin C c) Inject a saline solution into the apples shortly after they're
 sliced.
 ANSWERS: 1: c; 2: b; 3: a; 4: c; 5: b
 Source: The Associated Press
 LOAD-DATE: December 5, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2010 McClatchy Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 174
 
                           Sacramento Bee (California)
                             December 5, 2010 Sunday
 Nutrition Quiz: Modified apples
 SECTION: I; Pg. 16
 LENGTH: 280 words
 "Frankenfoods" - you know, genetically modified fruits, vegetables and meats -
 are back in the news. This time, apples are the center of attention. Take our
 quiz to find out more.
 1. What has a Canadian biotechnology firm done to "improve" the seemingly
 already perfect apple - an improvement that it is trying to get the USDA to
 approve?
 a) It found a way to keep worms from, well, worming their way in.
 b) It manipulated the growing process so there is no core.
 c) It created an apple that browns more slowly after being sliced.
 2. Sliced apples, used in children's lunchboxes and in salads, can be rendered
 brownless by "silencing" the genes responsible for producing a certain enzyme.
 What is the name of the new apple that researchers have developed?
 a) Freshfaced
 b) Arctic
 c) Everwhite
 3. The Canadians licensed non-browning technology from Australian researchers
 who perfected it in what crop?
 a) Potatoes
 b) Bananas
 c) Pears
 4. One critic of the genetically modified apple is Andrew Kimball of the Center
 for Food Safety, a nonprofit public interest group, who told the Associated
 Press ...? a) "Brown is beautiful in an apple."
 b) "I'm tired of biotech firms treating produce like Cher's body, something to
 be altered."
 c) "A Botox apple is not what people are looking for."
 5. What does Crunch Pak, the country's top sliced-apple packaging producer, do
 now to keep the product fresh?
 a) Freeze-dry the apples moments after slicing, then thaw before shipping to
 grocery stores
 b) Rinse the apples in a combination of calcium and ascorbic acid or vitamin C
 c) Inject a saline solution into the apples shortly after they're sliced.
 ANSWERS: 1: c; 2: b; 3: a; 4: c; 5: b
 Source: The Associated Press
 LOAD-DATE: December 5, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2010 Sacramento Bee (California)
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 175
 
                          Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
                             December 5, 2010 Sunday
 A big year for Twin Ports grain exports masks a long-term decline.
 BYLINE: MIKE HUGHLETT; STAFF WRITER, STAR TRIBUNE (Mpls.-St. Paul)
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. 1D
 LENGTH: 1642 words
 The bridge of the Federal Elbe rises five stories above the ship's deck, and
 there the captain scans the weather forecast for the North Atlantic, his
 destination when he leaves port.
 Down on deck, a gang of Duluth longshoremen is shrouded in grain dust as two
 spouts gush wheat into the ship's cavernous hold at 2,500 tons per hour. The
 same sort of thing is happening at two other grain elevators across the bay in
 Superior, Wis., and three more ships are anchored outside the harbor, waiting
 their turn.
 All is as it should be -- busy -- for a change.
 After the two worst grain shipping seasons since Duluth-Superior opened to
 foreign commerce in 1959, the Twin Ports is enjoying a grain export surge this
 year, at least bringing business back to respectable levels. The port, the
 largest on the U.S. side of the Great Lakes, can largely thank its good fortune
 to a crop disaster in Russia, a major wheat exporter.
 Through October, Twin Ports grain shipments bound for overseas markets already
 were 50 percent higher than they were for all of 2009. "When it's like this,
 everybody is feeling good," said Steve Sydow, a vessel agent for Daniel's
 Shipping Service, which tends to all of the Federal Elbe's needs when it's in
 Duluth, even arranging grocery deliveries. "That's how depressed it's been.
 We're happy to have normal."
 Unfortunately, normal seems to get worse as each decade passes. Since the peak
 of the port's grain trade in the 1970s, annual average shipments have fallen
 each decade. Part of the problem in recent years is simply the weak economy. But
 long-term issues -- particularly the relatively uncompetitive position of Great
 Lakes ports vis-a-vis other U.S. ports -- continue to bedevil the Twin Ports'
 foreign trade.
 The workhorse lakers that ferry iron ore and coal from Duluth-Superior to the
 lower Great Lakes have long accounted for most of the port's cargo tonnage. But
 the port's foreign commerce is rooted in the grain trade. And it's the
 "salties," like the Federal Elbe, that give Minnesota and Wisconsin a maritime
 window to the world, something no other states so far inland can claim.
 The port's main grain is hard red spring wheat; North Dakota is by the far the
 nation's largest producer of it, and Minnesota usually ranks second or third.
 This year, U.S. hard red spring wheat production was up 6 percent over last year
 -- a nice crop.
 Meanwhile, Canada, the world's second largest wheat exporter after the United
 States, struggled with bad weather in the spring, and lots of its wheat acreage
 didn't get planted -- a plus as far as U.S. exports go.
 But the big story was a crippling drought in Russia, the world's third biggest
 wheat exporter. Russia banned wheat exports in August, and ports on the Great
 Lakes helped fill in the vacuum.
 Grain moved out of Duluth- Superior to countries the port hadn't shipped to in
 years, Egypt and Turkey, for instance -- nations primarily served by Russia,
 said Ron Johnson, trade development director at the Seaway Port Authority of
 Duluth, a public agency.
 While the St. Lawrence Seaway closes at the end of December, the Russian gap
 should remain when the port opens for business again in the spring. "I think it
 will continue because [Russia's leadership] has made it clear they will extend
 [the export ban] into next year," Johnson said.
 A good chunk of Twin Ports grain shipments flows out on Canadian lake vessels,
 which sail in fresh water only. The lakers go up the St. Lawrence Seaway past
 Montreal, where they unload at export elevators, way stations for bigger
 saltwater vessels.
 But the heart of the Twin Ports' grain trade beats in oceangoing ships like the
 Federal Elbe, which paid a visit in November.
 Ships with the name "Federal" in them are frequent visitors in the Twin Ports;
 they're operated by Montreal-based Fednav Limited, the largest force in
 international shipping on the Great Lakes/Seaway system.
 On a mild November day, the 656-foot-long Federal Elbe was docked at a Riverland
 Ag grain elevator in Duluth, taking on 22,000 metric tons of wheat bound for
 Antwerp, Belgium. Painted dark red with cream-colored trim -- Fednav's fleet
 colors -- the Elbe is a child in vessel terms, built in 2003.
 As on most oceangoing ships, the Elbe's crew of 22 is a mix of nationalities, in
 this case Poles and Filipinos, with the latter making up the majority. The
 captain, Dariusz Malinowski of Szczecin, Poland, is making his second trip into
 the Great Lakes this year. In early April, the Elbe was the first saltie of the
 Twin Ports' shipping season, an event duly noted in local media and feted each
 year in a shipside ceremony with port officials.
 Malinowski, 54, has sailed the Great Lakes for 25 years. "Thunder Bay, Chicago,
 Cleveland," he said, ticking off ports. "All the lakes I know." When the grain
 spouts shut down and the hatches are locked tight, he'll be off on a journey of
 about five days through the lakes and seaway, and another ten days across the
 Atlantic to Belgium.
 Malinowski made sure before he departed to "make shopping," as he put it,
 heading up to Duluth's cluster of big-box retailers. Renato Comiso Jr., a
 29-year-old third mate on the Elbe, made a retail run, too, he and some
 shipmates hopping on a shuttle van provided by the local seaman's mission.
 Comiso went to Wal-Mart and Best Buy, but it was window shopping for him. "I
 have no money for the moment," he said. A resident of Manila, Comiso had just
 boarded the Elbe two weeks earlier after three months of vacation, and needs
 more work to build up some cash. He'll have plenty of time to do so since he'll
 be at sea for the next eight months.
 Change of strategy
 The Federal Elbe is only the second ship to call at Riverland Ag's terminal in
 the past two years. The grain terminal is the port's fastest and most efficient,
 but an ownership change in 2008 changed the way it's operated.
 Its former owner, Minnetonka-based agribusiness giant Cargill, had used it
 primarily as an export elevator, and for years it was one of the port's busiest
 grain terminals. But Cargill, perhaps signaling the Twin Ports' fading grain
 trade relevance, sold the elevator to Whitebox Advisors, a Minneapolis-based
 hedge fund.
 Whitebox's business model called for the elevator to be primarily used for
 storage. Earlier this year, a Toronto-based investment firm bought the terminal
 from Whitebox, making it part of its Riverland Ag subsidiary. The business model
 hasn't changed, said Don Grambsch, Riverland's Minneapolis-based president.
 Still, Grambsch said that when the export business is strong, Riverland will
 make "opportunistic" forays into that market, as it has this year.
 A steep drop in steel imports has also hurt the Twin Ports' grain trade in
 recent years. The fate of grain exports is partly tied to steel imports because
 the latter provides ships with cargo to bring into the Great Lakes. It's "steel
 in, grain out," said the Port Authority's Johnson. Bringing an empty vessel into
 the Great Lakes is far less economic for a ship operator.
 The steel woes are at least partly cyclical, a product of the weak economy. But
 several long-term problems vex the port, as can be seen in cargo data. Average
 annual grain shipments through Duluth-Superior for the decade ending 2009 were
 3.3 million net tons, down 30 percent from the 1990s.
 There's the seemingly eternal Great Lakes problem of ship size. The Seaway was
 built in 1959, but ships have gotten progressively bigger since then. Today's
 big grain carriers are too big for the seaway.
 Even now, the Federal Elbe can't fully load in the Twin Ports; it has to top off
 at a grain elevator past Montreal. With 37,000 metric tons of capacity, it was
 about 60 percent full when it left Duluth; any more grain and it would have
 risked scraping bottom. The eight newest ships in Fednav's fleet have an average
 capacity of 55,000 metric tons. They don't work the Great Lakes.
 "It costs more to ship wheat on a smaller ship than a larger ship," said Dave
 Torgerson, head of the Minnesota Association of Wheat Growers. Size breeds
 economies of scale.
 New shipping options
 Another woe: extra-long "unit trains" have for years made Gulf of Mexico ports
 attractive to Upper Midwest shippers. Railroads can be a cheaper option than
 sending grain through the seaway, and soybeans and corn grown in the Upper
 Midwest and exported to Europe typically flow through Louisiana ports, not the
 seaway.
 The rise of genetically modified soybeans also has hurt the Twin Ports, say port
 and soybean industry officials. Europe is the Twin Ports' key market, yet many
 nations there oppose genetically modified food crops. "It's just about
 eliminated our [European] market for soybeans," said vessel agent Hilleren.
 Indeed, the Twin Ports averaged 1.1 million tons of soybean exports annually
 between 1995 and 2002. But shipments quickly tapered off, and no soybeans have
 gone through the port since 2007. The port hasn't seen meaningful corn exports
 in almost a decade.
 Still, there are bright spots in some niche foreign cargos. Over the past
 decade, the Twin Ports developed a growing trade in sugar beet pellets, detritus
 from western Minnesota sugar refineries that is processed into an animal feed
 product.
 Also, Duluth's publicly owned marine terminal has developed into a hub for
 incoming and outgoing wind turbine equipment. Big blades, towers and generators
 come in by ship from Denmark, Germany and Spain and are loaded on trucks and
 trains bound for wind farms in places like Manitoba and Wyoming.
 And the port can take this to heart: It should long remain essential for wheat
 growers in North Dakota and Minnesota, say growers' groups from both states.
 "We certainly don't see Duluth-Superior going away," said Jim Peterson,
 marketing director for the North Dakota Wheat Commission. "It's still going to
 be a prime outlet for us in the future."
 Mike Hughlett - 612-673-7003
 LOAD-DATE: December 6, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                           Copyright 2010 Star Tribune
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 176
 
                     Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock)
                            November 30, 2010 Tuesday
 State prisons sue, cite rice-crop taint
 LENGTH: 544 words
 More than four years after a genetically engineered variety of rice was
 discovered in the U.S. supply - spawning numerous lawsuits against Bayer
 CropScience - the Arkansas Department of Correction has also filed a complaint
 against the Germany-based conglomerate.
 The department, which plants several thousand acres of rice annually in
 Jefferson and Lincoln counties, filed a suit Nov. 15 in Pulaski County Circuit
 Court.
 Like other plaintiffs, the department contends that the discovery of the Liberty
 Link strain in rice supplies caused prices for the grain to drop and hurt its
 ability to have its crop marketed in Europe and Japan.
 There have been at least six rulings against Bayer in Arkansas cases, with more
 than $53 million - including $48 million by a Lonoke County jury in April -
 awarded to farmers in the state for damages. Bayer has appealed the decisions.
 Bayer also reached one settlement for $5.8 million.
 About 7,000 plaintiffs also sued Bayer in multidistrict litigation in federal
 court in St. Louis.
 Arkansas is the country's leading rice producer, accounting for about half of
 the U.S. output.
 The lawsuit doesn't specify the amount of compensation the department is
 seeking.
 In August 2006, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that traces of a
 genetically engineered rice had been found in the country's commercial rice
 supply.
 Bayer had partnered with Louisiana State University to test its genetically
 modified rice at a school-run facility in Crowley, La., in 1998. Though the USDA
 has said the rice variety posed no health or environmental risk, the rice had
 not been approved for human consumption at the time.
 When the contamination was announced, Japan and the European Union immediately
 moved to restrict U.S. rice imports, leading to a drop in rice prices and
 exports.
 The European Union in June lifted testing requirements on U.S. long-grain rice.
 The state attorney general's office didn't file the lawsuit earlier because it
 wasn't aware of the problem until early October, when it was contacted by the
 Department of Correction, said Aaron Sadler, spokesman for the attorney
 general's office.
 "We filed the suit after conducting an investigation," Sadler said.
 The Department of Correction didn't pursue a lawsuit earlier because it was
 "studying if [a lawsuit] would be in the best interest of the [department] and
 Arkansas," said Dina Tyler, a spokesman for the department.
 "We didn't want to jump headlong into something," Tyler said.
 In its lawsuit, the Arkansas Department of Correction said that it "experienced
 restricted demand and low prices" for its rice in 2006 and "the damage was
 longlasting." The department was unable to sell its 2006 crop of long-grain rice
 at a good price because of the Bayer contamination, the lawsuit says.
 The department "continues to suffer a lower price for its rice than it would
 have received absent the contamination," the lawsuit says.
 Bayer was negligent in allowing genetically engineered rice to get into the
 country's general rice supply, the lawsuit says.
 The lawsuit also claims Bayer concealed what it knew about the contamination of
 the country's rice. It also alleges that Bayer's actions were in violation of
 the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
 This article was published 11/30/2010
 LOAD-DATE: November 30, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2010 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 177
 
                              Voice of America News
                                November 23, 2010
 Experts Aim to Save Lives with Fortified Crops
 BYLINE: Steve Baragona
 LENGTH: 863  words
 Maize breeder Kevin Pixley laughs when asked how to identify his new, nutritious
 variety.
 "Oh, it's beautiful," he says. "The enriched maize is generally bright orange."
 Dried ears of brilliant vitamin A-enriched orange maize decorate the tables at a
 recent conference in Washington, DC. Pixley was one of the experts gathered here
 to talk about a new method to fight malnutrition among the world's poor.
 While nearly one billion people worldwide suffer from chronic hunger, experts
 say as many as two billion experience what is known as "hidden hunger" -
 malnutrition brought on by diets that lack critical nutrients such as iron, zinc
 and vitamin A. Consequences
 The consequences include reduced productivity, stunted children's development,
 and increased risk of disease and death. Vitamin A deficiency, for instance, is
 the world's leading preventable cause of blindness, and it greatly increases the
 risk of serious illness and death. Research shows that delivering supplements to
 vitamin A-deficient children cuts the death rate by a quarter.
 While fruits, vegetables and animal products are excellent sources of vitamins
 and minerals, many of the world's rural poor cannot afford to eat a balanced
 diet. Instead, they survive on staple crops that lack many of the nutrients that
 are essential for good health.
 Programs to deliver nutrient supplements or fortify food ingredients have
 largely failed to reach the rural poor.
 New approach
 Now, Kevin Pixley and other experts are taking a different approach.
 "In many countries of Asia, people eat rice every day," Pixley says. "In many
 countries of sub-Saharan Africa, people eat maize or cassava every day. So if
 these foods can be more nutritious, then even the rural poor consumers are going
 to receive [essential nutrients] on a daily basis."
 To make maize more nutritious, Pixley and other researchers found varieties that
 naturally produce higher-than-normal amounts of vitamin A. But it took years of
 selective breeding to increase the content to levels that would prevent
 malnutrition.
 They used conventional breeding, not genetic modification, he says, because "in
 many countries, the use of genetically modified products would be a hindrance to
 acceptance."
 But will it feed my family?
 The most important factor for acceptance, however, is not vitamin content. The
 primary concern, Pixley says, is that the crop produces enough food for farmers
 to feed themselves and sell a surplus for a profit.
 "For a maize variety to be successful, it has to be resistant to all the common
 diseases," he says. And in Africa, drought tolerance is a must. "And you also
 have to be sure that the maize grain that you're going to harvest is going to be
 useful for making the local foods."
 Orange maize passes that test at the conference dinner here in Washington.
 Conference organizers provided Chef Michael Snead with about 36 kilograms of
 orange maize meal. Yesterday, Snead made maize meal cakes topped with sauteed
 wild mushrooms. Today, maize muffins are piled in the center of the table next
 to stacks of dried ears of bright orange maize.
 "The maize was the main attraction for our event," Snead says. "So I made sure
 it stood out as the main attraction for dinner as well."
 Orange maize vs. white maize
 Researchers will be testing the crop's other properties in field trials about to
 begin in Zambia. If successful, it should be on the market in two or three
 years.
 But orange maize may have an image problem in Zambia, where white maize is the
 staple. In fact, says Victor Manyong, East and Central Africa Director of the
 International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Zambians avoid yellow
 maize because it was brought into the country during periods of drought and
 famine as food aid.
 "They associate yellow maize with lazy people, hard times and so on," Manyong
 says. "So when they have any other option, they don't take yellow maize."
 And because yellow maize sells for much less, farmers growing white maize might
 worry about contamination.
 "The farmer that is growing white maize for a commodity buyer will get
 frustrated if pollen from orange maize from [another] farmer crosses into his
 field," says Marx Mbunji with the southern African seed company Seedco
 International.
 For the same reason, Mbunji adds, millers also might be reluctant to grind
 orange maize into flour with the same equipment they use for white maize.
 A healthy brand
 The good news is that early studies show that Zambian consumers see orange maize
 as different from yellow maize. And when they learn about its nutritional
 benefits, they are willing to pay a premium for it. Mbunji says that could make
 orange maize more profitable for farmers.
 But IITA's Victor Manyong says backers will need to get the word out about the
 health benefits of orange maize.
 "We should not just expect that by bringing this product to the farmers, they
 will accept it, " he says. "I'm very amazed by a product such as Coca-Cola,
 which is already a well-known product [to] every consumer. But still, Coca-Cola
 continues to make advertisements."
 Like Coca-Cola's trademark red labels, experts say the bright orange color of
 vitamin A-rich maize will make an easily recognizable brand.
 LOAD-DATE: November 23, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Journal
            Copyright 2010 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 178
 
                      The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC)
                            November 20, 2010 Saturday
                                  Final Edition
 Better days ahead for bees? OPINION
 SECTION: EDITORIAL / OPINION; Pg. A10
 LENGTH: 345 words
 Bee colonies have been collapsing in America and Europe since 2006, raising
 alarms about the survival of many plant species and even the human race.
 Innovative research into the biology of bees killed by "Colony Collapse
 Disorder" (CCD) now offers clues for saving bees from extinction.
 The source of the bee disorder has been an enormous scientific problem, with
 many competing theories including ones implicating the use of chemicals and
 genetically modified foods in agriculture.
 An unusual collaboration between academic bee researchers and the Army's
 Edgewood Chemical Biological Center has identified two infections present in all
 dead bees from deceased colonies, a fungus and a virus that proliferate in bee
 digestive tracts in cool damp weather. The New York Times reports that these
 factors point to bee nutrition. The finding gives researchers important clues to
 follow.
 The collaboration was ingenious. The Army team contributed a new tool in the
 study of proteins designed for field tests of troop exposure to potential
 biological agents. Researchers at the University of Montana designed a new
 method to analyze dead bees for infections. Those experiments had the useful
 side-effect of verifying the effectiveness of the Army's field protein testing
 system.
 Meanwhile, experts in pollination have reassured the rest of us that CCD does
 not portend the end of plant life. Bees are not the only plant pollinators.
 Butterflies, moths, wasps, beetles and other flying insects also spread pollen
 from plant to plant, although the European Honey Bee (an import on this
 continent) is most efficient for certain commercial crops, like almonds.
 Elsewhere British gardeners are being encouraged to help bumblebees survive by
 planting the flowers that most attract them. Research has shown that bumblebees
 visit striped and red flowers more often than white or pink blooms, the BBC
 reports. Planting more of the gaudy blooms should help combat bumblebee decline
 due to CCD.
 From gardeners to scientists, it is heartening to see so much attention being
 paid to the humble bee.
 LOAD-DATE: November 22, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
               Copyright 2010 The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC)
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 179
 
                           Sacramento Bee (California)
                            November 20, 2010 Saturday
 Viewpoints: Gene-spliced salmon a risky unknown
 BYLINE: Noelle Ferdon and Rick Guerrero; Special to The Bee
 SECTION: A; Pg. 13
 LENGTH: 748 words
 Although fish may not be on the menu for your Thanksgiving Day feast, its fate
 for future meals hangs in the balance. The Food and Drug Administration is on
 the verge of approving the first genetically engineered fish for human
 consumption: an Atlantic salmon crossed with the genes of two other fish to make
 it grow twice as quickly as a normal salmon.
 If the FDA approves the fish, it may not even be labeled as genetically
 engineered. Consumers would have no way of knowing whether they were eating a
 natural salmon or a mutant farmed fish whose impact on human health and the
 environment is still largely unknown. The last day for public comment is Monday.
 Comments can be submitted at www.regulations.gov , docket No. FDA-2010-N-0385.
 A federal bill that would ban the production of genetically engineered fish (HR
 6265) was recently introduced to put the brakes on the FDA's runaway process.
 Sacramento Rep. Doris Matsui should take a stand and co-sponsor this bill.
 It is not just seafood-loving consumers who should worry about the future of
 their next salmon fillet if genetically engineered farmed salmon are OK'd. Our
 local salmon and the communities that depend on them, would be at risk, too.
 Pacific Coast fisheries have been in a state of crisis for several years. The
 number of salmon in the Sacramento River fell from 800,000 in 2002 to under
 40,000 in 2009. Up and down the West Coast, commercial salmon fisheries have
 closed for the last few years, costing an estimated 23,000 jobs and $2.8 billion
 in lost revenue.
 Farmed salmon already threaten wild stocks, escaping by the millions each year
 from ocean pens. There, they compete for resources, spread disease and reduce
 biodiversity. Genetically engineered salmon could be even more dangerous to wild
 fish, as their quick growth makes them more voracious and aggressive (think
 salmon on steroids) and more likely to outcompete wild fish for food.
 In a letter sent to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg in September, 14
 California legislators registered deep concern that "approval (of AquaBounty's
 petition) will lead to numerous other applications to grow this and other
 genetically modified fish.   California's wild salmon runs are at historical
 lows and are not capable of withstanding an additional assault that could come
 from escaped genetically modified farmed salmon in the future."
 The legislators also point out that California law prohibits the rearing of
 genetically engineered salmon or any transgenic fish in our ocean waters. FDA
 approval could pre-empt California from enforcing this law. Even if it did not,
 flooding the market with genetically engineered farmed salmon raised elsewhere
 would undercut local producers of wild Pacific Coast salmon - much like cheap
 farmed shrimp from foreign operations has driven the few sustainable, local
 shrimperies left in the United States toward bankruptcy.
 Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer have sent letters to the FDA expressing
 concern over the FDA's shoddy approval process of genetically engineered salmon.
 Experts, including scientists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, believe
 that insufficient research has been done on the risks of raising or eating
 genetically engineered salmon. The FDA only considered studies conducted by
 AquaBounty or its contractors, not independent scientists.
 The rapid approval of genetically engineered salmon would open the floodgates
 for other transgenic food animals. It would also reduce political pressure to
 restore our natural salmon runs. But we must restore them: their health is
 critical to our fishing communities, our economy, Pacific tribal cultures and
 our state's biodiversity.
 It would be a mistake for our legislators to allow the approval of genetically
 engineered salmon, particularly at a time when our unemployment rate is at an
 all-time high and efforts to restore our wild salmon fisheries are in full
 force.
 Matsui sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which allocates funding
 for the FDA. She has an especially important role to play in protecting our
 health and the critical salmon habitat that helps define the Sacramento region.
 She can lead on this issue by co-sponsoring HR 6265 and by directing the FDA to
 develop a robust process for considering genetically engineered animal
 applications.
 Our fisheries are nearing the point of no return. We need federal and state
 investment in their restoration, not a science experiment that uses our plates -
 and our environment - as a Petri dish.
 LOAD-DATE: November 20, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2010 Sacramento Bee (California)
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 180
 
                      Long Island Business (Long Island, NY)
                             November 19, 2010 Friday
 Plant bacteria may be used to fight famine
 BYLINE: John Callegari
 LENGTH: 874  words
 CST Growth has made some big claims about its new product, stating it can end
 world hunger, solve the energy crisis and prevent desertification.
 Richard Carlton, CST's president and CEO, has begun marketing Trophomax, a
 solution made with a naturally occurring bacteria in plants, to farmers
 worldwide as a way to increase germination, biomass and crop yield.
 Standing in Trophomax's way is the public perception that engineered fruits and
 vegetables are less safe than their naturally grown counterparts. Americans are
 generally unsure of foods that have been modified through science. A Thomson
 Reuters survey found that only 21 percent of respondents felt that genetically
 engineered foods were safe. Roughly 40 percent of those surveyed said they
 wouldn't eat fruits or vegetables if they knew the produce had been genetically
 engineered.
 Carlton argues his method of expanding produce is much safer than alternative
 means of modification, since the bacteria added is naturally found on the leaves
 and within the seeds.
 Research done by Salisbury University's director of biological sciences, Mark
 Holland, found that Pink-Pigmented Facultative Methylotrophs - bacteria that
 secretes the plant hormones auxin and cytokinin - are indigenous to all plant
 life. Removal of the PPFMs prevented plants from growing normally, while adding
 the bacteria to seeds resulted in increased germination.
 Carlton found the research fascinating and licensed it from the university,
 creating a solution of increased PPFMs, which he calls Trophomax, which could be
 applied to plant seeds to increase growth.
 "PPFMs give plants the head start they need to grow and germinate," Carlton
 said. "These bacteria are very hardy, being able to survive the environment on a
 leaf's surface better than most other bacteria. This means that along with
 improved growth, plants treated with PPFMs have increased resistance to drought,
 heat, insects and fungi. "
 CST began marketing Trophomax to farmers earlier this year, and while no farmers
 on Long Island have bought into the product yet, Carlton said the roughly 40
 customers in Iowa and upstate New York have noticed substantial differences.
 "We had a 20 percent yield increase in the number of pumpkins produced per
 acre," said Bob Hudak, a farming distributor in Brockport. "We treated 1 acre
 with the seed with the bacteria, while the block next to it was left untouched.
 There was a clear difference, with the treated plants emerging sooner and
 growing faster. The treated pumpkins were also bigger at harvest time. "
 But is it safe to increase the levels of bacteria in the plants that ultimately
 wind up on the dinner table?
 Carlton said it is, although Trophomax isn't regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug
 Administration since it isn't a pesticide and is applied before germination.
 Holland generally agrees, but admitted there are always risks when handling
 bacteria.
 "Like any bacteria, if you put a large enough number of them in the wrong place
 it can cause problems," Holland said. "If an immuno-compromised patient breathes
 in a large number of this bacteria, or if the bacteria is introduced around a
 catheter in one's body, it could cause problems. You don't want them getting
 inside a wound. "
 Holland likened the PPFMs to that of E. coli, a bacteria found within the human
 intestine that produces vitamins and prevents pathogens from attacking the
 intestine, but can be harmful in large concentrations in the body outside of the
 intestine.
 Still, despite the assertions of safety, Carlton suggests all who use the
 product on farms wear a mask or protective face gear when spraying the seeds to
 prevent breathing in high concentrations of the PPFMs.
 Joseph Gergela, executive director of the Long Island Farm Bureau, wasn't
 familiar with Trophomax, but said he knows of similar products marketed with
 promises of increased growth and crop yield.
 "Some work, some don't," Gergela said. "Years ago, my father and I used a
 similar-sounding product on a potato crop, and it seemed to work. [Trophomax] is
 probably fine. It boils down to the fact that anything that's going to make
 plants stronger is definitely an advantage to farmers. "
 That's what Carlton is hoping as he looks for increased funding.
 "We gave a presentation before the Long Island Capital Alliance last week, as
 we're seeking to generate $3 million in venture capital to expand operations,"
 Carlton said. "We want to set up an incubator in Calverton that would allow us
 to manufacture Trophomax. Right now, the university manufactures it, ships it to
 us and then we distribute it. We want to be able to manufacture it ourselves. "
 In addition, Carlton said the additional capital would help him assemble a small
 team of salespeople that could travel to various farms pitching the product.
 As for saving the world, Carlton said he would like to partner with a
 large-scale, nonprofit organization to get Trophomax into developing nations,
 where the increased crop yield and biomass of those plants could aid starving
 populations.
 "One of our treatments had us produce an extra 35 bushels of corn," Carlton
 said. "That's roughly an extra 1,800 ears of corn. We don't eat 1,800 ears of
 corn in our entire lifetime. Those kinds of benefits could save the world. "
 LOAD-DATE: November 26, 2010
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: General news
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2010 Dolan Media Newswires









Document Number: 181
 
                                The New York Times
                            November 11, 2010 Thursday
                          The New York Times on the Web
 Setback Seen for E.U. Plan on Biotech Crops
 BYLINE: By JAMES KANTER
 SECTION: Section ; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Pg.
 LENGTH: 621 words
 BRUSSELS -- An effort by the European Union to give power over biotechnology
 crops back to local authorities has run into serious legal problems. But it
 could end up strengthening the central regulator's hand by allowing more
 genetically engineered products to be approved, despite public opposition.
 One of the first things that the European Union commissioner for health and
 consumer affairs, John Dalli, did after taking office early this year was to
 approve the planting of a type of genetically modified potato in Europe. That
 was the first approval of its kind for a decade, and it angered many
 environmentalists.
 Mr. Dalli then proposed a radical overhaul of the existing rules that would
 allow European Union member states to reject biotech foods, even after they win
 approval by the bloc. His goal was to make future approvals of biotech crops
 swifter and less acrimonious by effectively allowing countries to opt out.
 But on Thursday, lawyers working on behalf of European Union governments in
 Brussels were expected to issue a legal opinion concluding that the plan would
 violate European law and global trade rules.
 Frederic Vincent, a spokesman for Mr. Dalli, said that the commission's own
 lawyers had reached a different opinion, and that Mr. Dalli would continue to
 push his proposal.
 But with France and Germany already signaling strong reservations, some experts
 said Mr. Dalli might have to withdraw the plan and stick with the current
 system.
 That could turn out be the best outcome for biotech companies.
 ''Unlike his predecessors, Mr. Dalli showed with the potato that he had no
 qualms about approving new biotech crops for cultivation judged safe on the
 evidence,'' said Thijs Etty of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, an expert in
 biotech regulation.
 ''With many crops ready, or nearly ready, for final approval, we could have what
 represents an unprecedented avalanche of new biotech varieties growing in Europe
 within the next couple of years,'' said Mr. Etty, who also serves as an academic
 expert on a biotech panel at the European Economic and Social Committee, an
 European Union advisory body.
 Among the crops that already have received safety approval from the authorities
 at the European Food Safety Authority are varieties of corn by Monsanto,
 Syngenta, Pioneer and Dow AgroSciences.
 Companies have made more than a dozen other applications for biotech crops,
 including two more varieties of potato, a second engineered by BASF, and another
 by a Dutch company called Avebe, as well as a sugar beet, developed jointly by
 Monsanto and KWS, a Germany company.
 The only other biotech crop grown in Europe besides the potato, which is used
 mainly to produce starch for the paper industry, is a type of corn produced by
 Monsanto, which was approved in 1998.
 Austria, Greece and Italy have consistently blocked approvals of biotech crops
 by the European Union to avoid being required to allow them to be planted at
 home.
 Mr. Dalli's proposals were an effort to avoid this problem, by allowing
 countries to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of biotech crops on their
 territory on ethical grounds.
 But according to the opinion to be issued Thursday, there are ''strong doubts
 about the compatibility'' of the proposal with European Union treaties
 concerning the single market, as well as global trade agreements.
 The commission has been seeking for years to ease tensions with Argentina,
 Canada and the United States, where modified crops are grown.
 Those countries won a lawsuit at the World Trade Organization in 2006 obliging
 Europe to ease remaining bans on the import and cultivation of genetically
 modified products. The United States still could impose punitive duties on the
 Europeans for continuing to block trade.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: November 11, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 182
 
                      Marin Independent Journal (California)
                           November 10, 2010 Wednesday
 Bread & Butter: Cotogna, winter fun and football-themed burger
 BYLINE: By Anna Haight IJ correspondent
 SECTION: FOOD; Lifestyle
 LENGTH: 765 words
 FORMER Mill Valley residents Lindsay and Michael Tusk just opened Cotogna in San
 Francisco's Jackson Square on Nov. 8.
 Cotogna means "quince" in Italian and will be the more relaxed next-door sibling
 of the one Michelin star-rated Quince, also owned by the Tusks. With kitchen
 leadership of chef Tusk and chef Ryan Childs, formerly of Chez Panisse, Gary
 Danko and Aqua, the odds are that the rustic Italian trattoria-type cuisine will
 be stellar.
 Enjoy wood-burning rotisserie-roasted and grilled meats, game birds and fish,
 house-made pastas, ingredient-driven cocktails, and prix fixe wines from
 Northern Italy among brick and wood elements with abundant sunshine streaming
 through floor-to-ceiling windows. Cotogna has a one-of-its-kind in the U.S.
 emerald-green Universo combination wood-burning rotisserie and grill, which will
 not only produce flavorful plates of meat and game birds, but will also be used
 to roast whole animals such as lamb and suckling pig.
 Cotogna is at 490 Pacific St. (at Montgomery St.) in San Francisco. Cotogna will
 be serving dinner only until Dec. 1 when it will also open for lunch. For more
 information, call 415-775-8508 or go to www.cotognasf.com .
 Exclusive achievement
 Congratulations to Berlin Natural Bakery and Novato's Joy Shrock, its CEO, for
 becoming the first alternative grain bakery in the United States to receive the
 Non-GMO Project's verification for its products.
 It is estimated that at least 80 percent of processed foods on U.S. shelves
 contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). "Approximately 75 percent of our
 customers suffer from some type of allergy. It is imperative that our food chain
 sources are free of GMOs. The only way to ensure that they are is through a
 third party verification system/Non-GMO Project," says Shrock.
 The Non-GMO Project's program evaluates products, ingredients and manufacturing
 facilities to assure the best choices for those wishing to avoid GMOs.
 Berlin Natural Bakery is in Berlin, Ohio, in the heart of Amish country, and
 Shrock has been reaching out to assist the Amish farmers, previously helping
 establish a co-op of Amish farmers in Ohio that converted their farms to
 certified organic and now have their own label called Greenfield Farms.
 Berlin Natural Bakery makes its products exclusively from genuine German spelt.
 The product can be found at United Markets and Whole Foods. For more
 information, go to www.berlin naturalbakery.com . For more information about the
 Non-GMO Project, go to www.nongmoproject.org .
 Snow, chili in Fairfax
 Yes, that's right, snow in Fairfax. It won't last long, however, as the snow is
 happening exclusively on Nov. 13 at Manor School's Winter Faire. Besides snow
 sledding and snow cones, the annual event is known for food-related activities
 and a chili contest.
 Sol Food of San Rafael will bring its truck and serve Puerto Rican fare,
 donating proceeds to the PTA; Straus Family Creamery has donated 18 gallons of
 ice cream for the event's first ice cream stand as well as donating all the milk
 and butter to power the espresso stand and crepery. Smart Chicken has donated
 more than 300 hot dogs and sausages and its new chicken apple sausage will be
 premiering at the faire.
 In a new twist at this 15-year Winter Faire, the chili cookoff competition will
 be between local restaurants and grocery stores including Iron Springs Pub, Good
 Earth Natural Foods, Grilly's, Woodacre Market, Woodlands Market, Choice Lunch
 and The Meadow Club.
 All proceeds from the event will benefit the PTA and Ross Valley Schools
 Foundation. The event is from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Nov. 13 at Manor Elementary
 School at 150 Oak Manor Drive in Fairfax. For more information, go to
 www.winterfaire.com .
 Football, burgers, beer
 Now that the Giants have won the World Series, it is time to get serious about
 football. Chef Scott Howard at Brick and Bottle is making it easy by creating a
 new designer burger each Monday night in November to reflect the signature
 flavors of the hometown team.
 Gather around one of the seven flat screen TVs and enjoy the featured burger,
 fries and choice of beer or wine for $11. Next up on Nov. 15 is "The Crunch," a
 burger stuffed with crispy red-skinned potato chips inside the bun.
 Brick and Bottle is at 55 Tamal Vista Blvd. in Corte Madera. Call 924-3366 or go
 to www.brick andbottle.com .
 Anna Haight is a longtime Marin resident and an even longer foodie who blogs at
 Anna's Cool Finds, www.annascoolfinds.com . Her bread and butter column appears
 Wednesdays. Have news about chefs, restaurants and other foodie goodies? Contact
 her at annahaight@gmail.com .
 LOAD-DATE: November 11, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
     Copyright 2010 Marin Independent Journal, a MediaNews Group publication
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 183
 
                                The Boston Herald
                             November 9, 2010 Tuesday
 SECTION: FINANCE; Pg. 024
 LENGTH: 226 words
 ** Facebook counter: Social-networking giant Facebook accused the owner of the
 Boston Phoenix and WFNX of infringing on two patents for managing information
 online. The federal lawsuit was filed in response to Phoenix Media/Communication
 Group's own patent-infringement case against Facebook filed last year.
 ** Fed stimulus: Kevin Warsh, a Federal Reserve official with close ties to
 Chairman Ben Bernanke expressed doubts about whether the Fed's new $600 billion
 bond-purchase program would succeed in boosting the economy.
 ** Private biotech: GTC Biotherapeutics, a Framingham company developing drugs
 using milk from genetically modified goats, agreed to be taken private in a deal
 with France-based LFB Biotechnologies.
 ** Bear market: Teddy bear maker Steiff will close its U.S. distribution center
 in Raynham and ship the stuffed animals directly from Germany.
 ** Amazon add-ons: Expanding its online retail empire, Amazon.com said it is
 buying Quidsi, the owner of Diapers.com and Soap.com, for $500 million.
 ** `Small' Saturday: Hoping to drum up support for independent merchants,
 American Express CEO Kenneth Chenault said his company will promote ``Small
 Business Saturday'' on the weekend after Thanksgiving. The Nov. 27 shopping
 effort will be sandwiched between large retailers' Black Friday and online
 retailers' Cyber Monday.
 LOAD-DATE: November 9, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2010 Boston Herald Inc.









Document Number: 184
 
                            Huntsville Times (Alabama)
                             November 8, 2010 Monday
 Lab gives students a closer look at food
 BYLINE: Pat Ammons Newcomb, Times Staff Writer
 SECTION: EXTRACREDIT; Pg. 1C
 LENGTH: 618 words
 Biology class finds genetic modifications in favorite snacks
 Ali Kelly knows now that there's more to her food than meets the eye. In fact,
 the Huntsville High freshman will never look at a Frito the same way again.
 Ali and her classmates in Melissa Kunze's freshman biology class recently
 learned that most of the snacks they consume contain genetically modified
 organisms. Ali didn't just read that fact in a book. She saw it for herself
 after her team extracted fragments of DNA from their snack food and put them
 through a polymerase chain reaction - a laboratory process for duplicating DNA.
 The students then loaded the wells of a flash gel and separated the PCR products
 by electrophoresis so they could see if their particular chip or cookie was, in
 fact, genetically modified.
 "You're looking for two specific gene markers," said Jennifer Hutchison, a
 biology specialist with Alabama Science in Motion, who was helping Kunze conduct
 the activity.
 As it turned out, not only were Ali's Fritos genetically modified, but so were
 most of the other chips, cookies and crackers her classmates were testing.
 "The government doesn't have to tell you if it's genetically modified or not, so
 there's no way of knowing," said Ben Malone, Ali's lab partner.
 Exploring the genetic makeup of our food seems like a pretty complicated project
 for freshman biology students, but it's possible thanks to the HudsonAlpha
 Institute of Biology. HudsonAlpha developed the lab and provides the equipment
 that Hutchison takes to schools around North Alabama.
 The GMOD lab, as it's called, is one of a number of labs HudsonAlpha has
 developed for middle and high school students. It's also one Kunze studied this
 summer at a HudsonAlpha Teacher Academy.
 "So much of what you focus on is how to take concepts and bring them into the
 classroom," Kunze said of the summer at HudsonAlpha.
 Genetics is a tough concept for students to grasp because it's not something
 they can see. Hands-on work such as distilling a potato chip down to its DNA
 gives them the visual aid to understand things on a molecular level.
 "This stuff is so exciting," Kunze said.
 Each of the teachers who attended the summer Teacher Academy received about $800
 worth of equipment to use in their classrooms. That's in addition to the lab
 kits and equipment HudsonAlpha supplies to Science in Motion for use throughout
 the state.
 Kunze was warned this summer that her students would not realize their food was
 once a plant product, something that had DNA in it.
 "The kids will fight you all the way to the results," Jennifer Carden, the
 coordinator of K-12 activities at HudsonAlpha, told the teachers. "They'll say,
 'There is no DNA in my Cheetos, my Fritos. Do not ruin my snack time.' "
 On the day her students got their results, they had figured out the DNA part,
 but the genetic modification of their snacks was a little unsettling.
 "It kind of freaks me out if they fiddle with it," Shalaya McElhiney said.
 Just as she did at the Teacher Academy, Kunze discussed with her students why
 farmers grow genetically modified foods. By incorporating DNA from one organism
 into another, new crops can be developed that are more insect-resistant,
 drought-tolerant or capable of producing fruit in colder climates.
 So what's the down side? Genetically modifying foods could trigger allergic
 reactions, among other side affects, Kunze said. There are other health
 concerns, as well as ethical and economic considerations, so many that European
 countries ban genetically modified foods.
 "This gets them thinking about their world," Kunze said.
 And what they eat.
 "I never really thought about what I was eating until today," said Marques
 Whitman, one of Kunze's freshmen. "I just ate it."
 LOAD-DATE: November 11, 2010
 GRAPHIC: COLOR PHOTO: Huntsville High biology teacher Melissa Kunze helps Emily
 Lapidus load a flash gel to test to see if her snack food contains genetically
 modified organisms. DaveDieter/Huntsville Times COLOR PHOTO: Huntsville High
 biology student Thomas Seitz gets a flash gel ready to be tested using
 electrophoresis. Dave Dieter/Huntsville Times B&W PHOTO: Huntsville High biology
 teacher Melissa Kunze works with Dr. Neil Lamb, HudsonAlpha Institute for
 Biotechnology's director of educational outreach, at a Teacher Academy this past
 summer. Kunze was practicing the lab to test for genetically modified foods she
 recently did with her students at Huntsville High. Dave Dieter/Huntsville Times
 B&W PHOTO: Jennifer Hudson, a biology specialist with Alabama Science in Motion,
 shows students the markers that indicate genetically modified products after
 their snack food samples underwent electrophoresis. Dave Dieter/Huntsville Times
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: hut
                  Copyright 2010 The Huntsville Times Co., Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 185
 
                         Lincoln Journal Star (Nebraska)
                            November 3, 2010 Wednesday
 China rejects shipment of genetically modified corn;
 BYLINE: Lincoln Journal Star
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. A4
 LENGTH: 124 words
 China rejected a shipment of U.S. corn late last week after officials learned it
 contained an unsanctioned strain of the genetically modified commodity, Reuters
 reported.
 The action, which would be the country's first refusal of U.S. corn, could
 further strain U.S.-China trade relations.
 "China only allows 11 varieties of GM corn to be imported to the country, and
 the cargo was found with GM material outside the 11 varieties," an anonymous
 source told Reuters.
 According to the international news wire service, the shipment was somewhere
 between 50,000 and 60,000 tons.
 China's demand for U.S. corn has soared this year because of the country's
 increased meat production. China's corn supply this year was not adequate to
 meet its growing demand.
 LOAD-DATE: November 3, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2010 Lincoln Journal Star
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 186
 
                            Star-News (Wilmington, NC)
                             October 22, 2010 Friday
                                   1ST Edition
 BYLINE: Sam McManis; McClatchy Newspapers
 SECTION: Pg. 3D
 LENGTH: 250 words
 Get a load of that salmon's size. If we didn't know better, we'd think it was on
 human growth hormones, like some athlete trying to gain an edge.
 Actually, something like that has come to pass. A salmon-farming concern is
 angling with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to market a genetically
 engineered salmon.
 Take our quiz on the so-called "Frankenfish" and other genetically engineered
 foods.
 1To build a better salmon, scientists spliced into the DNA of Atlantic salmon a
 growth-hormone gene from which specimen?
 a. Rainbow trout
 b. Chinook salmon
 c. Barry Bonds
 2Scientists also injected some of the genetic code of a fish called the ocean
 pout into the super salmon for what purpose?
 a. To excrete an antifreeze-type substance so the fish could thrive in cold
 water.
 b. To make the tissue of the salmon more fibrous and hence less flaky when
 cooked.
 c. To increase the growth rate of the salmon fivefold over standard farmed
 salmon.
 3In response to an FDA analysis, some experts feared that the super salmon might
 cause what medical condition in sensitive people?
 a. Gout
 b. Dangerous liver enzymes
 c. Allergies
 4Kevin Wells, a professor of animal science at the University of Missouri, tried
 to quell worries about the Frankenfish by telling the New York Times ...
 a. "Everything here is something we eat."
 b. "No, it doesn't have three eyes."
 c. "I've tried it, and it kind of tastes like chicken."
 Sources: www.npr.org; the New York Times; www.centerforfoodsafety.org
 ANSWERS: 1: b; 2: a; 3: c; 4: a; 5: c
 LOAD-DATE: January 12, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2010 Star-News, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 187
 
                     Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock)
                            October 21, 2010 Thursday
 LENGTH: 1800 words
 Protect all students equally
 Recently, we at the Center for Artistic Revolution held a vigil to bring
 attention to the 11 gay identified teenagers ages 13-19 who killed themselves in
 September. All had been bullied.
 We wanted to let young people in Arkansas know they're not alone, there's hope
 and help. We contacted media for coverage. We were told, "It's Friday night
 football and the fair opens tonight, so we can't cover this." The Gay, Lesbian
 and Straight Education Network's 2009 National School Climate surveyed 7,261
 lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender middle and high school students. Nine out
 of 10 were bullied. LGBT youth are a six times higher suicide risk. Bullied LGBT
 students are at higher risk for quitting school, substance abuse, mental health
 issues, risky sexual behavior and becoming homeless. The impact on LGBT youth is
 significant since they usually aren't "out." Sometimes school officials don't
 help. LGBT students are afraid of their bullies, the rejection of their teachers
 and parents. They often feel isolated and hopeless.
 Students shouldn't be afraid of school. No student should die because of being
 bullied. Every student, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or
 presentation, gender or race should be equally protected in their schools.
 Shouldn't they? Or do more young people have to die?
 Little Rock
 It's a really good deal
 I have read and reread the recent half-page editorial slice-and-dice of Sen.
 Blanche Lincoln, and each time I have had difficulty suppressing regurgitation
 due to your sickening verbal "gutterances." You twist, distort, cite irrelevant
 examples, draw flawed conclusions, are often wholly nonprofessional (but do
 write very well) in your practice of "lyologism" (the art of phony editorial
 journalism).
 Oops, beg your pardon. You did get two things right.
 First, Lincoln's Washington office used franked mail. True. Last summer it did
 send 30,000 pieces filled with information and replies to requests. You implied
 that this was campaign cheating. Yet you know full well that any good lawmaker
 must inform and help constituents. You know full well that Lincoln's use of
 franked mail followed all rules of the Senate.
 Second, you are wholly right. All federal benefits that come to Arkansas must be
 paid for by the taxpayer. Yes, in the past month or so Lincoln's office and the
 Senate Agriculture Committee that she chairs have announced a number of projects
 to benefit rural Arkansas. The cost will be several million dollars. For that,
 each of Arkansas' 1,225,000 income-tax payers must pony up about a penny per $1
 million. Why so little? Because all other U.S. income-tax payers share these
 costs with us. So prepare to pay up, Arkansas taxpayers. A penny-amillion
 appears to be a really good deal.
 Little Rock
 How to cook possum
 My maternal grandfather trapped furs for Sears, Roebuck & Co. He caught various
 animals in his traps: raccoon, fox, skunk, wolf, rabbit and, of course, possum.
 If the meat was eatable, the family of nine children ate it-at least at times.
 Here is my mother's process for cooking possum: "After you skin and clean the
 possum, you throw it on top of the house." During freezing weather, the dressed
 possum was thrown on top of the house. That prevented wild animals from reaching
 the possum and eating it themselves It also allowed the possum to freeze.
 "Freezing the possum takes some of the wild taste out of the meat. Later, take
 it down from the roof and let it thaw. Then put the possum in a great big pot.
 Cover it with cold water, add sassafras root and boil for several hours. Take
 the possum out and cool slightly. Put it in a baking pan. Add sweet potatoes,
 spices to taste, and bake until browned and tender." At Thanksgiving when I was
 about 14, Grandma and Grandpa Holiman, their nine children and their offspring
 met at the log cabin, built with a dogtrot, near the Saline River bottoms. We
 had nine kinds of meat to sample. Besides the usual turkey and ham, we had
 chicken, beef, duck, goose, rabbit, coon and possum.
 This holiday lives vividly in my memory and I can always say, "Yes, I have eaten
 coon and possum. Hasn't everyone?"
 Bella Vista
 Modifying isn't new
 Letter writer Dorothy Meyer serves as a paradigm of those contributing to the
 ruination of civilized, intelligent discourse in America.
 The sensationalism in her prose-collating the Food and Drug Administration to
 terrorists-as well as her hyperbolic summation of the state of produce filling
 the shelves in our nation's grocery stores reveals her severe lack of
 sophistication and reasoning faculties.
 I'd infer that she's speaking of genetically modified foods. The benefits of
 genetically modified food serve as the only feasible way of coming close to
 feeding a world population of which 16,000 members age 5 or younger die every
 day from starvation.
 By "Frankenfood," I surmise that she considers it dangerous to use biotechnology
 to create frost-resistant fruits and vegetables, to breed crops lacking
 allergens or to create varieties of corn and wheat that are invulnerable to
 drought. Now I understand her trepidation.
 Newsflash: Genetic modification has been taking place since the dawn of the
 agricultural revolution about 10,000 years ago.
 Considering the downright absence of any statistics, what exactly was her point?
 She should do us all a favor next time and skip her writing session, and instead
 head to the local Whole Foods to buy some "organic" (an ambiguous term that's
 lost all significance) strawberries that taste exactly the same with less
 nutrition.
 Little Rock
 Force is not possible
 Is it possible to force anyone to silently pray?
 It does seem that to do this one would have to have complete control over the
 other person's thoughts, even to the extent of reading the other person's mind.
 The silent prayer could be counting sheep, planning tomorrow's schedule or
 thinking about a mix of many other things other than prayer.
 Get real. One cannot be forced to silently pray if one mentally resists unless
 the enforcer is a mind reader. Incidentally, prayer is devout whether it is
 silent or verbal.
 Since a letter writer was so opposed to requests for prayer in taxpayer-funded
 places, perhaps he could spend the time designated for silent prayer, asking
 himself if the words of his mouth and the meditation of his ear are acceptable
 in God's sight. Perhaps the responses to the silent thoughts and introspection
 will be quite interesting.
 Little Rock
 Get rid of lazy, illegal
 I wish you to consider my answer to solving at least one of our national
 problems. Stop talking about fences and problems of deportation. Put stiff fines
 on anyone who hires, rents or sells to any illegal and enforce these fines with
 no exceptions. They will go home.
 Ignore the flak from the Mexican government and those who benefit from the
 illegals being here. Those jobs will then be available to citizens. Anyone on
 welfare and not willing to accept these jobs would be denied welfare.
 The politicians would have us believe that the reason for citizens not accepting
 these jobs is that they do not pay a livable wage. Let's be truthful about it.
 It's because most who are on welfare are too lazy. They will live on welfare as
 long as they can live on taxpayer money and the politicians want their votes. If
 it were true that they could not live on minimum wage as many people do, then
 they could be paid a supplement that would amount to a livable wage. This would
 no doubt save millions in welfare, generate more tax money and get us off the
 welfare state that has been created in large part in the name of votes.
 This would solve several problems. All it would take is enough politicians with
 the interest of the country at heart. I believe this would be the toughest task
 of all.
 Yellville
 Answers still needed
 Voters deserve answers to the questions posed to Tim Griffin by KUAR journalist
 Kelly MacNeil. She asked what he would do about taxes, and about his character
 and role in the U.S. attorney firings.
 Who is satisfied with his simplistic statement that it is in no one's interest
 that the nation go bankrupt? If he changed his mind about supporting the plan to
 privatize Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and no longer supports the
 misnamed FairTax, then what are his plans to pay down the deficit and still keep
 the Bush tax cuts for the top 1 percent?
 Who but the middle class and our children and grandchildren will pay the
 interest on the debt to China when we have to borrow money to keep those tax
 cuts in place? The Republicans' only idea, that tax cuts for the super-rich
 supposedly create jobs, did not work throughout the entire eight years of the
 George W. Bush administration.
 Why did Griffin not answer the criticisms that Citizens for Responsibility and
 Ethics in Government made against him instead of changing the subject to Mike
 Ross? If a research group made untrue accusations about me, I would want to set
 everyone straight. Griffin's silence is deafening. Who believes it is enough for
 him to say that the Bush administration "mishandled" the affair when he was Karl
 Rove's right hand, writing the book on dirty political tricks?
 Little Rock
 Put pols in their place
 Re "Don't ask, don't tell": As a retired military enlisted man, I am sickened
 that spineless, yellow-bellied judges and politicians are allowed to take this
 responsibility away from the military and make it a political issue.
 Retired, active-duty, Reserve and Guard members have an opportunity to show
 these treacherous politicians the facts of life in the election next month. As
 far as the judges are concerned, we are screwed as usual.
 Greenbrier
 Feedback
 No SS raises again For the second year, we who are on Social Security will
 receive no pay increase.
 We are the generation who built the railroads, power grids, communications
 systems, highways, interstates, flood control, water and sewer systems, and much
 more. This was done in the 1940s, '50s, '60s and mid-'70s. Then we shipped our
 factories overseas for cheap labor and became a nation of consumers, not
 producers. Let us send billions to other countries and let our seniors wither
 away.
 Thanks, Congress. Oh, by the way, have you missed any pay raises lately?
 Morrilton
 Sold out to China
 Am I the only outraged American as a result of the news that the Chesapeake
 Energy drilling company sold a large percentage of its Texas oil rights to
 China, a country that is always against our great country?
 What happened to politicians saying that we are pushing our own oil and becoming
 self-reliant? This is our oil on our land. Where are our honest bunch of
 government officials at now? We are all sold out and betrayed again.
 Garfield
 This article was published 10/21/2010
 LOAD-DATE: October 21, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2010 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 188
 
                          The Christian Science Monitor
                             October 18, 2010 Monday
 Letters to the Editor - Weekly Issue of October 18, 2010;
 Readers write in about free speech, genetically modified crops and
 overpopulation, legalizing marijuana in California.
 LENGTH: 447 words
 The limits of free speech
 The Oct. 4 article, "Free speech: How free should it be?" gave a
 thought-provoking account of the US Supreme Court case between Albert Snyder,
 the grieving father of a fallen marine, and Pastor Phelps of the Westboro
 Baptist Church, who offensively protested gay rights at the soldier's funeral.
 There are limits to all good things - even free speech.
 The First Amendment allows a group to object to US policy by burning American
 flags. But let's say that fire damages another party's property. Can the First
 Amendment bar a civil law suit for damages under those circumstances? Applying
 this model to the Albert Snyder v. Westboro Baptist Church case, Mr. Snyder's
 rights are clear. It's just the "aggrieved property owner" wanting recompense.
 Pastor Phelps can say what he wants about gay rights, and there are many forums
 for this, including his own pulpit. But when he harms a family assembled to
 grieve - another First Amendment right - that family should have the right for a
 jury to determine their damages.
 John Ellsworth
 Gig Harbor, Wash.
 GM crops don't really help
 The Oct. 4 editorial, " 'Frankenfish' and next-gen food" highlights some of the
 advantages of genetically modified food. But GM crops also have their downside.
 Use of GM wheat in Punjab, India, resulted in increased crop yields, but also
 led to an unsustainable rate of decline in ground water. The high-yield crops
 also depleted nutrients in the soil, requiring more fertilizer and associated
 expenses.
 Technology may help us increase our food and energy supply and find ways to
 discard waste. But these problems all stem from overpopulation. Wouldn't it be
 more rational to attack them from the demand side as well - by encouraging
 smaller families and better family planning? There are arguably already more
 people on the planet than can be supported sustainably. We need to stop
 pretending that we will be able to feed 8.6 billion people in 2050.
 Roger L. Hooke
 Bryand Global Sciences Center, University of Maine
 Orono, Maine
 California should legalize pot
 Regarding the article "California puts pot to a vote" (Oct. 4): Marijuana is not
 a "new drug" for teenagers. Legalizing pot would simply prevent teens from
 easily obtaining pot the same way age laws make it harder for kids to get
 alcohol and tobacco. Outlaw dealers don't check for age. Licensed dealers do.
 Teens in the Netherlands, where marijuana is legal, use less pot than their
 American peers. Even if Proposition 19 doesn't generate a nickel in tax revenue,
 some estimate California will save more than $500 million in law enforcement,
 court, and incarceration costs. The benefits are clear.
 Ralph Givens
 Daly City, Calif.
 LOAD-DATE: October 20, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
               Copyright 2010 Christian Science Publishing Society
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 189
 
                             San Antonio Express-News
                            October 14, 2010 Thursday
                               STATE&METRO Edition
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. 6B
 LENGTH: 1154 words
 War casualties, too
 It is a proven and well-known fact: Deployments change people. Recently, four
 Fort Hood soldiers took their lives and I'm sure some of you are wondering why.
 Our soldiers aren't just dying in combat zones, but in the war at home too, and
 we must do something immediately. Due to a high redeployment rate for most Army
 units, troops aren't receiving enough dwell time or proper professional care.
 The life of an overlooked soldier is a difficult one, families included.
 This could be the soldier who was never asked how he/she is feeling or the one
 who is told to "soldier up" and "drive on" or even one who was completely
 ignored by his/her peers.
 We are only human and after awhile our "bags" start to fill up. Our Army is not
 getting the help it needs to address this profound issue and our bags are
 overflowing. Leaders need to step up their game to make sure the proper channels
 are available to all service members. Kick the stigma andsave a life!
 Danielle R. Costly,
 Fort Hood
 Duck cartoon ugly
 Re: Mallard Fillmore comic strip (Oct. 9):
 What if the first panel of the referenced "funny" said "legendary Orthodox Jews
 who repudiate the crucifixion of Jesus"? or "legendary Republicans who repudiate
 Bush II's assassination of the Saddam Hussein family"?
 Mallard ignores such questions, but so do you. I doubt your newspaper would dare
 confront any large minority viewpoint, no matter how valid the criticism. So why
 pick on Muslims? Easy answer: They are small in number and low on the scale of
 influence in the community.
 Seriously, this cartoon was ugly, even uglier than all the anti-Obama rants, and
 you should be ashamed to print it.
 William Larson,
 Universal City
 Pull hateful cartoons
 While I have often thought that Mallard Fillmore deserves to be on the Editorial
 Page, his Oct. 9 strip shouldn't have been in the paper at all.
 It has moved from being political commentary to being racist and hateful.
 Someone at the Express-News needs to take some responsibility and personal
 initiative to remove offensive cartoons such as this from the paper. When this
 "comic" becomes racist and hateful, it should be pulled from your publication.
 Deborah Youngblood
 Health bill working
 As a primary care physician, I see children every day who depend on our health
 care system. Programs such as Medicaid help to ensure our children have access
 to vaccines, well-child care, and sick visits.
 Since passage of the health care law, many have rallied for repeal.
 Perhaps those opposed are unaware of the many benefits it provides for U.S.
 children - continued funding for CHIP/Medicaid, increased access to primary care
 providers, and eliminating pre-existing conditions.
 As we all know, children do not have a voice in the political process.
 When you go to the polls in November, please keep this in mind - and cast your
 vote for the health of our children.
 Ryan Van Ramshorst, M.D.
 E-N missed big show
 Unless I missed it in your pages, I fear you missed it! This weekend afforded
 the San Antonio community the wonderful opportunity to support education and our
 youth.
 The UTSA Department of Music Lyric Theater presented two fabulous sold-out
 performances of Puccini's "La Boheme" on the UTSA campus.
 The production featured student musicians and the Youth and Children's Choirs of
 St. Mark's Episcopal Church in what was fully orchestrated and staged.
 Under the direction of Kristen Roach, the singers, chorus and orchestra showed
 forth the strength of our educational process and tomorrow's stars.
 Kudos to all those involved and the dynamic faculty and staff. Congratulations!
 Bravo!
 James D. Bliek
 Story lacked balance
 Re: "New corn proves a great pest controller" (Page 12A, Oct. 8):
 This story said genetically modified corn (Bt corn) is effective at curbing
 insect predation on corn crops and neighboring farms reap a benefit by growing
 cheaper nonmodified corn.
 This sounds like unpaid advertising for Monsanto and other large companies
 reaping massive profits from modified seed.
 What the story doesn't cover is the lack of long-term testing on the effects of
 genetically modified food going into human digestive tracts, systems that were
 designed to process natural food over thousands of years, not Frankenstein-like
 test tube concoctions.
 The story said there is a "halo" effect on neighboring nonmodified crops. Is
 this why Monsanto is trying its hardest to shut down organic crop producers and
 suing them for copyright infringement?
 This "halo" effect is actually big business poisoning naturally grown crops
 through pollen disbursement from commercial farms.
 And we wonder why ADHD, autism and cancer, to name a few such plagues, are
 through the roof today!
 The industry-paid scientist who was quoted said the toxin in Bt corn is
 considered harmless to humans. By whom?
 I'd love to see a companion piece done by an unbiased investigative reporter
 delving into these issues.
 Bill Jones,
 New Braunfels
 Not inclined to vote
 Elections are just around the corner and then, thank God, they will be over
 (again).
 I used to look forward to the campaigns, but now no one tells how they will cure
 the problems, only who is responsible for our state and federal mess.
 All the candidates point to their opponents and their past record as the problem
 and it leaves you wondering why these individuals are not in prison - where
 people of that ilk reside.
 They all want change, but when they get voted onto the public dole they find out
 that big money and their lobbyists run the show, and the only change made will
 be the name on the door of the office.
 Ladies and gentlemen, no matter what, we're going to get one of those losers.
 Thanks. I think I'll pass on this one.
 David Snow
 Editor inconsistent
 Re: Editorial Page Editor Bruce Davidson's Oct. 7 column promoting a Texas
 resign-to-run rule for the Texas Railroad Commission:
 Davidson needs to be consistent - either everyone in all state offices should
 have to resign to run, or no one should. That's the only fair way to do this.
 Also, one must distinguish between having a seat even if you lose vs. simply
 running for a seat while your current term is ending.
 For example, Railroad Commissioner Elizabeth Ames Jones will run for U.S. Senate
 in 2012, but she's not trying to hang on to one job while seeking another. Her
 present job is up, whether she wins or loses in 2012.
 There is nothing wrong with that, and it's far different from someone running
 for an office but keeping their current office if they lose.
 James Casey
 Text law loopholes
 Re: "Council prohibits texting by drivers" (Page 1, Oct. 8):
 The ban on texting while driving comes none too soon, but how will police know
 if someone is texting? Will they have to drive up right next to them?
 Also, what about those drivers who have windows so dark you can't see inside?
 Is there a law that prohibits these windows?
 I'm anxious to see how this new texting law works.
 I'm tired of seeing these inconsiderate idiots endangering our lives.
 Gina Busselmann
 LOAD-DATE: October 14, 2010
 GRAPHIC: A letter writer from Fort Hood blames the Army's suicide problem on
 multiple deployments of GIs. Chaplain Maj. Ken Harris (above) speaks to soldiers
 at Fort Hood about the signs of suicide during suicide prevention training on
 Oct. 1, a week after four soldiers there apparently took their own lives. PHOTO:
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Letter
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                     Copyright 2010 San Antonio Express-News
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 190
 
                     The San Francisco Chronicle (California)
                             October 10, 2010 Sunday
                                  FINAL Edition
 Ethical eating on the page;
 BYLINE: Stacy Finz, Chronicle Staff Writer
 SECTION: Food; Pg. K1
 LENGTH: 850 words
 These days it's all about ethical eating. We're constantly bombarded with such
 catchwords as "locavore," "organic," "sustainable," "biodynamic" and
 "eco-friendly." But what does it all mean? And how does it help me - the reader
 -and the Earth?
 The Chronicle has rounded up six recently published books on the topic to help
 readers slog through the jargon and learn about an ever more popular style of
 eating. We expect many more of these types of books to be released in the coming
 months. But with the holidays approaching, there's no time like the present to
 get ideas for that gift list.
 Farm City: The Education of an Urban Farmer, by Novella Carpenter Penguin Books;
 276 pages; $16. Carpenter is an Oakland farmer - yes, she's growing food and
 raising livestock in the inner city - and this is her fantastically strange
 memoir. Her hilarious tales about the trials and tribulations of urban farming
 and her realistic take on the sustainable food movement is more refreshing than
 preachy.
 Think of Carpenter as a new-wave hippie. She's revitalizing the whole
 back-to-the-earth food movement.
 Terra Madre: Forging a New Global Network of Sustainable Food Communities, by
 Carlo Petrini Chelsea Green Publishing; 192 pages; $20. Petrini is the founder
 and president of Slow Food, the movement that started in 1986 in Italy to
 protest the proliferation of fast-food chains. The forward is written by
 Berkeley restaurateur Alice Waters.
 Some might say that the Slow Food movement is largely responsible for this trend
 in so-called ethical eating. In "Terra Madre," Petrini examines the damage that
 industrial agriculture has done to the globe. But Petrini has a solution: The
 author proposes that local farmers and consumers unite around the world to
 promote "good, clean and fair food." He uses Terra Madre, a Slow Food festival
 for fishermen, farmers, butchers, chefs and consumers held in Turin, Italy,
 every two years, as the perfect example. "Terra Madre," the book, is a good
 primer on understanding Slow Food's political stance.
 Just Food: Where Locavores Get It Wrong and How We Can Truly Eat Responsibly, by
 James McWilliams Back Bay Books; 288 pages; $14.99. McWilliams, a history
 professor at Texas State University, is often seen as the locavore movement's
 antagonist. But he just has a different side to the story, one that should be
 explored by anyone delving into ethical eating.
 He specifically addresses questions on whether we should eat locally. Is growing
 organically really better for the environment? Can genetically modified foods
 and farm-raised fish be healthful? Do government subsidies help small family
 farms? Can meat eaters still be environmentalists?
 McWilliams argues that transporting produce from far away may in fact leave a
 smaller carbon footprint than growing fruits and vegetables on a farm just down
 the road. He believes that by 2050, when the Earth's population is predicted to
 grow to nearly 10 billion people, beef will become a food of the past - eaten
 only as a delicacy like caviar.
 The Conscious Kitchen: The New Way to Buy and Cook Food - to Protect the Earth,
 Improve Your Health, and Eat Deliciously, by Alexandra Zissu Clarkson Potter;
 224 pages; $13.99. Zissu, author and journalist, has gathered top chefs and food
 experts - including Michael Pollan, Dan Barber and Barbara Kingsolver - under
 one book cover to advise and provide readers with green recipes and advice on
 nutrition.
 Some of the topics she covers: How to decide between local and organic; which
 are the most chemically sprayed conventional fruits and vegetables; which
 plastics are the most harmful and which are the safest; and how to disinfect
 without using toxic cleaners.
 Zissu's book is a solid, basic guide on the right questions to ask, and where to
 find good ingredients and kitchen products that are good for you and
 eco-friendly.
 Organic Manifesto: How Organic Farming Can Heal Our Planet, Feed the World, and
 Keep Us Safe, by Maria Rodale Rodale Books; 208 pages; $23.99. The author and
 CEO of Rodale Inc., a multimedia company that focuses on healthy lifestyles,
 looks at the pros of chemical-free agriculture.
 In her book, Rodale traces the history of chemical farming, including the use of
 pesticides, fertilizers and genetically modified seeds. Her conclusion is
 simple: The toxins we're using are killing us. Rodale argues that if there is
 only one thing people can do to improve their health and the planet, it's buying
 organic.
 The book's forward is written by Eric Schlosser, author of "Fast Food Nation"
 and "Chew on This."
 A Slice of Organic Life, by Sheherazade Goldsmith and forward by Chez Panisse's
 Alice Waters DK Publishing; 352 pages; $19.95.
 This beautifully illustrated book is a practical approach - and sometimes not so
 practical - to green living. It includes recipes and tips on everything from
 urban gardening and making your own baby food to raising chickens and
 composting. It even has a number of pages on raising your own pigs.
 It's a bit of a hodgepodge, though there is good information to be gleaned, like
 how to choose an eco-friendly Christmas tree.
 LOAD-DATE: October 8, 2010
 GRAPHIC: Author Novella Carpenter is an Oakland farmer. Jana Asenbrennerova /
 Special to The Chronicle
  Jana Asenbrennerova / Special to The Chronicle
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2010 San Francisco Chronicle
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 191
 
                          The Record (Bergen County, NJ)
                             October 9, 2010 Saturday
 BYLINE: Kara Yorio, Staff Writer; E-mail: yoriok@northjersey.com
 SECTION: BETTER LIVING; Pg. F01
 LENGTH: 1550 words
 The veil has been lifted between the living and the dead. The  spirits walk
 among us, terrifying at every turn. Or is it just a  lot of sugar-crazed kids
 dressed like Buzz Lightyear? Pretty scary  stuff either way.
 Whether you think of Halloween as the time to scream or a night to  annoy
 neighbors and collect fun-size Snickers, there is no shortage  of activities and
 events related to the holiday. And Halloween  isn't just a one-night thing
 anymore. It's a month of fun and fear.
 Here's a little help on your quest for ghosts, ghouls, hayrides,  haunted houses
 and even a little family fun. KID-FRIENDLY
 * Boo at the Zoo
 What: The magic shows, musical performances, hay maze, crafts,  treat stations,
 pumpkin carving demonstrations and parade of  costumes are back. And this year
 the zoo has added a haunted safari  adventure and lost hayride.
 When: Today and Monday , Oct. 16 and 17, 23, 30 and 31, zoo is open  10 a.m.-5
 p.m. on weekdays, 10-5:30 p.m. on weekends.
 Where: Bronx Zoo, Exit 6 on the Bronx River Parkway, Bronx.
 How much: $16, $12 children 3-12, $14 for seniors (65+), free for  children
 under 3 and Wildlife Conservation Society members.
 More info: bronxzoo.com, 718-367-1010.
 * Great Jack-O-Lantern Blaze
 What: More than 4,000 jack-o-lanterns lighting up wooded walkways,  orchards and
 gardens as well as an Egyptian scene with mummies and  a giant pyramid and
 shrunken heads.
 When: Today through Monday, Oct. 15-17, 21-24, 28-31 and Nov. 5-7,  first
 reservation 7 p.m.
 Where: Van Cortlandt Manor, 525 S. Riverside Ave, Croton-on-Hudson,  N.Y.
 How much: $16, $12 children 5-17, free for children under 5.  Tickets are timed
 and must be purchased in advance.
 Tickets and more info: hudsonvalley.org, 914-631-8200.
 *   HalloWHOA!
 What: Interactive haunted house lets parents and kids solve puzzles  and decide
 whether the day will be silly or spooky.
 When: Preview shows Monday, every 30 minutes 3-7:30 p.m.;  5-and-under show,
 2:30 p.m.
 5-and-under shows: Oct. 16, 23 at 5:30 p.m., Oct. 17, 24 at 1:30  p.m., Oct. 31
 at 1:30 p.m. and 2 p.m.
 Adults only: Oct. 15 and 16, 22 and 23, 29, 31, every 30 minutes  from
 9:30-11:30 p.m.
 All ages: Oct.15-16, 22 and 23, 29, every 30 minutes 6-9 p.m.; Oct.  17, 24,
 every 30 minutes 2-4:30 p.m.; Oct. 31, every 30 minutes  2:30-11:30 p.m. (no
 show at 9 p.m.).
 Where: Manhattan Youth Downtown Community Center, 120 Warren St.,  Manhattan.
 How much: $40.
 Tickets and more info: hallowhoa.com, 347-878-6798.
 *  SPOOK-tacular Night
 What: Kid-friendly Halloween fun includes pumpkins, outdoor maze,  activities,
 crafts, games, prizes and pizza.
 When: Oct. 22.
 Where: Imagine That museum, 4 Vreeland Road, Florham Park.
 How much: $13.99 for children and $10.99 for adults.
 Tickets and more info: imaginethatmuseum.com,  973-966-8000.
 *  Ascarium
 What: Halloween-themed fun at the aquarium, which will be decorated  with
 cornstalks, hay bales and pumpkins. There will be crafts, a  haunted sea-fari,
 storytelling, magic shows and, of course,  trick-or-treating.
 When: Oct. 23 and 24, 30 and 31, 11 a.m.-5 p.m.
 Where: New York Aquarium, Surf Avenue at West Eighth Street,  Brooklyn.
 How much: $13, $9 children ages 3-12 and $10 senior citizens (65  and older);
 children under 3 free.
 More info: nyaquarium.com, 718-265-FISH.
 *  Kiddie Cruise  Costume Party
 What: Ride down the Hudson and East rivers and around the Statue of  Liberty on
 the Queen of Hearts. Face painting, a puppet show,  sing-alongs, arts and
 crafts, a costume contest and more.
 When: Oct. 31, 11 a.m.-1 p.m. (boarding at 10:30) and 2-4 p.m.  (boarding at
 Where: Pier 40, West Houston Street and West Side Highway,  Manhattan.
 How much: $35 for 13 and older, $25 for 12 months to 12 years old  (price
 includes lunch for children and adults).
 Tickets and more info: kiddiecruise.com, 212-987-9200, ext. 377.
 Haunted Acre Hayride
 What: Take a creepy ride through the shadows of the "abandoned  village of
 darkness" in Sussex County, which isn't actually  abandoned after all.
 When: Through Oct. 30, Fridays and Saturdays, 7-10 p.m.
 Where: Heaven Hill Farm, 451 Route 94, Vernon.
 How much: $15, $13 children 12 and under.
 Tickets and more info: heavenhill farm.com, 973-764-5144.
 Night-Mares Haunted Attraction
 What: A horror movie-style outdoor haunted attraction with more  than 40,000
 square feet of themed rooms, illusions,  state-of-the-art animations, and live
 actors.
 When: Today and Sunday, Oct. 17, 24, 31, 8-10 p.m.; Oct. 15 and 16,  8
 p.m.-midnight; Oct. 22 and 23, 29 and 30, 8 p.m.-1 a.m.
 Where: DePiero's Country Farm, 300 Grand Ave., Montvale.
 How much: $21 (advance tickets $19), $17 for children 10 and under.
 Tickets and more info: night-mares.com, 201-716-2827.
 Six Flags Fright Fest
 What: It's the 19th annual "Thrills by Day, Chills by Night" event  at Great
 Adventure. Kid-friendly fun ends at 6 p.m. when the undead  arrive.
 When: Today and Sunday, Oct. 15-17, 22-24, 29-31, Fridays 5-11  p.m., Saturdays
 10:30 a.m.-11 p.m., Sundays 10:30 a.m.-10 p.m.
 Where: 1 Six Flags Blvd., Jackson.
 How much: Free with park admission -- $54.99, $34.99 for children  under 54
 inches tall, free for children under 2.
 Tickets and more info: sixflags.com/greatadventure.
 Horseman's Hollow
 What: Philipsburg Manor gets turned over to the Headless Horseman,  who is
 helped with his haunting by vampires, witches, undead  soldiers, ghouls and
 ghosts.
 When: Oct. 15 and 16, 22-24 and 28-30, first reservation at 7 p.m.
 Where: Philipsburg Manor, 381 N. Broadway (Route 9), Sleepy Hollow,  N.Y.
 How much: $20. Tickets are timed and must be purchased in advance.
 Tickets and more info: hudson-valley.org, 914-631-8200.
 Jonathan Kruk's "Legend"
 What: Dramatic retelling of "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow"  accompanied by live
 organ music in the candlelit Old Dutch Church.
 When: Oct. 15 and 16, 29 and 30, every hour 6-9 p.m.
 Where: Old Dutch Church. Parking is at Philipsburg Manor, 381 N.  Broadway
 (Route 9), Sleepy Hollow, N.Y.
 How much: $16, $12 children under 18. Tickets are timed and must be  purchased
 in advance.
 Tickets and more info: hudsonval ley.org, 914-631-8200.
 Phantoms of Cape May Tour
 What: Self-guided tour of Cape May's Victorian homes, decorated for  Halloween.
 When: Oct. 16, 30, 6 p.m.-8 p.m.
 Where: Cape May.
 How much: $20 adults, $15 children ages 3-12.
 More info: capemaychamber.com, 609-884-5508.
 A Ride With the Ghost Writer
 What: A 45-minute trolley ride with psychic medium and ghost  investigator Craig
 McManus, who will take you down the haunted path  to the Cape May Lighthouse.
 When: Oct. 22, 7:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m.; Oct. 23, 8:30 p.m.
 Where: Cape May.
 How much: $25 per person.
 More info: capemaychamber.com, 609-884-5508.
 New Jersey Zombie Walk
 What: It's the Third Annual Zombie Walk, and this time they're  going for the
 Guinness world record for largest zombie walk in  history. More than 4,200
 people dressed like zombies are needed to  set the record. The walk will go from
 the boardwalk to downtown  Asbury Park, where the event continues with a costume
 contest and  block party.
 When: Oct. 30. Check-in and makeup artist stations start at 11  a.m., Guinness
 counting begins at 3 p.m. Walk starts at 5 p.m.
 Where: Asbury Park Convention Hall, Asbury Park.
 How much: Free.
 More info: njzombiewalk.com.
 New York's Village Halloween Parade
 What: The ultimate Halloween event. Anyone up for it and in costume  can join
 the 53 bands, puppets and dancers as well as thousands of  other Halloween
 lovers.
 When: Oct. 31, 7-10 p.m. (line up to join the parade 6:30-8:30 p.m.  at Sixth
 Avenue, south of Spring Street and north of Canal)
 Where: Sixth Avenue from Spring Street to 21st Street, Manhattan.
 How much: Free.
 More info: halloween-nyc.com.
 State Scare Factory
 What: Be an employee at a genetically modified food processing  factory and meet
 deranged co-workers and a disturbed boss.
 When: Today and Sunday, Thursday-Oct. 17, 21-24, 27-31, 7  p.m.-midnight;
 not-so-scary for kids attraction every Friday and  Saturday 6-7 p.m. and Sunday
 2-6 p.m.
 Where: 229 Main St., Belleville (adjacent to State Fair Halloween  Superstore).
 How much: $18, $15 children 12 and under at the nighttime event, $8  for the
 kids show.
 More info: statescare.com.
 Terror Behind the Walls
 What: As if being in an old, abandoned prison at night isn't scary  enough, the
 venue is turned into five terrifying haunted houses for  those who find fear
 fun.
 When: Today and Sunday, Wednesday through Oct. 17, 19-24, 26-31;  weekdays,
 Fridays and Sundays 7-11 p.m., Saturdays 7 p.m.-midnight.  Family Nights held
 Wednesday, Thursday, Oct. 19 and every Sunday.
 Where: 22nd Street and Fairmount Avenue, Philadelphia.
 How much: $20-$30, depending on the day. Kids 7 and up $10 on  Family Nights.
 Kids under 7 not permitted.
 Tickets and more info: easternstate.org, 215-236-3300.
 Haunted Hill House Garden of the Dead
 What: The renovation of an old cemetery for criminals disturbed the  spirits who
 now haunt the garden in this newly expanded attraction,  at a new location.
 When: Oct. 22 and 23 (rain date: Oct. 24), 7-9 p.m.
 Where: 111 First St., Wood-Ridge.
 How much: $5 to benefit the Wood-Ridge Historical Society. Not  recommended for
 small children.
 Tickets and more info: iwont beafraid.com, 201-446-0186.
 E-mail: yoriok@northjersey.com
 (76%) COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS: Family; ENTERTAINMENT: Entertainment
 LOAD-DATE: November 19, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: The Record
                   Copyright 2010 North Jersey Media Group Inc
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 192
 
                                Los Angeles Times
                              October 8, 2010 Friday
                                   Home Edition
 Genetically altered corn helps protect cousin
 BYLINE: Eryn Brown
 SECTION: MAIN NEWS; bad desk code; Science Desk; Part A; Pg. 17
 LENGTH: 791 words
 Planting genetically modified, pest-resistant corn can provide a halo effect --
 offering protection from insects to nearby corn plants that have not been
 engineered to kill bugs, scientists said Thursday.
 Since its introduction in 1996, Bt corn -- so called because it has been
 engineered to produce insecticidal proteins from the bacterium Bacillus
 thuringiensis -- has effectively suppressed the European corn borer, a
 widespread pest in the U.S., according to new research published in the journal
 Science.
 This suppression has saved farmers in Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa and
 Nebraska $6.9 billion in reduced yield losses over 14 years, the authors said.
 And more than half of that economic benefit, they showed, was generated in
 non-Bt corn acres -- fields where farmers enjoyed the insect-fighting benefits
 from Bt corn because there were fewer borers around to feast on the fields.
 "That was surprising to see," said University of Minnesota entomologist William
 Hutchison, lead author of the Science paper. "Only about 35% of corn acres are
 non-Bt, but two-thirds of the economic benefit occurs there."
 The research provides the best long-term, widespread evidence so far of the
 effectiveness of Bt corn, said University of Arizona entomologist Bruce
 Tabashnik, who wasn't involved in the research.
 "In areas of pest management and ecology, it's easy to make predictions. It's
 harder to test, and even harder to validate on such a large scale," said
 Tabashnik, who wrote an editorial in Science accompanying the paper. "Even a
 'huge' field experiment is hundreds of acres. This was tens of millions of
 acres."
 The European corn borer has been a problem in the U.S. since its arrival in
 1917. Adult moths lay eggs on the undersides of corn leaves. Larvae hatch and
 eat the leaves and, as they grow, bore into stalks and ears of corn. The pest
 reduces corn yields by disrupting nutrient and moisture flow through the stalk,
 as well as by directly damaging the kernels as it feeds.
 It causes about $1 billion in estimated losses each year, Iowa State University
 researchers have reported.
 Universities, state governments and corporations have tracked the European corn
 borer for decades. Hutchison and his team sifted through more than 50 years of
 reports on the pest's larvae and moths -- "data that had been sitting in file
 cabinets," Hutchison said -- to measure changes in the insect's population sizes
 over time.
 Then they compared the population data against annual U.S. Department of
 Agriculture statistics -- on corn yield, price and areas planted -- to estimate
 Bt corn's economic benefit.
 This research, using state, federal and university funding, marks the first time
 economists have estimated the benefits of Bt corn for non-Bt crops, said study
 coauthor Paul Mitchell, an agricultural economist at the University of Wisconsin
 in Madison.
 "The focus has always been on the Bt corn and the farmer growing it," he said.
 "But if [Bt corn] really suppresses the pest, it's a bigger story."
 The findings could affect how farmers and policymakers manage Bt crops in the
 future, Mitchell said. Proving how well Bt corn works may, paradoxically,
 encourage farmers to plant less, not more, of the genetically modified crop in
 the future, in hopes that they could reap the benefits of Bt protection without
 having to pay for as many of the more expensive seeds.
 That could be a good thing, Mitchell said, because it could help prevent the
 corn borer from developing resistance to Bt toxins.
 Until 2008, farmers planting Bt corn were required by the Environmental
 Protection Agency to reserve at least 20% of their fields for non-Bt plants.
 Scientists hypothesized -- correctly, it now appears -- that such non-Bt
 "refuges" would help stave off Bt resistance among corn borers.
 But some farmers reportedly resisted the rules, planting more than 80% of their
 crops with Bt corn to make sure they didn't lose a portion of the crop to the
 borer.
 The new research suggests that farmers have nothing to fear from planting non-Bt
 refuges alongside Bt fields. They may make more money by doing so.
 In fact, farmers may stand to gain by planting even more non-Bt corn than the
 EPA requires, scientists said. Hutchison said that if he were a farmer, he
 thought he might use a 60% Bt, 40% non-Bt mix, or even a 50-50 combination.
 But Margaret Mellon, director of the food and environment program at the Union
 of Concerned Scientists, which advises a cautious approach to genetically
 modified crops, wondered whether the savings attributed to Bt corn was enough to
 merit fanfare. By her estimates, the savings ran to only about 3% of the total
 value of the corn crop in the five states.
 "The benefits are real, but they're modest," she said.
 eryn.brown@latimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: October 8, 2010
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO: UMBRELLA EFFECT? Pest-resistant Bt corn can help non-engineered
 corn planted nearby withstand the dreaded corn borer, researchers say.
 PHOTOGRAPHER:University of Minnesota
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                         Copyright 2010 Los Angeles Times
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 193
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                              October 8, 2010 Friday
 BYLINE: From staff and wire reports; Tim Bryant (St. Louis Post-Dispatch)
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. B3
 LENGTH: 642 words
 Switzer building sold - The Laclede's Landing site of the demolished Switzer
 building has a new owner. At a foreclosure sale Thursday, St. Johns Bank took
 back the building by paying $564,000. The bank, which had lent developers money
 to buy the building in 2005, may now look for a new buyer. The Switzer was
 demolished a year after a severe thunderstorm nearly blew down the 133-year-old
 building in 2006. That gave rise to lots of litigation, including the
 foreclosure by St. Johns Bank. Developers had planned a $15 million renovation
 to turn the old candy factory into lofts. (Tim Bryant)
 MEMC gets boost - JPMorgan Chase & Co. agreed to invest $60 million in U.S.
 solar-power projects being developed by MEMC Electronic Materials Inc.'s
 SunEdison unit. The large commercial and government projects funded through the
 SunE Solar Fund X will be New York-based JPMorgan's first distributed
 solar-power program, SunEdison said Wednesday. JPMorgan Capital Corp. will make
 the investment. SunEdison will use the money to build and operate photovoltaic
 power plants, as well as for a subsidy to sell the energy produced at or below
 retail rates. The company said separately Thursday that it will build and
 operate three solar projects in San Antonio. Totaling 30 megawatts, the projects
 are expected to begin construction in 2011.
 Monsanto corn aids nearby crops, study says - Genetically modified corn produced
 by Monsanto Co. and DuPont Co. has slashed populations of a crop-eating pest in
 the U.S. Midwest, and most of the estimated $6.9 billion net benefit has accrued
 to conventional crops, a study found. Adoption of corn engineered to produce the
 insecticidal protein Bt has cut populations of the European corn borer across
 the Midwest since 1996, according to research published Thursday in the journal
 Science. Farmers in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska and Wisconsin have
 realized a $6.9 billion net benefit over 14 years because of reduced corn-borer
 damage, according to the study. "That's sort of the wow factor," Bill Hutchison,
 the head of entomology at the University of Minnesota and lead author of the
 study, said.
 Boeing deliveries up - Boeing Co. said on Thursday that it delivered 124
 commercial airplanes during the third quarter, almost 10 percent more than last
 year. Boeing has delivered 346 commercial planes so far this year. The
 deliveries for the third quarter included 100 of its 737s. It also delivered
 three of its 767s, and 21 777s. On the defense side, Boeing delivered two new
 Apache attack helicopters, and five new Chinook transport helicopters. It also
 delivered three new F-15 fighters and 15 new planes in the F-18 attack jet
 family.
 Sugar is back in, for now - Pepsi Throwback is back, and the all-sugar version
 of the cola could stick around for awhile because shoppers want it. Consumer
 demand has brought back Pepsi Throwback and a similar remake of Mountain Dew to
 shelves several times since they were introduced in 2009 as a limited-time item.
 PepsiCo Inc. gave the remakes packaging similar to that used in the 1970s, when
 the drinks were sweetened with sugar rather than high fructose corn syrup. Dr
 Pepper has a similar, limited-time sugar version of its drink, too. The company
 is evaluating their potential beyond being just limited-time items, Chief
 Financial Officer Hugh Johnston said Thursday.
 Alcoa Inc., the largest U.S. aluminum producer, reported third-quarter profit
 that topped analysts' estimates and raised its 2010 global consumption forecast.
 Net income fell to $61 million, or 6 cents a share, from $77 million, or 8
 cents, a year ago. Sales climbed 15 percent to $5.3 billion.
 PepsiCo Inc.'s third-quarter net income rose 12 percent. Pepsi earned $1.92
 billion, or $1.19 per share, compared with $1.72 billion, or $1.09, a year ago.
 Revenue rose 40 percent to $15.51 billion.
 LOAD-DATE: October 8, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2010 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 194
 
                                The Baltimore Sun
                             October 7, 2010 Thursday
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. 20A
 LENGTH: 488 words
 Here is an intriguing recipe: Take an ordinary Atlantic salmon, add hormones
 from a Chinook salmon and an eel-like fish called an ocean pout, and voila! You
 have a super-sized salmon, one that grows twice as fast as normal.
 This recipe has the producers of the fish, the Massachusetts firm AquaBounty
 Technologies, salivating, promising as it does a plump product in record time.
 It also has its critics, who have questioned whether it is safe for all
 consumers and who have raised concerns about its effect on the environment.
 The Food and Drug Administration is deciding whether the fish should go on the
 market. If approved, it would be the first genetically altered animal approved
 for consumption in the United States.
 Yet it appears that it is going to be a while before this super-salmon is on
 America's supper table. Eleven U.S. senators, including Maryland's Barbara
 Mikulski, wrote to the FDA asserting that it used the wrong process to evaluate
 the fish, treating it as a new veterinary drug and not as a new animal that
 humans eat. So far, the FDA has not responded to the senators. But in the past
 the FDA has said the evaluation method - which looks at the safety of each
 component of the process - is time-tested science. Essentially, if the compounds
 that make up the salmon are safe to eat, the fish is OK.
 Opponents of the fast-growing salmon (dubbed AquAdvantage by the company
 producing it) contend that more research is needed before putting it in the
 nation's food supply; they seem especially concerned about the need for
 independent research into potential allergic reactions. They also spell out
 nightmarish scenarios, warning that if these larger, genetically modified salmon
 escape from the pens they are raised in, the escapees could wipe out the
 population of smaller, wild salmon. This isn't an idle concern; nature has a way
 of evading our attempts to contain it, and not just in "Jurassic Park."
 Still another looming question is how to label these fish if they are ruled safe
 to eat. Advocacy groups, such as the Food and Water Watch, say that the least
 the FDA could do is to require the producers to label it as "genetically
 engineered." Then the consumer can decide whether to buy the product or not.
 The FDA contends, however, that a genetically engineered food product must be
 materially different - in taste, nutrition or safety - before labeling is
 required.
 This seems like flawed logic. If a genetically engineered salmon grows twice as
 fast as a wild salmon, it is materially different and should be labeled as such.
 Producers should be proud of how they raise their fish, not hide it.
 Genetically engineered food products are part of our future. When managed
 correctly, they can be an economical source of good nutrition.
 But getting the public to accept them and put them on their supper tables will
 occur only when the producers tell consumers more, not less, about where the
 food comes from.
 LOAD-DATE: October 8, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                     Copyright 2010 The Baltimore Sun Company
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 195
 
                                The New York Times
                             October 7, 2010 Thursday
                               Late Edition - Final
 With Scientists, Soldiers Solve A Bee Mystery
 BYLINE: By KIRK JOHNSON
 SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 1112 words
 DENVER -- It has been one of the great murder mysteries of the garden: what is
 killing off the honeybees?
 Since 2006, 20 to 40 percent of the bee colonies in the United States alone have
 suffered ''colony collapse.'' Suspected culprits ranged from pesticides to
 genetically modified food.
 Now, a unique partnership -- of military scientists and entomologists -- appears
 to have achieved a major breakthrough: identifying a new suspect, or two.
 A fungus tag-teaming with a virus have apparently interacted to cause the
 problem, according to a paper by Army scientists in Maryland and bee experts in
 Montana in the online science journal PLoS One.
 Exactly how that combination kills bees remains uncertain, the scientists said
 -- a subject for the next round of research. But there are solid clues: both the
 virus and the fungus proliferate in cool, damp weather, and both do their dirty
 work in the bee gut, suggesting that insect nutrition is somehow compromised.
 Liaisons between the military and academia are nothing new, of course. World War
 II, perhaps the most profound example, ended in an atomic strike on Japan in
 1945 largely on the shoulders of scientist-soldiers in the Manhattan Project.
 And a group of scientists led by Jerry Bromenshenk of the University of Montana
 in Missoula has researched bee-related applications for the military in the past
 -- developing, for example, a way to use honeybees in detecting land mines.
 But researchers on both sides say that colony collapse may be the first time
 that the defense machinery of the post-Sept. 11 Homeland Security Department and
 academia have teamed up to address a problem that both sides say they might
 never have solved on their own.
 ''Together we could look at things nobody else was looking at,'' said Colin
 Henderson, an associate professor at the University of Montana's College of
 Technology and a member of Dr. Bromenshenk's ''Bee Alert'' team.
 Human nature and bee nature were interconnected in how the puzzle pieces came
 together. Two brothers helped foster communication across disciplines. A chance
 meeting and a saved business card proved pivotal. Even learning how to mash dead
 bees for analysis -- a skill not taught at West Point -- became a factor.
 One perverse twist of colony collapse that has compounded the difficulty of
 solving it is that the bees do not just die -- they fly off in every direction
 from the hive, then die alone and dispersed. That makes large numbers of bee
 autopsies -- and yes, entomologists actually do those -- problematic.
 Dr. Bromenshenk's team at the University of Montana and Montana State University
 in Bozeman, working with the Army's Edgewood Chemical Biological Center
 northeast of Baltimore, said in their jointly written paper that the
 virus-fungus one-two punch was found in every killed colony the group studied.
 Neither agent alone seems able to devastate; together, the research suggests,
 they are 100 percent fatal.
 ''It's chicken and egg in a sense -- we don't know which came first,'' Dr.
 Bromenshenk said of the virus-fungus combo -- nor is it clear, he added, whether
 one malady weakens the bees enough to be finished off by the second, or whether
 they somehow compound the other's destructive power. ''They're co-factors,
 that's all we can say at the moment,'' he said. ''They're both present in all
 these collapsed colonies.''
 Research at the University of California, San Francisco, had already identified
 the fungus as part of the problem. And several RNA-based viruses had been
 detected as well. But the Army/Montana team, using a new software system
 developed by the military for analyzing proteins, uncovered a new DNA-based
 virus, and established a linkage to the fungus, called N. ceranae.
 ''Our mission is to have detection capability to protect the people in the field
 from anything biological,'' said Charles H. Wick, a microbiologist at Edgewood.
 Bees, Dr. Wick said, proved to be a perfect opportunity to see what the Army's
 analytic software tool could do. ''We brought it to bear on this bee question,
 which is how we field-tested it,'' he said.
 The Army software system -- an advance itself in the growing field of protein
 research, or proteomics -- is designed to test and identify biological agents in
 circumstances where commanders might have no idea what sort of threat they face.
 The system searches out the unique proteins in a sample, then identifies a virus
 or other microscopic life form based on the proteins it is known to contain. The
 power of that idea in military or bee defense is immense, researchers say, in
 that it allows them to use what they already know to find something they did not
 even know they were looking for.
 But it took a family connection -- through David Wick, Charles's brother -- to
 really connect the dots. When colony collapse became news a few years ago, Mr.
 Wick, a tech entrepreneur who moved to Montana in the 1990s for the outdoor
 lifestyle, saw a television interview with Dr. Bromenshenk about bees.
 Mr. Wick knew of his brother's work in Maryland, and remembered meeting Dr.
 Bromenshenk at a business conference. A retained business card and a telephone
 call put the Army and the Bee Alert team buzzing around the same blossom.
 The first steps were awkward, partly because the Army lab was not used to
 testing bees, or more specifically, to extracting bee proteins. ''I'm guessing
 it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just
 started smashing them on the desk,'' Charles Wick said. ''It was very
 complicated.''
 The process eventually was refined. A mortar and pestle worked better than the
 desktop, and a coffee grinder worked best of all for making good bee paste.
 Scientists in the project emphasize that their conclusions are not the final
 word. The pattern, they say, seems clear, but more research is needed to
 determine, for example, how further outbreaks might be prevented, and how much
 environmental factors like heat, cold or drought might play a role.
 They said that combination attacks in nature, like the virus and fungus involved
 in bee deaths, are quite common, and that one answer in protecting bee colonies
 might be to focus on the fungus -- controllable with antifungal agents --
 especially when the virus is detected.
 Still unsolved is what makes the bees fly off into the wild yonder at the point
 of death. One theory, Dr. Bromenshenk said, is that the viral-fungal combination
 disrupts memory or navigating skills and the bees simply get lost. Another
 possibility, he said, is a kind of insect insanity.
 In any event, the university's bee operation itself proved vulnerable just last
 year, when nearly every bee disappeared over the course of the winter.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: October 7, 2010
 GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: Jerry Bromenshenk, left, and Colin Henderson studying a healthy
 beehive in the hills surrounding Missoula, Mont.
  One answer to protecting bees may be to focus on a fungus. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY MIKE
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 196
 
                                Newsday (New York)
                             October 5, 2010 Tuesday
 Wonder of science;
 In-vitro fertilization was a breakthrough
 SECTION: OPINION; Pg. A36
 LENGTH: 236 words
 'Test tube babies" were the subject of raging controversy in 1978 when a London
 housewife gave birth to the first child conceived outside the human body.
 Scientists were accused of playing God. In the United States, there was a
 moratorium on federal funding for such studies.
 Passions have cooled in the years since, and yesterday British biologist Robert
 G. Edwards was awarded the Nobel Prize for developing in-vitro fertilization.
 What had been widely unthinkable then is now relatively commonplace. About 4
 million babies have been conceived by mixing eggs and sperm in labs and
 returning the resulting embryos to the womb.
 As we struggle to digest the sometimes troubling advances of science - from
 genetically modified foods to areas such as embryonic stem cell research and
 even cloning - it's worth remembering that the results will almost certainly be
 less apocalyptic than some fear, and not quite the panacea that others dream.
 Now more than 32 years after Louise Brown's conception, some of the attendant
 ethical issues vex us still - for instance, whether it's acceptable to destroy
 embryos stored frozen in fertility clinics and no longer destined for
 implantation. That debate is raging anew now that the embryos are one source of
 stem cells.
 As science advances, tough ethical dilemmas are inevit-able. They should be
 debated widely and navigated carefully, but with the perspective of history as a
 guide.
 LOAD-DATE: October 6, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                           Copyright 2010 Newsday, Inc.









Document Number: 197
 
                          Telegraph Herald (Dubuque, IA)
                             October 5, 2010 Tuesday
 Genetically altered fish not making a splash
 BYLINE: KURT ULLRICH TH staff writer kullrich@wcinet.com
 SECTION: A; Pg. 2
 LENGTH: 491 words
 The United States Food and Drug Administration is contemplating approving the
 use of genetically modified salmon for human consumption. If approved, the
 salmon would be the first modified animal to make the plates of American
 consumers. A few altered fruits and vegetables have been approved for sale and
 consumption.
 Nick Lawrence, assistant market manager at the Hy-Vee Food Store on South Locust
 Street in Dubuque, is cautious about the prospect. "My customers are very
 health-conscious, and with fish in particular they want to know where it comes
 from," he said. "Some are apprehensive about farm-raised catch, and this is
 something entirely different." AquaBounty Technologies, of Massachusetts,
 developed the modified salmon and requested approval from the FDA. The company
 boosts the growth of salmon by injecting growth genes into salmon eggs. The
 salmon reportedly grow twice as fast as normal and to more than twice the size.
 In arguing against the approval, Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, called the proposed
 fish "Frankenfish," a reference to the fictional monster created out of human
 parts by Dr. Frankenstein in Mary Shelley's 1818 novel. Begich and 10 other
 senators, mostly from coastal states, have sent a letter to the FDA in an effort
 to stop it from approving the fish for human consumption. An advisory committee
 to the FDA concluded that there is "no biologically relevant difference" between
 genetically modified salmon and regular salmon. Consumer groups are strongly
 urging the FDA to, at the least, label the fish as genetically modified. The
 publisher of Consumer Reports, Consumers Union, released the results of a
 nationwide poll that indicated that 95 percent of Americans feel that
 genetically modified food should be labeled. For most U.S. consumers, the salmon
 they eat is raised in what are termed open-water salmon farms. In February,
 writer Barry Estabrook in Atlantic magazine described salmon farms as
 "environmentally destructive" and that "a salmon farm is nothing more than a
 vast, floating feedlot," with all the problems associated with any large
 operation. i.e. disposal of excrement and disease in the stock. Wild salmon
 still are caught by fishermen, but in the Midwest the sources are limited to
 salmon raised in fish farms around the world. Hy-Vee sells farm-raised salmon
 from Scotland and Canada. Fareway stores in nearby communities carry salmon from
 Chile in South America. Genetically modified organisms also have been used in
 medical and biological research and, to a lesser extent, in the development of
 biotech crops around the world. Putting genetically enhanced or modified animal
 products in grocery stores is a new concept. There is no word on how quickly the
 FDA will make its decision. "If we were ever to sell such fish, it would take
 awhile for the customer to accept the notion that it's OK," Lawrence said.
 "People worry about additives and hormones, and the issue would be acceptance."
 LOAD-DATE: October 5, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2010 Woodward Communications, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 198
 
                                Los Angeles Times
                              October 3, 2010 Sunday
                                 Bulldog Edition
 Small is the future of food research;
 Nanotechnology can create new products, but the industry is fearful of consumer
 wariness in Europe.
 BYLINE: Kate Kelland, Kelland writes for Reuters.
 SECTION: MAIN NEWS; News Desk; Part A; Pg. 3
 LENGTH: 917 words
 In a taste of things to come, food scientists say they have cooked up a way of
 using nanotechnology to make low-fat or fat-free foods just as appetizing and
 satisfying as their full-fat fellows.
 The implications could be significant in combating the spread of health problems
 such as obesity, diabetes and heart disease.
 However, experts say nanotechnology's future in food could be thwarted before it
 gets started by a reluctance among food manufacturers fearful of the kind of
 European consumer backlash that greeted genetically modified food and are
 reluctant to be open about what they are doing.
 They say this refusal to communicate could foster the same mistrust that led
 genetically modified food to be branded "Frankenstein food" in many parts of
 Europe and could mean that some of nano food's potential will remain unfulfilled
 for years.
 "What the food industry is doing in research labs is looking at new
 possibilities of creating new products, and they're using the toolbox of
 nanotechnology to do that," said Frans Kampers, who coordinates research on food
 nanotechnology at Wageningen University and Research Centre in the Netherlands.
 "But I think the industry should be more open. It should show what ... could
 come onto the market within the next two or three years, because if we don't
 prepare society for these products ... we may be throwing away all these
 opportunities."
 Nanotechnology is the science of manipulating matter at the nano scale --
 one-thousand-millionth of a meter -- which, among other things, may be used to
 alter when, how and where in our bodies food is digested.
 According a British Parliament report, the global market for nanotechnology in
 food was $140 million in 2006 and is expected to balloon to $5.6 billion in
 Like Kampers, British lawmakers expressed concern that not enough research is
 being done on potential nano food risks and frustration about the food sector's
 lack of communication.
 Reuters contacted Unilever, Kraft and Nestle, three of the world's biggest food
 firms, but only one wanted to talk at length about nanotechnology.
 Nestle said in an e-mail it that "does not do research in the field of
 nanotechnology." Kraft said it is not using nanotechnology, but its research and
 development teams "always keep their eyes on the scientific research."
 A Unilever research director, Charles-Francois Gaudefroy, was more forthcoming,
 saying that though while the firm is not using nanotechnology in any of its
 foods, it was looking seriously at potential applications.
 "We need to go further into understanding how matter works, and then bring that
 knowledge into how we prepare food for our products," he told Reuters. "We're at
 the very beginning."
 One thing they might look into is work by scientists at Britain's Institute of
 Food Research, who said in August that they had found an unexpected synergy that
 helped break down fat and might lead to new ways of slowing digestion, and
 ultimately to creating foods that made consumers feel fuller.
 "Much of the fat in processed foods is eaten in the form of emulsions such as
 soups, yogurt, ice cream and mayonnaise," said the IFR's Peter Wilde.
 "We are unpicking the mechanisms of digestion used to break them down so we can
 design fats in a rational way that are digested more slowly."
 The idea is that if digestion is slower, the final section of the intestine,
 called the ileum, will be put on its "ileal brake," sending a signal to the
 consumer that they feel full even though they have eaten less fat.
 Experts see promise in another nano technique that involves encapsulating
 nutrients in bubble-like structures known as vesicles that can be engineered to
 break down and release their contents at specific stages in the digestive
 system.
 According to Vic Morris, a nano expert at the IFR, this technique in a larger
 form, micro-encapsulation, is well established in the food industry. The major
 difference with nano-encapsulation was that the smaller size might be able to
 take nutrients further or deliver them to more appropriate places.
 Morris and Kampers appeared relatively unperturbed about the potential risks of
 nanotechnology when used in these ways, but when it came to nanoparticles, their
 concern grew.
 Nano particles measure from 1 to about 100 nanometers with a high
 surface-to-volume ratio, which essentially allows them to be more active than
 their larger cousins.
 Saltier tasting salt and iron that could be better absorbed by the body to
 tackle iron-deficiency anemia are two forms of nanoparticles touted as
 possibilities for improving food.
 In an effort to find a way of being able to label or regulate the use of
 nanoparticles, the European Commission has set up a research project called
 NanoLyse aimed at devising ways of detecting and measuring nano technology in
 foods.
 The project's website says that, as yet, "very limited knowledge is available on
 the potential impact of engineered nanoparticles on consumers' health."
 Concerned experts cite some research that has found that "persistent"
 nanoparticles that do not dissolve or biodegrade, such as nanosilver, which can
 be used in food packaging as a way of extending shelf life, may penetrate
 certain barriers within the body that mean they pose a health danger.
 "These particles could be hazardous and we need to know more about their effects
 both in the body and in the environment," said Kampers.
 "Since these particles are very small, they can ... enter cells or even the
 nucleus of a cell if they have the right characteristics."
 LOAD-DATE: October 3, 2010
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO: PROTEST: Police in Germany arrest a woman in July who tried to
 dig up genetically modified potatoes. Nanotechnology's future in food could be
 thwarted by fears of a similar backlash from European consumers.
 PHOTOGRAPHER:Winfried Wagner EPA
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Wire
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                         Copyright 2010 Los Angeles Times
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 199
 
                           Sacramento Bee (California)
                              October 3, 2010 Sunday
 Nutrition quiz
 BYLINE: Sam McManis smcmanis@sacbee.com
 SECTION: LIVING HERE; Pg. I14
 LENGTH: 289 words
 Get a load of that salmon's size. If we didn't know better, we'd think it was on
 human growth hormones, like some athlete trying to gain an edge. Actually,
 something like that has come to pass. A salmon-farming concern is angling with
 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to market a genetically engineered salmon.
 Take our quiz on the so-called "Frankenfish" and other genetically engineered
 foods.
 1. To build a better salmon, scientists spliced into the DNA of Atlantic salmon
 a growth-hormone gene from which specimen?
 a) Rainbow trout b) Chinook salmon c) Barry Bonds
 2. Scientists also injected some of the genetic code of a fish called the ocean
 pout into the super salmon for what purpose?
 a) To excrete an antifreeze-type substance so the fish could thrive in cold
 water. b) To make the tissue of the salmon more fibrous and hence less flaky
 when cooked. c) To increase the growth rate of the salmon fivefold over standard
 farmed salmon.
 3. In response to an FDA analysis, some experts feared that the super salmon
 might cause what medical condition in sensitive people?
 a) Gout b) Dangerous liver enzymes c) Allergies
 4. Kevin Wells, a professor of animal science at the University of Missouri,
 tried to quell worries about the Frankenfish by telling the New York Times ...
 a) "Everything here is something we eat." b) "No, it doesn't have three eyes."
 c) "I've tried it, and it kind of tastes like chicken."
 5. According to the Center for Food Safety, what percentage of processed foods
 found at a supermarket (crackers to soda to ketchup) contain genetically
 engineered ingredients?
 a) 42.7 percent b) 50 percent c) 75 percent
 ANSWERS: 1: b; 2: a; 3: c; 4: a; 5: c
 Sources: www.npr.org; the New York Times; www.centerforfoodsafety.org
 LOAD-DATE: October 3, 2010
 GRAPHIC: McClatchy Tribune
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2010 McClatchy Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 200
 
                               The Washington Post
                              October 3, 2010 Sunday
                                 Regional Edition
 Scientists weighing altered salmon
 BYLINE: Malcolm Ritter;;Seth Borenstein
 SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A02
 LENGTH: 1183 words
 We've always played with our food - even before we knew about genes or how to
 change them.
 For thousands of years, humans have practiced selective breeding - pairing the
 beefiest bull with the healthiest heifers to start a new herd. That concept was
 refined to develop plant hybridization and artificial insemination. Today we
 have tastier corn on sturdier stalks, bigger turkeys and meatier cattle.
 Now comes an Atlantic salmon that is genetically engineered to grow twice as
 fast as a regular salmon. If U.S. regulators approve it, the fish would be the
 first such scientifically altered animal to reach the dinner plate.
 Scientists have already determined that it's safe to eat. They are weighing
 other factors, including environmental risks, after two days of hearings.
 Whatever the decision on salmon, it's only the start of things to come. In labs
 and on experimental farms are:
 l  Vaccines and other pharmaceuticals grown in bananas and other plants.
 l  Trademarked "Enviropigs" whose manure doesn't pollute as much.
 l  Cows that don't produce methane in their flatulence.
 And in the far-off future, there may be foods built from scratch - the scratch
 being DNA.
 Sometimes when science tinkers with food, it works. Decades ago, Norman
 Borlaug's "Green Revolution" of scientifically precise hybrids led to bigger
 crop yields that have dramatically reduced hunger.
 Sometimes it flops. Anyone remember the Flavr Savr tomato? Probably not. It
 didn't taste good. "There was no flavor there to save," one expert quipped. But
 you might remember when, 10 years ago, genetically modified corn meant for
 animal feed wound up in taco shells.
 To the biotech world, precise tinkering with the genes in plants and animals is
 a proven way to reduce disease, protect from insects and increase the food
 supply to curb world hunger.
 To skeptics, genetic changes put the natural world and the food supply at risk.
 Modified organisms can escape into the wild or mingle with native species,
 potentially changing them, with unknown effects.
 Over the past 15 years, genetically engineered plants have been grown on more
 than 2 billion acres in more than 20 countries. Consumers eat genetically
 engineered plant products in large quantities in the United States, often in
 unlabeled products such as oils and processed foods.
 The same crops are viewed more suspiciously in Europe and other countries,
 including India. China, meanwhile, is working to develop genetically modified
 rice that would be less prone to insect damage.
 In fact, some experts say the natural food of our forebears is for the most part
 long gone. That's mostly because of breeding and other now-common practices.
 Old-fashioned breeding has led to turkeys that "can't have sex anymore because
 we've been breeding them for big chests," says Martina Newell McGloughlin,
 director of the University of California's Biotechnology Research and Education
 Program.
 "All of the animals, plants and microbes we use in our food system, our
 agricultural system, are genetically modified in one way or another," says Bruce
 Chassy at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "That, or they're
 wild."
 The modifications are mostly from selective breeding and hybridization, the
 traditional ways of changing plants and animals. But these methods used for
 thousands of years are compared by genetic engineers to using a sledgehammer.
 They say their techniques are like using a scalpel.
 "Genetic engineering is more precise and predictable, yet it is regulated up the
 wazoo," McGloughlin says. "Yet there is no regulation at all on the traditional
 breeding system."
 She finds fears over genetically engineered food and the regulations that
 accompany them hard to stomach.
 More than four-fifths of the soybean, corn and cotton acreage in the United
 States last year used genetically engineered crops, according to a 2010 National
 Academies of Sciences study.
 David Ervin of Portland State University in Oregon, who chaired the committee
 that wrote the report, said it found no large-scale environmental risks
 associated with the current genetically engineered corn, cotton and soybeans in
 the United States. As for future crops, "you just have to be very cautious,"
 depending on the nature of the plants, he says.
 The report, which didn't consider health impacts of eating genetically
 engineered crops, did recommend large-scale studies of ecological effects of
 such crops, Ervin said.
 Marion Nestle, a New York University professor and expert on food studies and
 public health, says that in processed food, "if it's got beet sugar, soybean or
 sugar, it's got an 85 to 95 percent chance of being genetically modified."
 Nestle fears unintended consequences in the food supply and environment. She
 previously served on Food and Drug Administration advisory boards, and she
 opposes the genetically engineered salmon. In the 1990s, she voted against
 allowing genetically engineered plants.
 Animals are a bigger problem in trying to prevent mixing with nongenetically
 modified populations, she says. "Millions [of farmed fish] escape - not one or
 two, but millions."
 L. LaReesa Wolfenbarger, a professor of biology at the University of Nebraska
 who was on the National Academies study team, finds a distinct difference
 between old-fashioned breeding and genetic modification. What is happening
 recently is that we are mixing genes of plants and animals that in normal
 evolution or nature don't mix, she says.
 Or as Margaret Mellon, director of the Food and Environment Program at the Union
 of Concerned Scientists, puts it: You can't breed a cow with a starfish.
 Such DNA-mixing is not necessarily bad, but it's something to be careful with,
 Wolfenbarger and Mellon say.
 "These are things that we can look at as long as we also have the ability to
 kind of brainstorm and figure out what the unintended consequences are,"
 Wolfenbarger says. She contends that so far, at least with plants, science has
 had a good handle on preventing problems.
 Not so, says NYU's Nestle.
 In the 1990s, she recalled, opponents of genetically engineered crops were
 "laughed out of the room . . . and they turned out to be right." Just as critics
 warned, the pollen of genetically modified crops is drifting into natural areas.
 Weeds and insects have become resistant to the anti-pest modifications, she
 said.
 But scientists who work on genetic modifications insist that time has proven
 them correct.
 James Murray, a professor of animal sciences at the University of California at
 Davis, says the fears surrounding genetically engineered foods sound similar to
 concerns about microwave ovens, which some people initially thought would give
 off dangerous radiation or blow up pacemakers.
 Murray is working on genetically modified goats as a way to produce milk that
 can fight devastating diarrhea in poor nations.
 With the world population predicted to surpass 9 billion before 2050,
 genetically engineered food is the only hope to avoid starvation, he says.
 That many people cannot be fed "using agriculture as it is right now," Murray
 says. "What is the cost to humanity if we do not use this technology?"
 - Associated Press
 LOAD-DATE: October 3, 2010
 DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2010 The Washington Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 201
 
                              The Houston Chronicle
                             October 2, 2010 Saturday
 Salmon stakes Genetically modified fish look promising, in spite of labeling
 issues.
 BYLINE: Houston Chronicle
 SECTION: B; Pg. 6
 LENGTH: 503 words
 Americans have been consuming genetically modified grains and vegetables and
 milk for years now, but the words "genetic engineering," while not nearly as
 inflammatory here as in Europe, still make people nervous.
 And the stakes suddenly got higher last week, when the U.S. Food and Drug
 Administration was faced with approving, for the first time, genetically
 engineered food animals - salmon that mature to market weight twice as fast as
 their conventional kin.
 The salmon were produced by a Massachusetts company, AquaBounty, after 15 years
 of research and at a cost of $60 million, using a growth hormone gene from a
 Chinook salmon and the antifreeze protein of a fish called the ocean pout, which
 enables the salmon to keep growing during the winter as well as the summer,
 thereby maturing in half the normal time.
 The FDA had earlier announced that the fish were safe for human consumption,
 posed no environmental threat (they are sterile) and had no "material
 difference" that would require the fish, once approved, to carry a special
 label.
 But in an unusual move, and though it was under no obligation to do so, the
 agency then called a two-day public hearing to present "the relevant legal
 principles for food labeling" and to offer the public an opportunity to comment
 on those principles.
 Opposition forces rallied: At that meeting, critics said they disagreed with the
 FDA's conclusions that the fish were not materially different from other salmon,
 and urged the agency to require labeling that it was genetically engineered.
 But, as the FDA pointed out, it is prohibited from labeling a product that is
 identical to the natural product, which they had determined to be the case with
 the AquaBounty salmon, even when the method of production is different.
 That makes sense. We have accepted similar non-labeled modifications such as
 drought-resistant corn with stronger stalks and growth hormone-fed cows that
 produce more milk.
 Of course, this is a new frontier with animals, which is why the FDA decided to
 offer public meetings. It also declared a 60-day period for further public
 comment.
 It is sometimes hard to separate valid objections from generalized negative
 reactions, but it seems that in this case the FDA (which has been known to get
 egg on its face before) is bending over backward to accommodate its critics.
 When milk producers began genetically modifying their product, the FDA did not
 require labeling, because, as with the salmon, the end product was not
 materially different. Producers who wanted to voluntarily label their products
 hormone-free were required to add that the FDA had found no difference in milk
 from either source. Producers of conventional salmon could follow the same
 procedure and leave it to the consumer to decide.
 It's not a perfect solution, because that "genetically engineered" phrase alone
 still has a negative connotation. As with so many other causes of dissent, an
 educated public is our best defense, so here's wishing the FDA good luck in
 getting that message across.
 LOAD-DATE: October 4, 2010
 GRAPHIC: ELAINE THOMPSON: AP BIG FISH: King salmon sit on ice at Pike Place Fish
 Market in Seattle last month.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
             Copyright 2010 The Houston Chronicle Publishing Company
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 202
 
                 The Berkshire Eagle (Pittsfield, Massachusetts)
                           September 30, 2010 Thursday
 The meaning of &lsquo;genetically modified'
 BYLINE: Letter to the Editor
 LENGTH: 267 words
 Friday October 1, 2010
 I was disappointed that the Sept. 27 article "Genetic modification" did not go
 into detail why some GM foods could be very dangerous like the FlavrSavr
 Tomatoes mentioned in article.
 Here is what I found out in Jeffrey M. Smith's book, "Seeds of Deception."
 Calgene, the company that created FlavrSavr tomatoes did studies with rats. One
 group of rats were fed the FlavrSavr Tomatoes, the control group were not. They
 found that some of the rats fed the FlavrSavr Tomatoes had stomach lesions and
 none of the rats in the control had these lesions.
 What's worse is that the FlavrSavr tomatoes were made with Resistant Marker
 genes. During the creation process the tomatoes with the marker genes are doused
 with antibiotics. This process can introduce new gene codes for anti-biotic
 resistance into the general population.
 This is just one way GMO seeds are made. GM Foods have already entered our food
 supply through processed foods made from GM corn, soy and a host of other
 ingredients. Childhood rates of allergies, asthma, ADHD, autism, cancers,
 diabetes, obesity, and even heart disease are all skyrocketing.
 Our children are sick and no one is questioning our food supply. What we need is
 transparency, long-term independent testing, and full disclosure on the risks,
 reported by the media. The FDA does not currently require safety testing or
 labeling of genetically modified foods.
 Please take the time to learn what genetically modified really means and maybe
 we can become a healthier nation.
 Dalton
 The writer is a mother of three, all recovering from autism.
 LOAD-DATE: October 2, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
    Copyright 2010 MediaNews Group, Inc. and New England Newspaper Group Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 203
 
                           The Roanoke Times (Virginia)
                            September 27, 2010 Monday
                                  Metro Edition
 Give consumers a genetic choice
 SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A12
 LENGTH: 342 words
 There's something a little unsettling about genetically engineered animals on
 the dinner table. They are, by definition, unnatural. Get past the ick-factor
 and put in place reasonable precautions, though, and genetic engineering offers
 much.
 The company AquaBounty Technologies recently asked the U.S. Food and Drug
 Administration for permission to market genetically modified Atlantic salmon.
 The customized fish grow faster and larger than anything in the wild, and they
 could provide affordable, fresher, healthy food for many Americans. Yet there
 are risks, too. If one of the salmon were to escape or be released into the
 wild, it could corrupt the gene pool of its natural cousins. That could lead to
 death of the wild species, the designer fish overwhelming the ecosystem or some
 other unforeseen, deleterious effects. AquaBounty offers reassurances. One of
 the advantages of the new salmon is that they can be grown in farms far from the
 sea. That makes them easier to distribute and reduces the risk of escape. The
 company also promises to keep on hand very few fish capable of reproducing.
 Nevertheless, the FDA owes Americans a thorough review of these promises. The
 risk is tremendous, and security measures must be equal to the task before
 federal approval. The FDA also should seek full disclosure for consumers. Many
 people are concerned about the effects of consuming genetically engineered
 animals. The research to date shows it is safe, but if cautious diners wish to
 eschew this product, they ought to be able to. Likewise, if the fish tastes
 different or has a different texture, consumers might want to choose other
 products. After all, farm-raised salmon tends to be less delicious than wild.
 The FDA should therefore require labels that identify the genetically engineered
 fish. That would empower consumers to make a choice. The fears of genetically
 engineered food are often overblown, laced with terms like "Frankenfish."
 Legitimate concerns persist, though, and the FDA must address them before these
 fish show up in supermarkets.
 LOAD-DATE: September 27, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                         Copyright 2010 The Roanoke Times
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 204
 
                        San Jose Mercury News (California)
                            September 27, 2010 Monday
 Sept. 27 Readers' letters
 BYLINE: From Mercury News readers
 SECTION: LETTERS; News; Opinion
 LENGTH: 784 words
 Believe it, people: Congress is a joke
 So, Zoe Lofgren has comedian Stephen Colbert speak to Congress. I always
 believed this Congress was a joke, and if this doesn't make you a believer,
 nothing will.
 Vince Smith
 San Carlos
 'Pledge' a blueprint to help economy
 "A Pledge to America" is about much more than just trying to gain votes. It
 represents the rectification that needs to occur to help our economy after
 President Barack Obama's extravagant spending. Obama has increased the federal
 debt by more than $2.5 trillion in just the 19 months that he has been in
 office. This is what is hurting all Americans and already corrupted our economy.
 The legislative blueprint proposed by the Republicans is only one step forward
 in reforming the excessively powerful government and helping our economy.
 Cecilia Tuma
 San Jose
 Genetically altered food needs labels
 I'm concerned about allowing genetically engineered salmon to enter the market.
 Not because I question the safety of the altered salmon, but because it might
 not be subject to labeling. Current FDA rules state that unless the fish is
 fundamentally different, then they don't need to be labeled as GE in
 supermarkets.
 Although I'm very supportive of the idea of GE foods from a sustainability
 prospect, I feel it's equally important for the public to know what they are
 eating and where it came from. If problems were to emerge later, such as
 allergies, it would be harder to identify because the people would not have
 known they were eating modified food.
 Emily Foley
 Santa Clara
 Another two cents for Cardoza, Eng
 After reading the endorsement of Angie Cardoza and Lynette Lee Eng by Don
 Kawashima (Letters, Sept. 22), I wish to add my two cents about them. I, too,
 have worked with these candidates while on the civil grand jury, and, after
 reviewing the candidates for the two board positions, I feel the choice could
 not be clearer. Having two individuals that worked so diligently to identify
 questionable administrative and ethical practices would be highly beneficial to
 the County Office of Education.
 Angie and Lynette not only helped identify the problems, they also proposed
 solutions and needed corrective action. We need people who will focus on the
 role of this office without looking to further any political ambitions. I am
 confident that Angie and Lynette will serve us well.
 Howard Hochman
 San Jose
 No college for illegal immigrants
 I find it very hard to believe that people have the nerve to pine for illegals
 to get into and obtain degrees at universities in the United States, then to
 whine even more when they can't get a decent job because they are illegal.
 There are too many people who live in this country legally who cannot get into
 university because of lack of room. Why should someone who should not be in this
 country in the first place even think they have the right to take a hard-to-get
 spot to earn a higher education from someone who has the right to be in this
 country?
 Brent Ruhne
 Santa Cruz
 Time for state voters to stop the insanity
 A Dan Walters column (Opinion, Sept. 24) gave some interesting numbers to be
 found in the state Department of Finance spreadsheets: Over the past 60 years,
 California's population has increased by a multiple of 3.6, while our state
 budget has increased by a multiple of 14.
 Is it any wonder that taxpaying citizens think our state government has gotten
 too big and bloated for its own good -- and for our survival?
 Each year we send the same group of career politicians back to Sacramento, and
 each year we hope for a different result. That, voters, is a classic definition
 of insanity.
 Let's throw the rascals out and send new people with a new mandate. Come to
 think of it, that might work on a national level, too.
 Barbara Bowden
 Palo Alto
 Take advantage of sick: Vote Measure U
 Initially I was against cannabis wellness centers -- until the San Jose City
 Council proposed Measure U, taxing the medication. Santa Clara County has a
 never-ending supply of patients stricken with cancer, multiple sclerosis,
 anxiety, depression, PTSD, epilepsy, AIDS and other serious conditions.
 There is money to be made! We have them right where we want them -- ailing and
 desperate.
 Some say, "Patients have high medical debt already, while insurance companies
 don't cover the cost of medical cannabis." Prescription drugs and medicinal
 herbs aren't taxed, as well. Save it, we don't care.
 What's wrong with taking advantage of our fellow citizens by exploiting their
 suffering and sticking it to them financially before they get better -- or die?
 Vote "Yes" on Measure U to express your support for taxing the sick in your
 community.
 Jonathan Lustig
 Outreach Director Silicon Valley Americans for Safe Access Mountain View
 LOAD-DATE: September 27, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2010 San Jose Mercury News
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 205
 
                          Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
                            September 27, 2010 Monday
 Readers Write
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 14A
 LENGTH: 913 words
 Banks aren't 'tamed' -- they're now entrenched
 The commentary you ran in the business section from the Economist ("New rules
 aim to tame world banks," Sept. 21) painted a too-reassuring picture of the new
 Basel III banking regulations.
 The regulations, which increase capital reserve requirements for banks, do
 little or nothing to address the habits or financial soundness of the
 too-big-to-fail Wall Street giants. Those banks can easily meet the new
 requirements without adjusting their operations.
 But smaller community banks will feel the pinch and will be forced to lend at
 higher rates and with stiffer terms to try to meet the higher reserve
 requirements.
 The new regulations likely will accelerate failures among smaller banks, with
 the result that monetary control will become increasingly consolidated on Wall
 Street.
 The commentary did not even name the regulatory body that issued the new
 requirements. It was the Bank for International Settlements in Basel,
 Switzerland, the "central bankers' central bank."
 The new regulations are not the product of any legislative process that made its
 way through the U.S. Congress.
 The regulations are the products of deliberations conducted behind closed doors
 by private international bankers.
 The Bank for International Settlements operates on a global scale like our own
 Federal Reserve does in the United States, circumventing democratic institutions
 and procedures in setting monetary policy.
 The new rules don't "aim to tame world's banks" as the commentary's headline
 asserted. The new rules merely entrench the world's biggest banks.
 As someone who's watched with "shock and awe" the devastation caused by
 corporate financial corruption over the last decade, I'm thrilled to see
 Elizabeth Warren appointed to set up the new policing agency ("Elizabeth Warren,
 Obama's choice to set up new consumer agency, promises aggressive approach,"
 Sept. 21).
 Warren is really smart about how regulation affects the economy and is
 passionate about helping to clean up the mess. Her appointment is a breath of
 fresh air after the Bush administration all but abandoned its regulatory role.
 LINDA BERNIN, Minneapolis
 It's time to rediscover the benefits of duplexes
 It appears that something has gone awry with the American single-family
 homeownership culture as of late ("Cities using federal money to address
 foreclosures," Sept. 18) -- that is, if it takes $7 billion of federal money
 from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development "to help local
 governments nationwide rescue neighborhoods whacked by the foreclosure crisis."
 Maybe it is time for an idea earlier residents put to practice: the duplex or
 the twin home.
 Instead of throwing more money at an unrealistic homeownership culture,
 financial incentives could be given to people who build, buy or refurbish
 duplexes and twin homes, and then live in these structures. In return, a cap
 could be set for rental fee charges per square foot.
 This would preserve ownership pride, take care of absentee landlord problems
 and, above all, provide more affordable housing.
 At a time when decent apartment rents are often equal or higher than mortgage
 payments, it seems that the time for such a housing approach has come.
 I myself have happily lived connected with our neighbors via a common wall for
 the past 18 years. Not to mention, just think what this practical approach could
 do to combat urban sprawl.
 Metro transit
 Spend a carless week before voting to strike
 Every transit worker and every Metropolitan Council member who is involved in
 labor negotiations must spend one week without the use of a car to get to work,
 to medical appointments and to the grocery store. Then, and only then, can they
 truly understand that another bus strike simply cannot happen ("Metro Transit
 workers reject 'last and best' contract offer," Sept. 21).
 Regarding health insurance premiums: all transit workers who have voted down the
 most recent contract should calculate the financial cost that they would incur
 if they were to become sick or unable to work and had no insurance. Then they
 can tell me that they're going on strike.
 I have endured two transit strikes, and they were paralyzing.
 I do not drive. Health insurance is vital to meeting my ongoing medical needs --
 anticonvulsants, and appointments related to preexisting conditions. I may not
 renegotiate for a better deal. I make the most of what I have been given. I find
 what is of value in my life, which is beyond measure.
 I am not personally involved in the contract negotiations. But I will not stand
 by silently while another unconscionable strike takes place.
 A bus strike is nothing short of taking people hostage. Return to your senses
 and to the bargaining table. Transit workers and the Metropolitan Council,
 listen and act.
 The fda and salmon
 Go slow on approving genetic modifications
 Dr. Henry I. Miller's argument is that the FDA makes it too difficult for
 genetically engineered animals to be developed for food ("Fishing for FDA
 approval," Opinion Exchange, Sept. 20). It is one thing to alter laboratory
 animals. It is another to alter food substances. We do not know the long-term
 effects of genetically modified foods.
 Let's be safe rather than sorry. I am happy to know my government is interested
 in protecting my health and encouraging profit-seekers to consider the welfare
 of our citizenry.
 LOAD-DATE: September 27, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                           Copyright 2010 Star Tribune
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 206
 
                       Monterey County Herald (California)
                            September 26, 2010 Sunday
 Genetically modified food raises questions
 BYLINE: By JANE LEE Herald Staff Writer
 LENGTH: 1033 words
 Some might recoil if a genetically engineered Atlantic salmon wound up on their
 dinner plate.
 But they probably wouldn't realize the packet of grass-fed, free-range beef they
 grabbed from their supermarket might have DNA that was subject to chemicals and
 radiation in an attempt to genetically modify it.
 "All domesticated crops and animals have already been genetically modified
 through 'traditional' techniques, which sometimes involve chemicals and
 radiation to increase mutation rates," evolutionary biologist Trish Sevene of
 CSU Monterey Bay said in an e-mail.
 The nutritional affect of eating genetically modified foods is still very much
 unclear.
 "There are really no sound scientific studies out there on what the effects of
 genetically modified foods would be on human health," said Michelle Barth,
 clinical dietitian at Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula.
 She said the issue of genetically modified foods should be approached with
 caution and that foods that have been genetically modified should be labeled as
 such.
 Transfer of allergens
 A major concern with genetically modified foods is the transfer of potential
 allergens from one organism to the new food product. For example, if genes from
 peanuts were combined with the genes in lettuce, the resulting engineered
 product might be harmful to people with peanut allergies.
 But, Sevene said, "genetically engineered foods are some of the safest, and in
 some cases, most nutritious foods that have been produced. This is due to
 extensive testing and regulation."
 According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, there is little U.S. government
 oversight on genetically modified foods already on the market. This "don't look,
 don't find" modus operandi is ill-equipped to detect anything but the most
 pronounced adverse human health effects, it said.
 Even if we wanted to avoid genetically modified foods, it would be pretty hard
 to do so. Consumers in the U.S. eat large quantities of genetically modified
 plant products in the form of oils and processed foods. More than four-fifths of
 the soybean, corn and cotton acreage in the United States last year used
 genetically modified crops, according to a 2010 National Academies of Science
 study.
 Quick growth
 If the biotechnology company AquaBounty Technologies Inc. gets approval for the
 first genetically engineered animal slated for human consumption, a genetically
 modified Atlantic salmon called AquAdvantage salmon may be appearing in your
 local grocery store.
 This salmon can grow to market size in half the time it would take a natural
 Atlantic salmon. They do not necessarily grow larger, just faster. By combining
 the growth genes from Chinook salmon with anti-freeze proteins from an eel-like
 fish called the ocean pout and putting them into Atlantic salmon eggs, the
 resulting modified fish can grow during periods of the year that nonmodified
 salmon don't.
 Even if the genetically modified salmon is approved for human consumption, there
 is concern about how safe a product like this would be for the environment and
 wild populations of salmon.
 AquaBounty said AquAdvantage salmon are all female and reproductively sterile,
 which would keep any modified salmon that escape their pens from breeding with
 wild salmon. The company plans to grow their modified salmon in land-based pens,
 further reducing the risk that an escapee could mingle with wild fish
 populations.
 But Peter Bridson, aquaculture research manager at the Monterey Bay Aquarium's
 Seafood Watch Program, said the biotechnology company's data acknowledges that
 only about 99 percent of AquAdvantage salmon eggs are sterile.
 Which means about one in 100 eggs could grow up to be a reproductive female. In
 a salmon farming operation where thousands of eggs are being reared at once,
 this translates to a fair number of fertile animals. And though the genetically
 modified salmon will be grown in land-based pens, there is potential for an
 animal to escape.
 Issues with farming
 Another factor to consider is that the genetically modified salmon are farmed,
 and many issues that have been raised with nongenetically modified farmed salmon
 apply to genetically modified salmon.
 They are still carnivores that require protein feed. It takes about 2 to 3
 pounds of feed fish to produce 1 pound of farmed salmon, Bridson said. If the
 idea is to save wild fish stocks by farming fish such as salmon, the
 consequences will not be limited to one species.
 Cindy Walter, co-owner of Pacific Grove restaurant Passionfish, said her
 restaurant won't purchase farmed salmon because they don't agree with how farmed
 salmon are raised.
 When asked about the genetically modified salmon being considered by the FDA,
 Walter said "It's misleading to label this genetically modified salmon as salmon
 because it is not 100 percent salmon."
 'Face to your food'
 With the back and forth over environmental safety and human health concerns
 associated with genetically modified foods, it can be overwhelming to stand in
 your local grocery store and try to decide what to buy.
 Walter said although she would prefer not to eat genetically modified foods, not
 everything that has been genetically modified is labeled, so it is difficult to
 know whether the vegetable or meat you buy has had its DNA tinkered with. This
 is why Walter prefers to shop at farmers markets, because "you can put a face to
 your food."
 Local choices
 Monterey County has plenty to choose from in terms of organically grown produce
 and farmers markets. Farmers markets are not the only place where you can find
 nongenetically modified food.
 Most organic foods produced in the United States do not allow use of genetically
 modified products, Sevene said. With the surge in the availability of organic
 products in large grocery chains, it is getting easier to find food that has not
 been genetically modified.
 Sevene stressed it is important to think globally while engaging in local
 discussions on genetically modified foods. As our planet's population continues
 to grow, Sevene said "without biotechnology, we won't be able to feed all of
 them without ravaging the environment."
 The Associated Press contributed to this report.
 Jane Lee can be reached at 648-1188 or jlee@montereyherald.com .
 LOAD-DATE: September 28, 2010
 GRAPHIC: King salmon, also known as chinook, sit on ice at Seattle's Pike Place
 Fish Market on Sept. 20.
 Two same-age salmon, a genetically modified salmon, rear, and a nongenetically
 modified salmon.
 Bitter melons are on display at the Pacific Grove Farmers Market. Monterey
 County has plenty of organically grown produce and farmers markets to choose
 from.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2010 The Monterey County Herald
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 207
 
                             Dayton Daily News (Ohio)
                           September 23, 2010 Thursday
 SECTION: WEATHER; Pg. B6
 LENGTH: 171 words
 An FDA panel is trying to decide whether genetically engineered salmon should be
 sold as food for humans. Would you eat genetically engineered fish?
 Elissa DeBarone
 Dayton "I'm allergic to fish, so I wouldn't. But we eat a lot of food that's
 genetically engineered. Chicken breasts today don't look like they did years
 ago. Even though they haven't been genetically engineered, they've certainly
 been genetically enhanced. Sometimes you don't know something's bad for you
 until much later."
 Larry Guenther
 Harrison Twp. "I don't see why not. We eat corn and other vegetables that have
 been genetically engineered. It seems like a legitimate science to me."
 Wilbur Leavell
 Dayton "No. My understanding is that when they come up with genetically
 engineered foods and hybrids, they're not complete - they're missing some of
 what God created. Everything in my shopping bag is organic."
 Rob Baty
 Miamisburg "No, I wouldn't eat (it) knowingly. It's not natural."
 - Doretta Donovan Tell us what you think at DaytonDailyNews.com/go/chatterbox.
 LOAD-DATE: September 23, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2010 Dayton Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 208
 
                           Grand Rapid Press (Michigan)
                           September 23, 2010 Thursday
 Genetically altered salmon? It won't stop there ;
 We started with selective breeding, hybridization; may end up making food 'from
 scratch'
 BYLINE: Seth Borenstein and Malcolm Ritter / The Associated Press
 SECTION: NATIONAL; Pg. A20
 LENGTH: 537 words
 WASHINGTON -- We've always played with our food -- even before we knew about
 genes or how to change them.
 For thousands of years, humans have practiced selective breeding -- pairing the
 beefiest bull with the healthiest heifers to start a new herd. That concept was
 refined to develop plant hybridization and artificial insemination. Today we've
 got tastier corn, bigger turkeys and meatier cattle.
 Now comes an Atlantic salmon that is genetically engineered to grow twice as
 fast as a regular salmon. If U.S. regulators approve it, the fish would be the
 first such scientifically altered animal to reach the dinner plate.
 Scientists already have determined that it's safe to eat. They are weighing
 other factors, including environmental risks, after two days of hearings.
 Whatever the decision on salmon, it's only the start of things to come. In labs
 and on experimental farms are:
 -- Vaccines and other pharmaceuticals grown in bananas and other plants.
 -- Trademarked "Enviropigs" whose manure doesn't pollute as much.
 -- Cows that don't produce methane in their flatulence.
 And in the far-off future, there may be foods built from scratch -- the scratch
 being DNA.
 Sometimes when science tinkers with food, it works. Decades ago, Norman
 Borlaug's "Green Revolution" of scientifically precise hybrids led to bigger
 crop yields that have dramatically reduced hunger.
 Sometimes it flops. Anyone remember the Flavr Savr tomato? Probably not. It
 didn't taste good. But you might remember 10 years ago when genetically modified
 corn meant for animal feed wound up in taco shells?
 To the biotech world, precise tinkering with the genes in plants and animals is
 a proven way to reduce disease, protect from insects and increase the food
 supply to curb world hunger.
 To skeptics, genetic changes put the natural world and the food supply at risk.
 Modified organisms can escape into the wild or mingle with native species,
 potentially changing them, with unknown effects.
 Over the past 15 years, genetically engineered plants have been grown on more
 than 2 billion acres in more than 20 countries. Consumers eat genetically
 engineered plant products in large quantities in the U.S., often in unlabeled
 products such as oils and processed foods.
 More than four-fifths of the soybean, corn and cotton acreage in the U.S. last
 year used genetically engineered crops, according to a 2010 National Academies
 of Sciences study.
 The same crops are viewed more suspiciously in Europe and other countries,
 including India. China, meanwhile, is working to develop genetically modified
 rice that would be less prone to insect damage.
 In fact, some experts say the natural food of our forebears is for the most part
 long gone. That's mostly because of breeding and other now-commonplace
 practices.
 "All of the animals, plants and microbes we use in our food system, our
 agricultural system, are genetically modified in one way or another," says Bruce
 Chassy at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "That, or they're
 wild."
 The modifications are mostly from selective breeding and hybridization. But
 these methods used for thousands of years are compared by genetic engineers to
 using a sledgehammer. They say their techniques are like using a scalpel.
 PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRY (73%) Science; Unusual
 LOAD-DATE: September 24, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: grp
                        Copyright 2010 Grand Rapids Press
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 209
 
                                The New York Times
                           September 22, 2010 Wednesday
                               Late Edition - Final
 F.D.A. Hearing Focuses on the Labeling of Genetically Engineered Salmon
 BYLINE: By ANDREW POLLACK
 SECTION: Section B; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 3
 LENGTH: 567 words
 ROCKVILLE, Md. -- So what do you call a salmon that is genetically engineered to
 grow fast?
 If it is allowed to be sold in supermarkets, some consumer and environmental
 groups want it to be labeled as just that -- so the engineered salmon cannot be
 mistaken for the regular fish. But the Food and Drug Administration says such a
 label might not be possible under its regulations.
 The labeling issue was the focus of a daylong hearing here Tuesday as the F.D.A.
 considers whether to approve the sale of the genetically engineered salmon,
 which grow to market size in about half the time as regular salmon.
 If approved, the salmon would be the first genetically engineered animal to
 enter the American food supply. The F.D.A. made no ruling on the labeling, but
 officials made clear that the agency was not permitted to change the label on a
 food merely because it was genetically engineered. The food itself must be
 different -- in its taste, nutrition or safety, for example. For the same
 reason, no labels about genetic engineering appear on the many foods now sold
 that contain genetically modified corn and soybeans.
 The consumer groups, which do not want the salmon approved at all, disputed the
 F.D.A.'s interpretation of the regulations. The groups also said that in an era
 in which people pay more attention to the sources of their food, they had a
 right to know when a product was genetically engineered.
 ''The least you can do if you put these products on the market is to let
 consumers decide for themselves, and you need labeling to do that,'' said
 Patricia Lovera of Food and Water Watch, an advocacy group. ''Every trend in the
 food industry shows consumers want more information, not less.''
 But AquaBounty Technologies, the Boston-area company that developed the salmon,
 suggested that a ''genetically engineered'' label would be akin to a skull and
 crossbones, killing sales. Elliot Entis, a founder of AquaBounty, said critics
 were trying to ''delegitimize the product through labeling.''
 Some representatives of the food and biotechnology industries supported the
 F.D.A.'s policy about labeling. ''The food label is not a playground for every
 bit of information someone wants to know,'' said David B. Schmidt, president of
 the International Food Information Council, an industry group.
 If there were no requirement to label the fish, AquaBounty or companies that
 market its fish could voluntarily label it. It is more likely, however, that
 other fish companies would want to label their products as not being genetically
 engineered.
 But the F.D.A. has said even that labeling could run into roadblocks. Labeling
 must not be false and misleading, such as by implying that the nonengineered
 fish was in some way superior to the engineered fish. The agency urged, but did
 not require, milk producers who wished to label their product as coming from
 cows not injected with bovine growth hormone to include a statement that the
 F.D.A. had found that there was no difference between milk from treated and
 untreated cows.
 The timetable for approval of the salmon is not clear.
 In a meeting Monday, F.D.A. advisers faulted some studies the agency used to
 conclude that the salmon was safe for people and the environment, though they
 did not say the fish was dangerous. If the F.D.A. were to now order AquaBounty
 Technologies to do more studies, any approval could be delayed by months.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: October 5, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 210
 
                                Los Angeles Times
                            September 21, 2010 Tuesday
                                   Home Edition
 More study is urged for genetically altered salmon;
 An FDA advisory panel discusses whether the fish would be safe to eat, but
 declines to vote.
 BYLINE: Andrew Zajac
 SECTION: LATEXTRA; National Desk; Part AA; Pg. 2
 LENGTH: 398 words
 A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel debated Monday whether to endorse
 the safety of genetically engineered salmon, but instead urged the agency to
 require more studies to demonstrate the fish's safety.
 The North Atlantic salmon developed by AquaBounty Technologies Inc. of Waltham,
 Mass., would be the country's first genetically engineered food animal.
 The Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee did not vote on the FDA's preliminary
 findings that the fish was safe for people to eat and did not pose a significant
 environmental risk. Instead, the panel offered a series of recommendations aimed
 at fleshing out information, including the possibility that the fish could
 trigger allergies or other health problems in some consumers.
 The panel's chairman, David Senior of Louisiana State University, said he
 thought members generally believed the fish was safe to eat, but were concerned
 that some studies had a small sample size.
 One panelist, Greg Jaffe of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public
 Interest, predicted after the meeting that the FDA would eventually approve the
 salmon, "but I don't think the agency's going to go quickly on this."
 The salmon is produced by taking a portion of the gene that protects the ocean
 pout fish against freezing, transplanting it into the growth gene of a Chinook
 salmon and transferring the blended genetic material into the fertilized eggs of
 a North Atlantic salmon.
 The resulting fish grows during the winter months as well as the summer, unlike
 an ordinary salmon.
 Several panelists raised concerns about the fast-growing fish, saying there were
 not enough data to answer key questions about allergens and other potential
 risks.
 "There are questions that have not been answered by the data that has been
 presented," said panelist James McKean, a veterinarian and professor at Iowa
 State University.
 But other panelists argued that there was no difference between the altered
 salmon and its natural counterpart.
 "I would not feel alarmed about eating this kind of fish," said Gary Thorgaard,
 a professor and fish researcher at Washington State University.
 The panel's conclusions are not binding, but the FDA usually heeds its
 recommendations.
 The hearings continue Tuesday, when the FDA will hear testimony about what
 labeling, if any, should be required if the salmon was approved.
 azajac@latimes.com
 Reuters contributed to this report.
 LOAD-DATE: September 21, 2010
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO: THE OLD-FASHIONED WAY: King salmon sit on ice at Pike Place
 Market in Seattle. Genetically altered salmon would be the first such food
 animal in the U.S.  PHOTOGRAPHER:Elaine Thompson Associated Press PHOTO: NEXT
 STEP? One of AquaBounty's genetically modified salmon, rear, is shown with an
 unmodified salmon of the same age. Some scientists think the fish is safe.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                         Copyright 2010 Los Angeles Times
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 211
 
                       The Star-Ledger (Newark, New Jersey)
                            September 21, 2010 Tuesday
 FDA to review application to market genetically modified salmon  Critics call it
 'frankenfish,' say it could cause allergies in humans
 BYLINE: Mary Clare Jalonick, ASSOCIATED PRESS
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 003
 LENGTH: 813 words
 Federal food regulators pondered yesterday whether to say, for the first time,
 that it's okay to market a genetically engineered animal as safe for people to
 eat.
 The Food and Drug Administration is holding two days of hearings on a request to
 market genetically modified salmon. Ron Stotish, CEO of AquaBounty, the
 Massachusetts company that made the marketing request, said at the meeting
 yesterday that his company's fish product is safe and environmentally
 sustainable.
 Critics, however, call the modified salmon "frankenfish" that could cause
 allergies in humans and the eventual decimation of the wild salmon population.
 An FDA advisory committee is reviewing the science of the genetically engineered
 fish this week and hearing such criticisms as the agency ponders approval.
 The FDA has already said that the salmon, which grows twice as fast as its
 conventional "sisters," is as safe to eat as the traditional variety.
 Whether the public will have an appetite for it is another matter.
 Genetic engineering is already widely used for crops, but the government until
 now has not considered allowing the consumption of modified animals. Although
 the potential benefits -- and profits -- are huge, many individuals have qualms
 about manipulating the genetic code of other living creatures.
 Part of the two-day hearing will focus on labeling of the fish. It is possible
 that if the modified salmon is approved, consumers would not even know they were
 eating it. Current FDA regulations require modified foods to be labeled as such
 only if the food is substantially different from the conventional version, and
 the agency has said that the modified salmon is essentially the same as the
 Atlantic salmon.
 Approval of the salmon would open the door for a variety of other genetically
 engineered animals, including an environmentally friendly pig that is being
 developed in Canada or cattle that are resistant to mad cow disease.
 "For future applications out there the sky's the limit," said David Edwards of
 the Biotechnology Industry Association. "If you can imagine it, scientists can
 try to do it."
 AquaBounty submitted its first application for FDA approval in 1995, but the
 agency did not decide until two years ago to consider applications for
 genetically engineered animals -- a move seen as a breakthrough by the
 biotechnology industry.
 Genetically engineered -- or GE -- animals are not clones, which the FDA has
 already said are safe to eat. Clones are copies of an animal. With GE animals,
 their DNA has been altered to produce a desirable characteristic.
 In the case of the salmon, AquaBounty has added a growth hormone from a Chinook
 salmon that allows the fish to produce their growth hormone all year long. The
 engineers were able to keep the hormone active by using another gene from an
 eel-like fish called an ocean pout that acts like an on switch for the hormone,
 according to the company.
 Conventional salmon only produce the growth hormone some of the time.
 In documents released ahead of the hearing, the FDA said there were no
 biologically relevant differences between the engineered salmon and conventional
 salmon, and there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from its consumption. FDA
 scientists speaking Monday said there are very few differences between the
 modified and conventional fish.
 Critics have two main concerns: The safety of the food to humans and the
 salmon's effect on the environment.
 Because the altered fish has never been eaten before, they say, it could include
 dangerous allergens, especially because seafood is highly allergenic.
 They also worry that the fish will escape and intermingle with the wild salmon
 population, which is already endangered.
 They would grow fast and consume more food to the detriment of the conventional
 wild salmon, the critics fear.
 A wide range of environmental, food safety and consumer groups have argued that
 more public studies are needed and the current FDA process is inadequate because
 it allows the company to keep some proprietary information private. Modified
 foods are regulated under the same process used for animal drugs.
 "It is outrageous to keep this vital information secret," said Wenonah Hauter,
 director of the advocacy group Food & Water Watch. "Consumers have a right to
 know what FDA is trying to allow into our food supply."
 Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer
 Reports, says the agency is relying on too little data, much of which is
 supplied by the company itself.
 Stotish countered that the company has more than addressed the concerns, and his
 product has come under much more scrutiny than most food.
 "This is perhaps the most studied fish in history," he said. "Environmentally
 this is a very sustainable technology."
 If approved, the fish could be in grocery stores in two years, the company
 estimates.
 LOAD-DATE: September 21, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: nsl
                     Copyright 2010 Newark Morning Ledger Co.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 212
 
                     Congressional Documents and Publications
                                September 20, 2010
 Chairman Kucinich Challenges FDA's Rush to Approve Genetically Engineered Salmon
 for Human Consumption
 LENGTH: 466  words
 Contact: Nathan White (202)225-5871
 Chairman Kucinich Challenges FDA's Rush to Approve Genetically Engineered Salmon
 for Human Consumption
 Points out Serious Concern of Effects on Human Health and Environment
 Washington, Sept 20 - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Chairman of the
 Subcommittee on Domestic Policy and long-time advocate of sustainable
 agriculture and environmental issues, sent a letter to the Deputy Commissioner
 of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) demanding that the public be given a
 more meaningful opportunity to weigh in on the FDA's decision-making process on
 proposed genetically engineered (GE) salmon.
 "For the first time, the FDA could approve the release of an animal for human
 consumption that has been genetically modified. These are unprecedented
 circumstances and many scientific questions remain unanswered. I am disturbed by
 the FDA's efforts to ram the decision through without due consideration,"
 Kucinich said.
 The Atlantic salmon in question has been genetically altered to grow at twice
 the rate of natural salmon. However, little is known about the long term health
 effects of consumption or about the impact on the native Atlantic salmon species
 (which is currently endangered), when the altered salmon escape into the wild.
 Consumers would be unable to avoid the fish because there is currently no
 requirement to label any genetically engineered food.
 The FDA today ends two days of public hearings by its Veterinary Medicine
 Advisory Committee (VMAC) on the GE salmon, after having released some
 scientific data on the genetically altered salmon just fifteen days prior. The
 VMAC will not accept public comments after it has met. A third public hearing,
 on September 21, will address the issue of whether the GE salmon, if approved,
 should be labeled as being genetically modified.
 "Not only could there be health effects associated with consuming the salmon,
 but if they get out into the wild, which is inevitable, there will be no going
 back," Kucinich said, referring to a study finding that 5% of the sterilized
 fish were actually fertile.
 "This is a complicated decision with known risks, some of which are
 irreversible, and yet the FDA is trying to sneak these manufactured fish onto
 the plates of the American people," Kucinich said. "The public has only been
 given less than one month to prepare for these hearings."
 Kucinich has been a long time advocate for food safety and the environment. He
 has introduced right to know legislation that would provide a consumer oriented
 regulatory framework for Genetically Engineered (GE) plants, animals, bacteria,
 and other organisms that includes labeling of genetically engineered foods.
 The letter can be found at
 http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/090310AAGESalmonReviewLettertoDrSharfste
 inFINAL.pdf.
 LOAD-DATE: September 20, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Report
            Copyright 2010 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 213
 
                              Voice of America News
                                September 20, 2010
 Gene-Modified Salmon Nears Approval
 BYLINE: Steve Baragona
 LENGTH: 518  words
 A genetically modified variety of salmon may soon become the first
 bio-engineered animal to reach dinner tables.
 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration this week is considering whether to
 approve the new product. The company that developed the salmon says it will mean
 more of this healthy fish on the market.
 Rapid growth
 But opponents say it has not been studied enough for its health and
 environmental safety. Low in bad fat and high in healthy oils, salmon is the
 third most-popular seafood in the United States. The United States imported a
 billion dollars' worth of the orange-fleshed fish last year. And that demand is
 expected to grow worldwide.
 "We expect as the world population increases, the requirement for high quality
 protein sources will increase," says Ronald Stotish, president of AquaBounty
 Technologies. "Fish are among the most efficient converters of feed to edible
 protein."
 AquaBounty added growth genes from two other fish to the Atlantic salmon. The
 modified fish reaches full size in half the time of its unmodified cousin.
 That's a big advantage for fish growers. And company tests show the fish is as
 safe to eat as regular salmon.
 Scientific advisors to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have raised no
 objections.
 Safety concernsBut about 50 protesters did recently in Washington - in front of
 the White House. Wenonah Hauter, of the advocacy group Food and Water Watch,
 says the FDA hasn't studied the fish closely enough.
 "Why are they using three studies with very small samples that the data is not
 available to the public, and one of the studies is 19 years old? There hasn't
 been a real process to look at what the food safety implications [are]."
 Modified Atlantic Salmon in tanks
 In addition to food safety questions, Hauter says the modified salmon could
 escape from fish farms and wipe out native fish.
 AquaBounty counters that nearly all of their fish are sterile and can't
 reproduce. And the fish will be raised in contained inland farms with little
 chance of escape.
 Hauter says that may be the case in the U.S. but what about elsewhere.
 "We know there are fish farming operations in China, in Asia, that are very
 interested in this, that have a poor record regarding regulation. And we're
 concerned that there will be escapees."
 Uncertain future
 FDA officials are meeting this month to consider whether to let AquaBounty's
 fish on the market. If it does, the new salmon faces an uncertain future with a
 public that is somewhat skeptical of genetically modified foods.
 But the Biotechnology Industry Organization's David Edwards says that will
 change with time. "It's just a new technology. And it's something that, as the
 public has the opportunity to learn about it and the public has the opportunity
 to taste it, I think it's something that I think they'll appreciate," says
 Edwards, who is not worried about safety. "If the FDA says it's safe, and the
 data certainly does indicate that, then I'm certainly willing to go out and eat
 the fish."
 FDA is expected to reach a final decision later this fall. If approved, the
 AquaBounty salmon could be on the market within two years.
 LOAD-DATE: September 20, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Journal
            Copyright 2010 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 214
 
                                Los Angeles Times
                            September 19, 2010 Sunday
                                   Home Edition
 FDA panel to vote on modified salmon;
 It grows faster, eats less and has spawned debate about altering animals used
 for food.
 BYLINE: Andrew Zajac
 SECTION: MAIN NEWS; National Desk; Part A; Pg. 22
 LENGTH: 737 words
 In a step that may move genetically engineered meat and fish closer to the
 American dinner table, a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee will
 vote Monday on whether to approve preliminary findings that a modified salmon is
 as safe as an ordinary salmon.
 The vote is not binding on the FDA, but approval would lend powerful support for
 a final decision by the agency charged with protecting the nation's food and
 drug supplies. The fish, a North Atlantic salmon developed by AquaBounty
 Technologies Inc., would be the country's first genetically engineered food
 animal.
 It grows to market size in half the time of other salmon and consumes 25% less
 feed in the process, according to the company, which is based in Waltham, Mass.
 The FDA will hold a separate hearing on what, if any, labeling should be
 required if the fish is approved. The FDA says it does not have the power to
 mandate labeling that describes how a food was made, only the content variation
 that results from a different production process.
 But because genetic engineering is an issue that raises ethical and medical as
 well as marketing concerns, loud arguments are expected for an exception to FDA
 past practice.
 Earlier this month, the FDA released a preliminary report that the salmon "is as
 safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon" and unlikely to harm the
 environment.
 Action on the AquaBounty salmon will be closely watched internationally because
 fish farming isa global industry and the agency's decisions tend to influence
 other nations' regulatory bodies.
 In addition, FDA approval is expected to be sought for several other genetically
 engineered animals, including the "enviropig," developed by Canada's University
 of Guelph, which produces more environmentally friendly manure than normal pigs.
 The AquaAdvantage salmon is produced by taking a portion of the gene that
 protects the ocean pout, an eel-like fish, against freezing, transplanting it
 into the growth gene of a Chinook salmon and transferring the blended genetic
 material into the fertilized eggs of a North Atlantic salmon.
 The resulting fish grows during the winter months as well as the summer, unlike
 an ordinary salmon.
 The FDA's apparent readiness to approve the AquaBounty salmon has inflamed a
 coalition of consumer, environmental, animal welfare and fishing groups, which
 accuse the agency of basing its judgment ondata compiled from small samples
 supplied by the company, rushing the public portion of the review process and
 disclosing insufficient information about the fish.
 The FDA does not have an approval process designed specifically for genetically
 engineered animals, and it is evaluating the salmon under the process used for
 new veterinary drugs.
 That means that much of the data provided to the FDA to demonstrate the safety
 of the fish is considered a trade secret.
 The process doesn't allow enough public participation, doesn't give the FDA
 enough leeway to consider environmental factors when weighing the application
 and doesn't give the agency enough power to withdraw the salmon from the market
 if something should go wrong, said Greg Jaffe, director of the Biotechnology
 Project for the Center for Science in the Public Interest and a member of the
 FDA advisory committee that will evaluate the agency's findings.
 An FDA spokeswoman defended the agency's handling of the review, saying that
 "overall, this is the most transparent manner ever used for a new animal drug
 application."
 AquaBounty said its fish would be sterile and would be grown in contained
 systems, so there is virtually no chance they will escape and breed with wild
 salmon.
 Critics say that no sterilization system is perfect, that farmed fish invariably
 escape and that the impact of a genetically engineered salmon on wild stocks is
 unknown.
 Opponents also are expected to question the fish's slightly higher levels of a
 hormone that has been linked to higher risks of cancer in some studies.
 In addition, there is some evidence in AquaBounty's data that its fish might be
 more likely to trigger allergic reactions, though drawing definite conclusions
 is difficult because of small sample sizes, said Michael Hansen, senior
 scientist for the Consumers Union.
 AquaBounty cofounder Elliot Entis said he welcomed a debate on the scientific
 merits of his firm's application, but he characterized some criticism as "misuse
 of information for ideological purposes."
 azajac@latimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                         Copyright 2010 Los Angeles Times
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 215
 
                      The Santa Fe New Mexican (New Mexico)
                            September 19, 2010 Sunday
 SECTION: MAIN; Pg. A-2
 LENGTH: 722 words
 In brief
 Hurricane Igor barrels toward Bermuda
 HAMILTON, Bermuda -- Tourists lined up at Bermuda's airport hoping to board one
 of the last flights off the island and locals stocked up on emergency supplies
 Saturday in preparation for the approaching Hurricane Igor while Mexicans
 mourned at least five killed by Hurricane Karl.
 An extremely dangerous Category 4 hurricane earlier in the week, Igor was still
 a Category 2 storm, and officials warned that its pounding rains and driving
 winds could be deadly. "This storm will be a long and punishing one," Public
 Safety Minister David Burch said. "The potential for injury and physical damage
 is great."
 High surf kicked up by the storm has already swept two people out to sea in
 Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, far to the south.
 Under FDA, labels mum on modified salmon
 WASHINGTON -- As the Food and Drug Administration considers whether to approve
 genetically modified salmon, one thing seems certain: Shoppers staring at
 fillets in the seafood department will find it tough to pick out the
 conventional fish from the one created with genes from another species.
 Despite a growing public demand for more information about how food is produced,
 that won't happen with the salmon because of idiosyncrasies embedded in federal
 regulations.
 The FDA says it cannot require a label on the genetically modified food once it
 determines that the altered fish is not "materially" different from other salmon
 -- something agency scientists have said is true.
 Perhaps more surprising, the agency won't let conventional food makers trumpet
 the fact that their products don't contain genetically modified ingredients.
 The labeling question has emerged as the FDA determines whether to approve the
 fish, an Atlantic salmon known as AquAdvantage that grows twice as fast as its
 natural counterpart. This would be the first modified animal allowed for human
 consumption in the United States.
 Texas man held, charged with shooting deputies
 DALLAS -- A man suspected of shooting two sheriff's deputies and another man,
 then taunting snipers to make him a martyr before barricading himself in a
 makeshift bunker, was arrested Saturday after a 22-hour standoff in western
 Texas, authorities said.
 Victor White, 55, of Odessa, surrendered as SWAT team members in an armored
 vehicle closed in on him outside his trailer, Texas Department of Public Safety
 spokesman John Barton said. White was expected to be taken to the Midland County
 jail and charged with two counts of attempted capital murder, Barton said.
 The two Ector County deputies were hospitalized in fair condition Saturday, and
 the other man, who went to trailer in some kind of property dispute, was treated
 and released, authorities and hospital officials said.
 The standoff began Friday afternoon when Luke Bedrick went to the property with
 Deputy Ricky Tijerina and Sgt. Steve McNeil.
 Barton said White began firing and struck all three men, and when they retreated
 for cover, White got into a sheriff's department truck and began making threats
 on the radio.
 Barton said White has connections to white supremacist organizations and
 longtime links to the Republic of Texas, which asserts Texas is an independent
 nation whose government was reactivated in 2005 after 163 years of dormancy.
 The standoff lasted overnight, and the suspect continued shooting at a police
 helicopter Saturday morning, sheriff's Sgt. Gary Duesler said. There were
 between 100 and 150 officers at the scene, "from the FBI all the way down to the
 dog catcher," he said.
 Freed American begins trip back from Iran
 MUSCAT, Oman -- An American woman released from Iran after more than 13 months
 in custody began her journey back to the United States on Saturday after asking
 her supporters to "extend your prayers" to her fianc and another American man
 who remain in Tehran accused of spying.
 In a brief statement, Sarah Shourd thanked Oman -- an ally of both Iran and the
 United States -- for mediating the $500,000 bail that led to her freedom earlier
 this week.
 She arrived in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, from Oman late Saturday. She was
 next scheduled to appear at a news conference in New York today timed to
 coincide with the arrival of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to attend the
 U.N. General Assembly.
 Shourd, 32, appeared in good spirits and
 New Mexican wire services
 LOAD-DATE: September 20, 2010
 GRAPHIC: See pdf's for exact rendition, caption, graphics and photographer info.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                     Copyright 2010 The Santa Fe New Mexican
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 216
 
                        St. Paul Pioneer Press (Minnesota)
                           September 18, 2010 Saturday
 Vote set on gene-altered fish
 BYLINE: Pioneer Press
 LENGTH: 173 words
 WASHINGTON -- In a step that may move genetically engineered meat and fish
 closer to the American dinner table, an FDA advisory committee will vote Monday
 on whether to approve preliminary findings that a modified salmon is as safe as
 an ordinary salmon.
 The vote is not binding on the FDA, but approval would lend powerful support for
 a final decision by the agency charged with protecting the nation's food and
 drug supplies. The fish, a North Atlantic salmon developed by AquaBounty
 Technologies Inc., would be the country's first genetically engineered food
 animal.
 It grows to market size in half the time of other salmon and consumes 25 percent
 less feed in the process, according to the Waltham, Mass., firm.
 The AquaAdvantage salmon is produced by taking a portion of the gene that
 protects an eel-like fish called an ocean pout against freezing, transplanting
 it into the growth gene of a Chinook salmon and transferring the blended genetic
 material into the fertilized eggs of a North Atlantic salmon.
 -- McClatchy-Tribune News Services.
 LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2010 St. Paul Pioneer Press
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 217
 
                                The New York Times
                            September 14, 2010 Tuesday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Researchers Map Most Of Turkey's Genome
 BYLINE: By SINDYA N. BHANOO
 SECTION: Section D; Column 0; Science Desk; OBSERVATORY; Pg. 3
 LENGTH: 331 words
 Domestic turkeys, a Thanksgiving staple, have become so popular year-round that
 they rank fourth, after pork, beef and chicken, as the meat of choice for
 Americans.
 Now, scientists have for the first time mapped nearly 90 percent of the turkey
 genome. This information may lead to advancements in meat quality, bird
 fertility and production rates.
 The turkey genome sequence is described in the journal PLoS Biology.
 To do the sequencing, the researchers used a new technology that rapidly
 acquired the genetic data within a year.
 This preliminary data was a set of hundreds of millions of bases or molecules
 that make up the turkey's DNA. Using computer software, the scientists created a
 genetic blueprint of the turkey.
 ''The genome is really like a book on the turkey,'' said Rami A. Dalloul, an
 author of the study and an animal and poultry researcher in the College of
 Agriculture and Life Sciences at Virginia Tech. When researchers sequenced the
 chicken genome, in 2004, it took several years and cost millions of dollars, Dr.
 Dalloul said. But because the technology has improved so rapidly, the turkey
 genome cost a little over $200,000 to sequence, he said.
 The genomic book on the turkey may be useful in the continued breeding of
 turkeys for food. Finding which genes are connected to fertility could help the
 industry increase production by making genetically modified turkeys. Nutrient
 content might also be increased. Genetically modified food animals are highly
 controversial, but the turkey genome may also prove useful in medical research.
 Understanding the genetics of diseases in turkeys could help in research on
 human diseases.
 The turkey is the third bird to have been sequenced, after the chicken and the
 zebra finch. The finch genome sequencing was reported early this year.
 In this study, the researchers sequenced a domestic turkey, but they soon hope
 to study the wild bird.
 ''This will help us understand how these birds evolved due to domestication,''
 Dr. Dalloul said.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: September 14, 2010
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO: The genomic book on the turkey may be useful in the continued
 breeding of the bird for food. (PHOTOGRAPH BY KEITH WELLER)
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 218
 
                          St. Petersburg Times (Florida)
                            September 12, 2010 Sunday
                            4 State / Suncoast Edition
 BYLINE: JIM FOX, Times Correspondent
 SECTION: NATIONAL; THE CANADA REPORT; Pg. 18A
 LENGTH: 706 words
 An increase in the number of unemployed Canadians is being viewed as a sign that
 the economic recovery is losing momentum.
 Even though 36,000 jobs were created in August, Canada's unemployment rate rose
 0.1 percent to 8.1 percent with 53,500 more people looking for work.
 With a labor force of 18.7 million workers, the net result was a jump in the
 unemployed to about 1.5 million.
 This is consistent with a "broader loss of momentum" in Canada's economy, said
 BMO economist Doug Porter.
 In the first half of the year, there were strong gains with a monthly increase
 in jobs averaging 51,000, but that declined in July and August to about 13,000
 each month.
 Professional jobs and those in education, natural resources, and the scientific
 and technical service sectors increased, while there were losses in
 manufacturing, business support services, building, information, culture and
 recreation.
 Unionists want the federal government to reverse its decision to end the
 extended period of jobless benefits that were part of economic stimulus
 measures.
 Bell Canada buys rest of television network
 A $3.2 billion deal in which Bell Canada Enterprises is buying out its partners
 in the CTV network reshapes the country's media landscape.
 BCE paid $1.3 billion for CTV, with the balance to cover debt, so it can boost
 content in its television, Internet and wireless businesses.
 It owned 15 percent of CTV and is buying the remaining 85 percent from the
 Thomson family holding company, Woodbridge; the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan;
 and Torstar.
 Thomson regains its ownership of the national Globe and Mail newspaper based in
 Toronto, while BCE keeps a 15 percent stake.
 News in brief
 - Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, said she was in
 Canada last week to "listen and learn," not make judgments or comment on
 Alberta's controversial oil sands. She was at a luncheon in Ottawa hosted by
 Julie Jacobson, wife of U.S. Ambassador David Jacobson, and met with
 environmentalists. News reports said Pelosi opposes fossil fuels including the
 oil sands and calls it a moral issue.
 - Northgate Minerals Corp. has struck gold in northern Ontario and is developing
 a mine to produce 2.5 million ounces in the next 15 years. The first gold pour
 in Matachewan will be in early 2012 at the Young-Davidson Gold Mine. It will
 employ 875 people and be a "long-life, low-cost operation," said Ken Stowe,
 Northgate president and chief executive.
 Facts and figures
 The Bank of Canada continued increasing its key interest rate by raising it
 another 0.25 percent to 1 percent, the third consecutive jump. The prime lending
 rate rose to 3 percent.
 Canada's dollar is higher at 96.55 cents U.S., while the U.S. dollar returns
 $1.0357 Canadian, before bank exchange fees.
 Stock markets were mixed Friday, with the Toronto exchange index lower at 12,069
 points and the TSX Venture Exchange higher at 1,592 points.
 Lotto 6-49: (Wednesday) 4, 6, 11, 45, 46, 47; bonus 48. (Sept. 4) 11, 13, 17,
 18, 20, 45; bonus 41. Lotto Max: (Sept. 3) 12, 17, 27, 28, 31, 36, 48; bonus 37.
 Regional briefs
 - The Atlantic Canada fishing industry and groups opposed to genetically
 modified food are concerned over salmon being reared in Prince Edward Island.
 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says the salmon are safe to eat. Aqua
 Bounty Technologies, based in Massachusetts, wants the salmon that have been
 genetically modified to grow twice as fast as normal Atlantic salmon approved
 for consumption.
 - A tentative deal has been reached for 850 longshoremen who were locked out at
 the Port of Montreal for five days in mid July. The four-year contract for the
 Canadian Union of Public Employees includes wage increases, improved work force
 flexibility and a voluntary retirement option.
 - One of the two rare red panda cubs born at the Edmonton Valley Zoo and the
 second of two Siberian tiger cubs at the Calgary Zoo have died. The 9-week-old
 female panda died of a blood clot, while her twin brother continues to do well,
 zoo officials said. The tiger cub died of injuries caused by its inexperienced
 mother, Katja, carrying it too firmly in her mouth, which is what happened with
 the other cub, said veterinarian Sandie Black.
 Jim Fox can be reached at canadareport@hotmail.com
 LOAD-DATE: September 13, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                     Copyright  2010 Times Publishing Company
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 219
 
                      Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania)
                            September 7, 2010 Tuesday
 BYLINE: Compiled from news services
 SECTION: NATIONAL; NATIONAL BRIEFS; Pg. A-4
 LENGTH: 543 words
 NUEVO LAREDO, Mexico -- Tropical Storm Hermine slammed into Mexico's northern
 Gulf Coast near the U.S. border late Monday with winds of 65 mph, threatening
 heavy rains that could cause flash flooding in Mexico and Texas.
 Mexican authorities urged people to move to shelters while officials in Texas
 offered sandbags and warned of flash floods as Hermine neared. The storm was
 expected to cross the border in the coming hours after touching land about 40
 miles south of Brownsville, Texas. It was expected to push northward into Texas
 today.
 Hermine threatened to bring as much as a foot of rainfall to some areas battered
 by Hurricane Alex in June.
 Hermine "will briefly be over Mexico, and then we're expecting it to produce
 very heavy rainfall over south Texas," said Eric Blake, a hurricane specialist
 at the U.S. National Hurricane Center.
 "We're expecting widespread rainfall totals of 4 to 8 inches with isolated
 amounts of a foot possible. Especially in the hilly and mountainous terrain,
 that could cause life-threatening flash flooding."
 Genetically modified fish
 WASHINGTON -- The Food and Drug Administration is poised to approve the first
 genetically modified animal for human consumption, a highly anticipated decision
 that is stirring controversy and could mark a turning point in the way American
 food is produced.
 FDA scientists gave a boost last week to the Massachusetts company that wants
 federal approval to market a genetically engineered salmon.
 "Food from AquAdvantage Salmon ... is as safe to eat as food from other Atlantic
 salmon," the FDA staff wrote in a briefing document. Those findings will be
 presented Sept. 19 to a panel of scientific experts that will advise top FDA
 officials whether to approve the altered salmon.
 AquAdvantage is an Atlantic salmon that has been given a gene from the ocean
 pout, an eel-like fish, which allows the salmon to grow twice as fast as a
 traditional Atlantic salmon. It also contains a growth hormone from a Chinook
 salmon.
 Gauging happiness
 WASHINGTON -- People's emotional well-being -- happiness -- increases along with
 their income up to about $75,000, researchers report in today's edition of
 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
 For folks making less than that, said Angus Deaton, an economist at the Center
 for Health and Wellbeing at Princeton University, "Stuff is so in your face it's
 hard to be happy. It interferes with your enjoyment."
 Dr. Deaton and Daniel Kahneman reviewed surveys of 450,000 Americans conducted
 in 2008 and 2009 for the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index that included
 questions on people's day-to-day happiness and their overall life satisfaction.
 Happiness got better as income rose but the effect leveled out at $75,000, Dr.
 Deaton said. On the other hand, their overall sense of success or well-being
 continued to rise as their earnings grew beyond that point.
 Small plane crash kills 1
 HENDERSON, Nev. -- A small plane crashed and burst into flames on a street in a
 southern Nevada residential neighborhood Monday, killing one person and badly
 injuring three others, authorities said.
 Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Sgt. John Sheahan said two males and two females
 were aboard the single-engine Piper Cherokee when it crashed in Henderson, just
 south of Las Vegas.
 LOAD-DATE: September 7, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2010 P.G. Publishing Co.









Document Number: 220
 
                        The Virginian-Pilot(Norfolk, VA.)
                            September 7, 2010 Tuesday
                            The Virginian-Pilot Edition
 Fda weighs approving altered salmon science news
 SECTION: FRONT; Pg. A9
 LENGTH: 438 words
 By Lyndsey Layton
 The Washington Post
 The Food and Drug Administration is poised to approve the first genetically
 modified animal for human consumption, a highly anticipated decision that is
 stirring controversy and could mark a turning point in the way American food is
 produced.
 FDA scientists gave a boost last week to the Massachusetts company that wants
 federal approval to market a genetically engineered salmon, declaring that the
 altered salmon is safe to eat and does not pose a threat to the environment.
 "Food from AquAdvantage Salmon ... is as safe to eat as food from other Atlantic
 salmon," the FDA staff wrote in a briefing document. Those findings will be
 presented Sept. 19 to a panel of scientific experts that will advise top
 officials at the FDA whether to approve the altered salmon. The panel is holding
 two days of meetings to hear from FDA staff members, the company behind
 AquAdvantage and the public.
 AquAdvantage is an Atlantic salmon that has been given a gene from the ocean
 pout, an eel-like fish, which allows the salmon to grow twice as fast as a
 traditional Atlantic salmon. It also contains a growth hormone from a Chinook
 salmon.
 AquaBounty, the Massachusetts company that first applied to the FDA for
 permission to sell its fish in 1995, said the modified fish is identical to the
 Atlantic salmon, except for the speed of its growth. "We've been studying this
 fish for more than 10 years," said Ronald Stotish, the company's president and
 chief executive. "In characteristics, physiology, behavior, this is an Atlantic
 salmon. It looks like an Atlantic salmon. It tastes like an Atlantic salmon."
 The team of scientists at the FDA that reviewed AquaBounty's application seems
 to agree. "We have found no biologically relevant difference between food from
 (AquaBounty salmon) and conventional Atlantic salmon," the briefing document
 said.
 But independent scientists, consumer groups and environmental organizations are
 concerned about both the pending decision and the process that the FDA uses to
 determine whether the genetically modified fish is safe for human health and the
 environment. The agency is evaluating the fish as if it were a new veterinary
 drug, which means the FDA's deliberations are behind closed doors and AquaBounty
 can claim much of the research and other supporting data it supplies to the FDA
 is confidential.
 "Critical information about the whole process has been kept from the public and
 organizations that focus on these issues," said Wenonah Hauter, executive
 director of Food and Water Watch, part of a coalition demanding the FDA deny
 approval of the altered fish.
 LOAD-DATE: September 7, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2010 Landmark Communications, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 221
 
                         The Gazette (Cedar Rapids, Iowa)
                  Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News
                            September 4, 2010 Saturday
 BYLINE: Angela Holmes, The Gazette, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
 LENGTH: 639 words
 Sept. 04--C EDAR RAPIDS  Corn plays such an integral role in this area, that
 Linn County could be named Corn County.
 While the county won't be changing its name anytime soon, Corn County is the
 title the Carl and Mary Koehler History Center, 615 First Ave.
 SE, chose for its newest exhibit. Corn County, on display through May 21, 2011,
 features the evolution of corn production and processing.
 'We originally talked about a food exhibit, but then we decided to pick a piece
 of the puzzle and just talk about corn,' says Melanie Alexander, the center's
 executive director. Corn is 'such a huge part of Linn County.
 Everybody consumes it.' With companies like ADM, Cargill and Penford employing
 many people at their Cedar Rapids plants, the corn processing industry continues
 to be a significant economic engine in the area, she says. The history of these
 plants and their importance to the area are chronicled in the exhibit.
 The exhibit covers the history of corn production, from early farming with
 horseplows to crossbreeding with corn and ethanol production.
 To create the exhibit, museum employees looked at everything from historical
 documents to recent documentaries about genetically modified corn.
 'We did a lot of research on this,' Alexander says.
 While corn is widely used in food and other products, it is not without
 controversy. As scientists and the agribusiness community produce more of it,
 there are also costs -- fertilizers, pesticides, sizable use of land and water
 and often modified genes -- associated with the crop, Alexander says.
 'We are not trying to pres ent any particular take; we leave the viewers to come
 up with their own conclusions,' she says. 'We want to put out a forum for
 additional conversation.' People realize corn is commonly used in food, but it
 is also used in products such as cardboard, soap and lipstick.
 'Scientists and engineers continue to find ways to use corn,' Alexander says.
 'Many applications are attempts to replace petroleum-based oil with corn --
 ethanol is a well-known example. The development of corn plastics is another.'
 The center plans to host panels to discuss the changes and effects of corn
 processing.
 Corn is also part of the culture in this area. The Iowa Theatre in downtown
 Cedar Rapids opened in 1928 with an electric corn sign marking its entrance
 until 1966. Cedar Rapids' minor league baseball team is named the Kernels and
 their mascot is Mr. Shucks.
 And don't forget the mascot for Children's Theatre of Cedar Rapids: a giant ear
 of corn, fondly known to area children as Playtime Poppy.
 'Linn County has good reason to be in love with corn,' Alexander says. 'The crop
 is certainly a significant part of the area's past, present and future.'
 -- Comments: (319) 398-5860; angie.holmes@gazcomm.com
 Angela Holmes photos/The Gazette
 Products such as cardboard, laundry detergent and kitty litter, which use corn,
 are on display in the 'Corn County' exhibit at the Carl and Mary Koehler History
 Center, 615 First Ave. SE, Cedar Rapids, through May 2011.
 Melanie Alexander
 Executive director
 'Rapunzel' by Dena Tollefson of Cedar Rapids is an original oil painting on
 cotton canvas. It is on display in the 'Corn County' exhibit at the Carl and
 Mary Koehler History Center.
 Old farm machinery and tools used to cultivate corn are on display in the 'Corn
 County' exhibit at the Carl and Mary Koehler History Center in Cedar Rapids.
 To see more of The Gazette, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to
 http://www.gazetteonline.com. Copyright (c) 2010, The Gazette, Cedar Rapids,
 Iowa Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. For more information
 about the content services offered by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services
 (MCT), visit www.mctinfoservices.com, e-mail services@mctinfoservices.com, or
 call 866-280-5210 (outside the United States, call +1 312-222-4544).
 INDUSTRY: General
 LOAD-DATE: September 4, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                            Copyright 2010 The Gazette









Document Number: 222
 
                                The New York Times
                             August 24, 2010 Tuesday
                               Late Edition - Final
 In the Fields Of Italy, A Conflict Over Corn
 BYLINE: By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
 SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 4
 LENGTH: 1209 words
 VIVARO, Italy -- Giorgio Fidenato declared war on the Italian government and
 environmental groups in April with a news conference and a YouTube video, which
 showed him poking six genetically modified corn seeds into Italian soil.
 In fact, said Mr. Fidenato, 49, an agronomist, he planted two fields of
 genetically modified corn. But since ''corn looks like corn,'' as he put it, it
 took his opponents weeks to find his crop.
 The seeds, known as MON810, are modified so that the corn produces a chemical
 that kills the larvae of the corn borer, a devastating pest. Yet while European
 Union rules allow this particular seed to be planted, Italy requires farmers to
 get special permission for any genetically modified, or G.M., crop -- and the
 Agriculture Ministry never said yes.
 ''We had no choice but to engage in civil disobedience -- these seeds are legal
 in Europe,'' said Mr. Fidenato, who has repeatedly applied for permission,
 adding that he drew more inspiration from Ron Paul than Gandhi.
 The World Trade Organization says that general bans on genetically modified
 crops constitute an unfair trade barrier, because there is no scientific basis
 for exclusion. But four years after a W.T.O. panel ruled that European Union
 policies constituted an illegal ''de facto moratorium'' on the planting of
 genetically modified seeds, some farmers, like Mr. Fidenato, and seed producers
 like Monsanto complain that Europe still has not really opened its doors.
 It is true that a small but growing number of European countries, including
 Spain, Portugal and Germany, now allow some cultivation of genetically modified
 crops. But only two genetically modified seeds (MON810 and the Amflora potato
 seed) out of dozens on the global market have made it through the European
 Commission's laborious approval process, a prerequisite for use.
 What is more, some areas of Europe have declared themselves ''G.M.O.-free
 zones,'' or free of genetically modified organisms. France, Austria and Germany
 specifically ban MON810, saying they believe that it could harm local crops. In
 Italy, a Kafkaesque approval process in which the Agriculture Ministry has never
 established the requirements for success, makes genetically modified crops a
 nonstarter.
 Such foot-dragging reflects passionate public opposition to the crops in many
 parts of Europe, even as more than three-quarters of corn, soybeans and sugar
 beets in the United States are genetically modified. Though the science is at
 best inconclusive, there is a widespread conviction in Italy that genetically
 altered foods and crops pose dangers to human health and ecosystems.
 After Mr. Fidenato's provocation, investigators did genetic testing to identify
 the locations of the offending stalks in the sea of cornfields that surround
 this tiny town. Officials seized two suspect fields -- about 12 acres -- and
 declared the plantings illegal. Greenpeace activists surreptitiously snipped off
 the stalks' tassels in the hope of preventing pollen from being disseminated.
 On Aug. 9, 100 machete-wielding environmental activists from an
 antiglobalization group called Ya Basta descended on Vivaro and trampled the
 field before local police officers could intervene. They left behind placards
 with a skull and crossbones reading: ''Danger -- Contaminated -- G.M.O.''
 Giancarlo Galan, who became agriculture minister in April, called the protesters
 ''vandals,'' although he did not say he would allow genetically modified crops.
 But Luca Zaia, the previous agriculture minister and president of the nearby
 Veneto region, applauded the rampage, saying: ''There is a need to show
 multinationals that they can't introduce Frankenstein crops into our country
 without authorization.''
 Over the past decade, genetically modified crops have been a major source of
 trade friction between Europe and the United States.
 Both the United States Food and Drug Administration and the European Food Safety
 Agency say that there is no scientific evidence that eating MON810 corn is
 dangerous. But there is greater disagreement on how genetically modified plants
 affect ecosystems and whether traditional and genetically modified crops can be
 kept apart to avoid what organic farmers call ''contamination'' of traditional
 crops by modified plants or genes. Seed or pollen can travel with the wind or on
 farm equipment or truck tires, sometimes for hundreds of miles.
 This issue is particularly sensitive in Italy, whose farmers rely heavily on
 specialized organic and heritage crops, like hundreds of varieties of tomatoes.
 Crops contaminated with genetically modified material can lose its organic
 designation. Farmers worry that plants with tailor-made survival genes will over
 time displace tastier traditional varieties.
 Greenpeace has called the European Union's judgment to accept MON810 as safe
 ''fundamentally flawed,'' noting, for example, that the chemical that kills corn
 borer larvae could also harm butterflies that land on the plants. Even in the
 United States, reservations linger. This month, a federal judge in San Francisco
 revoked permission for further planting of genetically modified sugar beets,
 saying that the Agriculture Department had not adequately assessed the
 environmental consequences; 95 percent of the sugar beets in the United States
 are genetically modified.
 Faced with a W.T.O. judgment on the one hand and a reluctant public on the
 other, the European Commission has tried in recent years to walk a middle
 ground. It requires countries to establish procedures for separating traditional
 and modified crops, like maintaining certain distances between fields. Recent
 proposals give regions increasing latitude to deny entry to such plants if they
 provide scientific proof that the seeds could harm the environment, however.
 But groups like the American Farm Bureau Federation say that studies used to
 justify excluding genetically modified crops do not pass muster.
 Here in Vivaro, farmers are divided about the issue, said Luca Tornatore, Ya
 Basta spokesman and an astrophysicist from Trieste, Italy, noting that his
 group's ''blitz'' did not allow much time for talking with local people.
 Residents may not know much about the science of genetically modified crops, but
 they are quite familiar with the corn borer larvae; they tunnel into ears of
 corn, allowing funguses to fill the holes in their wake. Some of the funguses
 produce mycotoxins that can end up in places like the milk of corn-fed cows and
 have been associated with serious health problems, including cancers.
 Some farmers spray insecticides on the crops to prevent the boring, but it must
 be applied at just the right moment and leaves chemical residues as well as an
 odor in the air. Others simply sell the corn in bulk, ignoring the problem, said
 Mr. Fidenato, displaying an ear from a field that was alive with worms and
 covered with patches of white fuzz.
 If the Italian government does not relent on the genetically modified seeds, he
 warned, he commands an army of farmers across Italy who are prepared to plant
 MON810 to force its hand.
 But it is not clear that the battle of Vivaro will have a quick victor. Jail
 time or at least fines are expected for Mr. Fidenato (illegal planting) and Mr.
 Tornatore (trespassing and destroying private property).
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: August 24, 2010
 GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: An ear of corn infested with corn borers. A modified variety is
 meant to counteract the pest.
  Last week, Giorgio Fidenato, who had planted genetically modified corn, stood
 amid stalks that had been trampled by antiglobalization activists. (PHOTOGRAPHS
 BY NADIA SHIRA COHEN FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES)  MAP: In Italy, permission is
 needed for genetically modified crops. (A8)
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 223
 
                        The Virginian-Pilot(Norfolk, VA.)
                              August 22, 2010 Sunday
                            The Virginian-Pilot Edition
 Super Salmon or Frankenfish?
 SECTION: N; Pg. N1
 LENGTH: 718 words
 By Andrew Zajac
 McClatchy News Service
 With the global population stretching food supplies and vast areas of the ocean
 swept clean of fish, AquaBounty Technologies Inc. of Waltham, Mass., says it can
 help feed the world.
 It has developed genetically engineered salmon that reach market weight in half
 the usual time. What's more, it hopes to avoid the pollution, disease and other
 problems associated with saltwater fish farms by having its salmon raised in
 inland facilities.
 The Food and Drug Administration has yet to approve what would be the nation's
 first commercial genetically modified food animal.
 "This is the threshold case. If it's approved, there will be others," said Eric
 Hallerman, head of the fisheries and wildlife sciences department at Virginia
 Tech .
 "If it's not, it'll have a chilling effect for years."
 Some in the fish farming industry are leery of the move toward engineered fish.
 "No! It is not even up for discussion," Jorgen Christiansen , director of
 communications for Oslo-based Marine Harvest, one of the world's largest salmon
 producers, wrote in an e-mail.
 He said his company worries "that consumers would be reluctant to buy
 genetically modified fish, regardless of good food quality and food safety."
 Some critics call Aqua-Bounty's salmon "Frankenfish." Others say the effort is
 pointless.
 "I don't see the necessity of it," said Casson Trenor of Greenpeace USA - which
 opposes all genetically modified organisms . "We don't need to build a new
 fish."
 The FDA has completed its review of key portions of AquaBounty's application,
 according to Chief Executive Ronald Stotish. The company expects the agency to
 convene an advisory committee of outside experts to weigh evidence, collect
 public testimony and issue a recommendation about the fish's fitness for human
 consumption.
 The process could take months or more - which still sounds like progress to the
 company after its 14-year, $50 million investment.
 Manipulating natural processes is a fact of life in most of the world's food
 supplies. Cattle, hogs, poultry and most grain and vegetable crops have been
 extensively altered through selective breeding and hybridization.
 But genetic engineering is considered different, at least in the public mind.
 "The thought of genetic engineering sort of excites the idea that there might be
 a kind of boundary-crossing going on that might be yucky," said Paul Thompson,
 an agricultural ethicist at Michigan State University.
 Unlike ordinary salmon, AquaBounty's fish grows during the winter as well as the
 summer, so it reaches an 8-pound market weight in 18 months instead of 36.
 That's accomplished by inserting part of a gene from an eel-like ocean pout into
 the growth gene of a Chinook salmon and then injecting the blended genetic
 material into the fertilized eggs of a North Atlantic salmon.
 "This is a single gene, and it's a salmon gene in a salmon," said Stotish, a
 biochemist and pharmaceutical researcher who joined Aqua-Bounty in 2006 and
 became CEO two years later.
 The salmon is identical in taste, color, protein and other attributes of a
 non-engineered North Atlantic salmon, he said, and consumes up to 25 percent
 less food over its lifetime. The AquaBounty salmon don't get bigger than other
 salmon; they just grow to full size faster.
 The National Fisheries Institute, the main trade association of U.S. seafood
 producers, supports "the use of biotechnology in the production of genetically
 engineered fish," subject to FDA safety assessments, spokesman Gavin Gibbons
 said.
 If the project gets the FDA's blessing, bioethicist Gregory Kaebnick of the
 Hastings Center said he thinks the transition may be fairly easy for consumers.
 "It's not putting a jellyfish gene into a tomato. It's not giving it a radically
 new property, like making it glow," he said. "In the long run, I think people
 are going to get used to this kind of thing."
 about the fish
 Unlike ordinary salmon, AquaBounty's genetically modified fish reaches market
 weight in 18 months instead of 36. That's accomplished by inserting part of a
 gene from an eel-like creature into the growth gene of a Chinook salmon and then
 injecting the blended genetic material into the fertilized eggs of a North
 Atlantic salmon. The company says the fish is identical in taste, color and
 other attributes to non-engineered salmon.
 LOAD-DATE: August 22, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2010 Landmark Communications, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 224
 
                       The Star-Ledger (Newark, New Jersey)
                             August 19, 2010 Thursday
 Fishing for FDA's approval  Genetically engineered salmon, called 'Frankenfish'
 by some, would be a commercial first
 BYLINE: Andrew Zajac, MCT NEWS SERVICE
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. 006
 LENGTH: 734 words
 With a global population pressing against food supplies and vast areas of the
 ocean swept clean of fish, tiny AquaBounty Technologies of Waltham, Mass., says
 it can help feed the world.
 The firm has developed genetically engineered salmon that reach market weight in
 half the usual time. What's more, it hopes to avoid the pollution, disease and
 other problems associated with saltwater fish farms by having its salmon raised
 in inland facilities.
 The Food and Drug Administration has yet to approve what would be the nation's
 first commercial genetically modified food animal.
 "This is the threshold case. If it's approved, there will be others," said Eric
 Hallerman, head of the fisheries and wildlife sciences department at Virginia
 Tech University. "If it's not, it'll have a chilling effect for years."
 Some in the fish farming industry are leery of the move toward engineered fish.
 "No! It is not even up for discussion," Jorgen Christiansen, director of
 communications for Oslo-based Marine Harvest, one of the world's largest salmon
 producers, wrote in an e-mail.
 Christiansen said his company worries "that consumers would be reluctant to buy
 genetically modified fish, regardless of good food quality and food safety."
 Some critics call AquaBounty's salmon "Frankenfish." Others say the effort is
 pointless.
 "I don't see the necessity of it," said Casson Trenor of Greenpeace USA -- which
 opposes all genetically modified organisms, including plants. "We don't need to
 build a new fish."
 The FDA has completed its review of key portions of AquaBounty's application,
 according to chief executive Ronald Stotish. Within weeks, the company expects
 the agency to convene an advisory committee of outside experts to weigh
 evidence, collect public testimony and issue a recommendation about the fish's
 fitness for human consumption.
 The process could take months or more -- which still sounds like progress to the
 company after its 14-year, $50 million investment.
 Manipulating natural processes is a fact of life in most of the world's food
 supplies. Cattle, hogs, poultry, and most grain and vegetable crops have been
 extensively altered through selective breeding and hybridization -- including
 turkeys with so much white meat they can barely stand, drought- and
 disease-resistant wheat, and fruits and vegetables that resist bruising or
 spoiling.
 But genetic engineering -- especially perhaps of animals -- is different, at
 least in the public mind.
 "The thought of genetic engineering sort of excites the idea that there might be
 a kind of boundary-crossing going on that might be yucky," said Paul Thompson,
 an agricultural ethicist at Michigan State University.
 Unlike ordinary salmon, AquaBounty's genetically modified fish grows during the
 winter as well as the summer, so it reaches an 8-pound market weight in 18
 months instead of 36. That's accomplished by inserting part of a gene from an
 eel-like creature called the ocean pout into the growth gene of a Chinook
 salmon, then injecting the blended genetic material into the fertilized eggs of
 a North Atlantic salmon.
 The salmon is identical in taste, color, protein and other attributes of a
 non-engineered North Atlantic salmon, he said, and consumes up to 25 percent
 less food over its lifetime. The AquaBounty salmon don't get bigger than other
 salmon; they just grow to full size faster.
 Christiansen isn't the only person in the industry to recoil.
 "We do not support it. . . . We wouldn't consider changing that unless the
 market demanded it and all government regulators say it's safe," said Nell
 Halse, president of the International Salmon Farmers Association.
 On the other hand, the National Fisheries Institute, the main trade association
 of U.S. seafood producers, supports "the use of biotechnology in the production
 of genetically engineered fish," subject to FDA safety assessments, spokesman
 Gavin Gibbons said.
 AquaBounty, which would sell genetically altered eggs, says its fish would be
 sterile, and it intends to require producers to raise its salmon inland. The
 idea is to prevent cross-breeding with wild fish.
 If AquaBounty's fish are raised in inland tanks, wild populations should be
 protected.
 But an FDA advisory panel may be forced to consider the effect of the fish on
 wild populations nonetheless, because of the possibility of escapes, failed
 sterilization of eggs and sales to producers overseas, out of reach of U.S.
 regulators.
 LOAD-DATE: August 19, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: nsl
                     Copyright 2010 Newark Morning Ledger Co.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 225
 
                      Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania)
                             August 17, 2010 Tuesday
 BYLINE: Per Pinstrup-Andersen
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. B-7
 LENGTH: 888 words
 COPENHAGEN -- Among the severe spells of weather hitting various parts of the
 world is the drought that continues in Kenya. Maize plants wither, hitting poor
 rural families the hardest. People are starving, and many of those who survive
 are grossly malnourished.
 There is hope: next year, the Kenyan authorities will begin testing maize
 varieties that they hope will provide high yields and prove more resistant to
 drought. But why did farmers in Kenya and other African countries not have
 access to drought-resistant crop varieties before catastrophe struck?
 One reason is that such crops rely on research tools used in molecular biology,
 including genetic engineering. African governments have been told that genetic
 engineering is dangerous, with many Europeans and their national governments --
 as well as transnational NGOs such as Greenpeace -- determined to stay away from
 it.
 Unfortunately, Kenya's government listened and did not permit their farmers to
 grow genetically modified -- or GM -- maize, even though it has been approved,
 sown, harvested and eaten by both humans and animals in South Africa, Argentina,
 Brazil, the United States and other countries for many years. Although Kenya has
 a well-functioning and well-funded agricultural research system, the government
 has not even permitted field tests of GM crop varieties.
 Molecular biology has provided excellent tools to address health, environmental
 and food problems such as those seen in Kenya. The question is whether
 decision-makers are prepared to use them. Obviously, most EU countries'
 governments are not. But why are developing-country governments dragging their
 feet? Are the risks so high that they justify the suffering that could have been
 avoided?
 GM foods have now been on the market in the United States for more than 12
 years. Most of the food consumed by Americans is either genetically modified or
 exposed to genetic modification somewhere in the production process. There is no
 evidence of even a single case of illness or death as a result -- in the United
 States or anywhere else where GM foods are consumed. Similarly, GM feed has not
 resulted in any illness or death in animals. And no environmental damage has
 been detected.
 It is unusual that a new technology has no negative side effects. Just think of
 all the deaths that the wheel has caused, not to mention the side effects of
 much of the medicine we take. What, then, is the danger of GM foods?
 Opponents of genetic engineering in food and agriculture have several arguments,
 none of which appears to be valid. First, "genetic engineering cannot solve the
 hunger and food insecurity problem." This is correct: GM foods cannot
 singlehandedly solve the problem, but they can be an important part of the
 solution.
 A second argument is that "we do not know enough about the effects and side
 effects." Since some of the groups opposing GM organisms destroy the field
 trials that could give us more knowledge, a more pertinent argument might be
 that many opponents do not want us to know more.
 Third, "we should not play God." But if God gave us brains, it was so that we
 should use them to ensure a balance between people and nature to help eliminate
 hunger and protect the environment.
 Fourth, pollen from GM crops may "contaminate" organically produced food. This,
 of course, would be an issue only with open pollinating plants, and only if the
 definition of "organically produced" excludes GM, something that is difficult to
 justify, since genes are as organic as anything.
 Lastly, some argue that if farmers are permitted to sow GM varieties, they
 become dependent on large seed producers such as Monsanto, which have patent
 protection -- and thus a monopoly -- on the seed. But private corporations
 undertake only about half of all agricultural research, whether or not it
 involves genetic engineering. The other half is done by public research systems
 using public funds. Results from such research would not be subject to
 private-sector monopoly power. The fact that virtually all U.S. maize and
 soybean farmers, and all papaya farmers, use GM seed indicates that it is good
 business for them.
 Similarly, a large share of farmers -- most of them smallholders -- in
 Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, China, India and other countries, prefer GM
 seed because they make more money from the resulting crops. Large reductions in
 the use of insecticides cut costs for growers of GM varieties, while providing
 an important health and ecological benefit.
 But maybe those who oppose private seed corporations are really against
 capitalism and the market economy rather than GM seed. If so, they should choose
 an issue for their campaign that would be less damaging to the poor and hungry
 in developing countries.
 The global food crisis of 2007-2008 was a warning of what the future may hold in
 store if we continue with business as usual, including misplaced opposition to
 the use of modern science in food and agriculture. European and
 developing-country governments urgently need to reverse their current adverse
 position on GM organisms in order to help ensure sustainable food security for
 all.
 Such a reversal would reduce hunger, poverty and malnutrition; help protect our
 planet's natural resources; and slow the emission of greenhouse gases from
 agriculture. All that is needed is political will.
 LOAD-DATE: August 17, 2010
 NOTES: Per Pinstrup-Andersen is Professor of Food, Nutrition and Public Policy
 at Cornell University and Professor of Development Economics at Copenhagen
 University, Denmark. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2010
 (www.project-syndicate.org). /
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2010 P.G. Publishing Co.









Document Number: 226
 
                              Missouri Lawyers Media
                              August 2, 2010 Monday
 Verdicts & Settlements August 2, 2010: Third modified-rice suit nets federal
 jury verdict
 BYLINE: Allison Retka
 LENGTH: 697  words
 A St. Louis federal jury awarded a Louisiana rice farmer $500,000 in a trial
 against bioscience giant Bayer CropScience.
 The verdict is the third Missouri court win that farmer plaintiffs have logged
 against Bayer in a series of "test trials" over a 2006 contamination of the U.S.
 rice supply.
 Plaintiffs in Arkansas have won $49 million in two cases that also accused Bayer
 of contaminating the U.S. rice supply in 2006 with a genetically modified strain
 of rice, an event that dried up the European export market and sent rice prices
 plummeting.
 The most recent St. Louis verdict is the smallest amount awarded in the test
 trials in Missouri. In closing arguments, plaintiffs' attorney Don Downing asked
 the jury for $1.5 million in damages. He couldn't seek punitive damages, he
 said, because Louisiana law doesn't allow it.
 "We don't know exactly what they cut and why," Downing said of the $500,000
 verdict. "We did not have a chance to talk to jurors about their rationale for
 that. From our perspective, it's just another jury verdict in favor of the rice
 farmers. "
 The amount each farmer lost in rice sales varies case to case, Downing said. In
 this case, Louisiana farmer Danny Deshotels was able to sell his rice in the
 months after the August 2006 contamination, but at a lower price than usual. He
 also had to let some fields lie fallow and in others plant alternative crops
 such as soybeans.
 In the face of mounting damages, Bayer says its attorneys will still sit down
 for upcoming settlement talks in St. Louis.
 "Bayer CropScience looks forward to working with those parties who approach
 discussions of economic loss with an appropriate frame of reference," said Bruce
 Mackintosh, general counsel for Bayer CropScience in a statement.
 Bayer's defense attorney for the St. Louis trials, Mark Ferguson, of Bartlit
 Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott in Chicago, didn't return a call seeking comment.
 At trial, Downing attacked Bayer for testing its genetically modified rice
 variety, LibertyLink, at Louisiana State University, home to a major breeding
 program of nongenetically modified rice. By testing its modified rice in close
 proximity to other rice crops, Bayer ran the risk of contaminating the rice seed
 supply for thousands of farmers, Downing said.
 Ferguson told the jury that a number of other modified rice developers,
 including Monsanto, conducted test trials at LSU.
 "It was reasonable to go to LSU," Ferguson said, noting that Bayer had to give
 notice to the U.S. Department of Agriculture that it would be testing a modified
 rice variety at the university.
 "[The government] could have said, 'Stop,'" he said. "They didn't. "
 * $500,000 jury verdict
 Tort negligence
 * Court: U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri
 * Case Number/Date: 4:06MD1811/July 14, 2010
 * Judge: Catherine Perry
 * Plaintiffs' Experts: Rene Van Acker, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada
 (containment expert); Colin Carter, University of California Davis, Davis,
 Calif. (agriculture economist); Bruce Babcock, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
 (agriculture economist); Bradley Casiday, New Orleans, La. (damages expert); J.
 Neil Rutger, Davis, Calif. (rice geneticist)
 * Defendants' Experts: Alan McHughen, University of California Riverside,
 Riverside, Calif. (liability), Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, University of
 Missouri, Columbia (agricultural economist); Cheryl Shuffield, Little Rock, Ark.
 (damages expert); Ronnie Helms, Stuttgart, Ark. (liability); Robert Winter,
 Little Rock, Ark. (damages expert)
 * Caption: D&B Plantation, Benjamin Deshotels, Danny Deshotels, Errol Deshotels,
 Julie E. Deshotels, Patrick Deshotels, Deshotels Farm Management, P&B
 Plantation, P&E Plantation, Woodside Farms Inc. v. Bayer CropScience
 * Plaintiffs' Attorneys: Don Downing, Gretchen Garrison, Gray, Ritter & Graham,
 St. Louis; Richard J. Arsenault, Neblett, Beard & Arsenault, Alexandria, La.;
 Bruce S. Kingsdorf, Barrios, Kingsdorf & Casteix, New Orleans; Bill Chaney,
 Looper, Reed & McGraw, Dallas
 * Defendants' Attorneys: Mark Ferguson, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott,
 Chicago; Glenn Summers, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott, Denver, John
 Hughes, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott, Chicago
 LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2010
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Legal activity (lawsuits etc.)
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2010 Missouri Lawyers Media









Document Number: 227
 
                               The Washington Post
                              August 2, 2010 Monday
                                 Suburban Edition
 FDA nearing decision on genetically modified salmon;
 If approved, fish would be first altered animal to be marketed as food
 BYLINE: Les Blumenthal
 SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A05
 LENGTH: 1054 words
 It may not be the 500-pound "Frankenfish" some researchers were talking about 10
 years ago, but a Massachusetts company says it is on the verge of receiving
 federal approval to market a quick-growing Atlantic salmon that's been
 genetically modified with help from a Pacific Chinook salmon.
 Although genetically engineered crops such as corn and soybeans have been part
 of the American diet for several years, if the Food and Drug Administration
 approves the salmon, it will be the first transgenic animal headed for the
 dinner table.
 "I would serve it to my kids," said Val Giddings, who worked as a geneticist at
 the Agriculture Department for a decade before becoming a private consultant.
 The financial rewards could be huge.
 Aquaculture is an $86 billion-a-year business -- nearly half of all fish
 consumed worldwide are farm-raised. As wild stocks dwindle and the world's
 population heads toward 9 billion, fish farmers will be looking for stock that
 will be market-ready more quickly.
 But skeptics abound.
 Fears persist about human health risks from genetically modified food, but
 concerns about bioengineered salmon also extend to the environment.
 Farmed salmon are raised in net pens in coastal waters along Washington, British
 Columbia and Maine. Most commonly, the fish being raised are Atlantic salmon,
 and the fear is that they'll escape and compete with endangered native stocks.
 By some estimates, 400,000 to 1 million Atlantic salmon have escaped into the
 wild from the 75 or so net-pen operations in British Columbia.
 A Purdue University study using a computer model -- and widely criticized by the
 biotechnology industry -- showed that if 60 transgenic fish bred in a population
 of 60,000 wild fish, the wild fish would be extinct in 40 generations.
 "We've seen assurances in the past from industry and regulators that there won't
 be catastrophic consequences like the gulf oil spill," said George Kimbrell, a
 senior staff attorney for the Center for Food Safety. "We have a cultural
 amnesia about these things."
 If the FDA approves the transgenic salmon, Kimbrell said, his group would
 consider litigation to stop it.
 Fish that grow faster
 AquaBounty, which calls its super salmon an "advanced hybrid" rather than a
 transgenic fish, said they're safe to eat and would be raised in contained
 farming operations that could be based inland rather than along coastal waters.
 The modified fish, all females, would be sterile, so they couldn't breed with
 wild fish if any escaped, the company said.
 AquaBounty's fish grow faster but not bigger than normal Atlantic salmon. The
 company says genetically modified salmon are identical to regular salmon except
 for the genes that have been added.
 Company researchers have added a growth hormone gene from the Chinook salmon as
 well as an on-switch gene from the ocean pout, a distant relative of the salmon,
 to a normal Atlantic salmon's roughly 40,000 genes. Salmon normally feed during
 the spring and summer, but when the on-switch from the pout's gene is triggered,
 they eat year-round.
 The result is a transgenic salmon that grows to market size in about half the
 time as a normal salmon -- 16 to 18 months rather than three years.
 AquaBounty would market the eggs from a transgenic salmon, not the actual fish.
 After first filing for approval a decade ago to bring the fish to market, the
 company said in a recent news release that the FDA's Center for Veterinary
 Medicine has reviewed in detail five of the seven sections of its application.
 "The company believes the reviews for the remaining two parts of the application
 are very nearly complete," AquaBounty said, adding that its management was
 "confident of a successful outcome in the near future."
 The FDA doesn't comment on pending applications, though a public hearing on the
 AquaBounty application could come as early as this fall. Such public hearings
 can signal the FDA is close to a decision.
 Once it gets approval, AquaBounty said, it could start marketing the eggs from
 transgenic salmon within two or three years. The company is also reportedly
 developing transgenic tilapia and trout.
 Biotech crops spreading
 Scientists elsewhere are working on cattle that would be resistant to mad cow
 disease, and researchers in Canada have developed an "enviropig" that would
 produce manure with less harmful levels of phosphorus.
 Biotech crops are spreading worldwide, with 14 million farmers growing them in
 25 countries, including the United States. About 330 million acres are planted
 around the world, an 80-fold increase since 1996.
 Giddings, the former USDA geneticist, said 77 percent of the worldwide soybean
 harvest is transgenic, 26 percent of the feed corn, 21 percent of canola and 49
 percent of cotton. All told, Gidding said, there are 60 to 70 transgenic crops,
 including others such as papayas and yellow squash.
 "All have been reviewed by the FDA," said Giddings, who also worked for a
 leading biotech industry group. "There is no greater risk from eating transgenic
 crops than eating non-transgenic crops."
 AquaBounty officials weren't available for comment, but the company's publicist
 referred calls to Giddings.
 Giddings said that he hasn't eaten a transgenic salmon but that people he has
 talked to who have attended AquaBounty fish fries said they taste just like
 non-transgenic fish. He dismisses health safety concerns and fears that the fish
 could pose a threat to native stocks.
 "Transgenic foods are subjected to more scrutiny than any other food in
 history," he said.
 However, critics say that there are no guarantees that the transgenic salmon
 would be raised in contained, inland pens, and that claims of sterility can be
 overblown. The company says 99 percent of the transgenic fish will be sterile, a
 level that meets FDA requirements.
 "I hope that's true," said Eric Hoffman, who works on genetic technology policy
 for Friends of the Earth.
 FDA regulations don't specifically address whether transgenic food is safe for
 public health and the environment, Hoffman said, and the approval process is so
 closed it's impossible to tell whether fish raised from AquaBounty's eggs will
 have to be labeled as transgenic. Products made from transgenic crops in the
 United States don't have to carry a special label.
 "This is all about corporate profit and not public health," Hoffman said.
 -- McClatchy Newspapers
 LOAD-DATE: August 2, 2010
 DISTRIBUTION: Maryland
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2010 The Washington Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 228
 
                     Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock)
                               July 30, 2010 Friday
 6 rice farmers win $940,000 Bayer told to pay for crop losses
 LENGTH: 624 words
 A Desha County jury awarded more than $940,000 in damages to six farmers and
 their business entities Wednesday, to compensate for losses they have sustained
 since traces of genetically modified rice were found in the U.S. long-grain rice
 supply in 2006.
 The jury found that the negligence of Bayer Crop-Science and its subsidiaries in
 handling rice bred to tolerate its Liberty Link herbicide cost farmers a
 valuable export market.
 No punitive damages were awarded.
 This is the sixth ruling in as many trials against the Germany-based Bayer
 conglomerate. So far, three federal juries and three juries in Arkansas have
 awarded more than $53 million - including $48 million by a Lonoke County jury in
 April - to farmers for damages.
 Plaintiffs' attorney Chuck Banks called the award "generous." "Any time you ask
 for punitive damages you feel warranted and justified, but, no, we weren't
 disappointed. We just feel like the jury made a rational, reasonable, fair
 decision, and we're pleased with the verdict," Banks said Thursday.
 Other plaintiffs originally included in the group were separated when the trial
 began in order to keep the trial length to two weeks. Those plaintiffs' case
 will be heard later. No date has been set, Banks said.
 Judge Bynum Gibson Jr. dismissed complaints against Stuttgart-based Riceland
 Foods on the grounds that evidence of damage was insufficient, Banks said.
 In a prepared statement released in response to the ruling, Bayer CropScience
 said it would consider its legal options.
 "Bayer CropScience maintains that it acted responsibly and appropriately at all
 times in the handling of its biotech rice, but reaffirms that it is willing to
 work with those parties who approach discussions of economic loss in a
 reasonable manner," the statement said.
 In August 2006, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that traces of
 Liberty Link 601 had been found in the commercial rice supply.
 Bayer had partnered with Louisiana State University to test its genetically
 modified rice at a school-run facility in Crowley, La., in 1998. Though the USDA
 has said the rice variety poses no health or environmental risk, the rice had
 not been approved for human consumption at the time.
 When the contamination was announced, Japan and the European Union immediately
 moved to restrict U.S. rice imports, leading to a drop in rice prices and
 exports.
 Last month the European Union lifted the emergency measures it implemented in
 2006, which required that all rice arriving from the U.S. must be tested and
 found free of genetically modified organisms. The continent now gets most of its
 rice from Asia and South America.
 "The EU was a strong market for U.S. long grain milled rice ... It was a high
 quality market, and it had been pretty stable. That market has not returned to
 the level it was before '06, '07," said Nathan Childs, an economist who studies
 the rice market for the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
 But, he said in a telephone interview, the U.S. has also picked up some markets
 in recent years they were not shipping to before 2006, including countries in
 South America.
 Bayer has sought appeals of four of the previous cases, and is still considering
 its options for a federal trial that ended earlier this month in St. Louis.
 There still thousands of plaintiffs in multidistrict litigation in federal court
 in St. Louis. Scott Powell, a Birmingham, Ala.-based attorney who tried the case
 against Bayer in Lonoke County, said his firm has 2,000 clients, all Arkansas
 farmers.
 Confidential mediation discussions for the multidistrict litigation began in
 April, with the next session set to begin in August.
 The next trial against Bayer in Arkansas is to begin in September in Jefferson
 County.
 This article was published 07/30/2010
 LOAD-DATE: July 30, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2010 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 229
 
                              Voice of America News
                                  July 29, 2010
 Thousands Blind for Want of GM Rice?
 BYLINE: Steve Baragona
 LENGTH: 706  words
 Excessive regulation of genetically modified crops has delayed release of a
 variety of rice that could help reduce the leading cause of preventable
 blindness in children, according to an editorial published in the British
 journal Nature.
 Vitamin A is essential for vision and a healthy immune system. The World Health
 Organization estimates that at least 250,000 children go blind each year from
 vitamin A deficiency, and half of them die within a year of losing their sight.
 Rice doesn't naturally contain this essential nutrient. That's why vitamin A
 deficiency is so common in parts of Africa and Southeast Asia, where rice is the
 mainstay of the diet.
 Making rice golden
 To tackle the problem, researchers took genes involved in producing beta
 carotene, a vitamin A precursor, from other plant species and inserted them into
 rice. It gives the rice grains a yellow-orange color, and their name: Golden
 Rice.
 "It was considered far too ambitious because you had to transfer an unknown
 number of genes -- at least six different genes -- into rice. At that time
 people were happy to transfer a single gene."
 Potrykus says they had succeeded by 1999, but it will be 2012 at the earliest
 before Golden Rice is available to people who need it. He blames the delay on
 excessive regulation. He says an unreasonable amount of testing has been
 required, without scientific justificiation.'Death and blindness'
 "I therefore hold the regulation of genetic engineering responsible for the
 death and blindness of thousands of children and young mothers," he writes in
 the Nature editorial.
 Potrykus wants the regulations changed because research institutes around the
 world are working on other important GM crops besides Golden Rice that could
 also help feed people in the developing world. However, he says, because
 bringing them to market takes 10 years longer and costs 10 times as much as a
 conventional crop, these crops are languishing on the shelves. He says now that
 some GM crops have been grown successfully for more than a decade, it's time to
 loosen the restrictions.
 "Despite claims of high risk of this material," he says, "there is not a single
 documented case of harm to any environment or any consumer."
 'Scientific garbage'
 Doug Gurian-Sherman, with the environmental group the Union of Concerned
 Scientists, calls that argument "scientific garbage." He says you can't say GM
 crops are safe because no one's really done a large-scale epidemiological study
 to see how people's bodies respond to them. He says they may very well be safe.
 But that won't be clear until they are tested.
 "Potrykus' argument is like saying, 'Well, we've got these wonder drugs that
 could cure AIDS or cure malaria or cure whatever," says Gurian-Sherman, "but
 let's not do any testing on them because there's people suffering in the
 meantime.'"
 Gurian-Sherman says one reason Golden Rice needs to be tested for safety is
 because vitamin A and its chemical relatives can be toxic at high levels. Carrot
 poisoning
 Others don't see that as a convincing argument.
 "It's like saying if you ate too many carrots you could get vitamin A poisoning.
 It just doesn't happen," says Howarth Bouis, director of a project called
 Harvest Plus, which is working to breed more nutritious crops for the developing
 world.
 Bouis is on the board of the Golden Rice project. But he says Harvest Plus
 decided to stay away from using GM technology because regulations would slow
 progress.
 "I think we're going to make some good progress with conventional breeding that
 we couldn't have made with transgenics simply because of the regulatory systems
 in place."For example, researchers are developing vitamin A-rich maize using
 conventional breeding. While regulators require extensive testing on GM Golden
 Rice, the new fortified maize varieties won't raise an eyebrow.
 Doug Gurian-Sherman of the Union of Concerned Scientists says GM technology is
 inherently more costly and time-consuming than conventional breeding. He would
 prefer to see more of the limited resources available for agriculture research
 spent on conventional means of tackling malnutrition. But if tests show Golden
 Rice is safe and effective, he says it should be considered.
 The question will be, how much testing is enough?
 LOAD-DATE: July 29, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Journal
            Copyright 2010 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 230
 
                     Congressional Documents and Publications
                                  July 27, 2010
 House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy Hearing;
 "Are Superweeds an Outgrowth of USDA Biotech Policy.";
 Testimony by Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director, Center for Food Safety
 LENGTH: 2881  words
 Good Afternoon Chairman Kucinich, Ranking Member Jordan and Members of the House
 Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Domestic Policy.
 My name is Andrew C. Kimbrell. I am a public interest attorney and the Executive
 Director of the Center for Food Safety. I founded the Center over fifteen years
 ago in order to help protect human health and the environment, curb the
 proliferation of harmful food production technologies, and promote organic and
 other forms of sustainable agriculture. CFS is a 501(c)(3) non-profit based here
 in Washington, DC.
 I appreciate the invitation to testify before the Subcommittee. As the other
 panelists, I'm here today to discuss the glyphosate resistant weed crisis facing
 U.S. farmers. Equally important and relatedly, I will discuss the concurrent and
 interconnected failure of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to address
 the negative environmental, agronomic and socioeconomic impacts of agricultural
 biotechnology using its existing statutory authority.
 The history of USDA's oversight of genetically engineered (GE) crops is littered
 with failures. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), the USDA's own Office
 of Inspector General (OIG), and the Federal Courts have repeatedly condemned
 USDA for oversight deficiencies and inadequate management. Regarding the latter,
 regulation of GE crops has in part been defined by judicial decisions in
 lawsuits brought by CFS and others on behalf of farmers, consumers, and
 environmental groups. American agriculture cannot afford such "regulation by
 litigation," an approach that has become standard operating procedure at USDA. I
 am hopeful that today's hearing will initiate a transformation in agricultural
 biotechnology oversight that more appropriately balances the interests of the
 farmer, the environment and the consumer with those of the biotechnology
 industry.
 CFS and its coalition of government watchdogs are not alone in condemning USDA
 on this issue. Numerous government assessments have found USDA's oversight
 severely lacking. For example, a 2005 OIG Audit of GE crop field trials revealed
 frequent cases where the agency did not know the planting locations of field
 trials, did not require submission of written protocols prior to issuing a
 permit, did not maintain a list of planted field trials, and, in the case of
 pharmaceutical crops, failed to conduct scheduled field trials. In two cases,
 OIG inspectors found two tons of pharmaceutical crops that had been harvested
 and held in storage for more than one year without APHIS' knowledge and
 inspection, contrary to permit requirements. As a result of these failures, OIG
 issued a series of recommendations to strengthen USDA's management and oversight
 of field trials.
 Unfortunately, the OIG recommendations went largely unheeded, and less than one
 year later, LL601, an unapproved experimental GE rice also known as "Liberty
 Link rice," contaminated U.S. rice producers. This contamination event cost rice
 producers and the rice industry more than one billion dollars. Several cases
 have gone to trial with farmer plaintiffs recovering millions in jury awards.
 After an internal investigation, USDA concluded that its own mismanagement of
 field trials was responsible for the Liberty Link rice contamination event.
 Initial contamination occurred as much as 5 years earlier, going undetected and
 spreading throughout much of the southern rice producing states. The
 recommendations for strenthening management and oversight of GE crop field
 trials identified by USDA as corrective measures, many of which were identical
 to the recommendations contained in the OIG Audit, were published in a manual
 entitled Lessons Learned. This USDA manual was later codified in the 2008 Farm
 Bill amendment sponsored by Sen. Pryor (D- AR) and enacted into law. Despite an
 18 month implementation deadline, USDA has still not complied with the statutory
 mandates.
 This arrogance is characteristic of USDA's attitude regarding regulation of
 biotech crops and its responses to criticism of its regulatory processes. A 2008
 GAO Report requested by Senators Harkin and Chambliss, noting the billions of
 dollars in economic damages associated with GE crop contamination events,
 concluded that "such contamination events are not isolated incidents, as
 biotechnology proponents argue. Rather the ease with which genetic material from
 crops can be spread makes future releases likely." The Report called on the USDA
 "to monitor for other unintended consequences, such as economic impacts on other
 agricultural sectors, such as organic crops, which may become contaminated by GE
 crops." As particularly relevant here, the Report further recommended the
 mandatory monitoring of resistant weeds, with continuing regulatory authority to
 mitigate impacts should they arise.
 Farmers have long demanded economic injury to be part of the assessment process
 for GE crop commercialization. USDA has steadfastly maintained that it lacks the
 statutory authority to make that assessment a part of the deregulation
 decision-making process. We believe that clear and unequivocal statutory
 authority exists in the Plant Protection Act (PPA) to consider economic harm to
 farmers as part of this process. Not only does the statutory authority exist,
 but the PPA actually confers a mandatory obligation on the Secretary to consider
 any and all, direct and indirect impacts, including economic harms, to farmers
 and the agriculture of the United States.
 Instead, USDA has self-imposed a very limited interpretation of its regulatory
 ambit, claiming that once that narrow review is completed, all further oversight
 or inquiry must end. USDA has repeatedly taken the position that its limited
 authority precludes assessments of a wide array of environmental impacts
 stemming from biotech crops - including but not limited to glyphosate resistant
 weeds - under the PPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, and other
 environmental laws.
 Like the independent governmental reviews, our courts have been forced to
 repeatedly condemn USDA's failings. For example, in holding that USDA failed to
 comply with NEPA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in approving Roundup
 Ready alfalfa, a federal district court concluded that "even though the agency
 acknowledged that gene transmission could and had occurred with Roundup Ready
 alfalfa, it refused to analyze the likely extent of such gene flow and how it
 could be eliminated or at least minimized." Geertson Seed Farms v. Johanns, 2007
 WL 1302981 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (May 3, 2007), at *1. In setting aside the agency's
 approval of the biotech crop, the same court also held that "APHIS simply
 ignored the concerns of farmers that do not want to grow or feed to their
 livestock genetically engineered alfalfa." 2007 WL 518624, at *7. These merits
 findings by the court were not appealed. Another district court concluded in
 2006 that USDA's approval of biotech, pharmaceutical-producing plant field
 trials in Hawaii violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) with "utter
 disregard":
 APHIS's utter disregard for this simple investigation requirement, especially
 given the extraordinary number of endangered and threatened plants and animals
 in Hawaii, constitutes an unequivocal violation of a clear congressional
 mandate.
 Center for Food Safety v. Johanns, 451 F.Supp.2d 1165, 1182 (D. Hawaii 2006).
 That same court held that USDA's NEPA decision "abdicate[d]" its
 responsibilities and instead asked for deference to "post hoc rationalizations."
 Id. at 1184-1185.
 In another case regarding the field testing of GE Roundup Ready bentgrass, which
 eventually contaminated a protected national grassland, a court found the record
 "devoid of any evidence" USDA had complied with NEPA, and held the agency's PPA
 analysis "backwards." International Center for Technology Assessment v. Johanns
 473 F.Supp.2d 9, 26 and 29 (D.D.C. 2007). Finally, in yet another case, this
 time concerning Roundup Ready sugar beets, a court held USDA's analysis was not
 "'convincing' and d[id] not demonstrate the 'hard look' that NEPA requires."
 Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, 2009 WL 3047227, 9 (N.D. Cal. 2009); id. ("To
 the limited extent APHIS did examine this issue, it did so only on a cursory
 level. ... Moreover, there is no support in the record for APHIS' conclusion
 that non-trangenic sugar beet will likely still be sold and will be available to
 those who wish to plant it ...."). I could elaborate on many more examples of
 the outrage expressed by courts on USDA regulatory failures and deficiencies.
 The clear picture they draw is of a rogue agency unwilling to comply with its
 statutory and legal responsibilities.
 USDA's unnecessarily cabined view of its regulatory authority is often
 compounded by the agency's use of questionable facts and faulty assumptions that
 have no basis in "sound science," as required by the PPA. Glyphosate resistant
 weed issues exemplify how USDA minimizes significant potential environmental
 impacts by applying questionable assumptions to randomly selected facts.
 Since the first glyphosate resistatn weed populations were confirmed in 1998, 53
 populations of 10 different weed species at tens of thousands of sites have
 evolved glyphosate resistance. Glyphosate resistant weeds now infest an
 estimated 11.4 million acres. North Carolina Weed Scientist, Alan York, has
 called glyphosate resistant weeds "potentially the worst threat to cotton since
 the boll weevil" due to extraordinary levels of dependence on glyphosate.
 The December 2009 draft of the court-ordered Environmental Impact Statement
 (EIS) on Roundup Ready alfalfa - the first EIS USDA has ever completed on any
 biotech crop - acknowledges the existence of glyphosate resistant weeds, citing
 research that has identified 9 glyphosate resistant weeds in the U.S. since
 1998, admitting that 8 out of the 14 glyphosate resistant weeds known globally
 are prevalent in alfalfa stands and, that of the 21 weeds naturally resistant to
 glyphosate, 10 are problems in alfalfa. Yet despite this acknowledgement, USDA
 concluded in its draft that, since herbicides are used in alfalfa predominantly
 during stand establishment with minimal applications after the first year, there
 is little chance that glyphosate resistant weeds will develop as a result of
 deregulating RR Alfalfa. What is the sound science basis this conclusion? I find
 no support in the research or the literature.
 Moreover the EIS claims that even if glyphosate resistance is a problem, USDA
 lacks authority to address it. This conclusion is despite the fact that the
 epidemic stems from and is exacerbated by the approval of biotech,
 pesticide-dependent cropping systems. In the original litigation forcing this
 EIS (again, not appealed) the lower court held USDA's original assessment of
 weed resistance harm arbitrary and capricious and "cavalier":
 APHIS's reasons for finding the development of glyphosate resistant weeds not to
 be significant are not convincing. Reasoning that weed species often develop
 resistance to herbicides is tantamount to concluding that because this
 environmental impact has occurred in other contexts it cannot be significant.
 Nothing in NEPA, the relevant regulations, or the case law support such a
 cavalier response.
 2007 WL 518624 (N.D. Cal. 2007) at *10. USDA's current dismissal of the problem
 unfortunately seems similarly cavalier.
 A larger issue looms with respect to glyphosate resistant weeds. Because the
 industry or government has not undertaken a concerted effort to address the
 serious and growing threats posed by glyphosate resistant weeds, the standard
 response has been to switch modes of action through the use of other chemical
 pesticides in combination with tillage. Increasingly, farmers are forced to
 return to soil-damaging tillage practices and the use of toxic chemical
 pesticides that were supposed to have been made extinct through the introduction
 of glyphosate. Triazines, 2,4D and Dicamba are being tank mixed with glyphosate
 to eliminate problems with glyophosate resistant weeds. Some glyphosate
 resistant weeds are beginning to demonstrate a tolerance to other classes of
 herbicides being tank mixed with glyphosate, namely ALS and PPO inhibitors and
 triazines. As weed resistance to multiple herbicides grows, industry has begun
 experimentation with biotech varieties that are genetically engineered to be
 tolerant to multiple herbicides, including 2,4D and Dicamba. We simply cannot
 afford to rubber stamp approval of these proposed new GE varieties now in
 research and development. Weed scientists are cautioning that should weeds
 develop resistance to these multiple herbicide tolerant varieties, no solution
 is readily foreseeable. USDA simply cannot afford to continue to abdicate its
 regulatory responsibilities with these new untested technologies on the horizon.
 CFS, on behalf of farmers, environmental and other groups, has filed and
 prevailed in multiple lawsuits on the appropriate processes and analyses
 required in USDA's biotech crop oversight. Unfortunately, rather than correct
 its errors, USDA has thus far repeatedly "doubled down" on them. For example,
 courts struck down USDA's view that it need not assess potential injury because
 the harm was not legally cognizable (in cases regarding GE alfalfa and GE
 bentgrass). USDA then claimed that even if such harm is cognizable, the agency
 still need not address such harms, because it lacks authority to address them. A
 different federal court had already ruled against this argument in another case,
 concerning GE Roundup Ready sugar beets. Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No.
 C 08-00484 JW, 2009 WL 3047227, at *13 n.3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2009). The
 Supreme Court's recent decision in the GE Roundup Ready alfalfa case is also
 predicated on the conclusion that USDA has the authority to address and regulate
 transgenic contamination. There, the Court found standing for the Plaintiffs and
 posited a potential future in which USDA could limit Roundup Ready alfalfa's
 planting to specific geographic zones to protect against contamination harm.
 Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms, ___ S.Ct. ___, 2010 WL 2471057, *11-14, 21
 (U.S. June 21, 2010).
 USDA's position on weed resistance harm has thus far mirrored its overarching
 and repeated recidivism. In the face of this growing epidemic, USDA has passed
 the buck. It is time for change under this new administration. It is past time
 that USDA adopt a new policy of risk assessment and biotech crop regulation that
 complies with its statutory mandates. At bare minimum, the USDA must reconcile
 contradictory policies within the agency. While USDA/APHIS barely acknowledges
 the existence of glyphosate resistant weeds, USDA/NIFA has determined that
 "there have been increasing numbers of species and an expanded distribution of
 the range of broadleaf weeds with resistance to glyphosate" and dedicated
 Critical Issues: Emerging and New Plant and Animal Pest and Diseases grant
 program funding to examine herbicide resistance development, economic impacts of
 glyphosate resistance and current distribution and the risk of expanded
 herbicide resistance among other weed species in additional cropping systems.
 While APHIS minimizes the risks, impacts and significance of glyphosate
 resistant weeds in order to deregulate new GE varieties, its sister agency is
 expending taxpayer dollars to eradicate the problems created by overuse of the
 technology.
 USDA has also failed to utilize the broad authority conferred in the Plant
 Protection Act (PPA) over plant pests and noxious weeds. Plant pests are defined
 broadly to include "substances, which can directly or indirectly injure or cause
 disease or damage in or to any plants or parts thereof, or any processed,
 manufactured, or other products of plants." 7 C.F.R. 340.1. The PPA provides
 significant authority to prohibit or regulate noxious weeds, which again are
 broadly defined to include "any plant or plant product that can directly or
 indirectly injure or cause damage to crops (including nursery stock or plant
 products), livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation,
 navigation, the natural resources of the United States, the public health, or
 the environment." 7 U.S.C. 7702(10). It is implausible and irresponsible to read
 this legislative language in such a way as to preclude regulation. Yet that is
 precisely what USDA does.
 Congress provided the Secretary of the USDA with expansive powers to protect the
 vast interests of the U.S. farmer and American agriculture. USDA needs to use
 the powers available to it to better protect those broad interests, not merely
 those of the biotech companies which it is charged with regulating. We call on
 the Secretary to take action to broaden the scope of its regulatory powers
 through the finalization of the currently halted PPA rule-making and its
 Programmatic EIS that has languished for over 6 1/2 years. That rule-making
 contemplated a more expansive regulatory implementation, to meet the challenges
 of new innovations in agricultural biotechnology. We cannot afford to regulate
 by court order any longer.
 I thank the Chair and the Members for the opportunity to testify before the
 Subcommittee. Should the Members have questions, I would be happy to answer
 them.
 LOAD-DATE: July 29, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Report
            Copyright 2010 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 231
 
                         Lincoln Journal Star (Nebraska)
                               July 25, 2010 Sunday
 Heirloom past, hybrid future can coexist;
 SECTION: OPINION; Pg. C10
 LENGTH: 817 words
 Today,greener-than-thou gardeners crusade for heirloom seeds while unjustly
 damning hybrids.
 Increasingly,their anti-science credo has hardened into a Luddite
 fundamentalism,causing confusion among the public between hybrids and
 genetically modified organisms,or GMOs.
 Clearly,the hybrid versus heirloom imbroglio is about more than the quest for
 the biggest,most delicious tomato.
 As a third-generation seedsman, I can lend balance to this lopsided debate.My
 company,W.Atlee Burpee,has provided American gardeners with heirloom seeds since
 1876 and introduced hybrid seeds to American home gardens in 1934.Since Burpee's
 hybrid and heirloom sales are roughly 50-50,I'm a hundred percent in favor of
 both heirlooms and hybrids.
 Starting in the late 1940s,hybrid seeds - one of mankind's greatest achievements
 - transformed agriculture.The Green Revolution,the adoption of hybrids by
 developing nations, boosted wheat,rice and corn harvests,multiplying yields up
 to tenfold.Hybrids saved millions from famine,dramatically lowered food prices
 and helped turn countries dependent on food imports into net exporters.
 On the home front,hybrid vegetables transformed backyard gardening from a chore
 into a pleasure that produced abundance.
 Many of today's heirlooms were once market varieties prior to the advent of the
 supermarket. Others were regional varieties that came from families or
 communities,such as the Amish.
 Heirloom devotees are justly smitten with their storybook heritage,relative
 rarity and unusual flavor.
 But when it comes to garden performance,heirlooms prove no match for hybrids.
 The cachet-free,hard-working hybrids remain "old faithfuls"for the majority of
 American gardeners.Indeed,in blind taste tests, many home garden hybrids triumph
 over heirlooms.
 What heirlooms may lack in productivity and hardiness,they make up in
 mystique.True believers overlook their smaller output, lower disease
 resistance,and,unless they buy heirlooms each year, laborious seed-saving
 chores.But they go astray when their passion for heirlooms blinds them to the
 virtues of hybrids.
 Increasingly, organizations and activists are encouraging third-world farmers in
 Haiti and elsewhere to grow heirlooms in lieu of hybrids. By so doing, they are
 putting their sophisticated personal tastes and aesthetics before the
 life-and-death needs of the farmers and their communities, people for whom a
 poor harvest can be a death sentence. This is nouveau imperialism at its most
 pernicious. "Let them eat heirlooms."
 Hybrids have as much history behind them as heirlooms.Farmers and native peoples
 have been refining and improving seed stock for millennia,selecting the best
 plants and jettisoning the clunkers.Moreover,due to natural cross-pollination
 and mutations caused by solar radiation,the genetic makeup of the world's plants
 is ever changing.Evolution never sleeps.
 Without human intervention for the last 10,000 years or so,the tomatoes,peppers
 and other produce we enjoy today would be inedible,even toxic.
 For example,tech-savvy Natives progressively wrought extraordinary improvements
 in corn and potatoes,now global staples. Gregor Mendel's discovery of genetics
 in 1866 enabled humanity to fulfill these ancestral struggles to develop ever
 greater food quality and supply.In short,hybrids are improved heirlooms.
 In contrast to sterile GMO laboratories,hybrid seed production, created by hand
 in the outdoors,is about as high-tech as knitting. Hybrid research is highly
 creative, yet little different from what nature does on its own,combining and
 recombining plants'genes.
 To conflate hybrids with GMOs, as many do,is like mistaking an abacus for a
 supercomputer.
 As for environmental impact, hardy and disease-resistant hybrids require fewer
 chemical inputs,less water and smaller space. Since they are higher
 yielding,hybrids reduce habitat destruction in the Third World.You can achieve
 the same harvest on a quarter as much land.
 Finally,contrary to public opinion,genetic diversity is actually enhanced by
 hybridization.Plant breeders widen available genes by crossing with wild species
 and coaxing forth traits already present in domesticated cultivars.
 While expressing unique characteristics,heirlooms,being inbreds,possess narrower
 gene pools.Therefore,public institutions and private companies,including
 Burpee,preserve them in seed vaults.By nature,heirlooms exist at a genetic dead
 end.You can see similar situations in wild animals,livestock and pets.
 Nevertheless,some heirloom plants possess great virtues such as novel colors and
 flavors.We don't have to lose our heirloom past in order to claim our hybrid
 future.
 It's time for gardeners to stop slinging mulch and return to the pleasures and
 rewards of gardening.There's plenty of room in the vegetable patch for both
 heirlooms and hybrids.
 George Ball is past president of The American Horticultural Society and chairman
 of the W. Atlee Burpee & Co.
 LOAD-DATE: July 27, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2010 Lincoln Journal Star
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 232
 
                                The New York Times
                               July 23, 2010 Friday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Europe Turns Ear Toward Voice of the People, With Conditions
 BYLINE: By SUZANNE DALEY and STEPHEN CASTLE
 SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 4
 LENGTH: 1117 words
 BRUSSELS -- The way Martin Kastler sees it, there ought to be a law prohibiting
 shops all across Europe from opening on Sundays, much as there has been for
 generations in his native Bavaria.
 He has already begun collecting signatures of support. And soon, courtesy of a
 little debated clause in the new Lisbon Treaty, the European Union may be
 obliged to consider drawing up such legislation.
 ''For me, Sunday is a family day,'' said Mr. Kastler, a German member of the
 European Parliament who is being urged on by his wife, church groups and trade
 unions.
 Long criticized as lacking democratic accountability, the European Union is
 about to give its 500 million citizens more say -- if they can collect one
 million supporting signatures from a ''significant'' number of member countries.
 But whether the voice of the people will triumph over the bureaucracy remains an
 open question.
 No one knows for sure what the citizens of Europe might want to see introduced
 as legislation. Most are not even aware of their new rights. When the European
 Union asked for public comment on its proposed regulations, fewer than 180
 people heeded the call.
 But experts say the European Union could soon see petitions on subjects as
 varied as banning bullfighting, burqas and genetically modified food; curbing
 offshore drilling; introducing new taxes; ending the exchange of financial data
 with the United States; and keeping Turkey out of the union.
 Proponents hope the initiatives will be something of a team building exercise,
 too. Forced to collect signatures across borders, Europeans will finally, they
 hope, get to know one another, engage in Europewide debates and develop the
 elusive ''European identity.''
 But others see trouble brewing. What if the voice of the people turns out to be
 racist, politically unwieldy (think California referendums) or just plain
 frivolous? One online campaign in Portugal to force members of the national
 soccer team to grow mustaches claimed the support of 60,000 people recently.
 Trying to keep things in check, European officials issued 16 pages of proposed
 rules for the citizens' initiative, translating the vague language of the Lisbon
 treaty into a thicket of regulations, which critics say could strangle the
 experiment at birth. The commission is proposing, for instance, that no part of
 a European Union treaty can be challenged and that the signatures must be
 collected from at least nine countries within a year.
 This would knock out one favorite object of citizen outrage -- the costly
 pilgrimage the European Parliament must make to work in Strasbourg, France, for
 one week every month. The price tag on that is estimated at more than $250
 million a year, but it is written into the governing treaty, as a concession to
 the French. Advocates say all the requirements would prove too much for any
 ideas from the average citizen.
 ''What we fear,'' said Carsten Berg, who coordinates a group campaigning for the
 citizens' initiative, ''is that only the big, well-funded organizations will be
 able to use it.''
 Maros Sefcovic, a vice president of the European Commission responsible for the
 initiative, said the union was looking for the right balance in its regulations.
 He does not want ''to overdo it with too strict '' procedures. But he also
 believes it is important to stop abusive campaigns or ideas that are ''frivolous
 or devoid of seriousness.''
 Under the draft rules, organizers would have to begin the process by registering
 their petition. Then, they would have to collect some number of signatures
 before they even got a reading from the commission about whether the subject
 fell within the scope of what was allowed. Initially, the idea was that 300,000
 names would be needed; the latest draft has cut this by two-thirds.
 In some countries, those signing would have to give their passport or national
 identity card numbers to help prevent fraud -- another requirement that has
 prompted many objections because few citizens would be willing to give that
 information to someone collecting signatures on a street corner, for instance.
 The final step is to amass the one million signatures. At that point, the
 commission would be obligated to propose legislation or give a reason why not
 within four months. Alain Lamassoure, a French member of the European Parliament
 who fought to include the initiative in the Lisbon Treaty, said many of the
 proposed restrictions were reasonable, though some fine-tuning might be needed.
 He believes that citizens can make important legislative contributions in areas
 that are sometimes overlooked, like the complications couples from different
 European countries face getting a divorce in the European Union, or difficulties
 transferring education credentials across borders.
 But Mr. Lamassoure does not want to hear too much from the citizenry. ''Once a
 month is about right,'' he said. ''The risk is too little or too much. Once
 every two years would be too little.''
 Some advocates for the initiative are appalled at this vision.
 ''What we are seeing is not really a surprise,'' said Michael Efler, the
 spokesman for Germany's House of Democracy and Human Rights, a citizens' rights
 group. ''It is always the strategy of people in power to not give away that
 power.''
 Tony Venables, the director of the European Citizens Action Service, a nonprofit
 group based in Brussels that promotes the rights of citizens, said the
 commission was operating on ''an exaggerated fear of the frivolous or extremist
 type of initiative and a certain lack of trust.''
 Mr. Venables wants a help desk that can advise citizens on how to find allies in
 different countries and how to draft a legally acceptable petition.
 He also wants the time restriction increased to 18 months from 12 to make it
 easier to collect signatures. And he wants an appeal system if the European
 Commission decides not to act.
 Mr. Kastler became a member of the European Parliament for a year in 2003, then
 returned in 2008. But that does not give him the ability to introduce
 legislation. Under current law, that is almost exclusively the purview of the
 European Commission, a group of officials appointed by member countries.
 Now, with the citizens' initiative, he may get closer to his goal. Since
 February, he has collected around 17,000 signatures. Once the rules are finally
 agreed on, probably late this year, he believes he will get the rest.
 His slogan is ''Mum and Dad belong to us on Sundays.'' But he has yet to raise
 enough money for an office, fliers, stickers or publicity brochures.
 ''It's very difficult for someone who just has an idea but not support,'' Mr.
 Kastler said. ''Without support from big organizations, it's not so simple to
 create a discussion in Europe.''
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: July 23, 2010
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Martin Kastler, a European Parliament member, and his family. He
 wants a law barring shops all across Europe from opening on Sundays. (PHOTOGRAPH
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 233
 
                      Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania)
                              July 22, 2010 Thursday
 SECTION: FOOD; BOOK REVIEW; Pg. E-4
 LENGTH: 661 words
 While television cooking shows and cooking magazines polish food to a high
 gloss, Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture has been exploring the
 erotic, quirky and even gruesome aspects of what we eat.
 "The Gastronomica Reader" represents the range of articles published in the 10
 years since Darra Goldstein, a professor at Williams College, founded the
 quarterly magazine. Sometimes called The New Yorker for food, Gastronomica has
 developed a following as an edgy, intellectual alternative to more mainstream
 magazines.
 The book's opening photo of a horned worm devouring a tomato hints that
 crowd-pleasing marinara sauces are not likely to follow. In fact, Gastronomica
 seldom contains recipes, the better to use the space for footnotes or poetry by
 luminaries including Pulitzer Prize winners Richard Wilbur and Louisa Gluck.
 Essays in the "The Gastronomica Reader" are grouped by themes including "Social
 Constructs," "The Art of Food" and "How Others Eat." This format intersperses
 memoirs with more journalistic accounts and scholarly examinations. Topics
 circle the globe, from the American pop culture phenomenon of competitive eating
 to the politics of genetically modified food in Zambia.
 Some of the most effective pieces in the book are the most understated. The Q&A
 format of an interview with primatologist Richard Wrangham looks unpromising,
 but Mr. Wrangham's theories about how and why primates learned to cook open
 fascinating, largely unexplored territory in food history. History is also
 colorfully explored in "The Egg Cream Racket," a down and dirty tale of
 organized crime in the soda-syrup business; and "Alkermes," a liqueur made from
 an insect in the Mediterranean. Fred Chappell's appreciation of Southern ice tea
 ("anyone who pronounces the successive dentals of 'iced tea' is regarded as
 pretentious") packs history, humor and regional color into just a few
 well-crafted paragraphs. James Nolan's "One Year and a Day," a meditation about
 making gumbo on the first anniversary of his mother's death, manages to
 alternate between food history and memories of his mother without becoming too
 sentimental.
 More often, however, Gastronomica's origins in the academy set a tone of smug
 expertise, giving the collection a sophisticated but also haughty edge. Robert
 Pincus' "Wine, Place and Identity in a Changing Climate" deadens the potentially
 interesting subject of the effect of global warming on terroir with scholarly
 sentences such as, "Appellation regulations are intended to make it easier to
 fashion wine that suits the physical characteristics of the region." Even a
 potentially lighter piece, Carolyn Theriault's "Waiting for Cappuccino," goes
 into an extended history of the spice trade, and comes off more like a lecture
 than a bit of well-observed travel memoir.
 Other selections try too hard to be just too outre. Voyeurism accounts for the
 appeal of artist Robert Kushner's story of how he clothed models in not much
 more than raw collard greens, Froot Loops and asparagus spears. Titillation
 comes in a different guise in Andrew Chan's account of cooking shows as
 pornography. The examination of great apes as food carries reportage to the
 point of revulsion. So does Merry White's first-person account of preparing for
 a colonoscopy, crassly titled "Evacuation Day."
 Reading "The Gastronomica Reader" feels a bit like spending an evening at a
 salon. The conversation is elevated, educated and philosophical, but feels more
 like an intellectual parlor game than anything that makes a long-lasting,
 emotional connection. Part of the problem might be the magazine's self-concept.
 After all, the editor says in the book's introduction, "We want to reflect back
 on our writers' exquisite offerings, which represent some of the best articles
 and essays about food that have appeared anywhere." After wading through too
 many highbrow examples in a row, the reader is likely to be hungry for something
 that takes itself less seriously.
 LOAD-DATE: July 23, 2010
 NOTES: Clara Silverstein is the author of "A White House Garden Cookbook" and
 two other cookbooks. /
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO: "The Gastronomica Reader" Edited by Darra Goldstein University
 of California Press ($39.95)
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2010 P.G. Publishing Co.









Document Number: 234
 
                     Congressional Documents and Publications
                                  July 20, 2010
 House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights
 and Oversight and Africa and Global Health Hearing;
 Oversight of the Feed the Future Initiative;
 Testimony by Rep. Carnahan, Russ - (D-MO)
 LENGTH: 879  words
 I grew up on a family farm in Rolla, Missouri. As a kid, the first time I loaded
 bales of hay on the family truck all of the hay fell out. But from that point
 on, I learned that you have to build a strong foundation.
 I am pleased that today we are able to talk about the strong foundation we are
 building to address global hunger and food security with the Administration's
 Feed the Future Initiative.
 At the G8 Summit in L'Aquila, Italy, in July, 2009, global leaders committed to
 "act with the scale and urgency needed to achieve sustainable global food
 security." President Obama pledged at least $3.5 billion for agricultural
 development and food security over three years, which has helped to leverage $22
 billion in international funding.
 This is a moral issue: Today, more than one billion people--nearly one-sixth of
 the world's population--suffer from chronic hunger. Each year, more than 3.5
 million children die from under nutrition.
 But fighting hunger is not only a moral issue. Fighting hunger also creates good
 Missouri jobs.
 In my home state of Missouri, agricultural exports support about 37,000 jobs
 both on the farm and off the farm in food processing, storage, and
 transportation. Through emergency food aid programs, U.S. farmers have
 benefitted economically from donating surplus U.S. food. Under the Feed the
 Future framework, the goal is to build the capacity for poorer economies to
 produce and purchase local agriculture supplies, as well as trade on the
 international market.
 The talented employees of Missouri organizations such as Monsanto, the Danforth
 Plant Science Center, the Missouri Botanical Garden, and our local universities
 are working with farmers and research institutions to increase yields and
 incomes in Africa, Latin America and Asia.
 This will have a long-term benefit to the U.S. economy. Growing middle classes
 in foreign countries will buy more U.S. products, and that's good for Missouri's
 farmers and businesses, as well as farmers and businesses throughout America who
 are the bedrock of our economic foundation.
 "Feeding the future," the goal of this initiative, will be no easy task. By
 2050, the population is expected to reach 9 billion. To feed the growing
 population, farmers will need to produce more food in the next 40 years than
 they have in the past 10,000 years combined.
 We must catalyze research and innovation to meet this challenge. We will need to
 focus on breeding, biotechnology, and agronomic practices. Some African
 producers are reluctant to use biotechnology due to concerns that some countries
 in Europe--one of Africa's primary export destinations--will not accept
 genetically modified food. We must use "smart power" through our diplomatic and
 trade missions to end these unfair trade restrictions.
 The International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight Subcommittee hosted
 a hearing on "Women as Agents of Change" last month. Women farmers produce more
 than half of all the food that is grown in the world. It is often cited that
 women farmers produce up to 80 percent of food in Africa, and 60 percent of food
 in Asia. Women are far more likely than men to spend their income improving
 their families' access to health, education, and nutrition. This initiative is
 unprecedented in its focus on lifting the incomes of women, which another
 critical element to raising people out of poverty, creating sustainable job and
 ensuring global security. I look forward to hearing more about how the metrics
 will be disaggregated by gender.
 As the Administration prepares to invest $3.5 billion in taxpayer resources over
 three years, I am also concerned about the potential for waste, fraud, and
 abuse. As Chairman of the International Organizations, Human Rights and
 Oversight Subcommittee, I have seen far too little contracting and grants
 management, and far too much corruption and waste. I appreciate the "Whole of
 Government" approach of this initiative: The Department of State, USAID, the
 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Treasury, the U.S. Trade Representative, and the
 Millennium Challenge Account all working together.
 However, based on previous oversight hearings and stories of "adhocracies" out
 of control, I am skeptical about the ability of these different agencies to
 align resources, avoid duplication, conduct internal oversight and successfully
 manage the taxpayer's dollars.
 In order to get the most bang for the taxpayers' buck, there is a need for a
 strong monitoring and evaluation system. In his speech on May 20, 2010,
 Administrator Shah said this initiative will reach 40 million people over 10
 years, increasing their incomes by more than 10 percent a year. And the United
 States Government expects to reach 25 million children directly with nutritional
 interventions that will prevent stunting in 10 million kids. These are bold and
 worthy goals, but I look forward to seeing how progress will be measured and
 reported.
 I applaud the initiative of the Administration on this critical issue. After my
 initial failure at stacking the hay on our truck in Rolla, Missouri, I want to
 make sure that the foundation being laid for our future is secure and sound.
 I will now turn to Chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, The
 Honorable Donald Payne, for his opening statement.
 LOAD-DATE: July 22, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Report
            Copyright 2010 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 235
 
                                 The Denver Post
                               July 18, 2010 Sunday
 Television by Joanne Ostrow NBC revisits ``Children of the Harvest'' workers
 BYLINE: Television by Joanne Ostrow
 SECTION: Pg. E-07
 LENGTH: 670 words
 Television was still testing its power when CBS introduced a documentary that
 changed the way Americans thought about TV, altered the way broadcasters thought
 about journalism and, not least, opened the country's eyes to the plight of the
 migrant worker.
 "Harvest of Shame" (1960) was Edward R. Murrow's last documentary for CBS, under
 the banner of "CBS Reports." It's the one people remember (and still buy from
 Amazon).
 Honestly, if you look at it now, it's tough to see what all the fuss was about.
 Grainy visuals, pedantic narration, a stiff and awkward style, it hasn't aged
 particularly well.
 Yet watching a third-gen documentary on the subject, airing on NBC under the
 banner of "Dateline," is cause for another kind of update.
 The "Dateline NBC" titled "Children of the Harvest," at 6 p.m. Sunday on
 KUSA-Channel 9, revisits an award-winning Dennis Murphy report from a decade ago
 on migrant workers. This time, the focus is specifically underage workers.
 Murphy's new effort, an insightful bit of reporting, offers the opportunity to
 think not just about how the migrant worker story itself has changed with the
 advent of farming technology, pesticides and genetically modified vegetables. It
 underscores how broadcast journalism has changed, too.
 Technology has changed so much, the machinery is so portable and less
 conspicuous, it's made the style increasingly intimate. Even the process of
 being interviewed seems second nature to subjects.
 The video is better. The storytelling is better. Yet the pressure to make
 everything ring with dramatic tension and to arrive at each commercial break
 with a mini-cliffhanger, is worse.
 Sadly, 10-year-old minority boys are still doing the back- breaking work of
 clearing rocks from fields, missing school to work alongside parents according
 to the cycle of the crops.
 And older, white, male network correspondents are still doing the well-meaning
 work of interviewing them. At least credit Murphy with staying in touch with
 this family since his last documentary drop-in.
 The video chronicle has changed, for better and worse.
 If you like life-threatening drama, there's can't-miss footage here. A camera
 mounted on a dashboard caught the moment when a tire falls off the migrant
 family's truck, the fender strikes the pavement and sparks fly as the tire
 bounces across a highway. The drama is so eye-popping, the scene is replayed a
 half dozen times.
 Six times. Please.
 When Murphy did his original "Children of the Harvest" report a decade ago,
 cameras were too bulky to fit on a dashboard.
 "El Roundup"
 The correspondent probably couldn't have guessed then that one of the biggest
 threats to the migrant workers' health and livelihood in 2010 would be the
 over-abundance of weed killer. One veteran fruit picker sings a song about "El
 Roundup, killing off the weeds and this old cowboy." Scotts isn't mentioned by
 name, but the makers of the glyphosate- laced herbicide know who they're talking
 about. Murphy doesn't have time here to go into the fact that American farmers'
 use of Roundup has led to the rapid growth of resistant new superweeds.
 Instead, he sticks to facts about the dropout rate of migrant workers' children
 (four times the national average). While a decade ago, a worker claimed he was
 the "happiest man in the world" as a migrant worker, things aren't so cheery
 this time.
 In the customary tiptoe of "Dateline," always seeking balance so as not to
 offend, the report concludes that things are tough for migrant workers, but some
 are getting high school and college diplomas and returning to foster better
 educations for the next generation.
 Murrow famously signed off: "The people you have seen have the strength to
 harvest your fruit and vegetables. They do not have the strength to influence
 legislation. Maybe we do. Good night, and good luck."
 Murphy winds up with a nod to "the invisible hands in America's food chain." Is
 he advocating for particular legislation on child-labor laws? He's not telling.
 Joanne Ostrow: 303-954-1830 or jostrow@denverpost.com
 LOAD-DATE: July 27, 2010
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Column
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2010 The Denver Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 236
 
                              Missouri Lawyers Media
                             July 14, 2010 Wednesday
 Third Bayer rice trial nets $500K verdict by a federal jury in St. Louis
 BYLINE: Allison Retka
 LENGTH: 309  words
 A federal jury in St. Louis has handed out another $500,248 to a rice farmer in
 a series of "test trials" over a 2006 crop contamination by Bayer CropScience.
 The Wednesday plaintiffs' verdict brings the total amount won by rice farmer
 plaintiffs in three trials to $4 million.
 In the most recent trial against Bayer, plaintiffs' attorney Don Downing had
 asked the jury for $1.5 million in damages.
 In a departure from the last two test trials, Downing didn't ask for punitive
 damages. He emphasized to the jury that Louisiana rice farmer Danny Deshotels
 sought "compensatory damages only. "
 During closing arguments, Downing urged the all-female jury to judge Bayer for
 its actions, and not the words of its executives.
 "It was Bayer's rice. It got out through Bayer's carelessness and Danny
 Deshotels got hurt," Downing said, referencing the Louisiana rice farmer whose
 claims make up the third test trial.
 Downing attacked Bayer for testing its genetically modified rice variety,
 LibertyLink, at Louisiana State University, home to a major breeding program of
 non-genetically modified rice. Steve Linscomb, a rice breeding specialist,
 headed the program.
 "Steve Linscomb's name was like a Good Housekeeping seal of approval," Downing
 said. "That's a great brand name to have. "
 By testing its modified rice in close proximity to other rice crops, Bayer ran
 the risk of contaminating the rice seed supply for thousands of farmers, he
 said.
 Mark Ferguson, the Chicago defense attorney for Bayer, said that a number of
 other modified rice developers, including Monsanto, conducted test trials at
 "It was reasonable to go to LSU," Ferguson said, noting that Bayer had to give
 notice to the United States Department of Agriculture that it would be testing a
 modified rice variety at the university.
 "[The government] could have said, 'Stop,'" he said. "They didn't. "
 LOAD-DATE: July 21, 2010
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Legal activity (lawsuits etc.)
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2010 Missouri Lawyers Media









Document Number: 237
 
                           Tri-City Herald (Washington)
                               July 12, 2010 Monday
 FDA nears approval of genetically engineered salmon
 BYLINE: Les Blumenthal; Herald Washington, D.C., bureau
 SECTION: MONDAY METRO; Pg. A1
 LENGTH: 576 words
 WASHINGTON - They may not be the 500-pound "Frankenfish" that some researchers
 were talking about 10 years ago, but a Massachusetts company says it's on the
 verge of receiving federal approval to market a quick-growing Atlantic salmon
 that's been genetically modified with help from a Pacific Chinook salmon.
 Though genetically engineered crops such as corn and soybeans have been part of
 the American diet for several years, if the Food and Drug Administration
 approves it, the salmon would be the first transgenic animal headed for the
 dinner table.
 "I would serve it to my kids," said Val Giddings, who worked as a geneticist at
 the U.S. Agriculture Department for a decade before becoming a private
 consultant.
 The financial rewards could be enormous.
 Aquaculture is an $86 billion-a-year business, with nearly half of all fish
 consumed globally farm raised. As wild stocks dwindle and the world's population
 heads toward 9 billion, fish farmers will be looking for fish that will be
 market-ready quicker.
 Even so, skeptics abound.
 Fears persist about possible health risks from genetically modified food in
 general, but concerns about bioengineered salmon also extend to the environment.
 Farmed salmon are raised in net pens in waters along Washington, Maine and
 British Columbia. Most of the fish being raised are Atlantic salmon and the fear
 is they'll escape and compete with endangered native stocks. By some estimates,
 between 400,000 and 1 million Atlantic salmon have escaped into the wild from 75
 or so net-pen operations in British Columbia.
 A Purdue University study using a computer model, widely criticized by the
 biotechnology industry, showed that if 60 transgenic fish bred in a population
 of 60,000 wild fish, the wild fish would be extinct in 40 generations.
 "We've seen assurances in the past from industry and regulators that there won't
 be catastrophic consequences like the Gulf oil spill," said George Kimbrell, a
 senior staff attorney for the Center for Food Safety. "We have a cultural
 amnesia about these things."
 If the FDA OKs the transgenic salmon, his group would consider litigation to
 stop it, Kimbrell said.
 AquaBounty, which calls its super salmon an "advanced hybrid" rather than a
 transgenic fish, said they're safe to eat and would be raised in contained
 farming operations that could be based inland rather than along coastal waters.
 And the modified fish, all females, would be sterile so that they couldn't breed
 with wild fish if any escaped, the company said.
 AquaBounty would market the eggs from a transgenic salmon, not the actual fish.
 After first filing for approval a decade ago to bring the fish to market, the
 company said in a recent news release that the FDA's Center for Veterinary
 Medicine has reviewed in detail five of the seven sections of its application.
 "The company believes the reviews for the remaining two parts of the application
 are very nearly complete," AquaBounty said, adding that its management was
 "confident of a successful outcome in the near future."
 The FDA doesn't comment on pending applications, though a public hearing on the
 AquaBounty application could come as early as this fall. Such public hearings
 can signal the FDA is close to a decision.
 Once approved, AquaBounty said it could start marketing the eggs from transgenic
 salmon within two or three years. The company is also reportedly developing
 transgenic tilapia and trout.
 w Les Blumenthal: 202-383-0008; lblumenthal@mcclatchydc.com
 LOAD-DATE: July 13, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2010 Tri-City Herald
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 238
 
                                The New York Times
                              July 8, 2010 Thursday
                               Late Edition - Final
 In Europe, a Move to Ease Curbs on Growing Biotech Crops
 BYLINE: By JAMES KANTER
 SECTION: Section B; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 4
 LENGTH: 1237 words
 BRUSSELS -- After decades of pushing nations to surrender more power to the
 European Union, the bloc is pulling back on efforts to assert its authority over
 one highly contentious issue, genetically modified foods.
 On Tuesday, the European Commission will formally propose giving back to
 national and local governments the freedom to decide whether to grow such crops.
 The new policy is aimed at overcoming a stalemate that has severely curtailed
 the market for biotech seeds in Europe. Only two crops, produced by the
 agricultural giant Monsanto and the chemical company BASF, are sold for
 cultivation in Europe.
 The new flexibility is aimed at opening up markets in countries like the
 Netherlands, where governments are favorable toward growing and trading biotech
 products, while countries like Austria, where the products are unpopular, can
 maintain a ban.
 But far from celebrating the new approach, the growing global industry  as well
 as some farmers themselves are extremely wary.
 ''So many different authorities suddenly doing so many different things risks
 sending a message to successful growers in Africa and Asia that authorities are
 unsure how to deal with biotech,'' said Nathalie Moll, the secretary general of
 EuropaBio, an industry group.
 She said it also remained to be seen whether the proposals would conform with
 World Trade Organization rules.
 The United States and the European Union are still resolving a dispute over
 genetically modified organisms, or G.M.O.'s, and related issues after the trade
 organization in 2006 ruled against Europe's de facto ban. Washington could still
 retaliate in that case.
 The Office of the United States Trade Representative declined to comment on the
 new approach but said it would be on the agenda at a meeting with European
 officials this month.
 Despite ''some progress'' in recent months, the United States ''still has a
 number of concerns,'' said Nefeterius Akeli McPherson, a spokeswoman for the
 trade representative. They include ''a substantial backlog of pending biotech
 applications, and bans adopted by individual E.U. member states on biotech
 products approved at the E.U. level.''
 The reality remains that the European Union still produces few genetically
 modified crops, which many Europeans derisively call Frankenfoods.
 The United States, Brazil, Argentina, India and Canada are the top five
 producers of such crops as measured by land under cultivation. The European
 Union, with 27 member nations, ranks well behind at  14th.
 A critical factor behind the proposed change in Europe is a growing frustration
 with the current system, under which meetings between government officials and
 ministers often end in deadlock. That forces unelected officials at the European
 Commission to make the final decision on authorizing biotech products.
 The commission has found itself repeatedly pressured on one side by the United
 States and the W.T.O. to follow the recommendations of its own scientific
 authorities and enforce the use of approved products and on the other by
 countries like Austria and environmental groups that believe the European Union
 authorities are too eager to promote newfangled technologies.
 Under the new proposals, the commission would continue to make the approvals
 itself but leave it to members and local and regional authorities to decide what
 they want to grow at home.
 But whether the new rules will win the necessary approval from European Union
 governments and the European Parliament still is unclear.
 In an unlikely alliance, the Austrian and Dutch governments first made the
 proposal back in 2008.
 The Dutch were eager to ease tensions over biotech crops with the United States
 and other trading partners, and to ensure continuing imports of animal feeds
 that contain biotech products.
 Animal farming is a big part of the economy in the Netherlands, which, in turn,
 is a major exporter of meat and dairy products. The Dutch are also involved in
 developing biotech products.
 The Austrians supported the changes as a way to keep its national ban on growing
 any such crops without facing regular challenges from the European Union
 authorities.
 Other countries, though, have expressed concern about setting a precedent that
 could undermine European integration. The crisis this year over how to supervise
 the finances of the 16 nations that use the euro already has highlighted the
 limits to European cooperation.
 ''If the agricultural policy is common, why wouldn't the policy of cultivation
 of G.M.O.'s be?'' asked Elena Espinosa, the Spanish environment minister. Spain
 grew 80 percent of the biotech corn, intended  to resist a pest called the corn
 borer, produced in Europe last year.
 In addition, Belgium, which has just taken over the rotating European Union
 presidency, is concerned that a ban by a single country could put the entire
 bloc in danger of facing retaliatory trade sanctions.
 Even farmers that favor biotech crops are concerned that the commission is
 offloading a problem on them -- and that the issue could become even more
 politicized than it is now.
 ''The Welsh and the Scots are vehemently opposed to genetically modified
 crops,'' said Philip Lodge, who would like to farm biotech sugar beets in
 Yorkshire, in northern England. ''With these conflicts of interest so close to
 home, I just don't see how I'll be able to grow G.M. in practice.''
 Other farmers warned that the change risked stirring up new confrontations with
 activists, who in the past have destroyed crops planted in trial fields.
 ''The prospect terrorizes me,'' said Jerome Hue, who farms in Carcans, France.
 ''If every locality can ban G.M.O.'s, I don't see how we will be allowed to grow
 the crops anywhere in France anymore.''
 Mr. Hue grew corn produced by Monsanto before the French government imposed a
 national ban in 2008. France has said it would consider lifting that ban once
 the European authorities have assessed new evidence about the effects of
 modified crops on the environment.
 Mr. Hue said biotech opponents could erect beehives at the edges of farmers'
 fields to  pressure the authorities to impose new bans if the honey picked up
 traces of the modified genes.
 But commission officials and some other member states like the Netherlands say
 the new policy points the way to managing an increasingly unwieldy group of 27
 countries.
 Last week, in the latest example of the persistent differences, countries failed
 for a third time to break a deadlock over whether to allow imports of six
 varieties of bioengineered corn for food and feed made by Monsanto, Dow
 AgroSciences, Pioneer Hi-Bred and Syngenta.
 That leaves the decision up to the European Union's  health commissioner, John
 Dalli, who is expected to approve the products in coming months. He caused a
 furor among environmentalists in March when he approved cultivation of a biotech
 potato by BASF -- the first such approval in more than a decade in Europe.
 In the European Parliament, among those reviewing the proposed new rules will be
 Jose Bove, a French sheep farmer who captured worldwide attention a decade ago
 for ransacking a McDonald's restaurant to protest the influence of multinational
 corporations. Since then he has served time in a French prison for damaging
 biotech crops.
 He is now a deputy chairman of the agriculture committee at the European
 Parliament, where he was elected as a member of the Green Party.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: July 8, 2010
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO: In March, Members of the Green Party in the European Parliament
 called for Europe to remain free of modified crops. (PHOTOGRAPH BY PATRICK
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 239
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                              July 8, 2010 Thursday
 Biotech crops gaining ground Good planting weather boosts U.S. sales despite
 high prices, weed resistance.
 BYLINE: BY GEORGINA GUSTIN o ggustin@post-dispatch.com > 314-340-8195
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. A10
 LENGTH: 633 words
 American farmers continued planting more genetically engineered crops this year,
 surprising some industry experts who expected farmers to back away from some
 biotech crops amid complaints of high seed prices and reports of growing weed
 resistance.
 This spring the percentage of genetically engineered soy, corn and cotton rose,
 helping push total planting of all three crops up over last year and lifting soy
 to record-breaking levels and corn to near-record breaking levels.
 According to a report issued last week by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
 farmers cited good weather conditions in the spring planting season as the
 primary reason for the overall increases.
 For some analysts, however, the biotech figures were unexpected. Since the first
 biotech crops were commercialized in 1996, planting of biotech soy, corn and
 cotton have climbed consistently. But last year acreage of biotech soybeans
 dropped by 1 percent, making 2009 the first year farmers appeared to be backing
 away from biotech soy varieties, a trend many agricultural analysts expected to
 continue.
 "I think there were two reasons why," said Neil Harl, a professor of economics
 at Iowa State University. "One was the rapid run-up in cost (of seeds). The
 second was resistance by weeds to glyphosate."
 More than 90 percent of the soybeans grown in the U.S. are genetically
 engineered to withstand applications of glyphosate, the active ingredient in
 Roundup, the country's top-selling herbicide. Creve Coeur-based seed giant
 Monsanto owns the technology in the majority of the country's soybeans and also
 manufactures Roundup. The two products work in tandem.
 But in the past few years, the weeds that glyphosate kills have been cropping up
 in farm fields, particularly in the South. And the price of soybean seeds has
 risen sharply - more than 100 percent since 2001, according to federal figures.
 That has made some farmers turn away from biotech varieties or think about doing
 so, seed dealers and farmers say.
 "Farmers have balked because they say it's just too high," said Grover Shannon,
 a professor of soybean genetics at the University of Missouri's Delta Center.
 "They're charging this big price and the product doesn't work as well."
 Monsanto concedes that it may have been overly optimistic about Roundup's
 efficacy over the long term. Now the company is recommending residual
 herbicides, including a product for cotton and soybeans called Warrant that the
 company launched last week for the 2011 season.
 The company also said it was giving farmers the option of buying a non-treated
 version of its new generation of soybean, called Roundup Ready 2 Yield. This
 could lower the cost and attract more farmers as they make their seed purchases
 this fall - something that could boost the biotech acreage even higher next
 year.
 In the meantime, this year's rise in biotech acreage comes as welcome news for
 the world's largest seed company. The biotech giant became the subject late last
 year of a Department of Justice investigation into anti-competitive behavior.
 Late last month, the attorney general of West Virginia accused the company of
 claiming that Roundup Ready 2 Yield performs better than it actually does.
 Monsanto has long countered by saying that its licensing practices, which allow
 hundreds of companies to sell seeds with Monsanto-developed traits, give more
 farmers access to its technologies. The company has also stood by its testing
 showing that its new soybeans yielded more than 7 percent over competitors'.
 Still, researchers at public universities say they are continuing to work on
 developing conventional seed varieties to fulfill what they believe could be
 growing demand.
 Percent of acres planted in biotech soybeans:
 Year llinois Missouri U.S. total
 LOAD-DATE: July 9, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2010 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 240
 
                                     The Hill
                              July 7, 2010 Wednesday
 Sens. criticize court rulings on GM foods
 BYLINE: By Sara Jerome
 SECTION: Pg. 14
 LENGTH: 158 words
 Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and ranking
 member Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) have raised concerns over court decisions setting
 back the sale of genetically modified foods, asserting that the rulings are not
 based on sound science. In a letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack late
 last month, the senators said the Agriculture and Justice departments should
 "mount vigorous defenses against lawsuits that seek to upend science-based
 regulatory decisions." The pair cited the June Supreme Court decision in
 Monsanto v. Geerston Seed Farms that stopped the sale of certain genetically
 modified alfalfa seeds based on a regulatory violation as well as a district
 court decision that halted the sale of genetically modified sugar beets. These
 "recent wrongly decided court decisions threaten to thrust the U.S. regulatory
 system for agriculture biotechnology into a non-functioning regulatory system,"
 the letter said.
 LOAD-DATE: July 29, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright  2010 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 241
 
             Colorado Springs Business Journal (Colorado Springs, CO)
                              July 3, 2010 Saturday
 Flavor tops spice for Salsa Baja in Colorado Springs
 BYLINE: Monica Mendoza
 LENGTH: 528  words
 Elvia Sandoval Caldwell has faced down the most discerning salsa connoisseurs.
 They shower her with questions. "Do you use vinegar? Is there cilantro in it?
 Where do you buy the peppers?"
 As people have begun to get serious about fresh ingredients, salsa - that
 combination of tomatoes, spices, onions and peppers - has emerged as one of the
 more popular condiments. And while Sandoval Caldwell can talk about tomatillos
 and guajillo chilies all day, she simply says:
 "Go ahead and taste it, and tell me what you think. "
 Sandoval Caldwell, owner of Baja Salsa in Colorado Springs, is pretty confident
 that her salsa will win over any critic. Her recipe was born in those moments
 when she was a girl helping her mother prepare that night's dinner in Baja
 California, Mexico. Fresh salsa was part of every meal, not just a treat on
 Super Bowl Sunday.
 Salsa Baja says its offerings are gluten-free, use no chemical preservatives, no
 sugars, no oils, no genetically modified vegetables and no vinegars.
 Sandoval Caldwell said she learned how to mix the ingredients in a way in which
 flavor is more important than spice.
 "For me, I don't like it really hot," Sandoval Caldwell said. "I like to enjoy
 my salsa. "
 So, of course, do a lot of others. Baja Salsa is a modest business with annual
 revenue of $110,000. But it's enough to keep Sandoval Caldwell, with just two to
 four employees, depending on the time of year, busy. She makes the salsa fresh
 everyday in her 1,000-square-foot manufacturing kitchen on North Academy. Each
 week she makes about 150 gallons of six different flavors of salsa including
 Southwestern, mango and traditional. During peak season, which is now, she cuts
 and mixes up 200 gallons of salsa each week.
 At the west side farmers' markets at Bangcroft Park on Saturdays, Sandoval
 Caldwell usually sells out before closing time at 1 p.m.
 Salsa can trace its roots to the Aztecs. In the U.S., salsa sales began to take
 off in the late 1980s. By 2000, salsa outpaced sales of ketchup, though only
 because salsa is more expensive. Still, salsa's more popular than ever.
 So, when Sandoval Caldwell decided to take her salsa from her dinner parties to
 grocery store shelves, she had done her homework. She didn't want her salsa sold
 in a jar. She wanted to keep it fresh. And in 2002, she was really at the start
 of the gourmet salsa boom.
 "We didn't see a whole of competition," she said. "Most of the salsas were made
 by people who have probably never been to Mexico. I thought I can bring the real
 flavor of home. "
 "The first two years we did mostly farmers' markets and then we moved to small
 natural-food stores and in the last two years we started jumping into big-box
 natural food stores," she said.
 Baja Salsa is sold at Whole Foods and Natural Grocers, among other groceries.
 The company is now ready to jump to the next level, said David Caldwell, Elvia's
 husband and business partner. In the next two years they expect to do much more
 formal marketing, rather than relying largely on word of mouth and move sales
 beyond Colorado's borders.
 The only downside to the business: When the Caldwells get invited to a party,
 they're expected to bring the salsa.
 LOAD-DATE: July 10, 2010
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: General news
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2010 Dolan Media Newswires









Document Number: 242
 
                   Public Opinion (Chambersburg, Pennsylvania)
                               June 27, 2010 Sunday
 EXTENSION OFFICE By Julie Martinez: The job of food
 BYLINE: Public Opinion Online
 LENGTH: 529 words
 Have you ever heard the term "functional foods"? Do you wonder what they are?
 In the 1700s, James Lind proved that citrus fruits cured and prevented scurvy.
 In the 1900s, iodine was added to salt to prevent goiter, milk was fortified
 with vitamin D and bread was enriched with vitamins and minerals.
 Functional foods are those that provide health benefits in addition to nutrient
 contributions.
 The two main types of functional foods are whole foods -- grains, fruits,
 vegetables, seeds and nuts -- and modified foods -- enhanced, enriched and
 fortified food.
 Whole foods are items in their natural state, such as apples or broccoli.
 Enhanced foods have been altered to improve their nutritional value.
 One example is margarine containing phytosterols, or plant compounds that are
 structurally similar to cholesterol. Phytosterols lower blood cholesterol levels
 by competing with cholesterol for absorption.
 Enriched foods are those that have vitamins and minerals added back to them that
 were lost during processing. One example is bread. Vitamins and minerals lost
 from the wheat during processing, such as iron, thiamin, riboflavin and niacin,
 are added back to bread in order to help prevent deficiencies.
 Fortified foods have vitamins and minerals added to them that are not normally
 present, in order to increase their nutritional value. Some examples are yogurt
 with fiber added and fruit juices with omega 3 fatty acids added.
 Within the last 20 years, modified foods have become more popular. Manufacturers
 have been taking full advantage of this popularity by marketing their products
 with structure or function claims.
 A structure or function claim states how a food may affect the structure or
 function of the body: "Calcium builds strong bones."
 These claims do not have to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration and
 can appear on any food.
 Health claims, however, state a relationship between the food and the prevention
 or risk reduction of a disease. Health claims must be approved by the FDA before
 they can be used on food packages. An example is "May reduce the risk of heart
 disease."
 Before buying functional foods, consider three factors:
 n Is there strong scientific evidence to support the claim?
 n Does the claim apply to your personal situation?
 n What are potential side effects?
 Read labels on all food products, paying close attention to the first three
 ingredients listed. These three ingredients make up the greatest amount of that
 product.
 Functional foods serve a role as part of a healthy diet. They prevent
 deficiencies, reduce disease risk, and provide alternative sources of nutrients.
 For example, vegetarians who do not consume milk or fish may eat functional
 foods that contain calcium and omega 3 fatty acids.
 Whole foods are a better choice of functional foods because they offer more
 benefits. Eating an orange, for example, provides a source of vitamin C and
 fiber.
 Functional foods should not be a substitute for a well balanced diet.
 Julie Martinez is an upcoming graduate of Penn State University's dietetic
 internship program and completed her community dietetics rotation with Penn
 State Cooperative Extension in the Capital Region.
 LOAD-DATE: June 28, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2010 Public Opinion
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 243
 
                              June 26, 2010 Saturday
 BYLINE: Scott Kilman
 SECTION: Section B; Column 5; Pg. 5
 LENGTH: 51 words
 West Virginia Atty Gen Darrell McGraw warns Monsanto Co that its claims about
 new generation of genetically modified soybean seed might violate state law
 prohibiting deceptive advertising; says new Roundup Ready 2 seeds did not
 produce promised 7% to 11% rise in yield over original Roundup Ready seeds (M)
 OR MISLEADING ADVERTISING (90%) Seeds; Soybeans; Misleading and Deceptive
 Advertising; Advertising and Marketing
 ORGANIZATION: Monsanto Co
 PERSON: Scott Kilman; Darrell (Atty Gen) Mcgraw
 GEOGRAPHIC: West Virginia
 LOAD-DATE: June 28, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Abstract
                    Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company
                               All Rights Reserved
                            Information Bank Abstracts









Document Number: 244
 
                     Congressional Documents and Publications
                                  June 23, 2010
 Led By Leahy And DeFazio, 56 Members Of House And Senate Ask USDA To Keep Rules
 On Genetically Engineered Alfalfa;
 Agency's Draft Finding -- And Supreme Court's Decision Monday In Monsanto Case -
 Are A Particular Threat To Organic Dairy Farmers;
 Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) News Release
 LENGTH: 2005  words
 WASHINGTON - Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), joined
 by 49 other representatives and five other senators, are asking U.S. Department
 of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to retain the regulated status of
 genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa. Their letter comes in response to a USDA
 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) finding "no significant impact" from
 the use of genetically modified versions of the crop.
 Leahy and DeFazio co-authored legislation to create the national organic
 standards and labeling program.
 Genetically modified crops are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act
 of 1969 (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to review the environmental
 impacts of proposed actions, such as USDA's proposed deregulation of a
 genetically modified seed. In their letter, the lawmakers assert that the draft
 USDA findings about genetically engineered alfalfa cannot be justified.
 They warn that GE alfalfa would contaminate the crops of both conventional and
 organic alfalfa farmers, resulting in significant economic harm to alfalfa seed
 producers and to the organic dairy industry. The fast growing organic dairy
 sector currently generates about $1.4 billion in sales.
 "Consumers today respect and rely on what the USDA certified organic seal
 represents, which includes no GE contamination," says the letter headed by Leahy
 and DeFazio. "If the USDA organic seal no longer represents a GE-free product,
 the integrity of the entire organic industry in this country will be compromised
 and consumers may no longer choose organic products."
 This week (on June 21) the U.S. Supreme Court announced its 7 to 1 decision in a
 case related to the USDA's potential deregulation of GE alfalfa. In the Monsanto
 Co. v Geerston Seed Farms decision, the court ordered the lifting of a
 nationwide permanent injunction on GE alfalfa. The case is widely viewed as
 having broad implications beyond alfalfa crops, potentially affecting the
 hundreds of GE food applications that have been submitted to USDA to determine
 environmental threats and seeking approval for use.
 Text of the letter is below, and a PDF of the signed letter can be found here.
 Dear Secretary Vilsack:
 We have serious concerns regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
 (DEIS) for genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa. We have concluded that USDA's
 preliminary finding of "No Significant Impact" cannot be justified and we call
 on you to correct the serious deficiencies in the DEIS and to deny the request
 for deregulated GE alfalfa.
 In the DEIS, USDA- APHIS concludes that contamination of non-GE alfalfa is
 highly unlikely, and if it does occur, the impacts would be inconsequential.
 That conclusion is based on the fact that the alfalfa is typically harvested
 prior to maturity, negating the potential of cross-pollination and
 contamination. Even if harvest occurs after maturity, APHIS contends that the
 required isolation distances will insure that the contamination is contained.
 These conclusions are not supported by the evidence or the science.
 The DEIS acknowledges that gene flow contamination will likely occur and goes on
 to elaborate on the conditions which increase that possibility: proximity of
 fields, pest management strategies, feral alfalfa corridors, movement of honey
 bees and overstocking of pollinators. The DEIS further acknowledges that honey
 bees, the primary pollinators of alfalfa, travel distances far in excess of the
 required isolation distances. While APHIS maintains that contamination is
 unlikely, they contradict their own conclusion by determining that glyphosate
 tolerant alfalfa deregulation will lead to a shift to larger farms as alfalfa
 producers seek more land to avoid contamination.
 During the two years that GE alfalfa was permitted to be grown commercially,
 approximately 200,000 acres of Roundup Ready alfalfa were planted - amounting to
 less than 1% of the total alfalfa acres in the U.S. Cal/West Seeds, a major
 alfalfa seed exporter, reported that 12% of 200+ lots and all 6 of its research
 lots had tested positive for GE alfalfa in 2008 and that preliminary data
 indicated that 30% of 10 seed stock lots had tested positive in 2009.
 Additionally, Dairyland Seed Company, a major alfalfa seed producer and
 exporter, reported contamination of 11-16 sites at distances of up to 1 1/2
 miles - far beyond the recommended 900 foot isolation distances.
 We believe that GE contamination will occur and it will result in significant
 economic harm to both the alfalfa seed and forage export markets and to the
 organic dairy industry. APHIS has ignored the potential economic harm,
 concluding that GE sensitivity was too speculative while blaming farmers and the
 organic industry for its failure to provide evidence of consumer resistance and
 consequent economic loss.
 There is nothing speculative regarding the loss of foreign alfalfa seed and
 forage markets. According to the Foreign Agriculture Service at USDA, the
 alfalfa forage exports in 2007 amounted to $159 million to GE sensitive markets
 in Japan, Korea and Taiwan. Saudi Arabia, the largest importer of alfalfa seed,
 banned the import and/or use of GE seeds in 2004. Saudi Arabia imported $38
 million of U.S. alfalfa seeds in 2007. Based on those figures, alfalfa producers
 could lose at least $197 million annually in alfalfa seed and forage exports as
 a result of GE alfalfa deregulation.
 Today, U.S. exports of biotech corn and soybeans, as well as other agriculture
 products that contain or may have been contaminated with biotech ingredients
 continue to face a wide array of trade barriers. Several U.S. trading partners
 have employed restrictive measures or imposed bans on some U.S. agricultural
 products over health and environmental safety concerns related to biotechnology.
 We believe that organic dairy producers will also suffer significant economic
 losses as a result of GE alfalfa deregulation. APHIS contends that organic
 certification is process-based and contamination would not impact certification.
 This conclusion is contradicted by organic industry leaders. The CROPP
 Cooperative processes and markets organic dairy and meat products for 941
 producers in 28 states under the "Organic Valley" brand, which in 2007 had
 annual sales of $333 million and a growth rate of 38% between 2005-2007. George
 Siemans, CROPP Cooperative CEO, has stated that if GE alfalfa results in the
 contamination of certified organic alfalfa stands or seed stock, it will
 devastate the organic farmers who market their milk as organic. Albert Straus of
 the Straus Family Creamery in Marshall California has stated that contamination
 of alfalfa forage would result in the widespread loss of organic and non-GE
 certifications and have a devastating impact on organic dairy producers and
 their ability to acquire organic forage. Organic feed is already expensive and
 in short supply in this country, if organic alfalfa becomes contaminated by GE
 alfalfa, it would greatly compound the feed shortage and increase the operating
 costs for organic dairy farms. This comes just as organic dairy producers are
 proving that they can be competitive with conventional production and are
 finding ways to further reduce their operating costs.
 Consumers today respect and rely on what the USDA certified organic seal
 represents, which includes no GE contamination. If the USDA organic seal no
 longer represents a GE-free product, the integrity of the entire organic
 industry in this country will be compromised and consumers may no longer choose
 organic products. The organic dairy industry is now at approximately $1.4
 billion in sales and according to USDA's 2008 Organic Production Survey, farm
 sales of organic fluid milk were $750 million. If farmers are unable to source
 adequate organic feed, they will not be able to produce organic milk.
 The DEIS analysis fails to consider the need for GE alfalfa. Herbicides are used
 on only 7% of the alfalfa acreage in the country as "companion crops" in alfalfa
 fields are commonly utilized by dairy and beef producers for weed control and
 nutritional balance in livestock diets. The potential development of herbicide
 tolerance is minimized and dismissed. We believe that other significant
 environmental impacts are overlooked, ignored or minimized in the DEIS analysis.
 Neither impact was given any significance by APHIS, and should be reconsidered.
 USDA has taken an impermissibly narrow view of its regulatory authority. The
 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Plant Protection Act (PPA)
 provide a robust regulatory framework that ensures the protection of the
 environment and the vital economic interests of U.S. farmers. NEPA requires a
 hard look at the environmental consequences of federal actions and mandates that
 all reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts be addressed. The PPA grants
 you with broad authority to protect the agriculture, environment and economy of
 the U.S.
 Congress enacted legislation in the 2008 Farm Bill to provide the USDA Secretary
 with added authority to ensure that GE contamination was minimized or prevented
 after rice producers lost an estimated $1.25 billion as a result of a
 contamination event. The USDA has failed to adopt regulations implementing these
 statutory mandates. APHIS cannot run away from its regulatory responsibilities
 to protect farmers from environmental and economic harm that are the direct
 result of GE contamination in the promotion of agricultural biotechnologies.
 We believe that the broad regulatory authority available to you has been
 ignored, in order to justify deregulation of a biotech crop that has limited
 utility to anyone except the manufacturer. You have spoken often about USDA
 having a role to help all farmers, both conventional and organic, and how
 organic agriculture helps to support local and regional food systems. How you
 respond to this DEIS, the first of its kind involving agricultural biotech and a
 perennial crop, and the 200,000 comments that USDA has received will demonstrate
 whether you truly want to do everything you can to support all farmers. USDA
 must do a better job to help organic operators coexist with those who chose
 other farming alternatives.
 We request that you fully review the facts, law, and science in this case and
 take the "no action" alternative to maintain the regulated status for GE
 alfalfa. As the 200,000 comments indicate, there is significant concern that the
 risks to alfalfa producers and U.S. agriculture are too great and benefits too
 few to allow deregulation.
 Sincerely, PATRICK LEAHY PETER DEFAZIO
 United States Senator Member of Congress
 Senator Russell D. Feingold (WI)
 Senator Bernard Sanders (VT)
 Senator Ron Wyden (OR)
 Senator Jon Tester (MT)
 Senator Sherrod Brown (OH)
 Rep. Michael A. Arcuri (NY-24)
 Rep. Tammy Baldwin (WI-2)
 Rep. Earl Blumenauer (OR-3)
 Rep. Steve Cohen (TN-9)
 Rep. Danny K. Davis (IL-7)
 Rep. Susan A. Davis (CA-53)
 Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro (CT-3)
 Rep. Norman D. Dicks (WA-6)
 Rep. Lloyd Doggett (TX-25)
 Rep. Keith Ellison (MN-5)
 Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (CA-14)
 Rep. Sam Farr (CA-17)
 Rep. Bob Filner (CA-51)
 Rep. Barney Frank (MA-4)
 Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (AZ-7)
 Rep. John J. Hall (NY-19)
 Rep. Martin Heinrich (NM-1)
 Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (NY-22)
 Rep. Rush D. Holt (NJ-12)
 Rep. Jay Inslee (WA-1)
 Rep. Steve Israel (NY-2)
 Rep. Ron Kind (WI-3)
 Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (OH-10)
 Rep. Rick Larsen (WA-2)
 Rep. Barbara Lee (CA-9)
 Rep. Christopher John Lee (NY-26)
 Rep. Nita M. Lowey (NY-18)
 Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (NY-14)
 Rep. Jim McDermott (WA-7)
 Rep. James P. McGovern (MA-3)
 Rep. Michael H. Michaud (ME-2)
 Rep. George Miller (CA-7)
 Rep. Gwen Moore (WI-4)
 Rep. James P. Moran (VA-8)
 Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY-8)
 Rep. David R. Obey (WI-7)
 Rep. John W. Olver (MA-1)
 Rep. Chellie Pingree (ME-1)
 Rep. Jared Polis (CO-2)
 Rep. Nick J. Rahall II (WV-3)
 Rep. Steven R. Rothman (NJ-9)
 Rep. Louise McIntosh Slaughter (NY-28)
 Rep. Jackie Speier (CA-12)
 Rep. Betty Sutton (OH-13)
 Rep. Mike Thompson (CA-1)
 Rep. John F. Tierney (MA-6)
 Rep. Peter Welch (VT-At Large)
 Rep. LynnC. Woolsey (CA-6)
 Rep. David Wu (OR-1)
 LOAD-DATE: June 24, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Report
            Copyright 2010 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 245
 
                          Brattleboro Reformer (Vermont)
                              June 22, 2010 Tuesday
 A revolving door
 LENGTH: 815 words
 Tuesday June 22, 2010
 Even though candidate Barack Obama promised to change the way things are done in
 Washington, D.C., the revolving door between industry and government regulatory
 agencies keeps on spinning.
 Two of the best examples, which directly affect Vermont and its farmers, are the
 U.S. Trade Office and the Department of Agriculture.
 According to Heather Rogers in the July/August edition of The American Prospect,
 a number of people directly connected to the country s massive industrial
 farming complex have been appointed to various positions in both agencies.
 They include Islam Siddiqui, formerly the vice president of science and
 regulatory affairs for CropLife America, the nation s agrochemical trade group,
 which lobbies on behalf of Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta and other pesticide and
 agricultural biotech corporations.
 President Obama appointed Siddiqui as the chief agricultural negotiator at the
 U.S. Trade Office.
 In that position, he will meet on a regular basis with domestic agricultural
 industry groups "to assure their interests are represented in trade," according
 to the Pesticide Actions Network.
 In 2002, Siddiqui made the outrageous claim that the European Union s rejection
 of genetically modified organisms was "denying food to starving people."
 Previous to becoming a lobbyist for CropLife, Siddiqui worked for the USDA as
 undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs.
 In 1999, he protested plans by Japan to implement mandatory labeling of GMO
 foods on the basis that it "could mislead consumers about the safety of these
 products ..."
 Siddiqui also attempted to overrule recommendations made by the National
 Organics Standards Board that would have prevented the use of GMOs, irradiation
 and toxic sludge in the production of organic food, according to the Pesticide
 Actions Network.
 Only after the USDA received 230,000 comments in support of the NOSB s
 recommendation, did it retreat from Siddiqui s position.
 CropLife itself has taken a number of reprehensible stands -- such as lobbying
 to allow children to be used in pesticide experiments and promoting the use of
 methyl bromide, an endocrine-disrupting pesticide that has caused 5 to 10
 percent of the worldwide ozone depletion and has been linked to potentially
 fatal conditions such as skin cancers.
 You might remember one of the most notorious statements issued by CropLife when
 it "shuddered" at first lady Michelle Obama for failing to use chemical
 pesticides in the White House organic garden.
 If the appointment of Siddiqui and the positions of CropLife aren t enough to
 outrage you, consider the appointment of Roger Beachy to lead the USDA s newly
 created National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
 According to Rogers, even though Beachy is now working for the U.S.government ,
 he will keep his job as president of the Danforth Plant Science Center, a plant
 research center that is partnered with Monsanto.
 Another Monsanto-connected appointment, wrote Rogers, is Michael Taylor.
 Prior to being assigned as senior advisor to Food and Drug Administration
 Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, Taylor worked as a lawyer for Monsanto and was
 its vice president for public policy.
 Before going to Monsanto, Taylor worked for the USDA in the 1990s and is known
 for helping to earn approval of the use, without labeling, of Recombinant Bovine
 Growth Hormone for dairy cows, according to Rogers.
 One of Obama s most disturbing appointments was former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack as
 the secretary of agriculture.
 Iowa is the nation s biggest corn producer and the second largest recipient of
 farm subsidies in the United States.
 Recently, Vilsack stated that rural growth "must rely more heavily on expanding
 exports of commodity crops, agribusiness-monopolized biotech and biofuels, most
 of which ... are refined from genetically modified corn," wrote Rogers.
 Government subsidies to businesses in states such as Vilsack s Iowa total about
 $15 billion, 90 percent of which went to factory farm conglomerates.
 At the same time, the USDA s National Organic Program saw an increase in its
 budget from $4 million to $7 million. That s nothing but a drop of milk in the
 bucket compared to the subsidies to big business.
 Obama should instead spend most of the $15 billion on developing regional food
 networks and supporting small struggling farmsteads and dairy processors.
 It is disingenuous at best to insist that a mature industry such as agribusiness
 would fail without the subsidies.
 He could also support putting food safety, sustainability and local and regional
 food markets over agribusiness profits by appointing to positions of power and
 influence experts people invested in other food models besides agribusiness and
 industrial farming.
 But a good start for a man who inspired a groundswell of hope in the hearts of
 many Americans with his stirring promises of change is to firmly jam his foot
 into the revolving door.
 LOAD-DATE: June 22, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
    Copyright 2010 MediaNews Group, Inc. and New England Newspaper Group Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 246
 
                          Deming Headlight (New Mexico)
                              June 22, 2010 Tuesday
 Lizard abuse
 BYLINE: By Baxter Black For the Headlight
 LENGTH: 549 words
 (AgP) Attorneys for the Extreme Humane Society of the United Suers (X-HSUS) have
 filed suit in the San Francisco Court of Steals, Deals, Repeals and Conceals
 against Geico (Government Engineered Insurance Conspirators) for mistreatment,
 mental anguish and misrepresentation of reptiles. Conjugal charges involve
 Impersonation of the British (a protected aboriginal group in western European
 Socialist Republic) and using humor for frivolous purposes.
 "It's been a long time coming," said Sly d'Sieverson, executive director of the
 X-HSUS. "After we protected the horses, eliminated factory farming, outlawed
 fishing, interspecies cow milking, aquariums, zoos, circuses, the study of
 Marine Biology, farming salmon, shrimping, crabbing, lobstering and hunting of
 any kind, reptile protection was the next logical choice."
 According to the Department of Social Intervention, the current generation is
 only vaguely aware that America once had an abundance of food at modest prices.
 There were no long lines around the block, no waiting for hours to buy the
 legally approved organic staples of wheat, beets and leafy spurge. As shortages
 began, government produce vendors were allowed to count weevils, nematodes and
 fecal contamination from wild livestock toward the protein content on the label.
 When asked about the likelihood that the court would actually agree to hear
 their case, because it is well known that the lizard in the commercial is not
 real, Sly replied, "Simple. We have learned from years of experience that it is
 not the abuse and mistreatment that has furthered our financial and
 prosecutorial success, it is the 'illusion' of abuse and mistreatment!"
 Reporter: "But the lizard isn't real."
 Sly: "Kids don't know that. They grow up to be adults that don't know that."
 Reporter: You've sure done a good job of pulling the wool over their eyes, so to
 speak."
 Sly: "Careful. That joke is illegal under the Animal Defamation Act."
 Reporter: "What's next?"
 Sly: "Off the record? Companion animals. We've eliminated personal ownership,
 dog and cat shows, the Iditarod, greyhound racing, bird or Frisbee retrievers,
 purebred raising, training for livestock work, security, drug sniffing, helping
 the blind, the old, the disabled, the selling of any kind of animal for any
 purpose (Animal Slavery Act). Only alternative oral or topical all-natural
 treatments are allowed on animals, but no physical or medical restraint is
 permitted during administration. No house breaking, either. No ear, tail, or
 claw trimming, and no neutering. Reproduction is a natural act.
 "It is our conviction that companion animals, as such, should be as free as a
 mustang, as a bird, as a rodent ... as a fire ant. Look how well rats and
 roaches have done since the elimination of pesticides, insecticides and
 genetically modified foods! Ours is not to question why, ours is but to do or
 die!
 "Someday, in a perfect world, the only species in cages will be EVIL HUMANS!"
 Baxter Black is a former New Mexico resident who spent most of his working days
 tormenting cows. He now resides in Arizona and spends most of his free time
 tormenting cowboys and the sorts. His column appears in the Deming Headlight on
 Tuesday. www.baxterblack.com
 LOAD-DATE: June 22, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
           Copyright 2010 Deming Headlight, a MediaNews Group Newspaper
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 247
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                              June 22, 2010 Tuesday
 Supreme Court lifts ban on Monsanto alfalfa Cross-pollination case ruling may
 smooth path for other biotech crops. LOCAL
 BYLINE: BY Jeffrey Tomich jtomich@post-dispatch.com 314-340-8320 Georgina Gustin
 of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A1
 LENGTH: 906 words
 The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday lifted a 2007 ban on Monsanto Co.'s Roundup
 Ready alfalfa that was supposed to protect conventional and organic growers from
 having their crops tainted by cross-pollination.
 The court's 7-1 vote reversed a lower court ruling and makes it possible for the
 U.S. Department of Agriculture to approve planting of genetically engineered
 alfalfa seeds on an interim basis until a final decision is made next spring.
 Perhaps more importantly, Monday's ruling may have broader implications for the
 approval of other biotech crops, including Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beets,
 which are the subject of another court battle.
 "This Supreme Court ruling is important for every American farmer, not just
 alfalfa growers," David F. Snively, Monsanto senior vice president and general
 counsel, said in a statement.
 "All growers can rely on the expertise of USDA, and trust that future challenges
 to biotech approvals must now be based on scientific facts, not speculation."
 The Center for Food Safety, a Washington-based group opposed to genetically
 modified crops, said the victory was a hollow one for Monsanto and other backers
 of genetically engineered crops because the USDA must still complete an
 environmental impact statement before it can deregulate Roundup Ready alfalfa.
 Biotech crop developers favor a more streamlined regulatory process to get
 products to market without having to wait the several years it takes to complete
 a more thorough environmental analysis.
 "The bottom line for us is that planting is still illegal, as it was," George
 Kimbrell, a senior staff attorney for the Center for Food Safety, said in an
 interview. "The Department of Agriculture can take further action that will
 allow planting, but the court held that it would require an (environmental
 impact statement), and our right to challenge it has been preserved."
 Based on Monday's ruling, the USDA is now free to allow farmers to plant
 genetically modified alfalfa seeds with restrictions designed to limit
 cross-pollination and contamination of conventional alfalfa crops.
 The USDA said it was moving forward with plans to complete the regulatory review
 of Roundup Ready alfalfa in time for the planting season next spring. The agency
 issued a 1,476-page draft environmental impact statement in December that
 reported no significant effect from the seeds on the environment or human
 health.
 The alfalfa case represents the Supreme Court's foray into the debate over
 genetically engineered crops, which have been available since Monsanto began
 selling Roundup Ready soybeans in 1996.
 Like those first biotech soybeans, Monsanto's alfalfa is genetically modified to
 withstand applications of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup weed
 killer.
 While Roundup-resistant crops make it easier for growers to combat weeds because
 they can spray entire fields without damaging the primary crop, organic and
 conventional alfalfa growers fear contamination by pollen from the genetically
 modified plants that can be carried between fields by bees.
 Two conventional alfalfa growers and several environmental groups, including the
 Center for Food Safety, filed a lawsuit in 2006 that challenged the USDA's
 decision a year earlier to deregulate biotech alfalfa.
 In 2007, a federal district court ordered that USDA's Animal Plant Health
 Inspection Service erred by deregulating Roundup Ready alfalfa without preparing
 an environmental impact study. The court banned distribution of the genetically
 modified alfalfa but allowed farmers who had already purchased seeds to plant.
 The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling.
 Monday's majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, said the district
 court "abused its discretion" by imposing the sweeping ban on biotech alfalfa,
 and should have allowed the USDA to partially deregulate the crop while the
 environmental study was ongoing.
 Justice John Paul Stevens was the lone dissenter. Justice Stephen Breyer didn't
 take part in the decision. His brother is the district court judge who ordered
 the 2007 ban.
 Before the ban took effect, Roundup Ready alfalfa was planted on about 220,000
 acres - less than 1 percent of the 23 million acres of alfalfa grown nationwide.
 Alfalfa is the fourth-most widely grown U.S. crop behind corn, soybeans and
 wheat, according to the USDA. It is mainly used for livestock feed, and much of
 what is grown is exported.
 Creve Coeur-based Monsanto, the world's largest seed company, developed Roundup
 Ready alfalfa but licenses the technology to Forage Genetics, an alfalfa
 breeder.
 The biotech alfalfa case has been closely watched by the agriculture industry,
 biotechnology groups and environmentalists because of the potential ripple
 effect of any decision affecting genetically modified crops. In a brief filed in
 the Monsanto case, for instance, rice growers contended that contamination of
 long-grain rice had already cost their industry $1 billion.
 Meanwhile, the next legal skirmish over genetically modified crops shifts back
 to the West Coast next month.
 That's when a federal district court will consider the next steps after ruling
 last year that the USDA erred by approving Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beets
 without an environmental impact statement.
 In that case, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White decided not to implement a
 nationwide injunction similar to the ban on alfalfa. But he didn't rule out
 ordering a permanent ban later this year.
 LOAD-DATE: June 23, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2010 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 248
 
                     Chattanooga Times Free Press (Tennessee)
                               June 21, 2010 Monday
 SECTION: LETTERS; Pg. B6
 LENGTH: 1179 words
 Governor's race looks like 1978
 Folks, our state may be in for a repeat of the 1978 governor's race between Sen.
 Lamar Alexander and Knoxville banker Jake Butcher. Why?
 During the 1978 governor's race, Lamar Alexander was considered the underdog
 because, at the time, Jake Butcher owned many banks and was considered rich and
 unbeatable. Fast forward to the 2010 governor's race and it is the same scenario
 -- Congressman Zach Wamp is considered the underdog because Knoxville Mayor Bill
 Haslam is considered a very wealthy man.
 The big issue in this race is that Bill Haslam refuses to disclose to the voters
 all income tax records, as Wamp and Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey have. One word best
 describes this, and that is total transparency of all candidates seeking office.
 In 1978, it was Butcher's big-time banking interest. Today, it is Haslam's
 unknown transparency with all his business interests.
 We all know what happened in 1978. Jake Butcher lost to Alexander. Is this race
 going to be a 1978 instant replay?
 Cartoon doesn't reflect reality
 Clay Bennett's cartoon (June 2) again shows how out of touch with reality he
 really is. Israel, depicted as a giant, contains only 6 million Jews. Israel's
 enemies, depicted as a very small warrior, contains over 300 million Muslims.
 The desire of all the Muslim countries that surround Israel isn't peace but the
 destruction of the Jewish state. Now that Turkey has joined with those who seek
 Israel's destruction, Israel has no real peace partners in the region. If any
 advanced weapons got into Gaza, Israel will pay with heavy casualties. Israel
 has the right to keep the blockade of Gaza and protect its citizens from attack.
 Protect food source by avoiding GMOs
 June 21-27 is the 4th annual National Pollinator Week; www.pollinators.org. In
 honor of the pollinators and honeybees, I'm challenging our local
 farmers/growers to create a "voluntary" 100-mile radius FREE-GMO zone, by
 refusing to use Genetically Modified Organisms in their farm operations.
 GMOs cannot exist with nature. The use of GMOs invades and destroys natural
 species. Research suggests that genes are carried not just in the dust floating
 around the feeding areas of livestock, but can go through the animal in the
 eggs, milk, meat and manure; so gardeners may be adding them to their soil
 unknowingly (as well as consuming them). If this happens, other plants and weeds
 could possibly take up the genetic material affecting bees and butterflies.
 Genetically modified seeds have the insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)
 forced into the DNA of corn and cotton.
 If you want to learn more about genetically modified organisms, go to
 www.responsibletechnology.org. Get involved and learn how to avoid GMOs. Look
 for the Non-GMO Shopping Guide. GMOs promote allergies in many foods.
 Protect our local food source and the pollinators by creating a 100-mile radius
 FREE-GMO zone in honor of the pollinators.
 Sale Creek, Tenn.
 Military funeral details diminish
 In '82/'83, I started a funeral detail in the Chattanooga area for the 82nd
 Airborne Chapter, Chattanooga. I also started one for American Legion Post 95
 and attempted to start one for an all-inclusive detail for the city, all vet
 groups were to participate; not much luck at this time with the latter.
 Reason: There were no military funerals being conducted ... except retired
 military, Medal of Honor recipients, or KIA.
 We would provide a service to all vets requesting same.
 We were all volunteers, no pay, just the thanks of the families. That was plenty
 for us. We did this for about 15 years.
 The only military funerals performed by the military were for those "chosen
 few." We did the rest.
 Most of my old troops are now dead. I don't feel too good myself. Guys like
 Ralph Wilson are still around. The men I served with were WWII-Korean vets.
 We are lucky to have the Vietnam vets picking up where we had to leave off.
 Also, the Marine Reserve Center, both regulars and Reserves ... a tip of the Red
 Beret to them.
 Now at least one representative of the branch of service is required, not 19
 regular troops. Why? No money.
 Ringgold, Ga.
 Preservation plan destroys features
 The North Shore Design Review Committee correctly denied a request by the
 Hamilton County Business Development Center to remove the glass block in
 selected locations on the center's historic building. Now, the Planning
 Commission has overruled that decision on an appeal by the Center.
 As a member of the board, I speak for Cornerstones in saying that we are
 dismayed by this reversal. Historic preservation must be a partnership between
 the public and private sector. The design review committee responsibly fulfilled
 its mission by adhering to its guidelines for historic preservation.
 The building is significant for its historic and architectural attributes. It
 will be altered irreparably and unnecessarily if the glass block and steel
 windows are removed.
 We appreciate the county's intention to maximize energy efficiency and improve
 day lighting and views from the building, and to attain LEED certification. But
 their approach is detrimental to the historic features of the building.
 Historic preservation principles and sustainable design criteria often conflict
 with each other. However, rehabilitation of an historic building and LEED design
 criteria need not be at odds.
 Federal rehabilitation principles relevant to the Business Development Center
 suggest guidelines for historically significant properties.
 These recommend against "removal of historic materials or alteration of
 features," including windows and spaces that characterize a property.
 They propose maintaining the sash, frame and glazing of windows, and suggest
 installing interior storm windows with air tight gaskets to improve energy
 efficiency. These could be made operable for cleaning and for natural
 ventilation.
 These recommendations should be implemented in the Business Development Center.
 Cornerstones is very concerned that this historically and architecturally
 significant structure will be unnecessarily altered when viable alternatives are
 available.
 Look in mirror for spill blame
 BP commits a heinous act ... and our response is to demand outrage from our
 president?
 Is outrage supposed to change anything? What makes more sense is to call
 ourselves to accountability, perhaps to some old-fashioned repentance.
 Do we think the oil companies could get away with this if we weren't complicit?
 We have known for decades that we needed to develop a lifestyle less dependent
 on oil and to make policy that supported alternative fuels and mass transit. But
 we have insisted on gas guzzlers to drive and lifestyles that require
 significant amounts of fuel. And we haven't insisted our representatives in
 government take steps to implement policies that support the change we need or
 given them adequate support if they've tried.
 BP's actions that led to this disaster are unconscionable. But we would do well
 to look in the mirror. We share responsibility for this.
 Ooltewah
 LOAD-DATE: June 24, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2010 Chattanooga Publishing Company









Document Number: 249
 
                     Congressional Documents and Publications
                                  June 21, 2010
 Kucinich Announces Right to Know Legislation in Wake of Alfalfa Supreme Court
 Ruling
 LENGTH: 252  words
 Contact: Nathan White (202)225-5871
 Kucinich Announces Right to Know Legislation in Wake of Alfalfa Supreme Court
 Ruling
 Washington D.C. (June 21, 2010) - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), a
 long-time advocate of family farmers and organic foods, today made the following
 statement after the Supreme Court voted 7-1 to allow the experimental planting
 of genetically modified alfalfa seed before an environmental review is
 completed:
 "Today the Supreme Court ruled that when it comes to genetically modified
 organisms, we as consumers, have to wait until the damage is done and obvious,
 before we can act to protect health and the environment, even if that damage
 could be irreversible.
 "Haven't we learned from the catastrophe in the Gulf of the dangers of
 technological arrogance, of proceeding ahead with technologies without worrying
 about the consequences" Why do we continue to throw precaution to the wind?
 "Tomorrow I will introduce three bills this week that will provide a
 comprehensive regulatory framework for all Genetically Engineered (GE) plants,
 animals, bacteria, and other organisms. To ensure we can maximize benefits and
 minimize hazards, Congress must provide a comprehensive regulatory framework for
 all GE products. Structured as a common-sense precaution to ensure GE foods do
 no harm, these bills will ensure that consumers are protected, food safety
 measures are strengthened, farmers' rights are better protected and biotech
 companies are responsible for their products," said Kucinich.
 LOAD-DATE: June 22, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Report
            Copyright 2010 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 250
 
                               The Washington Post
                              June 12, 2010 Saturday
                                 Suburban Edition
 In France, no room for science in winemaking;
 Alsatian traditions clash with researchers battling fanleaf virus
 BYLINE: Edward Cody
 SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A07
 LENGTH: 980 words
 A War of the Worlds is being waged in this little corner of eastern France.
 On one side are Alsatian winemakers whose sacred traditions reach back more than
 two millenniums, men and women close to the soil who pour their art, science and
 souls into the alchemy that starts with a grape vine and ends up with a tart
 Riesling glowing in a high-stemmed glass or a silken Gewurztraminer, adding
 sweet notes to a smoky Munster.
 On the other is a battalion of super-educated PhD's at France's National
 Institute for Agricultural Research, scientists trying to discover whether
 genetic manipulation of grape vines might help protect against fanleaf virus, a
 disease found in up to a third of the world's vineyards. The disease sucks the
 vigor out of plants, reduces the number and size of grapes and cuts short their
 lifespan.
 The main battleground is a little plot behind the institute's Colmar laboratory,
 where 500 normal grapevines have been planted and, in their midst, 70 diseased
 plants were topped this week with a genetically modified graft designed to
 shield against fanleaf virus and its transmission by an earthworm whose idea of
 a good meal is to burrow from vine to vine, munching on the roots.
 Although the nearest commercial vineyards are on a gentle slope about two miles
 away, not far from the Rhine, local winemakers have been suspicious about the
 experiment from its inception, arguing that the genetically modified material
 could invade their vineyards -- and fatally tarnish their image -- via insects,
 breezes, itinerant worms or even malicious gossip.
 Their suspicions are part of a broadly shared fear in France and other European
 countries that genetically modified food is something akin to science-based
 witchcraft that represents a danger: to consumers' health, perhaps, and
 certainly to the traditional way of doing things.
 "People in France do not want to eat and drink things from genetically modified
 plants," said Pierre Frick, who produces a line of wines in Pfaffenheim, six
 miles south of Colmar, and is a member of the Professional Organization of Bio
 Agriculture in Alsace.
 The clash between tradition and science in Colmar is an example, among many, of
 the tension running through European societies as people struggle to preserve
 ancient and cherished ways of life even as their economies modernize, their
 countries evolve and the 21st century intrudes on the eternal verities of
 folklore.
 Nowhere perhaps is the tension more evident than in French vineyards, where
 vintners depend for their sales, and therefore their livelihood, on a concept
 called "terroir." Although hard to define, the term embraces the soil, weather,
 skills, art, authenticity, traditions and ultimately the "feel" that come
 together to fill a bottle with something good to drink.
 But what the term does not embrace is genetic manipulation. As a result, the
 National Institute for Agricultural Research's attempt to experiment with
 genetically modified vines has been a battle almost from the time it began in
 the 1990s.
 "There is history, there is terroir, and in particular there are other solutions
 to that disease," said Jose Bove, a member of the European Parliament who has
 long agitated to preserve authentic eating traditions in France and once
 demonstrated his resolve by trashing a McDonald's.
 A first research project in Champagne, the region northwest of here where
 authentic bubbly comes from, was organized by the institute in collaboration
 with the National Scientific Research Center and funding from Louis Vuitton Moet
 Hennessy (LVMH), the luxury group whose holdings include major champagne brands.
 Research there hummed along quietly from 1996 to 1999.
 But then articles appeared in U.S. and French newspapers suggesting that some of
 the world's most famous bubbles might be genetically modified. LVMH, fearful for
 its image, pulled out its money immediately, sinking the project.
 A scientific study group concluded in 2004 that the experiment should be
 resumed, this time in Alsace. But the Agriculture Ministry, with a minister who
 embraced the fears of winemakers, refused to authorize renewed research. Only a
 year later, after a change of minister, did a four-year permit get pried out of
 the bureaucracy.
 It was 2006 before the new research site got rolling. But in September, the
 project was interrupted again; a local environmental activist, Pierre
 Azelvandre, sneaked into the experimental vineyard one night and ripped out all
 the plants.
 Azelvandre was put on trial in a Colmar court the next month. In what was seen
 as a reflection of local sentiment, the judges fined him one euro.
 About the same time, an Alsatian administrative tribunal ruled that the research
 permit was invalid because the Agriculture Ministry had not followed proper
 procedures back in 2005. In any case, researchers pointed out, their permit was
 about to expire, putting the project in doubt yet again. After months of debate,
 Agriculture Minister Bruno Le Maire granted another four-year permit two weeks
 ago.
 Bove and fellow environmentalists issued their complaints. But this time the
 Alsatian winemakers' group held its fire. For in the five years between the
 first permit and the second, the project's top scientist, Jean Masson, had
 softened opposition by consulting with a committee of winemakers, local elected
 officials and other Alsatian notables whose concerns have been taken into
 account.
 The institute's new vineyard is isolated from other vines, for instance, and
 security cameras have been installed. Perhaps most important, the institute has
 pledged that sprouts will be stripped from the vines before any turn into
 grapes, guaranteeing there will be no production of genetically modified fruit
 or, even worse, genetically modified wine.
 "Every question, every worry, is respectable, and it is treated as such," said
 Masson, who runs the Colmar center and is a wine lover.
 LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2010
 DISTRIBUTION: Maryland
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2010 The Washington Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 251
 
                                The New York Times
                               June 11, 2010 Friday
                               Late Edition - Final
 A Potato Remade for Industry Has Some Swedes Frowning
 BYLINE: By JOHN TAGLIABUE
 SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; SKARA JOURNAL; Pg. 13
 LENGTH: 1003 words
 SKARA, Sweden -- Johan Bergstrom, a blond and boyish man of 31, who farms here
 with his father, reached into the dark, soft soil and extricated a
 tennis-ball-size potato, holding it gently so as not to snap off any of a
 half-dozen white shoots that were growing out of the potato's eyes. He advised
 against tasting the potato, whose dulcet name Amflora belies its harsh flavor, a
 result of genetic jiggling that has made it almost pure starch.
 The potato, the first genetically engineered organism to be allowed in the
 European Union in more than a decade, was planted on 16 acres of land on the
 fringes of this town in southwestern Sweden, after a quarter-century of
 bureaucratic wrangling.
 Although inedible, Amflora is a kind of miracle potato on two counts: for one,
 there is its starch content, which makes it precious to the starch industry, a
 major employer in Sweden; and then there is its feisty resilience in surviving
 some 25 years of tests, regulations, rules, ordinances and applications for
 approval by both Sweden and the European Union, of which Sweden is a member.
 While not grown as a food crop, the Amflora potato is giving many people in this
 region of rolling hills, broad lakes and small farms a bad case of indigestion.
 Though genetically engineered crops like corn, cotton or soybeans are common
 enough in the United States, they remain a rarity in Europe, where public
 resistance is high. The European Union takes the position that the long-term
 effects of genetic engineering on the environment and on plant and animal life
 cannot yet be known with scientific certainty, and so urges extreme
 circumspection. In few places is that caution as much in evidence as in Skara.
 ''I generally don't like modified potatoes, carrots, what have you,'' said Bengt
 Uilsun, 74, a veterinarian, interrupting his shopping one recent Friday morning.
 ''Perhaps it's not unhealthy for humans now, but it may be unhealthy over the
 long term for other creatures.''
 Still, the Amflora is something of the pride of Sweden.
 Development began in the mid-1980s, at the beginning of the revolution in
 biotech foods. A Swedish farmers' cooperative, Lyckeby, one of Europe's biggest
 starch producers, was searching for potatoes with high starch content to supply
 the starches it sells for manufacturing paper, textile finishes, glues and other
 products. ''Genetic engineering was first emerging,'' said Kristofer Vamling,
 51, managing director of Plant Science Sweden, a company that grew out of the
 original research efforts. ''We thought this could perhaps be something for the
 new engineering.''
 But then, in 1998, the European Union imposed an indefinite moratorium on
 approval of genetically modified organisms, and no one at Plant Science knew
 when it would end. ''I heard every year: 'Next year,' '' Mr. Vamling said.
 The moratorium was finally lifted in 2004, but it was another six years before
 the bureaucrats in Brussels, perhaps concerned about falling too far behind in
 biotech, gave the green light for planting. None too soon for Mr. Bergstrom.
 Since 2004, when he finished agricultural college, Mr. Bergstrom has run a
 590-acre farm just north of Skara, raising wheat, rye, barley and other crops.
 His family has farmed the lands here since the 1660s.
 In 2006 a neighbor asked whether he wanted to try the new Amflora potato. ''He
 asked if I was interested, we talked about it,'' Mr. Bergstrom said. ''It's one
 more leg to stand on.''
 Holding one potato, he said, ''I cannot tell the difference.''
 He is aware of the controversy.
 ''You need both sides,'' he said. ''But the debate has gone the wrong way, and
 that's bad.''
 ''I don't see any risk, or very low risk,'' he said. ''There are so many papers
 to fill out; if only everyone did the same inspecting we do.''
 Just a few miles west of here, Anders Lunneryd, 47, disputes that. Working the
 425-acre farm his grandfather bought in 1942, he grows wheat, oats, barley and a
 variety of other crops, but like an increasing number of farmers hereabout, he
 has done so organically for the past 10 years. When spraying his fields in the
 past with insecticides or weed killer, he explained, he often came too close to
 the village, and people would complain bitterly.
 ''I'd stop immediately, I'd tell them, if I could afford to,'' he said. ''After
 all, I'm the one getting sick from all the chemicals.''
 As demand for organic crops soared, he switched to organic farming. ''We have
 increased demand all the time,'' he said. ''People are asking for it.'' Now
 about 7,000 acres of land in the area are organically cultivated, he said.
 He objects to genetically modified foods, for their complexity and the control
 they give to big corporations. The genetic codes, he said, ''are like a piano
 keyboard, but going four times around the planet earth, and now you're going to
 play that piano?''
 ''And it's even more complex,'' he said, ''because you're playing in an
 orchestra.''
 He compares biotech crops in farming to performance-enhancing drugs in sports.
 ''In the short run, it enhances your performance,'' he said. ''In the long run,
 you get sick from it.''
 The bees that Ann-Charlotte Berntsson keeps along with angora rabbits and deer
 on her 90-acre farm are far upwind from Mr. Bergstrom's potato fields, but still
 she worries. The bee is a particularly sensitive animal, and in recent years
 entire bee colonies have been known to suddenly collapse, though no such
 significant cases have been reported in Sweden. Still, some experts speculate
 that poisons from biotech plants may be one cause.
 ''Modern agriculture is one of the bee's biggest threats, and we are also the
 farmer's best friend,'' she said. ''The organic farmer is our best friend.''
 Not everyone in Skara shares her concern. ''It's not a big issue,'' said Tomas
 Ek, 43, a local radio reporter, as he strode into a market on the main street.
 ''People are more interested in the price of a product, and its fat content,''
 he said, than whether it is genetically engineered.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2010
 GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: Johan Bergstrom grows genetically engineered potatoes near
 Skara, Sweden, above. Ann-Charlotte Berntsson, above left, was concerned about
 modern agriculture's effects on bees. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY ANNA VON BROMSSEN FOR THE
 NEW YORK TIMES)  MAP: Mr. Bergstrom runs a 590- acre farm north of Skara.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 252
 
                              Voice of America News
                                   June 8, 2010
 Hungry Haitian Farmers Urged to Burn Donated US Seeds
 BYLINE: Steve Baragona
 LENGTH: 790  words
 Haiti's farmers are being urged to burn seeds donated by U.S. agriculture giant
 Monsanto.
 The American company donated $4 million worth of seeds to Haiti to help the
 country rebuild after January's devastating earthquake. The seeds promise to
 help farmers in the hungry nation increase the amount of food they can grow.
 But the powerful Haitian peasant group that's telling farmers to burn the
 donations says the seeds will change the way most Haitian peasants farm, tying
 them to multinational corporations and threatening the environment.
 It's the latest example of the worldwide ideological struggle over how to feed a
 hungry planet.
 Even before the earthquake, more than half Haiti's population was
 undernourished. The earthquake forced hundreds of thousands of people out of the
 capital, Port-au-Prince, and into the rural areas. They arrived with nothing but
 their appetites, the Haitian saying goes, putting extra strain on rural farmers.
 "The right thing to do"
 "Monsanto made this donation, simply put, because it's the right thing to do,"
 said company spokesman Darren Wallis. "The needs in Haiti are significant and we
 have seeds that could help farmers not only grow food for themselves but, with
 an ample harvest, significantly impact the food security of other Haitian
 citizens."
 So it may come as a suprise that Chavannes Jean-Baptiste, the head of Haiti's
 Peasant Movement of Papaye (abbreviated MPP in Creole), wants the seeds
 destroyed.
 "We consider introducing poisonous seeds in our country as a major attack," he
 says. "We want to say clearly to Monsanto, the American government who supports
 the idea, as well as the Haitian government. We want them to hear the voice of
 the peasants who say no."
 Not GMOs
 Monsanto is perhaps best known for creating genetically modified crops, which
 draw fire from some environmental groups wherever they are introduced.
 But the donated seeds are not genetically modified, says Christopher Abrams with
 the US Agency for International Development, which is helping to distribute
 them.
 "The immediate association with genetically modified organisms versus what we
 were doing was unfortunately incorrect," he says. "But since then, it's created
 many, many opinions out there on what this means."
 What it means, according to MPP chief Jean-Baptiste, is that, "Our farmers will
 stop being independent and rely on a multinational like Monsanto or any other
 multinationals that sell seeds."
 Saving seeds vs. buying better seeds
 Since the dawn of agriculture, farmers have saved seeds from the previous season
 to start the next crop.
 That began to change in the early 20th century. Researchers developed new
 techniques to select crop varieties that produce especially large harvests,
 resistance to diseases or drought, or other valuable traits.
 The downside, however, is that the offspring of these varieties don't perform as
 well as their parents. So farmers have to buy new seeds every season.
 It's a matter of weighing the pros and cons, says USAID's Abrams.
 "If you have a good hybrid seed that works in Haiti that produces a good yield
 but it costs you a bit more on the front end, that becomes an economic choice
 that the farmer makes."
 "Monsanto should have known"
 While Abrams was surprised by the MPP's reaction, Robert Paarlberg, an
 agricultural policy expert at Wellesley College, was not.
 "Monsanto probably should have known in advance that any gift of its hybrid
 seeds...would encounter resistance in Haiti, where activist leaders of this
 local peasant movement view Monsanto as an evil, alien multinational
 corporation," says Paarlberg.
 He notes that the MPP is one of several grassroots organizations worldwide that
 opposes efforts encouraging farmers to use hybrid seeds and the nitrogen
 fertilizer that helps them perform at their peak.
 He acknowledges that excessive fertilizer use has contributed to water pollution
 and other environmental problems in many parts of the world. But, he says,
 "Wherever farmers have refused to use hybrid seeds, their crop yields have
 remained much lower, and their income has remained much lower, and their access
 to food has remained much lower."
 A matter of choice
 "The trick is to make sure that farmers have a choice of either using their
 traditional varieties or, if they wish, using hybrid seed varieties," he adds.
 Monsanto and USAID are offering that choice by making the seeds available
 through stores operated by Haitian farmers' associations. The stores sell the
 donated seeds at a discount and use the proceeds to buy supplies for the next
 season.
 So farmers would have to buy the seeds before they could burn them in protest.
 Asked if he knew of any farmers who were burning Monsanto's donated seeds, the
 MPP's Jean-Baptiste said no, but he wishes they would.
 LOAD-DATE: June 8, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Journal
            Copyright 2010 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 253
 
                               Chicago Daily Herald
                               June 6, 2010 Sunday
                                    C1 Edition
 Try now for fall harvest cauliflower
 SECTION: HOME GARDEN; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 377 words
 Sometimes you just can't get a head ... on your cauliflower, that is. It's a
 common problem in the Midwest. Much more temperamental than closely related
 broccoli or cabbage, cauliflower balks when the weather turns hot before the
 heads have a chance to develop. It also doesn't like our wild temperature swings
 or any other kind of stress, such as being left too long in little plant packs
 before planting.
 Nevertheless, you can succeed with cauliflower if you go for a fall crop instead
 of a summer crop. Seeds planted this month will mature after the weather cools
 down. Best bet: start the seeds in little pots and set them in a handy outdoor
 spot where you can easily keep an eye on the seedlings. Plan to transplant the
 young plants into the garden in about a month.
 You can choose from many varieties of cauliflower, with a range of maturity
 dates. The dependable Snow Crown, ready to eat 50 to 60 days after
 transplanting, is one of the earliest.
 To keep cauliflower white and preserve good texture, block light from the head
 until it reaches full size. Called blanching, it takes about two weeks. I use a
 clothespin to hold the leaves together over the head. Or, you can use a
 self-blanching type, such as Amazing. Its big, wrapper leaves do the job without
 help. Purple varieties of cauliflower such as Violet Queen are beautiful and
 easy. The plants are less temperamental and the heads require no blanching. The
 bright purple color is great raw for relishes but turns green with cooking.
 You'll have to protect cauliflower from two kinds of caterpillars; cabbage worms
 and cabbage loopers can destroy leaves and show up in the harvest at the dinner
 table. Exclude them by covering the plants with a lightweight floating row
 cover. Or you can spray plants with Bacillus thuringiensis, a naturally
 occurring bacterium commonly called Bt and available at most garden centers.
 Weekly spraying will eliminate all the worms. Bt is considered very safe,
 despite concern that Bt engineered into genetically modified corn may be killing
 monarch and other butterflies. Using Bt to spray only cabbage and its relatives
 is a different matter and will do no harm to our butterfly friends.
 *Write to Jan Riggenbach, c/o Daily Herald, P.O. Box 280, Arlington Heights, IL
 LOAD-DATE: June 6, 2010
 GRAPHIC: Photo by Jan Riggenbach June planting produces the best results with
 cauliflower.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2010 Paddock Publications, Inc.









Document Number: 254
 
                                The New York Times
                              May 15, 2010 Saturday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Genetically Engineered Distortions
 BYLINE: By PAMELA C. RONALD and JAMES E. McWILLIAMS.
 Pamela C. Ronald, a professor of plant pathology at the University of
 California, Davis, is the co-author of ''Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming,
 Genetics and the Future of Food.'' James E. McWilliams, a history professor at
 Texas State University at San Marcos, is the author of ''Just Food.''
 SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Editorial Desk; OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS; Pg. 19
 LENGTH: 863 words
 A  REPORT by the National Research Council last month gave ammunition to both
 sides in the debate over the cultivation of genetically engineered crops. More
 than 80 percent of the corn, soybeans and cotton grown in the United States is
 genetically engineered, and the report details the ''long and impressive list of
 benefits'' that has come from these crops, including improved soil quality,
 reduced erosion and reduced insecticide use.
 It also confirmed predictions that widespread cultivation of these crops would
 lead to the emergence of weeds resistant to a commonly used herbicide,
 glyphosate (marketed by Monsanto as Roundup). Predictably, both sides have done
 what they do best when it comes to genetically engineered crops: they've argued
 over the findings.
 Lost in the din is the potential role this technology could play in the poorest
 regions of the world -- areas that will bear the brunt of climate change and the
 difficult growing conditions it will bring. Indeed, buried deep in the council's
 report is an appeal to apply genetic engineering to a greater number of crops,
 and for a greater diversity of purposes.
 Appreciating this potential means recognizing that genetic engineering can be
 used not just to modify major commodity crops in the West, but also to improve
 a much wider range of crops that can be grown in difficult conditions throughout
 the world.
 Doing that  also requires opponents to realize  that by demonizing the
 technology, they've hindered applications of genetic engineering that could save
 lives and protect the environment.
 Scientists at nonprofit institutions have been working for more than two decades
 to genetically engineer seeds that could benefit farmers struggling with
 ever-pervasive dry spells and old and novel pests. Drought-tolerant cassava,
 insect-resistant cowpeas, fungus-resistant bananas, virus-resistant sweet
 potatoes and high-yielding pearl millet are just a few examples of genetically
 engineered foods that could improve the lives of the poor around the globe.
 For example, researchers in the public domain have been working to engineer
 sorghum crops that are resistant to both drought and an aggressively parasitic
 African weed, Striga.
 In a 1994 pilot project by the United States Agency for International
 Development, an experimental variety of engineered sorghum had a yield four
 times that of local varieties under adverse conditions. Sorghum, a native of the
 continent, is a staple throughout Africa, and improved sorghum seeds would be
 widely beneficial.
 As well as enhancing yields, engineered seeds can make crops more nutritious. A
 new variety of rice modified to produce high amounts of provitamin A, named
 Golden Rice, will soon be available in the Philippines and, if marketed, would
 almost assuredly save the lives of thousands of children suffering from vitamin
 A deficiency.
 There's also a sorghum breed that's been genetically engineered to produce
 micronutrients like zinc, and  a potato designed to contain greater amounts of
 protein.
 To appreciate the value of genetic engineering, one need only examine the story
 of papaya. In the early 1990s, Hawaii's papaya industry was facing disaster
 because of the deadly papaya ringspot virus. Its single-handed savior was a
 breed engineered to be resistant to the virus. Without it, the state's papaya
 industry would have collapsed.  Today, 80 percent of Hawaiian papaya is
 genetically engineered, and  there is still no conventional or organic method to
 control ringspot virus.
 The real significance of the papaya recovery is not that genetic engineering was
 the most appropriate technology delivered at the right time, but rather that the
 resistant papaya was introduced before the backlash against engineered crops
 intensified.
 Opponents of genetically engineered crops have spent much of the last decade
 stoking consumer distrust of this precise and safe technology, even though, as
 the research council's previous reports noted, engineered crops have harmed
 neither human health nor the environment.
 In doing so, they have pushed up regulatory costs to the point where the
 technology is beyond the economic reach of small companies or foundations that
 might otherwise develop a wider range of healthier crops for the neediest
 farmers. European restrictions, for instance, make it virtually impossible for
 scientists at small laboratories there to carry out field tests of engineered
 seeds.
 As it now stands, opposition to genetic engineering has driven the technology
 further into the hands of a few seed companies that can afford it, further
 encouraging their monopolistic tendencies while leaving it out of reach for
 those that want to use it for crops with low (or no) profit margins.
 The stakes are too high for us not to make the best use of genetic engineering.
 If we fail to invest responsibly in agricultural research, if we continue to
 allow propaganda to trump science, then the potential for global agriculture to
 be productive, diverse and sustainable will go unfulfilled. And it's not those
 of us here in the developed world who will suffer the direct consequences, but
 rather the poorest and most vulnerable.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: May 15, 2010
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Op-Ed
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 255
 
                               Chicago Daily Herald
                              May 12, 2010 Wednesday
                                   NC14 Edition
 Do your homework to avoid genetically modified foods
 SECTION: FOOD; Pg. 5
 LENGTH: 521 words
 Genetically modified foods sit on supermarket shelves largely unnoticed because
 those foods do not have to be identified on the label or in the ingredient list
 as genetically modified.
 A growing number of folks believe it's time that changed.
 Genetically modified seeds can be and almost always are created in a laboratory
 using genes that can come from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals and even
 humans.
 Don't be confused by the sly deceit of some publicity equating hybrids with
 genetic modification. True hybrids have always been created by selection or
 crossbreeding. The only similarity between the two processes: both produce
 plants that have been, until that point, unknown in nature.
 Europeans eschew the growing and importation of genetically modified foods. They
 require these foods to be labeled as such. Do they know something we don't know?
 According to the Center for Food Safety (truefoodnow.org) the four major sources
 of genetically modified foods in the American food supply are corn, soy, canola
 oil (rapeseed) and cotton (from which cottonseed oil is refined). Sugar beets
 (where we get refined sugar) recently joined the genetically modified food rank.
 While that may seem like a small list, its impact is far reaching.
 Let's take a closer look at one GM food: corn.
 Ears of corn plucked from the field can become corn flour, cornmeal, corn oil,
 cornstarch, corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup as well as sweeteners such
 as fructose, dextrose and glucose.
 Those products can then end up in baby food, breakfast cereals and bars, baked
 good, frozen pizzas (cornmeal in the crust; corn syrup in the sauce), soups,
 sauces, condiments and salad dressings, snack chips, energy bars, candy and
 soda, just to name a few. The corn also can be fed to cows on feed lots, which
 is where "you are what you eat eats" generates concern.
 If you want to avoid GM corn on your next trip to the store, choose processed
 foods with the USDA's green certified organic symbol. If corn's on the
 ingredient list you can be sure it's not from a modified source since USDA rules
 state that GM ingredients don't qualify for organic status.
 Be aware that some product may proclaim "made from organic ingredients" without
 the official USDA symbol. These products can legally contain up to 30 percent
 nonorganic ingredients.
 Since corn can be turned into sweeteners, look for products sweetened with cane
 sugar as opposed to refined sugar. Look for the words: "made with 100 percent"
 cane sugar, or evaporated cane juice.
 If you want to avoid the other GM foods, do as you would for GM corn. If you
 want a shopping guide that can tell you what conventional products may have GM
 components, and those that don't, head to nongmoshoppingguide.com.
 Try this recipe: Warm weather's finally hanging around. Time to fire up my grill
 and bring out tasty and healthy side dishes. A Southern friend of mine shared
 her recipe for a barbecue sauced macaroni salad. I was skeptical, until I tried
 it. Great flavor notes, low in fat and tough to beat.
 * Don Mauer welcomes questions, comments and recipe makeover requests. Write him
 at don@theleanwizard.com
 LOAD-DATE: May 13, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2010 Paddock Publications, Inc.









Document Number: 256
 
                            Bangor Daily News (Maine)
                               May 8, 2010 Saturday
                                   All Editions
 Become food-conscious
 SECTION: Pg. A10
 LENGTH: 257 words
 Regarding the May 5 letter to the editor, "Too fat to fight": Aside from the
 obvious issue of eating too much and not moving enough, people need to know
 where their food comes from, and what it is subjected to before they eat it.
 In this day and age of profit, where our food comes from is hidden by
 confidential contracts. In the past, produce available was whatever was in
 season. Thanks to factory processing, we can walk into a grocery store and
 select from a spotless cornucopia of produce from all over the world.
 Genetically modified foods allow for "bigger, better, faster, more," but at what
 cost? When hormones and antibiotics are added to foods, and their growth is
 altered by genetic modification, it stands to reason that they will affect our
 biology. Why are we often unable to take a simple antibiotic to treat infection?
 Perhaps we have used them foolishly over the years. We pay when bacteria becomes
 resistant to all but one "last resort" antibiotic.
 Farmers have been questioning genetically modified corn fed food practices for
 years, but their voices are drowned out by bikini-clad women in snow banks
 outside KFC protesting how chickens are treated. Those women fail to realize
 that there is virtually a handful of chicken manufacturing corporations that
 process chickens, and they are not treated differently than the chicken at the
 local grocers.
 Personal responsibility also means not being hoodwinked into believing that
 altering nature by adding substances that mimic hormones in humans is a good
 thing.
 Melissa Fish
 Glenburn
 LOAD-DATE: May 8, 2010
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Letter
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                         Copyright 2010 Bangor Daily News









Document Number: 257
 
                                 The Denver Post
                                May 7, 2010 Friday
 Purists dig in on seed type
 BYLINE: Jodi Torpey Special to The Denver Post
 SECTION: Pg. L-11
 LENGTH: 343 words
 When do you think it's OK to fool with Mother Nature?
 In the debate over genetically modified organisms (GMOs), some say it's never
 nice to tinker with biology. Others believe it's acceptable to genetically
 engineer plants to increase crop yields, improve pest resistance, lower
 production costs or enhance the nutritional value of certain foods.
 There seems to be no middle ground in the ongoing controversy.
 GMOs were first used in commercial cultivation in the mid-1990s to help plants
 tolerate herbicides and resist damage from plant viruses. Proponents say GMOs
 are just another option and a helpful tool for farmers.
 However, not everyone agrees that GMOs benefit agriculture. Organic farmers
 worry that pollen from genetically altered crops, like sugar beets, could find
 its way onto their crops, robbing them of their organic label.
 While organic farmers worry about cross-pollination, health advocates argue GMO
 crops are unsafe for human consumption. Environmentalists say the GMO crops harm
 soil ecosystems and warn of the unpredictable consequences of introducing GMOs
 into the environment. The potential for contaminating other seeds and crops was
 one reason why agricultural communities in California began banning the
 propagation and cultivation of GMO crops in 2004.
 Another disadvantage of GMO seeds is, unlike heirloom and open-pollinated seeds,
 GMO seeds can't be saved from year to year and need to be purchased every
 growing season.
 Home gardeners are fortunate to have the option of purchasing vegetable, herb
 and flower seeds from companies that refuse to sell any chemically treated or
 GMO seeds. More than 100 companies have signed the Safe Seed Pledge developed by
 the Council for Responsible Genetics, a nonprofit and nongovernmental
 organization in Cambridge, Mass.
 Seed manufacturers and distributors voluntarily sign the pledge to not knowingly
 buy or sell genetically engineered seeds or plants.
 Safe Seed Pledge signers
 Find a list of Safe Seed Pledge companies at: councilforresponsiblegenetics.org
 LOAD-DATE: May 7, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2010 The Denver Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 258
 
                        San Jose Mercury News (California)
                                May 7, 2010 Friday
 A call to eat organic from a Rodale descendant
 BYLINE: By Sandy Bauers The Philadelphia Inquirer
 SECTION: NEWS; Lifestyle; Home and Garden
 LENGTH: 845 words
 Not long ago, Maria Rodale got fed up and decided to speak out. The result is
 "Organic Manifesto," a feisty, I-can't-take-it-any-more diatribe about the ills
 of chemical farming.
 She shows her radical stripes as early as Page 4: "We are all being poisoned,
 contaminated, sterilized and eventually exterminated by the synthetic chemicals
 we have used for the last 100 years to grow our food."
 The alternative   the imperative   is to insist on organically grown food, which
 she says will cure our bodies and save the planet.
 Rodale's organic passion runs deep. She's the granddaughter of J.I. Rodale,
 known as the father of organic gardening. Her father followed suit.
 In September, at 47, she took over the Rodale publishing empire. And she's
 co-chairwoman of the Rodale Institute, a nonprofit that in 1981 started a farm
 systems trial to compare organic and conventional farming techniques. She bases
 a lot of her conclusions on the institute's research.
 The mother of three children, she lives in Bethlehem, Pa., and wakes up mornings
 in a house that has solar hot water, solar electric and roof shingles made to
 look like slate but are recycled tires.
 She starts with three cups of coffee. "Black. Organic. Preferably sitting
 quietly."
 Then, look out.
 When Rodale was a kid, people made fun of her organic family, "and that's OK."
 Then came the hippie days, which propelled organic food closer to the
 mainstream. Except that lately, Rodale says, people are getting confused. They
 think that organic means vegetarian. Or that local is better than organic.
 At its simplest, organic means no toxic chemicals were used. If it's livestock,
 no antibiotics or growth hormones.
 And now, genetically engineered crops   often called GMOs, for genetically
 modified organisms   are proliferating, along with the seed companies' claims
 that the crops will save money and prevent world hunger.
 More than 80 percent of corn, cotton and soybean acreage in the United States is
 growing genetically engineered crops. Rodale worries that one day, we'll no
 longer have real food, just GMO food.
 In researching the book, which her company just published, Rodale met with
 farmers from Pennsylvania to Iowa.
 She loved how they talked about the smell of good hay and paid close attention
 to nature. But she hated how they spoke of their "chemical dealer" as their
 most-trusted source of information.
 She thinks they've been tricked by big business. She calls chemical farming a
 subprime crisis, unsustainable.
 Organic farming, on the other hand, yields higher crops during drought and wet
 weather, she says. It creates jobs (because it's more labor-intensive). It uses
 30 percent less fossil fuel. It replenishes the soil instead of depleting it.
 Best of all, she says, organic farming boosts the soil's mycorrhizal fungi,
 which stores carbon, a greenhouse gas.
 She's also angry that organic food is more expensive and blames the government.
 Aiming to keep things simple and readable, Rodale writes in passionate gushes,
 but she also provides nine pages of fine-print footnotes.
 She praises U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack because he dug up the lawn
 of the agency's Washington, D.C. headquarters and planted an organic garden. But
 in page after page of zingers, Rodale lambastes the Farm Bill for favoring
 conventional farmers and chemical companies for not being transparent about
 their products.
 GMO seed giant Monsanto gets a multipage drubbing.
 She says the company has "wrought disaster" with all its chemicals and likens
 the contamination of non-GMO crops with GMO pollen to rape.
 A Monsanto spokesman said he wasn't familiar with the book and couldn't comment
 on it, but he said that both biotech and organic crops can coexist.
 Rodale's lashing of Monsanto does not completely jibe with a National Research
 Council study released last week that found eco benefits for GMO crops,
 including less use of insecticides and herbicides.
 The council, part of the National Academies of Sciences, uses its own funding to
 assemble experts to advise the public and the federal government.
 It said farmers that use the seeds are more likely to practice conservation
 tillage, "which improves soil quality and water filtration and reduces erosion."
 However, it did not compare conventional farming to organic.
 The report also found that nine weed species have become resistant to the weed
 killer the GMO plants were designed to work with. One critic predicted adverse
 environmental impacts would rise dramatically with time.
 Rodale wants us to know we're not helpless in all this. She thinks we should
 apply the most basic law of the marketplace: Vote with our wallets. Whatever we
 start demanding and buying, industry will produce.
 Organic food sales is a case in point, rising from $3.6 billion in 1997 to $18.9
 billion in 2007. "I've made my choice," Rodale says.
 When I talked with her, she had had a breakfast of a fried egg from her mother's
 farm and organic spelt bread.
 She tends her own organic garden, naturally.
 Her guinea hens just ate the pea sprouts   time to replant!   but the garlic is
 coming up beautifully.
 LOAD-DATE: May 8, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2010 San Jose Mercury News
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 259
 
                           The Herald-Sun (Durham, NC)
                                May 2, 2010 Sunday
 Seed companies race to win global $2.7-billion drought-corn market
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. D11
 LENGTH: 926  words
 By Jack Kaskey and Antonio Ligi
 Bloomberg News
 Lance Russell's neighbors aren't used to seeing corn growing in the fields
 around Hays, Kansas, where the plants tend to wither and keel over in the hot,
 dry summers. They may be in for a surprise this summer.
 Russell is planting DuPont Co.'s drought-tolerant corn, one of the seeds heading
 to market next year that's designed to thrive where water is scarce. An
 experimental plot in 2009 improved on the economics of the sorghum crop "by a
 landslide," Russell said.
 Monsanto Co., DuPont and Syngenta AG are vying for a similar windfall. After
 battling for a decade to corner the $11 billion market for insect-resistant and
 herbicide-tolerant technologies, the world's biggest seed companies are vying to
 develop crops that can survive drought. At stake is a new global market that may
 top $2.7 billion for the corn version alone.
 "It's a race at the moment," said Juergen Reck, an analyst at Macquarie Group
 Ltd. "They must see market potential."
 The technology will have wide-ranging effects, from helping farmers draw less
 irrigation water to lowering insurance premiums and boosting land values in
 drought-prone regions, agricultural economists say. The seeds also may increase
 corn plantings in the Great Plains at the expense of wheat and sorghum while
 altering the market for biofuels.
 Perhaps most importantly for farmers, corn yields may climb. DuPont says seed
 being tested on 5,000 acres this year is expected to boost yields in dry
 environments by at least 6 percent. Syngenta is targeting yield increases of at
 least 10 percent for its corn. Both companies used conventional breeding to
 develop the seeds for sale next year, with biotech versions due later in the
 decade.
 The seeds will be a "big market" for Syngenta of Switzerland, Chief Executive
 Officer Michael Mack said. "Farmers around the world are going to pay hundreds
 of millions of dollars to technology providers in order to have this feature."
 Monsanto is moving directly to a biotech version that it says will increase corn
 yields 6 percent to 10 percent. The company's seed, developed with BASF SE, may
 be put on sale in 2012 and become the first product genetically engineered to
 tolerate drought.
 The Monsanto-BASF partnership, created in 2007, aims to have its drought
 genetics in 55 million acres of U.S. corn by 2020. In comparison, Monsanto had
 at least one biotech trait in 82 percent of the nation's 86.5 million acres of
 corn last year.
 Monsanto and BASF are also developing drought-resistant versions that can serve
 as insurance for growers who normally have adequate rainfall or access to
 irrigation. The seeds may generate annual sales of almost $1 billion assuming
 the trait retails on average for $18 an acre, according to Ludwigshafen,
 Germany-based Germany BASF, the world's largest chemicals company.
 "All players expect blockbuster potential," said Patrick Rafaisz, an analyst at
 Bank Vontobel AG.
 The global market for drought-tolerant corn may reach 150 million acres, DuPont
 said in a February presentation, without providing a timeframe. That implies a
 market of $2.7 billion, based on BASF's $18-per-acre projection. In comparison,
 global sales of all seeds in 2008 were $26 billion, including $9 billion of
 corn, Edinburgh-based industry consultant Phillips McDougall said in a December
 report.
 Agriculture accounts for 70 percent of global fresh-water use, Monsanto Chief
 Executive Officer Hugh Grant said. Reducing irrigation not only contributes to
 more sustainable farming, it's a "game changer" that will boost profits and help
 feed a rising world population, he said.
 The prospect of drought-resistant seeds isn't winning over opponents of
 genetically modified foods, who say the latest technology may taint conventional
 corn supplies and allow large companies to perpetuate an industrial agricultural
 system that harms water resources.
 "Their approach is that the market system of expansion we have is just fine and
 we can use technology to adapt to any problems and make money at the same time,"
 Maude Barlow, chairwoman of Food and Water Watch, said in e-mailed responses to
 questions. "We are also very concerned about the possibility of this genetically
 engineered corn contaminating the stock."
 The technology will expand the U.S. corn-growing region westward while helping
 the country's farmers cut their irrigation bill, said Kevin Dhuyvetter, an
 agricultural economist at Kansas State University. The trait may reduce farmers'
 insurance premiums and ultimately boost land values in water-starved regions of
 Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma, he said.
 Climate change may affect all of the variables. Global warming will increase
 vulnerability to drought in many U.S. regions, according to the Geological
 Society of America, and that may increase the need for drought-resistant seeds.
 "If you are in the drylands, this is a big deal," Mark Gulley, an analyst at
 Soleil Securities, said.
 It certainly is for Russell, the Kansas farmer, who said DuPont's
 drought-tolerant corn outperformed other varieties by 15 percent last year when
 the weather was relatively moderate.
 "Honestly, I wouldn't mind a dry, hot year where I can really test these
 varieties," Russell said.
 bloomberg news | larry w. smith
 Lance Russell (left) and his father Harold Kraus, with bags of DuPont Co.'s
 drought-tolerant "Pioneer" corn seeds on Russell's farm near Hays, Kan. The
 world's biggest seed companies are vying to develop crops that can survive
 drought. At stake is a new global market that may top $2.7 billion for the corn
 version alone.
 LOAD-DATE: May 2, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2010 The Durham Herald Co.









Document Number: 260
 
                         The Oregonian (Portland Oregon)
                                May 2, 2010 Sunday
 Modified seed a boon or bane?
 BYLINE: ERIC MORTENSON, The Oregonian
 LENGTH: 1060 words
 SUMMARY: Genetic engineering | A suit with Oregon roots and raising
 environmental issues goes to the Supreme Court
 Lost export
 markets hurt
 hay growers
 Oregon farmers are watching a U.S. Supreme Court case that for the first time
 takes on the environmental impact of genetically engineered crops.
 The case, argued last week, is between a Greenleaf, Idaho, company, Geertson
 Seed Farms, and the giant Monsanto Corp. It involves a variety of "Roundup
 Ready" alfalfa that can withstand the company's widely sold herbicide. Crops
 treated with Roundup can't be labeled organic, and growers who raise organic or
 even conventional crops worry about what they consider contamination.
 Genetically modified plants have been controversial since their introduction in
 1996, and they now constitute more than 80 percent of the corn, soybeans and
 cotton grown in the U.S., according to an April report by the National Research
 Council. They've been hailed by some as an advance for feeding a hungry world
 but criticized by others as unsafe and monopolized "Frankenfood."
 Though Monsanto and others have touted both the environmental and economic
 benefits, some food-safety, farm and environmental groups say that not enough
 science was done before the genetic genie was let out of the seed bag.
 In the Supreme Court case, Geertson Seed Farms, which was founded in Oregon and
 has grown, bagged and sold alfalfa seed since 1942, is supported by
 environmental groups such as the Center for Food Safety. Monsanto's partner in
 the case is Forage Genetics International, which sold genetically engineered
 seed in Idaho, Oregon, Colorado, Wyoming and Montana. A lower court issued a
 nationwide injunction against the seed in 2007, stopping its sale and beginning
 an appeals process that led last week to the Supreme Court.
 In some cases, agricultural officials established isolation zones of several
 miles between genetically modified crops, and conventional or organic ones. Farm
 owner Phil Geertson said that doesn't work with genetically modified alfalfa,
 which has sprouted wild along roadsides. As pollinating bees fly from plant to
 plant, farmers say, genetically engineered traits can travel from field to
 field. At some point, "it will not be possible to grow alfalfa that is not
 highly contaminated with the Roundup Ready gene," Geertson said.
 Cross-fertilization is a concern because up to 60 percent of the U.S. alfalfa
 seed crop previously was exported, but that's tumbled because some nations don't
 allow genetically modified crops, Geertson said. "We've lost probably 50 to 60
 percent of our market for conventional alfalfa."
 Alfalfa is an unglamorous plant used for hay and livestock forage. But it's a
 big crop in Oregon. In 2009, the alfalfa hay crop covered 397,000 acres and was
 valued at $184 million --fifth among the state's agricultural products after
 cattle, nursery crops, dairy products and wheat. Some Oregon farmers probably
 would raise genetically engineered alfalfa if not for the court injunction, said
 Carol Mallory-Smith, an Oregon State University crop professor.
 Narrow issues
 As often happens by the time broad public policy questions reach the appellate
 courts, Monsanto Co. V. Geertson Seed Farms turns on narrow procedural issues:
 whether a full environmental impact study should have been conducted before
 Roundup Ready alfalfa was released for sale.
 Still, the Supreme Court's ruling, expected in June or July, could reopen the
 debate.
 The technology behind genetically engineered crops also has been used to grow
 sugar beet seeds in Oregon, alarming organic growers. Growers and environmental
 groups sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture over its approval of genetically
 engineered sugar beets. The judge ruled in March that farmers can harvest the
 beets this year because the economic impact of destroying the crop would be too
 great, but the issue remains unresolved.
 Genetically modified crops are engineered to be immune to glyphosate, the chief
 weedkiller in Roundup, and some also produce a bacteria that is deadly to
 insects that otherwise would damage them.
 Theoretical benefits
 Roundup Ready alfalfa survives when sprayed with the herbicide, which kills
 weeds that compete for water and nutrients, potentially resulting in larger
 yields, better quality and a higher price. Genetically engineered seed costs
 more, but farmers theoretically benefit from lower production costs because they
 use smaller amounts and less harsh types of herbicides and insecticides, and
 till their soil less often. Some researchers say water-quality improvement may
 prove to the largest single benefit of genetically engineered crops.
 Meanwhile, as the Supreme Court heard arguments on alfalfa last week, the
 National Research Council --headed by Dave Ervin, a Portland State University
 environmental management and economics professor --released a report saying the
 jury is very much out.
 Genetically engineered crops offer "substantial net environmental and economic
 benefits" compared with conventional crops, but the benefits are not universal
 and may decline over time, the council said, adding that the risk may increase
 as the technology is applied to more crops.
 Resistant weeds
 But the council also said nine varieties of weeds have developed resistance to
 glyphosate, and it blamed repeated exposure. Ervin said the research group found
 clear evidence that weedkilling agents were overused in some cases.
 Environmental groups make the same point, saying that herbicide use on corn,
 soybean and cotton crops increased by 318 million pounds from 1996 to 2008.
 Insecticide use declined by 64 million pounds during that time.
 Opponents such as Geertson point to another problem. When alfalfa fields are
 rotated with other crops, the traditional method is to wipe it with Roundup
 before planting. If genetically engineered alfalfa is present, it will survive
 the spraying and endure as a weed competing with the new crop, Geertson said.
 Ervin said there isn't enough scientific evidence to gauge the seriousness of
 gene-mingling. Public and private researchers should collaborate to monitor and
 assess the impact of current and emerging genetically engineered crops, he said.
 "We need good information," Ervin said. "There wasn't enough science done on the
 environmental, social and economic effects over time."
 Eric Mortenson; 503-294-7636, ericmortenson@news.oregonian.com
 LOAD-DATE: May 3, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: org
                           Copyright 2010 The Oregonian
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 261
 
                     The San Francisco Chronicle (California)
                                May 2, 2010 Sunday
                                  FINAL Edition
 Slow food stirs up battle in heartland;
 Agricultural establishment fighting back at movement
 BYLINE: Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau
 SECTION: Main News; Pg. A1
 LENGTH: 1034 words
 DATELINE: Washington
 From Pennsylvania church ladies to Iowa dairymen, the locavore, small-is-good,
 organic food movement born in Northern California has penetrated America's
 heartland, where it is waging a pitchfork rebellion, much of it on the Internet,
 against the agricultural establishment.
 After long dismissing the new food movement as a San Francisco annoyance, the
 establishment is fighting back.
 "Alice should drown in her own waters," said High Plains Journal's Larry
 Dreiling of Berkeley food guru Alice Waters.
 On one side of this culture war is the tiny but fast-growing segment of U.S.
 farming that sells local and grows organic. On the other are commodity farms
 that make up the great bulk of production and sell into a global food chain.
 Kansas rancher Chris Wilson, president of American Agri-Women, condemns the
 "pastoral fantasies" of such documentaries as "Food, Inc." and "King Corn," and
 defends the use of pesticides and fertilizers to feed the world. She is
 launching a television show this week.
 Texas State University historian James McWilliams warns against food
 "primitivism," tracing a link between UC Berkeley professor Michael Pollan's
 "seductive mantra" of "don't eat anything your great-grandmother wouldn't eat"
 and Puritan idealism.
 Software billionaire Bill Gates entered the fray last fall, defending
 genetically modified foods to combat hunger in Africa.
 Congress and the Obama administration appear alternatively oblivious, hostile or
 confused toward a movement that feeds from the apple-pie taproot of the American
 psyche, with a stout dose of libertarianism that defies both parties.
 Bloggers' fury
 Even as first lady Michelle Obama makes urban gardening a global sensation,
 Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto Corp. lawyer appointed by President Obama to
 head food safety at the Food and Drug Administration, has become the target of
 fury among food and farm bloggers.
 Democrats in Congress seem blind to intense grassroots anger toward their new
 food safety legislation, derided in the blogosphere as a totalitarian noose for
 small farms.
 Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., the top Republican on the
 Senate Agriculture Committee, opened a new front on Tuesday. They sent a
 blistering demand to know more about the "Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food"
 program spearheaded by Deputy Agriculture Secretary Kathleen Merrigan, a leader
 of the organic movement.
 The two questioned "Facebook chats with USDA bureaucrats" and subsidies to the
 "so-called locavore niche market ... aimed at small, hobbyist and organic
 producers" who cater to "affluent patrons at urban farmers' markets."
 Plan to ban church pies
 But in rural Pennsylvania, Republican state Sen. Elder Vogel is pushing
 legislation to block a state ban on homemade pies at church suppers, after a
 "Pie-Gate" crackdown by state food safety regulators, exposed last year in the
 Wall Street Journal, had church ladies in an uproar.
 Vogel aide Joe Wiedner said the bill would protect "the cherry pies we've been
 selling out here since Pennsylvania was a colony."
 Deborah Stockton, executive director of the National Independent Consumers and
 Farmers Association, posts Web bulletins warning of food safety raids on Amish
 farmers and lobbies Capitol Hill. The movement is not new, she said. "What we
 are promoting is actually very, very old agriculture, and what's considered
 conventional is new."
 300,000 new farms
 The latest five-year farm census in 2007 showed nearly 300,000 new farms started
 since 2002, most of them small. "Here we have a thriving economic engine that is
 providing the safest, healthiest food in the country, and it seems to us that
 the government at every level - state, federal and local - is doing everything
 it can to squash that," Stockton said.
 But Agri-Women's Wilson, who sends cattle to feedlots and pumpkins to a farmers'
 market, said conventional growers are the ones under assault.
 "The Flint Hills of Kansas have the greatest grasslands in the world other than
 the Pampas of Argentina," she said. "We have a lot of cattle in those hills, and
 a lot of them go from there to beef feedlots for finishing. Most of those
 ranches are family owned and pretty friendly places."
 Added Greg Henderson, a Kansas rancher and editor of Drovers, a beef industry
 publication: "You can't find any industry in America that wants to go back to
 way they were doing things 50 years ago. The food we buy at stores comes through
 large food companies like Cargill and Tyson's, but the food still comes
 predominately from family farms."
 Middle ground
 In Iowa, Francis Thicke of Radiance Dairy, a 65-cow operation that uses grass
 and clover pasture, is running for state agriculture secretary against
 Republican incumbent Bill Northey, who holds up a 2.5-million-chicken,
 egg-laying facility that supplies McDonalds as a model for economic development.
 Thicke argued that commodity farms are in denial about rising energy costs and
 an environmental backlash.
 He said age-old techniques where a pastured cow harvests her own food and
 fertilizes perennial clovers with her manure are more efficient and profitable
 than conventional dairies that rely on corn monocultures that erode soil and
 leach fertilizers, and confined animal-feeding operations, known as CAFOs, that
 create hazardous manure lagoons.
 Thicke said he meets a mixed reception in rural Iowa, but insisted, "The time is
 right for this."
 In Denair, near Modesto, Ray Prock Jr. runs the 500-cow RayLin Dairy and has a
 Twitter following of 10,000. Prock is trying to reach a middle ground. His
 operation would be technically defined as a CAFO, but he argued the term is
 widely misused and his cows are treated handsomely.
 "Instead of automatically thinking conventional ag is the enemy, and instead of
 conventional ag always thinking that organic and local food is the enemy, we
 need to sit down and figure out where we can work together," Prock said.
 "Instead of automatically thinking conventional ag is the enemy, and instead of
 conventional ag always thinking that organic and local food is the enemy, we
 need to sit down and figure out where we can work together."
 Ray Prock Jr., who runs the 500-cow RayLin Dairy near Modesto and has a Twitter
 following of 10,000
 Monsanto Corp.
 CHAMBLISS (52%); JOHN MCCAIN (52%) Chris Wilson; James McWilliams; Michael
 Taylor; Kathleen Merrigan
 LOAD-DATE: May 4, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2010 San Francisco Chronicle
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 262
 
                          Muskegon Chronicle (Michigan)
                               May 1, 2010 Saturday
 Igniting possibilities
 SECTION: A; Pg. 3
 LENGTH: 573 words
 SUBHEAD: Bayer expansion just the start of what's slated for industrial park
 MUSKEGON TOWNSHIP -- The formal celebration Friday of the opening of the Bayer
 CropScience expansion is just the beginning of what's to come at 1740 Whitehall.
 Bayer dedicated a $10 million, 12,000-square-foot expansion of its production
 facility for the herbicide Ignite. The expansion will provide 50 percent more
 production capacity and has created 10 jobs, bringing total plant employment to
 The chemical plant was built to allow for further expansions as the German
 chemical maker increases its shipments of the weed killer for their corn,
 soybeans, cotton and canola to North American farmers.
 Bayer has 400 acres at its Muskegon Township plant and is creating the Bayer
 CropScience Industrial Park.
 The park's first outside tenant is fortu PowerCell, the German-Swiss vehicle
 battery maker that plans to build a huge battery manufacturing facility by 2012.
 PowerCell has plans to invest more than $600 million, build a
 1-million-square-foot facility and create 734 jobs in coming years.
 Bayer is creating a European-style "chemical park," where all the companies can
 share the same water and sewer service, safety training and environmental
 programs, said Wolfgang Welter, a Bayer CropScience manager and board member
 from Germany.
 Welter welcomed PowerCell CEO Alan Greenshields to the Bayer dedication ceremony
 among the local elected officials and community leaders instrumental in helping
 the company expand in Muskegon.
 "We welcome our new tenant," Welter said of PowerCell. "With (fortu PowerCell),
 Muskegon is recognized for its competitiveness. We are building a modern
 industrial park here."
 Bayer Senior Vice President Chris Evans said after the dedication ceremony that
 there are assets in Muskegon for it, PowerCell and other chemical companies to
 expand on the Muskegon Township site.
 Muskegon offers the right combination of developable land, wastewater treatment,
 skilled work force and community support, he said.
 Bayer will look to upgrade water supplies to its Whitehall Road site and build
 steam generation for all of the companies locating in the park, Evans said.
 "We have other manufacturing sites in West Virginia and Kansas City, but here in
 Muskegon, by far, we have the most room for expansion," Evans said of Bayer
 CropScience.
 Even with the massive PowerCell development, the Bayer industrial park has room
 for other companies, he said.
 Ignite is a reformulation of the company's Liberty product, which has been made
 in Muskegon since 1997. Ignite is an herbicide that is used with Bayer's
 LibertyLink seed system.
 The genetically engineered seeds produce plants that tolerate Ignite, but Ignite
 kills unwanted weeds. When first produced as Liberty, mainly the European market
 rejected the genetically engineered foods such as corn and soybeans, and
 production was halted in Muskegon in 2000.
 But with the use of such crops for bio-fuel production, the sensitivity toward
 genetically engineered crops has lessened worldwide and the market for Ignite
 has exploded. Production was restarted and could not keep up with demand.
 The Muskegon plant now will produce 10,000 tons of the chemical a year at a
 value of $426 million, Welter said. Ignite is Bayer's top herbicide and third
 best seller of all its products.
 The Muskegon plant is now the largest single producer of Ignite for Bayer
 worldwide, he said.
 E-mail: dalexander@muskegonchronicle.com
 LOAD-DATE: May 4, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: mkc
                        Copyright 2010 Muskegon Chronicle
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 263
 
                         Contra Costa Times (California)
                             April 21, 2010 Wednesday
 Antioch science fair winners move on to next level
 BYLINE: By Roni Gehlke For the Contra Costa Times
 SECTION: MY TOWN; Eastern Contra Costa; Contra Costa; News; Local
 LENGTH: 611 words
 It isn't every day that two young high school students get to use the facilities
 at a lab the size of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Earlier this year
 Deer Valley High School science students Jasmine Gajeton and Jessica Chiang
 needed special equipment to prove a theory and the lab officials were happy to
 help in the name of science.
 The girls were hoping to be able to find a significant difference between a
 piece of fruit and a piece of corn that had been genetically enhanced by
 farmers. The test was part of a project the girls were working on for the Contra
 Costa County Science and Engineering Fair that took place at the end of March.
 "The idea was to test two pieces of corn," Jasmine Gajeton, a 17-year-old
 senior, said. "One piece was grown without any genetic enhancement and the other
 was organic of genetically enhanced."
 The girls spent the day at the lab using a special piece of equipment called a
 Real-Time PCR. Essentially the special device allowed the girls to use extremely
 fast cycles and temperature control systems to test the DNA of both pieces of
 corn and pieces of papaya.
 "The equipment helped us to extract the DNA," Gajeton said. "That way we could
 see if the genetically modified corn was any different from the non-modified
 corn."
 The girls actually wound up making two trips to the lab because on the first
 trip the test came out negative, meaning that there was no difference in the
 DNA. "Unfortunately, the second trip it came out negative as well," Chiang, a
 17-year-old Deer Valley junior, said.
 Not disappointed by the results, but determined to find the reason for there
 being no difference, the girls did further research and found that they might
 have received a different reading if they had different data.
 "We explained all of the details on our display at the science fair," Chiang
 said.
 Gajeton explained that all of the details are plotted out so that anyone can
 take the information and redo the test and find the specific genetic changes
 like the ones the girls were hoping to find.
 For their efforts the girls won the top team award at the Contra Costa County
 Science and Engineering Fair and their chance to move up to the next
 competition, Intel International Science & Engineering Fair, which takes place
 next month in San Jose.
 Their project has now been redubbed "The testing of Zea Maize and Carica Papaya
 L. for genetically modified genes on a Real-Time PCR." It also won a special
 award at the local level called the University of California International
 Science and Engineering Fair Grant Award.
 The girls will be up against 1,400 other students from more than 40 nations to
 compete for scholarships, tuition grants, internships, scientific field trips
 and a grand prize of $50,000.
 Other East County recipients of the Contra Costa County Science and Engineering
 awards include Grand Award winner (senior category), Alec Howard of Deer Valley
 High School who shared the top prize at the fair with De La Salle High School
 sophomore William Thornbury. Howard's project was called "One Dollar Auction"
 and explored behavioral science. Howard could not be reached for comment.
 The four students are the only winners of the local contest who will move to the
 next step in the competition at the Intel ISEF, but there were other East County
 winners who will be able to attend the California State Science and Engineering
 Fair in Los Angeles later next month, which the four will attend as well. They
 include Holy Rosary eighth-grader Jake Forrester, with his project "From Garbage
 to Energy," and Deer Valley junior Haider Yasamin, with her project "The
 Relationship Between the Distance and Size of Globular Clusters."
 LOAD-DATE: April 22, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2010 Contra Costa Newspapers
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 264
 
                Agriculture Department Documents and Publications
                                  April 20, 2010
 Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc.; Determination of Nonregulated Status for Corn
 Genetically Engineered for Insect Resistance
 LENGTH: 1109  words
 SUMMARY: We are advising the public of our determination that a corn line
 developed by Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc., designated as transformation event
 MIR162, which has been genetically engineered for insect resistance, is no
 longer considered a regulated article under our regulations governing the
 introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms. Our determination is
 based on our evaluation of data submitted by Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc., in
 its petition for a determination of nonregulated status, our analysis of other
 scientific data, and our response to comments received from the public on the
 petition for nonregulated status and its associated environmental assessment and
 plant pest risk assessment. This notice also announces the availability of our
 written determination of nonregulated status and finding of no significant
 impact.
 EFFECTIVE DATE: April 20, 2010.
 ADDRESSES: You may read the documents referenced in this notice and the comments
 we received in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the
 USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC.
 Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
 holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817
 before coming. Those documents are also available on the Internet at
 (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/not_reg.html) and are posted with the previous
 notice and the comments we received on the Regulations.gov Web site at
 (http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail
 andd=APHIS-2009-0072).
 Other Information: Additional information about APHIS and its programs is
 available on the Internet at (http://www.aphis.usda.gov).
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Subray Hegde, Biotechnology Regulatory
 Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301)
 734-0810, email: (subray.hegde@aphis.usda.gov). To obtain copies of the
 documents referenced in this notice, contact Ms. Cindy Eck at (301) 734-0667,
 email: (cynthia.a.eck@aphis.usda.gov).
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, "Introduction of
 Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are
 Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests," regulate,
 among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or
 release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced
 through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to
 believe may be plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products
 are considered "regulated articles."
 The regulations in SEC 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to
 the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination
 that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and
 (c) of SEC 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of
 nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the
 petition.
 On September 10, 2007, APHIS received a petition seeking a determination of
 nonregulated status (APHIS Petition Number 07-253-01p) from Syngenta
 Biotechnology, Inc., of Research Triangle Park, NC (Syngenta), for corn (Zea
 mays L.) designated as transformation event MIR162, which has been genetically
 engineered for insect resistance, stating that corn line MIR162 is unlikely to
 pose a plant pest risk and, therefore, should not be a regulated article under
 APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340.
 In a notice /1/ published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2010 (75 FR
 1749-1751, Docket No. APHIS-2009-0072), APHIS announced the availability of
 Syngenta's petition and the associated draft environmental assessment (EA) and
 plant pest risk assessment for public comment. APHIS solicited comments for 60
 days ending on March 15, 2010, on whether the genetically engineered corn is or
 could be a plant pest and on the EA and the risk assessment.
 FOOTNOTE 1 To view the notice, petition, EA, risk assessment, and the comments
 we received, go to
 (http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetailandd=APHI
 APHIS received 35 comments during the comment period. There were 19 comments
 from groups or individuals who supported deregulation and 13 from those who
 opposed deregulation. APHIS has addressed the issues raised during the comment
 period and has provided responses to these comments as an attachment to the
 finding of no significant impact.
 National Environmental Policy Act
 To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of any
 potential environmental impacts associated with the determination of
 nonregulated status for Syngenta's MIR162 corn, an EA has been prepared. The EA
 was prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of
 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Council
 on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40
 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b),
 and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). Based on that EA,
 the response to public comments, and other pertinent scientific data, APHIS has
 reached a finding of no significant impact with regard to the preferred
 alternative identified in the EA, i.e., that Syngenta's MIR162 corn line and
 lines developed from it should not result in any significant impacts once they
 are granted nonregulated status and are no longer regulated articles under its
 regulations in 7 CFR part 340.
 Determination
 Based on APHIS' analysis of field, greenhouse, and laboratory data submitted by
 Syngenta, references provided in the petition, information analyzed in the EA,
 the plant pest risk assessment, comments provided by the public, and information
 provided in APHIS' response to those public comments, APHIS has determined that
 Syngenta's MIR162 corn will not pose a plant pest risk and should be granted
 nonregulated status.
 Copies of the signed determination document, as well as copies of the petition,
 plant pest risk assessment, EA, finding of no significant impact, and response
 to comments are available as indicated in the ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER
 INFORMATION CONTACT sections of this notice.
 Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80,
 and 371.3.
 Done in Washington, DC, this 16th day of April 2010.
 Cindy J. Smith
 Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
 Notice.
 Citation: "75 FR 20560"
 Federal Register Page Number: "20560"
 "Notices"
 LOAD-DATE: April 20, 2010
            Copyright 2010 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 265
 
                     Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock)
                              April 20, 2010 Tuesday
 EU close to lifting '06 U.S. rice limit
 LENGTH: 681 words
 The European Union is a step closer to lifting import restrictions it imposed on
 American-grown rice in 2006 when traces of a genetically modified strain were
 found in the domestic supply, USA Rice Federation officials said Monday.
 The Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, composed of EU
 member states, voted on Monday to repeal the emergency measures, which called
 for mandatory testing of U.S. rice. The decision can still be reviewed by the
 European Parliament, but is likely to remain in place, said Bob Cummings, senior
 vice president with the Arlington, Va.-based federation.
 "This is definitely a clear victory for U.S. rice," Cummings said. "We believe
 that the key step has been taken by the member states today, and that
 parliamentary review won't reverse what the member states have done." The review
 period could last up to 60 days, he said.
 Since traces of Liberty Link 601 were found in the U.S. long-grain rice supply
 in 2006, the European market for long-grain rice has shrunk considerably. In
 2005, the European Union was the fourth-biggest market for long-grain rice. At
 the end of 2009, it had dropped to the eighth biggest, according to the
 federation.
 From 2000 to 2004, the U.S. exported on average about 321,000 metric tons of
 long-grain rice to the EU, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture figures
 that the rice federation cited. In 2006, that number dropped to under 195,000
 tons, and in 2009 it was between 100,000 and 150,000 metric tons, Cummings said.
 A metric ton is 2,205 pounds.
 Almost all of that rice came from Arkansas, said Marvin Baden, senior vice
 president for sales and marketing at Producers Rice Mill in Stuttgart. Arkansas
 is the biggest rice-producing state in the country. The value of rice grown in
 the state last year was $1.34 billion.
 "It was probably the best market we had, and Riceland had, as far as premium
 quality pricing and brand," said Baden, who, along with other rice-industry
 representatives, has traveled to Europe about twice a year since imposition of
 the restrictions to negotiate with officials.
 The decision to repeal the measure was made after tests found no remaining trace
 of Liberty Link 601 in U.S. rice, Reuters reported that John Dalli, EU health
 commissioner, said in a prepared statement.
 The European Commission recommended in February that the measures be lifted.
 The rice industry has voluntarily tested rice since 2006 as part of an effort to
 eradicate LL601 from the supply.
 The percentage of contaminated rice had been steadily dropping since testing
 began, and in 2009, no trace of Liberty Link 601 was detected by the rice
 federation's test.
 Darryl Little, director of the state Plant Board, said in February that the
 board's tests have shown no traces of Liberty Link for two years.
 The loss of the European market has been an important factor in lawsuits against
 Bayer CropScience, which developed LL601 rice, as well as Producers Rice Mill
 and Riceland Foods. Last week Bayer was ordered to pay $48 million to 12
 Arkansas plaintiffs and has been named as a defendant in thousands of lawsuits
 at the state and federal levels.
 Baden said that it will be hard work to regain ground in Europe, which has found
 other sources of rice. Consumers in the EU are still wary of genetically
 modified foods, and food distributors there worry about the prospect of another
 recall.
 "[The decision] takes you out of the context that you're doing something wrong,
 or you've been doing something wrong all along, ... That's been taken off of our
 head now," he said.
 "But, truthfully, we still will be testing rice prior to shipment. We have to do
 that for our customers." The next challenge, Baden said, will be to persuade
 Europe to relax its zero-tolerance policy toward most genetically modified
 organisms; otherwise, any accidental contamination could cause a major recall.
 "Basically, Arkansas has no more [genetically modified organisms] on rice, but
 there's always a chance that one grain out of 40,000 [will]. And when that
 happens, you're in big trouble again."
 This article was published 04/20/2010
 LOAD-DATE: April 20, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2010 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 266
 
                  The News & Observer (Raleigh, North Carolina)
                              April 20, 2010 Tuesday
 Bayer CropScience fights $48 million verdict
 BYLINE: From staff reports
 LENGTH: 325 words
 Bayer CropScience is calling last week's $48 million jury verdict against it
 "incomprehensible" and says it will seek to reverse the decision.
 On Thursday a jury in Lonoke County, Ark., found that Bayer CropScience should
 pay $6 million in compensatory damages and $42 million in punitive damages to
 about a dozen local farmers for allowing a genetically altered strain of
 experimental rice to escape into the commercial market, according to the
 Associated Press. The lawsuit claimed rice price fell after the U.S. Department
 of Agriculture announced that trace amounts of the company's Liberty Link rice
 were found in U.S. stocks of long-grain rice.
 "The facts in this case do not support this award of damages, and certainly not
 future damages," Bruce Mackintosh, general counsel for Bayer CropScience, said
 in a prepared statement issued Monday "This decision is especially
 incomprehensible to us, because the U.S. Department of Agriculture has completed
 a thorough and diligent investigation without concluding that Bayer CropScience
 violated any legal requirement with respect to low-level presence of genetically
 engineered rice in commercial rice."
 Bayer CropScience's North American headquarters is in Research Triangle Park,
 where it employes more than 400 workers.
 Last week's case was the fourth to go to trial against Bayer CropScience. The
 three earlier cases produced a total of $4.5 million in judgments against the
 company, according to the Associated Press.
 No country has approved the sale of genetically modified rice, and after news of
 the contamination broke in 2006 European nations only accepted U.S. rice
 shipments that were extensively tested to prove that they weren't contaminated.
 Japan went further and banned all U.S. rice.
 Bayer contends that its genetically modified rice is safe for human consumption,
 and various other crops that have been similarly modified are sold in the United
 States, Canada, the European Union and Japan.
 LOAD-DATE: April 20, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
           Copyright 2010 The News & Observer (Raleigh, North Carolina)
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 267
 
                    Providence Journal-Bulletin (Rhode Island)
                             April 15, 2010 Thursday
 URI researchers see food boon in their super trout;
 Science
 BYLINE: C. Eugene Emery Jr., Journal Staff Writer
 SECTION: NEWS; Local; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 355 words
 SOUTH KINGSTOWN   Researchers at the University of Rhode Island say they have
 bred a form of super trout with oversized muscles that offer more fish flesh to
 fillet.
 The animals are not available commercially, and any plan to grow and sell them
 would need to first be approved by the Food and Drug Administration, which is
 wrestling with how to best regulate genetically engineered foods.
 They may look a little freakish, with 15 percent to 20 percent more muscle mass,
 rippling shoulder muscles and six-pack visible at their sides, but they
 otherwise look and act normally, said Terry Bradley, a URI professor of
 fisheries and aquaculture.
 And how do they taste?
 Well, that s still an open question.
 The discovery could help the 1,000 trout farms in the United States, which are
 in places such as Idaho, New York, Pennsylvania and California and already
 produce about $80 million worth of rainbow trout annually.
 Bradley said that using the new breed could allow aquaculture companies to
 produce larger fish using the same amount of food.
 He and his colleagues were able to get the trout to bulk up by inhibiting a
 natural protein that slows muscle growth.  We re trying to shut it down as much
 as we can,  said Bradley.
 When activity of the protein, known as myostatin, is suppressed in other
 species, the animals grow a lot more muscle   20 percent to 25 percent more in
 Belgian blue cattle and twice as much in mice.
 So the Bradley team tried a similar strategy in trout, injecting 20,000 rainbow
 trout eggs with DNA, the body s genetic code, to see if the eggs would produce
 fish whose bodies inhibit myostatin. It worked in 300 trout and the fish were
 subsequently bred.
 We hope to have fish that are producing a large number of prodigy carrying the
 gene sometime in the next three years or so,  he said.
 Bradley said no one has tasted the trout because, as breeding stock, each is too
 valuable to kill.  We can t afford it this year.
 I m sure the flavor is going to be the same. It should be,  he said.  The only
 difference is that we re increasing the number of muscle fibers.
 The taste test, said Bradley, will probably come next year.
 (73%); GENETIC ENGINEERING (71%); FISHES (90%); ANIMALS (90%) News Education;
 Business; News Rhode Island
 LOAD-DATE: April 15, 2010
 NOTES: gemery@projo.com / 277-7442
 GRAPHIC: Researchers at the University of Rhode Island say they have bred a
 trout with up to 20 percent more muscle mass that could some day be offered
 commercially.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2010 Providence Publications, LLC
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 268
 
                          Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
                             April 15, 2010 Thursday
 Meet the 'Omnivore' farmer;
 Joel Salatin speaks at the Bell Museum's "Hungry Planet" exhibit.
 BYLINE: BETH DOOLEY, STAR TRIBUNE (Mpls.-St. Paul)
 SECTION: TASTE; Pg. 1T
 LENGTH: 658 words
 Special to the Star Tribune
 Of all the labels tossed at Joel Salatin -- farmer, movie star and local food
 hero -- "lunatic" is the one he's most proud of.
 "I don't do anything like average farmers," boasts the native of Swoope, Va.,
 who calls himself a "grass farmer."
 Catapulted to fame by Michael Pollan's bestselling book "Omnivore's Dilemma,"
 and by a lead role in the award-winning film "Fresh," Salatin and his Polyface
 Farm have captured national attention for his commitment to Earth- and
 animal-friendly methods, including rotation grass grazing, humane treatment of
 animals and local processing on a large scale.
 Salatin, on a multi-city speaking tour promoting local artisan-based food as a
 viable alternative to the industrial food system, will be in town Sunday to kick
 off a series of Earth Day events with two lectures at the Bell Museum. We caught
 up with him by phone to talk about his upcoming visit.
 Q You were in Northfield, Minn., last spring as the keynote speaker at the
 annual Sustainable Farming Association conference. What do you think of our
 area? How is our local food system doing?
 A Great! This area is a hotbed of local food. There's a lot going on. I have an
 affinity for the region; it's like ours. It's in the same growing zone as North
 Dakota. We northern farmers have more time on our hands in the winter to think
 about things, big things.
 Q Are you seeing positive changes here?
 A You've got an amazing array of sustainable farmers and producers. We need
 10,000 Todd Churchills of Thousand Hill's Cattle Co., more Will Winters of
 Traditional Foods Warehouse, and farms like Riverbend, Featherstone and Gardens
 of Eagan.
 Q What do you see for the future of our food system?
 A I'm not a prophet, but I am an optimist. I'm seeing a lot of individual
 interest and collaborative effort. People are working together to move the local
 food system forward. But local, sustainable food is still only about 2 percent
 of food sales. Yet clean food, local food, is a viable alternative to
 industrial, corporate genetically modified food.
 Q Can this alternative system really produce the quantity of food we need?
 A If we are serious about having real choices, we need to look at the obstacles
 that prohibit clean, local food. We need to deal with the government
 regulations, licensing and insurance requirements that make it impossible for
 small farmers and producers to get their goods to the consumer. We've got to
 dispense with farm subsidies and expose the hidden costs in industrial food.
 Right now it's illegal to buy pickles from your neighbor or milk from the farmer
 down the street. Yet humankind has been eating this way for centuries.
 We also need to look at our priorities. Most people are willing to pay more for
 quality. We spend money on plenty of things we don't need. Think about designer
 jeans with holes in them. Why do we expect to get more for less when it comes to
 food?
 Q Are you seeing change, though?
 A Yes. There's far more availability of high-quality, locally raised and
 produced food, and there's tremendous potential. The demand is high and the
 interest is there. It's really about choice. That's my mantra: choice. That's
 why I'm pouring 110 percent of my energy into raising awareness around what a
 sustainable system can look like.
 Beth Dooley is a Minneapolis freelance writer and cooking instructor.
 When: Sunday.
 What: Choice of two lectures and a VIP reception.
 Where: Bell Museum, 10 SE. Church St., Univerity of Minnesota campus, Mpls.
 Time: 3 to 4:30 p.m.: "Can You Feed the World? Answering Elitism, Production and
 Choice;" 4:30 to 5:30 p.m.: VIP reception; 6 to 8 p.m.: "The Sheer Ecstasy of
 Being a Lunatic Farmer."
 Cost: $25 per lecture, includes voucher to see the movie "Fresh" at the
 Riverview Theater from April 20 to 22; $50 for reception (food from the
 Birchwood Cafe).
 Tickets: Available in person at Birchwood Cafe (3311 E. 25th St., Mpls.,
 612-722-4474) or online at freshthemovie.com.
 LOAD-DATE: May 17, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                           Copyright 2010 Star Tribune
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 269
 
                               Chicago Daily Herald
                             April 7, 2010 Wednesday
                                   NF1 Edition
 Film fest explores food crisis
 SECTION: NEIGHBOR; Pg. 4
 LENGTH: 331 words
 McHenry County College's International Film Festival continues through April,
 featuring "Seeds of Hunger" at 2 and 6 p.m. Thursday, April 8, and "Young Freud
 in Gaza" at 2 and 6 p.m. Tuesday, April 27, in the MCC Conference Center, 8900
 Route 14 in Crystal Lake.
 * "Seeds of Hunger" examines the impending global food crisis at 2 and 6 p.m.
 Thursday, April 8. More than 3 billion people worldwide suffer from
 malnutrition, with more than 1 billion starving, according to a description from
 Icarus Films. World agriculture is feeling the impact of global warming,
 population urbanization trends, and an increased use of grains for biofuels.
 Filmed in Africa, China, Latin America and the United States, "Seeds of Hunger"
 examines such issues as the politics of food security and scarcity, declining
 food production, the impact of genetically modified foods, water shortages,
 famine, food aid programs, and national food production, distribution and export
 policies. These issues are explored through interviews with farmers, financial
 analysts, and food buyers and importers worldwide.
 * "Young Freud in Gaza" scheduled for 2 and 6 p.m. Tuesday, April 27, profiles
 Ayed, a young psychotherapist for the Palestinian Authority's Clinic for Mental
 Health. Since the 2006 election of Hamas and the blockade of Gaza's border by
 Israel, the Palestinians have suffered an unemployment rate nearing 60 percent,
 and a shortage of food, water and medicine, according to a description from
 Icarus Films. Professional psychologists are also in short supply.
 Filmed from 2006 to 2008 against a backdrop of intense violence, the documentary
 follows Ayed as he makes house calls, and provides therapy and medication for a
 range of mental health issues, including depression, stress, anxiety attacks and
 suicidal tendencies.
 Both films are free. Audience members are invited to join a discussion after
 each film.
 For information, call Lindsay Carson at (815) 479-7723 or visit
 mchenry.edu/internationalstudies.
 LOAD-DATE: April 7, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2010 Paddock Publications, Inc.









Document Number: 270
 
                         Albuquerque Journal (New Mexico)
                              April 6, 2010 Tuesday
 Preparing for Possible Killer Asteroid
 BYLINE: John Fleck
 SECTION: FRONT PAGE; Pg. A1
 LENGTH: 948 words
 If we ever need to use Los Alamos scientist Cathy Plesko's research, we're in
 nail-biting trouble. But at that moment we're likely to be very glad she did it.
 Plesko is trying to figure out how to deflect an asteroid on a collision course
 with Earth.
 "You hope you never need it, but you know, you hope you never need car
 insurance," said the 29-year-old researcher.
 Plesko uses the massive supercomputers at Los Alamos National Laboratory to
 simulate what would happen if we used nuclear weapons in deep space to nudge a
 threatening asteroid, deflecting it onto a new course so it misses Earth.
 Plesko acknowledges we are years away from knowing enough to pull it off. How
 big a blast is needed? Would we have to use more than one?
 But she is among a growing group of scientists who believe it is important to do
 the work now, before a threat emerges, so we have the tools in hand to deal with
 the situation if - when? - we spot the Big One headed our way.
 In a January report, a federally chartered National Research Council panel
 concluded that, given the small but very real risk of a planet-altering
 collision, we should be doing more to track killer asteroids and prepare a
 response should a threat be discovered.
 For now, the closest thing to a Big One out there that we know about is an
 asteroid named Apophis, which NASA scientists estimate has a one-in-250,000
 chance of hitting Earth on April 13, 2036.
 An estimated 1,000 feet in diameter, Apophis would be big enough to destroy a
 country the size of Costa Rica, and maybe its neighbors, if it actually hit,
 according to Mark Boslough, a Sandia National Laboratories scientist who was a
 member of the National Research Council asteroid panel.
 Costa Rica is not a random choice. While the odds are against an impact,
 scientists have been able to calculate a "what if" scenario for the remote
 possibility of an impact. Costa Rica lies right in the middle of that possible
 Apophis impact path, along with Russia and vast stretches of ocean.
 Given the astronomically small odds that Apophis will hit Earth, it is mostly an
 intellectual curiosity at this point. The problem, according to the National
 Research Council panel's report, is that there likely are a lot more
 Apophis-sized asteroids out there that we don't know about.
 In 2005, Congress directed NASA to establish an asteroid survey aimed at finding
 the vast majority of the potentially threatening asteroids down to about half
 Apophis's size by 2020. But, according to the National Research Council report,
 funding for the surveys has lagged, and current efforts will not meet that goal.
 Funding for technologies to protect Earth once we find a killer asteroid lags
 even further. But a determined band of researchers like Plesko is plugging away
 at the problem.
 One idea being considered by scientists is the use of a nuclear blast to nudge
 an asteroid, changing its orbit so it misses Earth. If we had a decade or more
 of lead time, which is not out of the question, a small nudge would probably do
 it.
 But understanding in detail the effect of such a blast is a hard problem, Plesko
 said.
 In their most recent project, Plesko and her colleagues studied the effect of a
 nuclear explosion on a "rubble pile" asteroid - a common type of asteroid that
 is made up of a smaller rocks all bound together in a ball by the force of their
 own gravitational attraction. (Most of the asteroids that could threaten Earth
 are really gravitationally bound rubble piles, rather than big, solid rocks.)
 Their calculations showed that the blast would blow apart the rubble pile, but
 that the individual rocks' gravitational attraction would pull them back
 together in less than a day.
 When Plesko presented her results at a scientific meeting last month, some in
 the audience concluded the fact that the rubble pile ended up much as it was
 before the blast meant such a blast would be a failure. But that misses the
 point, Plesko said in an interview. The nudge from the nuke could nevertheless
 have changed the asteroid's path, she said.
 We're a long way from knowing enough about the problem to actually deflect an
 asteroid, Plesko said. But the research raises interesting questions about how
 society might go about using information developed by scientists like Plesko to
 make bet-the-planet decisions.
 On the surface, it looks like a simple problem - get the scientists' best
 advice, then act on it. But cases where we end up arguing about what really
 counts as their "best advice" are legion, from nuclear waste disposal to
 genetically modified foods to climate change. No matter how precise the
 calculations, there will be uncertainties attached. Rather than deflecting
 Apophis completely, would the nudge merely shift its path so it hits in the
 mid-Pacific, saving Costa Rica but creating a towering tsunami that destroys
 coastal California? Dan Sarewitz, an Arizona State University researcher who
 studies what happens at the interface of science and societal decision-making,
 thinks the asteroid problem would be easier to act on than something like
 climate change or nuclear waste disposal. If and when we discover an asteroid
 actually headed toward Earth, "There will be very little argument about whether
 that's a serious problem," Sarewitz said. Nukes are just one of the asteroid
 deflection strategies on the drawing board, and Plesko and her colleagues are
 working hard to reduce the uncertainties associated with their use, in terms of
 the amount of nudge a warhead would actually impart to the speeding asteroid.
 "This is really very much in its infancy," she said of the research. UpFront is
 a daily front-page opinion column. John Fleck can be reached at 823-3916 or
 jfleck@abqjournalcom.
 LOAD-DATE: April 6, 2010
 GRAPHIC: PLESKO: Studying how to deflect asteroid
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2010 Albuquerque Journal









Document Number: 271
 
                                The New York Times
                             March 31, 2010 Wednesday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Weak Rules On Toxins And Safety
 BYLINE: By DAVID LEONHARDT
 SECTION: Section B; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; ECONOMIC SCENE; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 1336 words
 For 14 years until just last month, GlaxoSmithKline sold a denture cream called
 Super Poligrip that contained high levels of zinc.
 The zinc helped with adhesion and was probably safe so long as people used
 moderate amounts of cream. Indeed, the human body needs small amounts of zinc to
 function. But some people ended up using much larger amounts, and they began to
 develop the kind of nerve damage  associated with excess zinc.
 Johnny Howell of Winston-Salem, N.C., who was using a tube of Poligrip a week,
 had to quit his job as a car mechanic and now needs a walker to get around his
 house. He is 53 years old. Rodney Urbanek, another Poligrip customer, began
 using a walker in 2007, at age 63. He died a year later, apparently a result of
 a copper deficiency from  ''zinc overload,'' according to his autopsy.
 Now, the science here still is not completely clear. One researcher I
 interviewed said he wanted to see more evidence before being confident that
 Poligrip was the problem. Other researchers said they thought the causal chain
 was clear. Poligrip has a lot of zinc. Too much zinc causes copper deficiency. A
 lack of copper causes nerve damage.
 Either way, the evidence has become strong enough that last month
 GlaxoSmithKline -- which also makes Tums, Nicorette and the country's
 top-sellingasthma drug  --  stopped making the version of Poligrip with zinc,
 after having previously resisted just such a move. In Japan, responding to
 regulators' concerns, the company has also recalled from stores any remaining
 zinc-infused cream.
 All of which makes you wonder: did it have to come this?
 Every society needs to make a choice about how to prioritize consumer safety. If
 you try too hard to avoid problems, you can end up stifling daily life.
 Outlawing gasoline, for instance, would doubtless reduce pollution and
 respiratory disease, but no one is suggesting such a step. Europe,  with its
 hostility to genetically modified foods,  arguably errs on the side of being too
 cautious about chemicals and other such substances.
 But the United States clearly seems to be on the other side of the line. We are
 not taking toxic risks seriously enough.
 Several common diseases, like certain cancers and developmental disorders, have
 been rising in recent decades, and scientists are not sure why. In some cases,
 evidence suggests chemicals may be the reason.
 Nobody can be sure, though. The science is not far enough along, partly because
 our regulation of toxins is so limp. Companies don't have to release much of
 their internal safety data. And regulators face a terribly high burden of proof.
 They can often  take action only after they have demonstrated that a substance
 is  harmful  --  a task that corporate secrecy can make impossible.
 ''I can get information on only  20 percent of  chemicals we interact with on a
 daily basis,'' says Alan Goldberg, a toxicologist at Johns Hopkins. Erik Olson,
 a food and consumer product expert at the Pew Charitable Trusts, sums up the
 situation this way: ''We're a heck of a lot closer to the Wild West than the
 nanny state.''
 The story of denture cream and zinc is a good example. A dentist in the  Navy
 noticed the link between zinc and copper deficiency in the 1950s, according to
 Dr. Harold Sandstead of the University of Texas in Galveston. Studies in later
 years confirmed the relationship. Early last decade, researchers made the
 connection from excess zinc to copper deficiency to neurological problems.
 ''It's nothing new,'' Peter Hedera, a Vanderbilt University neurologist, told
 me. ''If you researched the field, you would find out.''
 In 2008, Dr. Sharon Nations of Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and other
 researchers published a study in the journal Neurology that took the research
 one step further. It specifically tied denture cream to severe neuropathy. Dr.
 Hedera followed up that study with another one analyzing 11 patients with high,
 unexplained zinc levels. To his surprise, all 11 turned out to be heavy users of
 denture cream.
 Yet even after those studies appeared, GlaxoSmithKline continued to sell
 Poligrip. The company simply inserted a small piece of paper into the product's
 box containing some mild statements that barely even seemed to be warnings. The
 headline on the insert was, ''For Best Results Start With a Small Amount.''
 Perhaps even more questionable than GlaxoSmithKline's response has been that of
 Procter & Gamble, the giant consumer products company that also makes Crest,
 Tide, Pampers and Head & Shoulders. Procter is still selling a denture cream
 with zinc in it. Why? The cream, Fixodent, has only about half as much zinc as
 Poligrip did.
 Even so, it may be enough to cause problems. Some of the 11 patients in the
 Hedera study were Fixodent users. ''I would withdraw both'' -- not just Poligrip
 but also Fixodent, Dr. Hedera says.
 The companies' argument all along has been that if people use moderate amounts
 of cream, they will be fine. ''All Fixodent products are safe to be used when
 used as directed,'' Michelle Vaeth, a company spokeswoman, says. GlaxoSmithKline
 didn't take more aggressive action because it ''did not want to cause alarm,''
 said Nick Kronfeld, the company's medical director. ''The product has been safe
 and effective when used according to the label's directions.'' GlaxoSmithKline
 halted manufacturing as soon as it considered the science to be persuasive, he
 added.
 But given the vagueness of the instructions, the reality of how closely people
 read fine print and the levels of zinc involved  --  ''really high,'' says Jane
 Flinn, a biopsychologist at George Mason University  --  the companies sure
 seemed to be taking a risk with their customers' health.
 Mr. Howell, the former mechanic, who is suing GlaxoSmithKline, said he was
 careful to apply the cream how the instructions showed. He was less careful,
 however, about dosage. One of his lawyers, Stephen McCarthy, told me the
 packaging did not previously contain specific instructions about how much to
 apply. GlaxoSmithKline did not dispute this.
 Today, Mr. Howell has to rely on friends to drive him to the grocery store.
 ''Before all this started happening, I used to have a race car and I used to go
 fishing all the time,'' he said.
 ''Now, I can't drive. I wrecked my car because my legs wouldn't hit the brake. I
 tore the whole side of my car off.''
 It's too late to prevent much of whatever damage has been caused by denture
 cream. But it is not too late to prevent the next such problem, and there will
 be a next one. Companies are just  not going to regulate themselves. Their
 mission is to make money, and they pursue it well. They have shown again and
 again  --  with lead in paint, mercury in canned tuna and zinc in denture cream
 --  that they are less zealous about protecting consumer safety. Many executives
 choose to believe, and to publicize, the studies that make their products look
 good, while casting doubt on studies that don't.
 Fortunately, there are some reasons for optimism. Lisa Jackson, the  E.P.A.
 administrator, appears to take toxic risks more seriously than  recent
 predecessors.
 Congress also plans to take up a bill this year that would update toxic
 regulations. As my colleague Charles Duhigg has reported, recent court rulings
 have helped neuter the existing regulations. The chemical industry seems less
 opposed to a regulatory overhaul, in part because lax regulation may help
 low-cost Chinese chemical companies more than American firms.
 Needless to say, new regulations have their drawbacks. They could deprive us of
 products that would have made life better or cheaper and that, despite some
 early indications to the contrary, turned out to be perfectly safe. Think for a
 minute about all the Poligrip users who liked the product, were using it without
 problems and can't do so anymore.
 On the other hand, if you have a friend or family member with dentures, don't
 you wish GlaxoSmithKline and Procter & Gamble had been more up front about the
 apparent risks?
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: March 31, 2010
 GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: Johnny Howell's nerves were damaged by an excess of zinc. (B1)
 Johnny Howell at home in Winston-Salem, N.C. He uses canes or a walker and
 relies on friends to take him to the grocery store.
  Because he now drags his feet, Mr. Howell quickly wears out shoes and slippers.
 He had to quit his job as an auto mechanic. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY JEREMY LANGE FOR THE
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 272
 
                     Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock)
                             March 25, 2010 Thursday
 Trial over Bayer modified rice opens
 LENGTH: 665 words
 LONOKE - Bayer Crop-Science did not live up to its legal obligations to keep
 genetically modified rice out of the U.S. rice stock, behaving recklessly to cut
 costs and bring the product to the market before its competitors, a lawyer for
 some Lonoke County rice farmers told a jury Wednesday.
 "Bayer knew that if this stuff got out, then the consequences to the U.S. rice
 farmer would be catastrophic," said Scott Powell, an attorney at Hare, Wynn,
 Newell and Newton in Birmingham, Ala., in his opening statement in the circuit
 court.
 Powell represents 12 rice farmers and farm entities in a suit against Bayer
 which alleges the German conglomerate's negligence while field-testing its
 strains of genetically modified rice led to the loss of export markets and a
 prolonged drop in prices. The farmers are seeking punitive and compensatory
 damages.
 Dick Ellis, an attorney for Bayer, argued that the company behaved reasonably
 and complied with U.S. Department of Agriculture procedures to prevent the rice
 from escaping from field test plots. He said the impact of the contamination has
 been overstated.
 "Bayer wanted to create something useful ... wanted to do it right, wanted to
 take appropriate action when it was discovered ... it did not want to hurt any
 of its customers," Ellis said The suit is the fourth to go to trial since traces
 of Bayer's Liberty Link rice, bred to resist the company's Liberty brand of
 herbicide, was discovered in the U.S. rice supply in August 2006.
 At the time the crop contamination was announced, the rice variety had not been
 approved for human consumption, though the USDA said that it posed no health or
 environmental risk. Still, Japan and the European Union responded by immediately
 moving to restrict U.S. rice from crossing their borders, leading to lower rice
 prices and a drop in U.S. rice exports.
 In Woodruff County earlier this month in a similar suit, a circuit court jury
 awarded farmer Lenny Joe Kyle $500,000 in punitive damages in addition to
 compensation.
 Last month, federal juries in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
 of Missouri awarded about $3.5 million in compensatory damages to farmers in
 Arkansas, Mississippi and Missouri in two trials.
 Greg Coffey, a spokesman for Bayer CropScience, said the company has filed
 motions for new trials in the two federal cases, and is considering its legal
 options in the Woodruff County case.
 "We believe that Bayer CropScience acted responsibly and appropriately at all
 times in the handling of its biotech rice," Bruce Mackintosh, general counsel
 for Bayer CropScience LP, said in a statement.
 Powell said that though the government granted Bayer permission to test
 genetically modified rice on the condition that it would implement certain
 "performance standards," the company did not adhere to those practices. Bayer
 planted its genetically modified rice too close to conventional rice grown at
 the Louisiana State University site where the modified rice was being tested,
 and did not take precautions like using separate equipment to segregate the
 genetically modified rice, he said.
 Powell said the company ignored warnings that conditions at its testing site
 were risky.
 "Given the evidence that Bayer had no intent to comply with our law ... they're
 a prime candidate for punitive damages," Powell said.
 He also asked that the plaintiffs be awarded damages to compensate for the
 "differential" between the rice prices farmers received after the contamination
 was announced, and the prices they would have received otherwise.
 Ellis, the Bayer attorney, said rice prices nearly doubled in the year after the
 contamination was announced. He said rice marketers quickly found new places to
 export rice to replace the relatively small European market.
 "We believe our evidence will show that if there was any effect it was very
 slight; if it was for any time, it was very short," Ellis said.
 The trial, which resumes today, is scheduled to last 16 days.
 This article was published 03/25/2010
 LOAD-DATE: March 25, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2010 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 273
 
                             March 17, 2010 Wednesday
 Technology creates a standoff on farms;
 Genetically modified crops catch on in USA
 BYLINE: Elizabeth Weise
 SECTION: LIFE; Pg. 1D
 LENGTH: 1372 words
 For more than a decade, two opposing views of the technology used for
 genetically engineering crops have fought for the hearts and minds of the
 world's farmers.
 At best, they've come to  a standoff.
 The technology allows scientists to genetically manipulate common crops such as
 corn, cotton and soybeans, inserting traits that, in one case, lets farmers
 spray weed killer without hurting the crop and, in other instances, fight off
 insects. The effort has been embraced by some as a way to  better feed a world
 population that's soaring, but others raise the specter of "Frankenfood," whose
 long-term effect on human and environmental health has never been adequately
 studied.
 Count the Europeans in the latter group. They've largely rejected genetically
 modified crops on the grounds they pose  potential  ecological and health
 nightmares.
 Meanwhile in North America, and increasingly in South America, farmers embrace
 them, arguing they protect the environment by decreasing pesticide use and
 making no-till crops (where the soil is not plowed) possible. This increases
 water retention and decreases erosion, and at least by some measures reduces
 carbon released into the atmosphere.
 But now, like a global tug of war, that standoff may be starting to shift in
 favor of biotech supporters. In an announcement that drew little attention in
 November, China  said it had approved biotech rice and corn varieties, which
 some believe could be the beginning of a broader acceptance of the 16-year-old
 technology.
 That's disturbing to groups like Friends of the Earth, which opposes genetically
 engineered crops and fights them in both the USA and Europe.
 "China most definitely will have an influence in the future of agriculture and
 trade. They grow an incredible amount of food and fiber, and the more they
 embrace this technology, the more it's going to be used," says Eric Hoffman, the
 group's genetic engineering policy campaigner in Washington, D.C. "There's
 potential for China shifting the balance away from the movement that Europe is
 creating to stop these technologies."
 China's move could be mitigated in part by India's decision in February  to
 reject a newly approved eggplant variety genetically engineered to produce its
 own insecticide. But the struggle is still on to win over the largely undecided
 portions of the globe: Africa and Asia.
 Whatever governments are doing, a report out last month shows that worldwide,
 these crops are being adopted at a blistering rate, jumping 7% last year, an
 increase of  22.2 million acres. That's not bad for a technology targeting
 farmers, a generally conservative group when it comes to innovation, says Clive
 James of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech
 Application (ISAAA), which is financed by the biotech industry.
 "Farmers are smart people," says Gregory Jaffe, biotechnology director for the
 Center for Science in the Public Interest, a non-profit group in Washington,
 D.C., that tracks biotechnology but is neutral on its use. "They wouldn't
 continue to grow these over the years if in fact they weren't beneficial to
 them."
 U.S. farmers  certainly think so. By last year, biotech crops accounted for 85%
 to 95% of some key crops, including soybeans and cotton, the ISAAA says.
 Another reason there's little concern in North America is that  almost all those
 crops are either fed only to animals (soy and feed corn), used for fiber
 (cotton) or are so processed that the genetically engineered proteins are no
 longer present (sugar beets and high-fructose corn syrup). An attempt to
 introduce genetically engineered wheat in 2004 failed because growers were
 afraid it would hurt export prices.
 The 'precautionary principle'
 Opponents, including Doug Gurian-Sherman of the Union of Concerned Scientists,
 say that the crops do little for consumers and that conventional breeding
 techniques are just as powerful.
 Because the technology involves introducing genes from one plant or bacteria
 into another in combinations not found in nature, many believe it can never be
 proven entirely safe. They think science should operate on the "precautionary
 principle" that if something can't be proven to be 100% safe long term, it
 shouldn't be used. And they feel long-term research hasn't been done.
 "There really haven't been enough studies on the health effects of humans,"
 Hoffman says.
 Others argue that dozens of scientifically valid  studies have found no human or
 animal health effects from crops resistant to herbicides and others grown to
 produce their own pesticide -- a natural soil bacteria known as Bt.
 Jaffe believes "for the current crops that are grown throughout the world,
 there's a lot of data that show those crops are very safe to eat and safe for
 the environment. The more they're grown and the longer they're grown without a
 problem surfacing, (the more it) supports the people who said there wasn't a
 problem."
 But for some, no amount of scientific proof would make them comfortable. "There
 are still some people who refuse to give vaccines to their children, yet they've
 been tried and tested and they're beneficial and safe," Jaffe says. The
 public-interest science center's goal is to move away from emotions and see that
 governments   make "science-based decisions."
 Worldwide, biologically engineered crops continue to be embraced in both
 developed and developing nations. Last year, 330 million acres of biotech crops
 were planted in 25 countries, the ISAAA says.
 The largest increases were in the developing world. Internationally, the USA is
 the biggest adopter, growing 158 million acres.
 In Europe, however, the  trend is reversed. Of 26 European Union countries, only
 six plant the one genetically modified, or GM, crop accepted there:
 insect-resistant corn. Germany discontinued GM planting in 2008.
 Supporters of the technology want opponents to get real.
 With Earth's population expected to peak at 9 billion by 2050, from 6.8 billion
 today, humanity can't afford to give up any tools that might make agriculture
 more efficient, says Carl Pray, a professor of agricultural economics at Rutgers
 University in New Jersey.
 "We are going to have to produce more food, and we're going to have to produce
 it more efficiently in the sense that we have water and land constraints and
 environmental concerns about not cutting down and burning all of the rain
 forest," Pray says. Biotech can be a tool in achieving that, he believes.
 Biggest on the list are the anticipated arrival of drought-tolerant biotech corn
 in the USA in 2012 and in sub-Saharan Africa in 2017, the ISAAA's James says.
 The emergence of China
 Europe's opposition may be less significant in the future. China is now "the
 biggest investor in public biotech crop research in the world," says Guillaume
 Gruere, an agricultural economist with the International Food Policy Research
 Institute in Washington, D.C.
 China also will be the first country where a major staple food of humans, in
 this case rice, will be genetically engineered with the Bt gene to resist the
 rice stem borer. Its other newly approved crop is corn that contains an enzyme
 that makes pigs better able to digest the nutrient phosphorus, which decreases
 the phosphorus they excrete in their manure. Phosphorus is a major polluter of
 waterways.
 China also changes the  debate because one argument against bioengineered  crops
 has been that they are primarily owned and sold by large, multinational
 companies  that don't have the interests of farmers, society or the environment
 at heart.
 "We can't just let these corporations make huge profit at the expense of public
 health and environmental health and biodiversity," says Friends of the Earth's
 Hoffman.
 But in Asia, "for the most part, it's not companies that are doing it. It's
 coming out of the public sector, and that's really going to change the
 landscape," says Peggy Lemaux, a microbial biologist at the University of
 California-Berkeley, who is involved in  genetic engineering of crops suitable
 for developing countries.
 When China  begins to grow genetically modified rice, "it will have a huge
 impact, at least in Asia," Gruere says. "Other Asian countries will say,
 'They're growing it, they're eating it, they have less pesticide use. Maybe we
 should, too.' "
 LOAD-DATE: March 17, 2010
 GRAPHIC: GRAPHIC, Color, Suzy Parker, USA TODAY (Illustration)
 GRAPHIC, Color, Frank Pompa, USA TODAY, Sources: International Service for the
 Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications and the U.S. Department of Agriculture
 (Bar graph)
 PHOTO, B/W, Aaron Packard, Bloomberg News
                       Copyright 2010 Gannett Company, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 274
 
                         Herald News (Passaic County, NJ)
                             March 11, 2010 Thursday
 Letters to the Editor
 BYLINE: J.P. Pelzman, North Jersey Media Group
 SECTION: OPINION; LETTERS TO THE EDITOR; Pg. B09
 LENGTH: 539 words
 Food safety legislation filled with deep flaws
 I implore our lawmakers to oppose HR 2749, the "Food Safety Enhancement Act."
 This is a desperately important issue. Mega-food conglomerations have done a
 good job at complicating and obscuring its seriousness ? that may be the only
 reason why the entire population is not in an uproar. There are certain things
 in life that we have to compromise on, but when it comes to the ability to
 control the very things that allow us to physically survive, such as our choice
 of a healthy food supply, we must not give over that control to greedy companies
 that want to irreparably alter food and crush those who oppose them by
 manipulating the legal system into becoming thug enforcers for their agenda.
 Allowing this bill to pass might look like "food safety" on paper, but it allows
 large agribusiness to use the law against small farmers and those involved in
 the organic and non-GMO (genetically modified organism) community. It is not a
 matter of "to each his own." GMO crops contaminate non-GMO and organic crops by
 means of "genetic drift" ? their very pollen changes any crop that the breeze
 blows it over, taking away our choice.
 Furthermore, they can then sue farmers for stealing their patents, winning
 judgments and taking away farms. It would also overregulate and provide
 excessively stiff penalties for small food producers (such as roadside farmer
 stalls and farmers? markets), putting them out of business. This bill is a
 back-door way of gaining control over our food supply without an overt means.
 Consumers should have every right in the world to choose organic and non-GMO
 food.
 Please, say no to these lobbyists, oppose HR 2749. Our lawmakers should
 concentrate on real food safety, by suppressing and regulating GMO foods!
 Elizabeth Hinckley
 Wayne
 Pet?s death couldhave been prevented
 My heart goes out to the Szal family of Wayne and the loss of their beloved pet
 ("Curious bear captured," Page A1, March 5). But this tragedy could have been
 prevented. Since 2002, it has been illegal to "feed, give, place, expose,
 deposit, distribute or scatter any edible material or attractant with the
 intention of feeding, attracting or enticing a black bear."
 As reported in the article, the bear had been seen "taking garbage." The bear
 probably wouldn?t have hung around that neighborhood so long if a few simple
 precautions had been taken.
 I love all animals, and whenever one loses its life, it?s a tragedy. But when
 two animals lose their lives, the loss is doubly tragic.
 Philip Yturbe
 West Milford
 After reading Gary P. Golden Jr.?s letter of March 4, "Bear hunt is needed to
 control population," written in response to a recent letter of mine, I feel
 compelled to ask him about an article I read in last week?s paper, when a bear
 was allowed to wander around in Wayne for possibly months. One of the residents
 interviewed for the story said, "He?s been here for a long time. He hasn?t been
 aggressive. He?s been curious. He?s been taking garbage."
 Where was the Division of Fish and Wildlife? Is it possible that they had no
 idea that this animal was roaming around? Two tragedies, the deaths of a beloved
 dog and a very innocent bear, could have been prevented.
 Loretta De Rosso
 Pompton Plains
 LOAD-DATE: March 13, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2010 North Jersey Media Group Inc.,
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 275
 
                                Radio Free Europe
                                  March 11, 2010
 Calls Grow for Transparency
 LENGTH: 901  words
 HONG KONG -- As pressure grows for a more open government, a Chinese journalist
 has reported rough treatment at the hands of a provincial governor, and a top
 Internet firm has blocked the microblogging accounts of a prominent activist.
 Chinese journalists and Web users reacted angrily this week after the posting of
 a video online showing Hubei provincial governor Li Hongzhong snatching a tape
 recorder from Liu Jie, a reporter for the official Jinghua Shibao newspaper.
 Liu had asked Li a question about the case of waitress Deng Yujiao, who fatally
 stabbed a Communist Party official who demanded sex with her last May. Deng was
 freed after a national outcry surrounding her murder trial.
 While Liu said she was unable to comment on the incident, she said she would
 refuse to write any form of "self-criticism."
 "I am a journalist, and we have the right to independent media scrutiny," she
 said.
 Official arrogance 'common --
 Online activists said the incident came against a background of popular
 resentment of arrogant officials and lack of accountability.
 "This insolence of manner is not limited to Li Hongzhong," said Sichuan-based
 blogger Ran Yunfei.
 "The system produces officials who are abusive to subordinates while servile to
 their bosses."
 "The reason is that they are not elected by the people," he said.
 Shenzhen-based cyber writer Bei Feng said that the most worrying part of the
 episode was that Li threatened to talk to the reporter'ssuperiors on hearing her
 ask a sensitive question.
 "This was blatant blackmail and abuse of power," he said. "It clearly
 demonstrates how little space exists for Chinese media under the supervision of
 absolute power."
 The incident rippled fast through the Chinese Internet in China, but most
 postings were deleted as fast as they appeared, netizens said.
 Letter to parliament
 Meanwhile, Chinese artist and blogger-activist Ai Weiwei called on the
 government to make its information publicly available in an open letter sent to
 dozens of parliamentary delegates during the annual National People'sCongress
 (NPC) in Beijing.
 Ai'sletter said that Chinese citizens had sent at least 113 letters to
 government departments at all levels last year requesting the disclosure of
 information.
 "None of the departments directly answered a single question raised by us," the
 letter said, adding that 84 departments responded by saying the citizens should
 seek the information they wanted on the Internet.
 According to Ai, regulations on the disclosure of government information require
 departments and agencies to reply to requests for information within seven
 business days.
 Of the government departments contacted, 24 failed to respond at all.
 Calls to a number of NPC regional offices met with no comment on Ai'sinitiative.
 Qinghai provincial NPC editorial department official Xie Ping said he hadn'tread
 Ai'sletter yet because he had been busy.
 "I haven'thad a chance to read this letter yet," Xie said. "I will answer you
 once I have had a chance to read it."
 'Against regulations --
 Guangdong provincial NPC propaganda and information department official Wang Fei
 also declined to comment. "I haven'treceived this letter yet," he said.
 "I don'tfeel comfortable making any comment on this matter, because I am head of
 the propaganda and information department."
 After the letter was posted on a microblogging service run by Chinese Internet
 giant Sina.com, accounts containing any characters resembling Ai'sname were
 immediately deleted from the service.
 "It'sprobably because they had content that was against regulations," a customer
 service agent at Sina.com said. "There isn'tany other reason [for accounts to be
 deleted]."
 "This is done by our monitoring department."
 Farmers voice concern
 As netizens racked up the pressure online, a nationwide group of
 farmer'associations also called on the government to make public its intentions
 on genetically modified food imports.
 "Genetically modified foodstuffs may have unforeseen consequences after people
 eat it," association founder Zhao Fengsheng said.
 "We don'thave information about whether or not genetically modified foods can
 harm people, or induce various forms of cancer."
 "So we are calling on the government to make public the relevant reports on the
 matter ... We don'tknow why they haven'tpublished it. This stuff is not secret,"
 Zhao said.
 In his annual work report to the NPC last week, Chinese premier Wen Jiabao
 called for greater oversight of government by ordinary citizens and media, and
 for officials to create an environment in which it is possible for people to
 criticize and supervise the government.
 "We must create the conditions under which people are allowed to criticize the
 government, to supervise the government," Wen told delegates to the
 country'sparliament.
 "At the same time, we must bring out the ability of the media to exercise a
 supervisory role, so that power is exercised in broad daylight."
 Analysts said there is still a huge gap between what the government says and
 what it is able to achieve, however.
 Original reporting in Mandarin by Xin Yu and in Cantonese by Fung Yat-yiu.
 Mandarin service director: Jennifer Chou. Cantonese service director: Shiny Li.
 Translated and written for the Web in English by Luisetta Mudie. Additional
 translation by Chen Ping. Edited by Sarah Jackson-Han.
 Copyright (c) 2009, RFA. Used with the permission of Radio Free Asia, 2025 M St.
 NW, Suite 300, Washington DC 20036
 LOAD-DATE: March 11, 2010
            Copyright 2010 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 276
 
                     Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock)
                             March 10, 2010 Wednesday
 Bayer ordered to pay farmer $1 million is tab for modified rice
 LENGTH: 958 words
 A jury in Woodruff County Circuit Court decided Monday evening that Bayer
 CropScience LP must pay more than $1 million in compensatory and punitive
 damages to Lenny Joe Kyle, a rice farmer, for losses he sustained when Bayer's
 experimental variety of genetically modified rice infiltrated the rice supply.
 The jury awarded Kyle $532,643 in compensatory damages, and $500,000 in punitive
 damages. This is the third verdict against Bayer CropScience in rice lawsuits,
 but the first to award punitive damages.
 "Obviously, we're satisfied that [the] jury paid careful attention and
 understood the facts and decided that exemplary, or punitive, damages were
 warranted over and above the compensation, and we think that's significant.
 Punitive damages in Arkansas are not easy to obtain," said Chuck Banks, an
 attorney for Kyle.
 Riceland Foods, the Stuttgart-based cooperative, was also named as a defendant
 in the case and accused of withholding information about the contamination, but
 was not found to have caused any damage.
 The Woodruff trial was the first Bayer rice lawsuit to be resolved in a state
 court. Last month, a federal jury in St. Louis awarded about $1.5 million to
 rice farmers in Arkansas and Mississippi, and farmers in Missouri were awarded
 $2 million in December. Three additional federal "bellwether cases," meant as
 test cases, are scheduled for later this year, involving farmers from Louisiana
 and Texas, as well as a rice exporter.
 There are about 7,000 cases in multidistrict litigation in federal court in St.
 Louis, said Scott Perry, a Little Rock attorney and co-chairman of the
 plaintiffs executive committee, which was appointed by Judge Catherine Perry of
 the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to lead the
 plaintiffs' legal efforts.
 Bayer CropScience, a German corporation, had been testing rice that had been
 genetically modified to tolerate the company's Liberty Link herbicide when
 traces of it were found in the U.S. rice supply in 2006. Though the USDA said at
 the time of the crop contamination that the rice variety posed no health or
 environmental risk, the rice had not yet been approved for consumption. Japan
 and the European Union immediately moved to restrict U.S. rice from crossing
 their borders when the contamination was announced in August 2006, leading to a
 plunge in rice prices and a drop in U.S. rice exports.
 Banks said that Bayer was "negligent or careless" in following USDA testing
 guidelines and that, once the rice was contaminated, Bayer did not take
 appropriate steps to mitigate disruptions in the marketplace. Kyle's complaint,
 filed in August 2008, alleged that Bayer did not use tarps or safe zones to
 prevent contamination, did not take precautions with equipment, and allowed
 genetically modified rice to "commingle' with nongenetically modified rice in
 drying facilities.
 The complaint also alleged that Bayer was aware or should have been aware of the
 contamination before the company reported it to the U.S. government on July 31,
 "Bayer simply sat back, did nothing, and hoped the [genetically modified
 organism] contamination would not surface," the complaint said.
 The jury found that Bayer should have known that its actions would result in
 damage and that it "continued with such conduct with malice or in reckless
 disregard of the consequences," and that Bayer "intentionally pursued a course
 of conduct for the purpose of causing damage," according to documents filed with
 the Woodruff County Circuit Court.
 "It's these big companies walking over the farmers and getting away with the
 stuff that they did and we're tired of it, you know? We're finally going to
 stand up and do what we think is right," Kyle said Tuesday.
 In a statement, Bayer said that it "disagrees" with the decision to award
 punitive and compensatory damages and will consider its legal options.
 "Bayer CropScience maintains that it acted responsibly and appropriately at all
 times in the handling of its biotech rice," the statement said.
 Bayer has filed a motion for a new trial in the first federal verdict, in which
 $2 million in damages were awarded to Missouri farmers, but is still considering
 its options in the second and third cases, said company spokesman Greg Coffey.
 While most of the trial was focused on Bayer, Martin Phipps, a San Antonio
 attorney for the plaintiff, said that future trials might be different.
 Bill Reed, the vice president for communications at Riceland, said that Riceland
 was a victim of the contamination and was "glad to have the opportunity to tell
 [its] story in court." "Riceland feels vindicated that the jury agreed that
 Riceland did not conceal information regarding the LibertyLink Rice 601
 contamination," he said.
 It is because Riceland Foods was included as a plaintiff that the case could be
 tried in Arkansas state court. Having a suit heard locally, by a jury selected
 from their communities, is beneficial for farmers, Phipps said.
 "I think it should be in state court over federal court because the farmers have
 people on the jury that understand farming. They know what's happening, they
 know what it's like to be a farmer, they live in these communities and they know
 the impact of what happened," he said.
 Banks said that his firm represents more than 300 farmers or farm entities in
 Arkansas. His next case against Bayer will begin in July in Desha County.
 A case against Bayer with 12 plaintiffs is set to begin next week in Lonoke
 County Circuit Court, with opening arguments starting March 22. Scott Powell, an
 attorney for the Lonoke plaintiffs at the Birmingham, Ala.-based firm Hare,
 Wynn, Newell and Newton said that his firm is representing almost 1,500 Arkansas
 farmers in cases against Bayer.
 This article was published 03/10/2010
 LOAD-DATE: March 10, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2010 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 277
 
                         Lewiston Morning Tribune (Idaho)
                             March 10, 2010 Wednesday
 LENGTH: 155 words
 A quick look at what's going on in our region:
 Lecture focuses on Medieval women
 Misty Urban, professor of humanities and creative writing at Lewis-Clark State
 College, will give a lecture on "Careers for Women in Medieval Europe" from
 10:30 TO 11:45 A.M. TODAY in Sacajawea Hall, Room 112, on the LCSC campus. The
 public is invited, and the event is free.
 Genetically modified food to be discussed
 Kevin Murphy, assistant research professor in the College of Agriculture,
 Department of Crop and Soil Sciences at Washington State University, will be
 talking about potential risks and rewards of genetically modified organisms in
 our food at NOON TODAY. The talk is part of the League of Women Voters meeting
 in the Fiske Room at the 1912 Center in Moscow. The public is invited, and there
 will be time for questions and comments.
 Do you have an event you would like to see listed in happenings? Send an e-mail
 to rthompson@lmtribune.com
 LOAD-DATE: March 10, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2010 Tribune Publishing Co.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 278
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                               March 8, 2010 Monday
 Seed's failure raises red flag Monsanto concerned over pest's survival in
 modified cotton seeds in India. SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
 BYLINE: BY GEORGINA GUSTIN o ggustin@post-dispatch.com > 314-340-8195
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A4
 LENGTH: 248 words
 A genetically modified cotton produced by Monsanto is failing to control pests
 in four Indian states, the company said last week.
 The survival of the pink bollworm in Monsanto's Bollgard brand cotton was
 detected in four of the nine Indian states where the cotton is grown.
 A spokesman for the Creve Coeur-based company said it is taking the matter "very
 seriously" and will continue to monitor the situation with the help of a team of
 Indian-based experts. The detection has been reported to the Indian Genetic
 Engineering Committee, the company said.
 The cotton is engineered to resist the pink bollworm, a pest that can ruin
 crops. However, testing was conducted to assess resistance to Cry1Ac, the Bt
 protein in the crop, and insects were found to be surviving it.
 The company said Friday that the resistance could be occurring because the
 required refuge areas were not planted by farmers and some may have used
 unapproved Bt cotton seed.
 Recently, India's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, said the country should
 be more cautious in adopting genetically modified crops.
 Ramesh imposed a freeze on commercial cultivation of Monsanto's Bt brinjal, or
 eggplant, until further health and environmental safety tests can be conducted.
 The Bt brinjal is the first genetically modified food crop grown in the country.
 Both the Bollgard cotton and brinjal were developed in conjunction with Mahyco,
 an India-based seed company that helped Monsanto introduced Bollgard cotton to
 the country in 2002.
 LOAD-DATE: March 8, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2010 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 279
 
                   State Department Documents and Publications
                                  March 8, 2010
 Farmers Planting More Biotech Crops Each Year
 BYLINE: Kathryn McConnell, Staff Writer
 LENGTH: 534  words
 Washington -- Farmers planted 7 percent more hectares with biotech crops in 2009
 than in the previous year, according to an international research report.
 In fact, there have been annual increases in such planting since 1996, when
 biotech seeds were first commercialized. "The 80-fold increase in hectares
 planted with biotech crops between 1996 and 2009 is unprecedented and makes
 biotech crops the fastest adopted crop technology in the history of
 agriculture," reports the research group International Service for the
 Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications.
 Farmers in 25 countries plant biotech seeds. About half of the biotech-planted
 hectares are in developing countries. Ninety percent of the farmers planting
 biotech, or genetically modified crops, are small land-holders, the group says.
 The rest are large farmers from both industrial countries like the United States
 and Canada, and from developing countries such as Argentina and Brazil,
 according to the group's report, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM
 Crops: 2009.
 Biotech soybeans account for more than 75 percent of soybean hectares globally.
 Roughly half of the world's hectares planted in cotton and one-fourth of
 hectares planted in maize have biotech varieties.
 Soybeans continue to be the most prevalent biotech crop, occupying more than
 half of all biotech hectares. Herbicide tolerance is the most prevalent trait in
 planted biotech seeds.
 Notably, in November 2009, China issued biosafety certificates for
 insect-resistant rice and maize containing phytase, which helps livestock
 digestion. Those actions ensure crops are safe for humans, animals and the
 environment and clear the way for the crops' commercialization, which may take
 another two to three years of field trials. Both crops were developed by local
 researchers without funding from Western firms.
 Rice is the most important food crop in the world, and maize is the most
 important feed crop. China is the world's largest rice producer and its second
 largest maize producer.
 "China's global leadership in approving biotech rice and maize will likely
 become a positive role model and influence acceptance and speed of biotech food
 and feed crop adoption throughout Asia and globally," said Clive James, the
 biotech research group's chairman.
 The United States is the largest grower of biotech crops. It is followed by
 Brazil, Argentina, India, Canada, China, Paraguay and South Africa.
 Of the 25 countries growing biotech crops in 2009, 10 are in Central and South
 America, three countries are in Africa, six are in Europe and three are in Asia.
 Australia also plants biotech crops. (Costa Rica recently started planting
 biotech seeds, while Germany stopped.)
 The research center predicts that additional biotech crops will be approved by
 2015, including potatoes, sugarcane and bananas. Wheat remains the last major
 staple crop without approved biotech traits; however, political support for a
 biotech wheat crop is building globally, according to the research group.
 The research group has offices in Manila, Nairobi and Ithaca, New York.
 (This is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S.
 Department of State. Web site: http://www.america.gov)
 LOAD-DATE: March 9, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Report
            Copyright 2010 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 280
 
                                   Land Letter
                                  March 4, 2010
 WILDLIFE REFUGES: Lawsuit aims to keep genetically modified crops out of refuges
 SECTION: New This Week Vol. 10 No. 9
 LENGTH: 696 words
 Allison Winter, E&E reporter
 This story first appeared in E&ENews PM.
 Environmentalists have sued the Obama administration in a bid to halt the spread
 of genetically engineered crops into national wildlife refuges.
 The lawsuit, filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for Delaware, accuses the
 Fish and Wildlife Service of illegally allowing biotech crops on Bombay Hook
 National Wildlife Refuge in Delaware.
 The lawsuit builds off a case the groups successfully argued last year against
 genetically engineered crops on a neighboring refuge and could be the first of
 several legal challenges this year.
 "We are looking to file as many as it takes to get the refuges to change their
 practices," said Christine Erickson, a staff attorney with Public Employees for
 Environmental Responsibility. "Hopefully, it won't too many more lawsuits before
 they get the message."
 Erickson said the group is prepared to file five to 10 lawsuits this year if the
 administration fails to reverse its policy on refuge farming.
 At issue is a policy that allows refuge managers to lease some land to farmers.
 The Fish and Wildlife Service has no centralized database on leasing, but PEER
 has obtained data through the Freedom of Information Act that it says show
 biotech crops have been planted on more than 150,000 acres in wildlife refuges.
 As part of agency guidance associated with the 1997 refuge improvement act, the
 service adopted a policy in 2001 that prohibited the use of genetically modified
 organisms in refuges unless the agency determines their use would be "essential
 to accomplishing refuge purposes" and is approved by the regional director.
 Monday's lawsuit challenges hundreds of acres of cooperative farming agreements
 at Delaware's Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge that were completed without
 review under the National Environmental Policy Act.
 The groups contend that farming corn and soybeans on the refuge -- given
 pesticides and other chemicals involved in the operation -- undermines the
 refuge's mission to serve as a safe haven for wildlife. The leases provide
 benefits for the farmers but not to the birds, the groups say.
 At nearly 16,000 acres, Bombay Hook has one of the largest expanses of unspoiled
 tidal marsh in the mid-Atlantic, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service. The
 refuge was established in 1937 to provide a stop and breeding grounds for
 migrating birds, serving as a link in a chain of refuges along a migration route
 between Canada and the Gulf of Mexico.
 In March 2009, environmental groups won a similar lawsuit over the neighboring
 Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge, where managers allowed farmers to plan
 genetically engineered soybeans and corn until 2006.
 Shortly after the groups sued, the Fish and Wildlife Service canceled 37 farming
 contracts at the Delaware refuge. The government argued in court that the case
 should be moot, since Fish and Wildlife had ceased the program. But Judge
 Gregory Sleet of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware rejected
 that argument, noting, "The court is not convinced that the defendant's
 practices will not necessarily resume in the future."
 In a strongly worded decision, Sleet said the agency erred by failing to conduct
 environmental studies to determine if the plantings were compatible with the
 refuge's mission. Meanwhile, the agency ignored the advice of some of its own
 biologists, who questioned whether such farming would degrade the refuge
 (Greenwire, March 25, 2009).
 Prime Hook and Bombay Hook refuges are currently managed under the same
 "complex" -- the result of an agency reorganization initiated to try to reduce
 administrative expenses. But even though the Fish and Wildlife Service cut off
 farming at Prime Hook, the practice remains at Bombay Hook.
 "There is no question that there has been a self-serving relationship between
 local farmers and the refuge management over time here in Delaware," said Mark
 Martell, president of the Delaware Audubon Society, a party in the two lawsuits.
 "The original lawsuit regarding these practices at Prime Hook is a game changer,
 and it is our fervent hope that Bombay Hook and other refuges around the country
 take notice," Martell said.
 LOAD-DATE: March 4, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Magazine
              Copyright 2010 Environment and Energy Publishing, LLC









Document Number: 281
 
                         Staten Island Advance (New York)
                              March 4, 2010 Thursday
 LENGTH: 527 words
 The Advance publishes daily reports of meetings held by Staten Island civic
 groups. Reports should be called in to the Advance newsroom at (718) 981-1234 or
 e-mailed to meetings@siadvance.com E-mails must include the name and phone
 number of someone the Advance can contact. Reports must appear the day after the
 meeting.
 South Shore Republicans
 The South Shore Republican Club met Tuesday in Primo's restaurant, Dongan Hills.
 The group is looking for speakers. The next meeting will be March 24 at 7 p.m.
 in Primo's.
 Bridge Club of S.I.
 Wednesday afternoon game winners at the Bridge Club of Staten Island, Castleton
 Corners, were: North-South: first, Jeanette Merola, Louise Jordan; second,
 Stuart Graybow, Anthony Merola; third, Sandy Muccillo, Madeline Schmeider;
 fourth, Joan Frederick, Gloria Seminara. East-West: first, Barbara Meyer, Betty
 Kasegrande; second, Dora Arnone, Serina Day; third, Mary Logan, Terri Marrillo,
 fourth, Karen Schulman, Judy Hunter. For information, call 718-273-3106.
 Annadale Garden Club
 The Annadale Garden Club, member of the First District Federated Garden Clubs of
 New York State, met last night in Messiah Lutheran Church, Annadale. A workshop,
 "Planting your Garden to Attract Hummingbirds," was held by Leona Schweitzer and
 her daughter of Conrad Schweitzer Nursery. Members also discussed spring
 flowering plants, seeds from Italy, and genetically modified corn and its impact
 on bees and butterflies. Denise Solomon won honorable mention for her design at
 the recent New Jersey Flower Show and Dave O'Dell and Olga Frederico won awards
 for their orchids at the recent Orchid Show at Dearborn Markets. The next
 meeting will be April 6. For more information, call 917-327-5720 or visit
 www.annadalegardenclub.org.
 African Violet society
 The African Violet Society of Staten Island met yesterday. The program was
 "Judging African Violet Trailers," presented by AVSA master judge Lee Gugliada,
 who also demonstrated the differences among standard, semi-mini and mini trailer
 plants and the best techniques for symmetrical foliage. Members will participate
 in the annual Plant Sale on May 2 and 3, joining with the Staten Island Orchid
 Society, at Snug Harbor Botanical Garden. The next meeting will be April 7 at
 7:30 p.m. at Huguenot Reformed Church, 5501 Amboy Rd. The program will be
 "Growing Kohlerias" with AVSA and gesneriad judge Gussie Farrice. New members
 are always welcome and encouraged to attend.
 Three Bridges 3/4 Unit
 The Three Bridges 3/4 Service Unit met yesterday at St. Simon's Episcopal Church
 and held a Daisy Ceremony to celebrate Girl Scout Week. The annual Thinking Day
 is set for March 13 from 9:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. at Christ Church, New Brighton. The
 theme is "Ending World Hunger." Each Scout is asked to bring a nonperishable
 food item to donate to a local food pantry. The Girl Scout Council's annual
 Recognition Luncheon will be held April 17; the deadline for reservations is
 March 8. The Staten Island Encampment weekend at Camp Kaufman is April 23-25 and
 the second annual Girl Scout Day at Camp Pouch will be May 22. The next meeting
 will be Wed., April 7 at 7 p.m.
 LOAD-DATE: March 5, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: sia
                    Copyright 2010 Advance Publications, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 282
 
                         Lincoln Journal Star (Nebraska)
                             March 3, 2010 Wednesday
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. A4
 LENGTH: 436 words
 WASHINGTON - The Senate has passed stopgap legislation to extend help for the
 jobless and keep federal highway dollars flowing. The 78-19 vote came after a
 GOP senator who was singlehandedly holding up the legislation finally relented.
 Kentucky Republican Jim Bunning had been holding up action for days but conceded
 after pressure intensified with Monday's cutoff of road funding, as well as the
 impending loss of longer and more generous unemployment benefits that would have
 affected about 1,300 Nebraskans.
 Bunning was seeking to force Democrats to finance the $10 billion measure so
 that it wouldn't add to the deficit.
 Farm Credit Services of America, a financial cooperative with more than 80,000
 customers, said net income for 2009 was $229.8 million, down 5.4 percent from
 Total loan volume increased 8.6 percent to $13.5 billion from $12.4 billion in
 2008. Members' equity ended 2009 at $2.2 billion an increase of 8.7 percent for
 the year.
 The lower net income was attributed primarily to provisions for loan losses.
 Loan charge-offs were primarily in the renewable fuels and livestock portfolios
 and the increase in the general and specific allowance for loan losses was
 related to the renewable fuels, swine and dairy industries.
 FCSAmerica said it will distribute $52 million in cash to eligible shareholders
 this year.
 FCSAmerica serves farmers, ranchers, agribusiness and rural residents in Iowa,
 Nebraska, South Dakota and Wyoming.
 BRUSSELS - The European Union on Tuesday approved the planting of a
 biotechnology crop for the first time in more than a decade, allowing the
 cultivation of BASF's genetically modified potato after calls by the United
 States for a more open EU market.
 The EU authorized the Amflora potato to be grown for the production of
 industrial starch over the objections of environmental groups. The decision
 signals more EU readiness to dismantle obstacles that companies ranging from
 Germany's BASF to U.S.-based Monsanto have faced in seeking to expand the $10.5
 billion global biotech crop market through growth in Europe.
 Since ending a six-year moratorium on new gene-modified products in 2004, the EU
 has let them be imported for food and feed uses, while stopping short of
 endorsing any request for cultivation.
 The commission under President Jose Barroso is trying to expand the European
 biotech-crop market over the resistance of half or more of the EU's 27
 countries. Surveys show opposition to such foods by European consumers.
 - From staff and wire reports
 LOAD-DATE: March 3, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2010 Lincoln Journal Star
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 283
 
                            The Philadelphia Inquirer
                              March 2, 2010 Tuesday
                                  CITY-C Edition
 Suit seeks to halt engineered crops at refuge
 BYLINE: By Sandy Bauers; Inquirer Staff Writer
 SECTION: PHILADELPHIA; P-com News Local; Pg. B02
 LENGTH: 771 words
 A federal lawsuit filed yesterday seeks to stop the Bombay Hook National
 Wildlife Refuge in Delaware from allowing farmers to plant genetically
 engineered crops at the major waterfowl sanctuary.
 The groups that filed the suit contend that the use of such crops on refuges is
 a national problem. As many as 80 others, including the Cape May National
 Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey, also have allowed genetically-engineered crops,
 they said.
 The groups, which include Delaware Audubon Society and the nonprofit Center for
 Food Safety, said the crops can harm wildlife, in part by killing beneficial
 insects.
 The crops also foster the use of herbicides, which may be toxic to amphibians
 and other wildlife and hasten the development of herbicide-resistant
 "superweeds," the groups said.
 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman Tom Alvarez said the agency would have
 no comment on the litigation. He also said he could not speak generally about
 crop plantings on national wildlife refuges.
 The manager of Bombay Hook also did not respond to a request for comment.
 Although widely used in commercial agriculture, the use of genetically
 engineered crops in refuges "goes against the purpose for which the refuges were
 created," said Christine Erickson, a lawyer for a third plaintiff in the suit,
 Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a national alliance of
 public-resource professionals.
 The groups said planting the crops violates the service's own policies, which
 forbid them in refuges without a determination that they are essential.
 Bombay Hook is a 16,000-acre expanse of mostly tidal marshes that provide
 valuable habitat to many species of waterfowl. It also attracts bird-watchers
 from throughout the mid-Atlantic and beyond.
 Its importance "has increased greatly over the years, primarily due to the loss
 of extensive surrounding marshland to urban and industrial development," the
 refuge's Web site says.
 The suit contends that for several decades, the refuge has leased acres on the
 property to farmers. In 2009, slightly more than 800 acres were leased, and
 genetically-modified corn and soybeans were planted.
 The crops also can alter soil ecology and contaminate non-genetically-engineered
 plants, the suit said.
 In Delaware, a weed known as "mares tail" has developed resistance from the use
 of Roundup Ready on soybeans and corn, the suit contends.
 It noted that the federal agency itself has identified the potential risks of
 genetically engineered crops to include "gene flow, nontarget effects, pest
 resistance, and increased use of certain pesticides."
 The groups picked the Bombay Hook refuge for their action because in 2009, they
 won a similar suit against the nearby Prime Hook refuge, now administratively
 incorporated into Bombay Hook.
 In that case, federal Judge Gregory Sleet found that the agency allowed the
 crops in spite of "their own biologists' findings that these activities posed
 several significant risks to Prime Hook."
 He said it was "undisputed that farming with genetically modified crops at Prime
 Hook poses significant environmental risks."
 In August, several groups wrote to Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar,
 asking for a moratorium on the practice, but said they did not receive an
 answer.
 The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Delaware by the Widener
 Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic.
 Paige Tomaselli, an attorney for the Center for Food Safety, said farmers have
 complained that, because of consolidation of the seed industry, it has harder to
 find seed that has not been genetically modified.
 Basically, four companies own more than 40 percent of the seeds in the world,
 Tomaselli said.
 She said that the crops all but guarantee the use of herbicides, to which
 wildlife is then exposed.
 Mark Martell, president of the Delaware Audubon Society, said farming no longer
 serves any purpose on the refuge.
 Planting crops on refuges, he said, stems from a fear that there might not be
 enough food sources for wildlife there.
 Current studies show there are ample food resources for wildlife in the Delaware
 refuges, yet "cozy relationships" between the farmers that sold land to form the
 refuge and the refuge itself have continued, he said.
 Because of modern "clean" farming techniques, "they don't leave food plots for
 wildlife," Martell said. "They simply treat these government lands as part of
 their farms, managing these plots for personal profit, not for providing any
 economic or wildlife value to the species that use the refuge."
 Contact staff writer Sandy Bauers at 215-854-5147 or sbauers@phillynews.com.
 Visit her blog at http://go.philly.com/greenspace
 LOAD-DATE: March 2, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2010 Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 284
 
                     Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock)
                             February 26, 2010 Friday
 Rice free of genetic taint, EU told
 LENGTH: 770 words
 Representatives of the U.S. rice industry, including some based in Arkansas,
 have told the European Commission that domestic rice in 2009 was free of the
 genetically modified strain that severely restricted the exporting of the
 American crop to the continent.
 As a result, the commission has begun the process that could remove restrictions
 it placed on the importation of American rice in 2006, according to Bob
 Cummings, executive vice president of the Washington, D.C.-based USA Rice
 Federation.
 The European Union adopted "emergency measures" mandating additional testing on
 all U.S. rice in 2006, after traces of Liberty Link 601, a genetically modified
 strain, were found in the U.S.
 longgrain rice supply. Since then, rice industry representatives have traveled
 to Europe about twice a year on average, Cummings said.
 The decision came after a meeting in Brussels between representatives of the
 rice industry and the commission earlier this month.
 On the trip were Cummings; Carl Brothers, vice president of international rice
 for Stuttgart-based Riceland Foods; Marvin Baden, senior vice president of sales
 and marketing at Producers Rice Mill in Stuttgart; David Van Oss, vice president
 commodities and technical services at Houston-based Riviana Foods, and a
 representative of Decatur, Ill.-based Archer Daniels Midland Rice, Cummings
 said.
 The percentage of contaminated rice had been steadily dropping since testing
 began; in 2007, 0.5 percent of rice tested positive for the genetically modified
 strain. In 2008 it was down to 0.1 percent, Cummings said.
 Riceland has been named a defendant in more than "100 underlying lawsuits" filed
 by rice growers and distributors due to "alleged contamination of the Arkansas
 and United States long-grain rice supply with genetically modified rice,"
 according to documents filed this month by Riceland in U.S. District Court for
 the Eastern District of Arkansas.
 Darryl Little, director of the state Plant Board, said testing for Liberty Link
 is happening "on several fronts." The board tests rice seed and hasn't found any
 traces of Liberty Link for two years, he said.
 Also, the rice industry conducts random sampling of the rice crop, and had no
 detection of the strain in 2009.
 The last time "a hit here and there" of Liberty Link was detected was in fall
 2008, Little said.
 "All I have is all anecdotal information," he added.
 "We expected this would take a little bit of time to flush through the system,"
 he said.
 The board already has tested the majority of the seed to be planted in 2010 and
 has detected no Liberty Link, Little said.
 Since the mandatory testing was imposed, the United States has all but lost an
 important market for rice. Rice exports to Europe have dropped from about
 275,000 tons a year to 50,000, Cummings said.
 "What we'd like to do is for the Europeans to remove [the] regulatory black mark
 against U.S. rice, so it's not a ... requirement that it's tested," Cummings
 said.
 Arkansas is the biggest riceproducing state in the country.
 John Clancy, a spokesman for the EU commission on trade matters, said that
 efforts to prevent unauthorized genetically modified rice from entering the
 supply have been successful, but he could not give a timeline for the lifting of
 the restrictions.
 "The process involves a number of consultation steps and requires the agreement
 of EU member states," he said in an e-mail statement.
 Cummings was optimistic that the restrictions could be lifted as soon as April.
 But American rice may continue to face marketing challenges in Europe, even once
 the restrictions are lifted, as many customers remain sensitive to issues
 surrounding genetically modified food.
 "Then you have to start the rebuilding with the importers, the retailers and the
 consumer. I really don't have a time frame for that," Cummings said. "We'll have
 to work on the promotion side depending on what the demands are in each
 country." Cummings said the ethnic Asian market in Europe still purchases
 American rice, whereas some countries, such as Germany, have been more
 reluctant.
 The loss of the European rice market has figured heavily in cases brought
 against Bayer CropScience, the company that developed Liberty Link rice and was
 testing it at the time of the contamination.
 The German conglomerate was ordered to pay $1.5 million in damages to farmers in
 Arkansas and Mississippi in a verdict earlier this month. The plaintiffs'
 attorney argued that Bayer's "negligence" cost farmers an important source of
 export revenue.
 Information for this article was contributed by Toby Manthey of the Arkansas
 Democrat-Gazette.
 This article was published 02/26/2010
 LOAD-DATE: February 26, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2010 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 285
 
                      The Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin)
                             February 26, 2010 Friday
 BYLINE: Jim Goodman Wonewoc farmer and policy fellow, Food and Society Fellows
 Program
 SECTION: OPINION; Pg. WEB
 LENGTH: 658 words
 Since the first commercial cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops in
 1996, Monsanto and the rest of the big six biotech seed companies
 (Pioneer/DuPont, Syngenta, Dow, BASF and Bayer) have become masters at the art
 of story telling.
 Farmers, always looking for the next big technology fix, loved the stories: the
 promise of better yields, less chemicals needed for weed control, higher profits
 and of course, a solution to the elusive goal of feeding the world.
 Governments, seeing biotechnology as a huge economic engine, embraced the
 technology. University research was shifted almost exclusively to biotech crops.
 Genetic modification was the wave of the future -- bankers encouraged planting
 GM crops to guarantee a "profitable harvest." Crop insurance premiums were lower
 for farmers planting GM. Everyone bought the story.
 In a recent opinion piece in the Wisconsin State Journal, former Secretary of
 Agriculture John Block touted the virtues of GM crops and credited them with
 producing higher yields, lower pesticide use and solving the ever-growing
 problem of world hunger. Current Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack plugged GM at
 the recent USDA Outlook Conference.
 Problem is, the promises were just good stories. The believers are missing the
 truth.
 Weeds have become resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, and insects have
 become resistant to the toxins produced by Monsanto's GM corn.
 As GM was planted on more acres, overall pesticide use went up, not down.
 A University of Kansas study found that GM crops actually had lower yields than
 their conventional counterparts.
 Even as the problems of GM crops become more apparent, the cost of GM seed
 continues to rise. Many farmers are backing away from GM, but finding non-GM
 seed is difficult, considering Monsanto controls roughly 90 percent of the corn
 and soy genetics in the U.S.
 With corn and soy well under their control, Monsanto now hopes to gain USDA
 approval for Roundup-resistant alfalfa. A perennial crop, alfalfa is the fourth
 most-widely grown crop in the U.S. and again, Monsanto sees profit. The
 contamination of non-GM and organic alfalfa, the potential for further reduction
 of bee populations, among other problems, seem of little consequence.
 Feeding the world? GM will not do it. Even former Monsanto CEO Robert Shapiro
 admitted: "The commercial industrial technologies that are used in agriculture
 today to feed the world ... are not inherently sustainable."
 Still, Monsanto bills itself as a leader in global sustainability, ignoring the
 fact that true sustainability cannot be achieved when your only driving goal is
 the next quarterly profit report.
 The world stands a better chance of feeding itself by using and improving upon
 farming methods that have been relied upon for centuries. In Africa, for
 example, if indigenous crops, long adapted to their environment, were put
 forward as the solution to hunger, studies show that the population could have
 adequate food supplies and at times, cash income from sales of surplus crops.
 So why do so many continue to believe, to have faith in the story, when the
 evidence is against them? When GM crops do not yield as promised? When a USDA
 report shows that farmers actually lose income by planting GM crops? When seed
 costs are unreasonably high, as are the fertilizers and chemicals that are
 absolutely required to grow GM? When consumers continue to reject GM foods,
 citing concerns of their serious health risks? When GM will not feed the world?
 The GM story as told by the biotech giants paints the future as a happy and
 prosperous place; farmers are profitable, everyone is well fed and the
 environment is protected. The real GM story is not so happy; it is a story of
 market control, of environmental degradation, of deceived farmers and consumers.
 Jim Goodman is a farmer in Wonewoc and a policy fellow for the Food and Society
 Fellows Program.
 Posted in Column on Friday, February 26, 2010 4:45 am Updated: 3:38 pm.
 LOAD-DATE: February 27, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                     Copyright 2010 Madison Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 286
 
                               Chicago Daily Herald
                             February 21, 2010 Sunday
                                   NF1 Edition
 McHenry Community College to host International Film Festival
 SECTION: NEIGHBOR; Pg. 2
 LENGTH: 575 words
 McHenry County College's International Studies Department kicks off an
 International Film Festival series with "Lucanamarca" at 2 and 6 p.m. Monday,
 Feb. 22, in the MCC Conference Center, 8900 Route 14 in Crystal Lake.
 "Lucanamarca" illustrates how elusive justice can sometimes be when a government
 investigates a massacre that occurred 20 years prior.
 In 1980, with an aim to overthrow the government, a Maoist group called Sendero
 Luminoso, Shining Path, launched a guerrilla movement in the Andean region of
 Peru. Led by philosophy professor Abimael Guzman, this campaign of violence
 resulted in the April 1983 massacre of 69 women and children in the small
 farming village of Santiago de Lucanamarca.
 The movie documents the efforts of Peru's Truth and Reconciliation Commission to
 exhume the bodies of the victims in order to establish evidence in a trial of
 Guzman and other Shining Path leaders, and to provide the remains with a proper
 burial.
 The film festival continues through April 27 featuring these films.
 * "Oedipus in China" at 4 and 6 p.m. Tuesday, March 9. In recent years, the
 development of psychoanalysis in China reflects upon the changing needs of a
 society becoming newly accustomed to expressing emotions.
 "Oedipus in China" explores some of the historical roots of China's contemporary
 psychological issues, including the impact of Mao's personality cult, the
 Cultural Revolution of the '60s, Chinese economic reform and the dynamics of the
 single child family.
 Highlighted in this film are interviews with Huo Datong, known as the "Freud of
 China," and Dr. Alf Gerlach who, along with psychologist Margaret Haass
 Wisegart, is working to adapt psychoanalysis to traditional Chinese culture.
 * "Seeds of Hunger" will be featured at 2 and 6 p.m. Thursday, April 8.
 Currently, more than 3 billion people worldwide suffer from malnutrition, with
 more than one billion starving. World agriculture is feeling the impact of
 global warming, population urbanization trends, and an increased use of grains
 for biofuels.
 "Seeds of Hunger" examines the impending global food crisis. Filmed in Africa,
 China, Latin America and the U.S., the film examines such issues as the politics
 of food security and scarcity, declining food production, the impact of
 genetically modified foods, water shortages, famine, food aid programs and
 national food production, distribution and export policies.
 These issues are explored through interviews with farmers, financial analysts
 and food buyers and importers worldwide.
 * "Young Freud in Gaza" will be featured at 2 and 6 p.m. Tuesday, April 27.
 Since the 2006 election of Hamas and the blockade of Gaza's border by Israel,
 the Palestinians have suffered an unemployment rate nearing 60 percent, and a
 shortage of food, water and medicine.
 Professional psychologists also are in short supply. "Young Freud in Gaza"
 profiles Ayed, a young psychotherapist for the Palestinian Authority's Clinic
 for Mental Health. Filmed during 2006-08 against a backdrop of intense violence,
 the documentary follows Ayed as he makes house calls and provides therapy and
 medication for a range of mental health issues, including depression, stress,
 anxiety attacks and suicidal tendencies.
 The films are free. Audience members are invited to join the small group
 discussion after each film. For details, call Lindsay Carson, lead instructor
 for International Studies, at (815) 479-7723 or visit
 www.mchenry.edu/internationalstudies.
 LOAD-DATE: February 21, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2010 Paddock Publications, Inc.









Document Number: 287
 
                            Mobile Register (Alabama)
                             February 12, 2010 Friday
 Jury says Bayer should pay    $1.5 million to rice farmers
 SECTION: Z; Pg. 06
 LENGTH: 276 words
 Jury says Bayer should pay
 $1.5 million to rice farmers
 By ap
 Associated PressST. LOUIS - A federal court jury at St. Louis says the German
 conglomerate Bayer CropScience should pay $1.5 million to farmers in Arkansas
 and Mississippi whose rice seed was contaminated with a genetically altered
 strain.
 Last week's verdict was the second against Bayer CropScience for losses
 sustained by farmers when an experimental variety of rice that Bayer was testing
 infiltrated the farmers' crops.
 In December, a jury awarded about $2 million to two Missouri farmers in
 December, and three additional test cases are scheduled for later this year,
 involving farmers from Louisiana and Texas as well as a rice exporter. No
 punitive damages were awarded in either of the two verdicts reached so far.
 Japan, the European Union and other customers stopped importing Arkansas rice,
 which drove down the price Arkansas farmers received.
 About 6,000 rice producers have filed claims against Bayer since the U.S.
 Department of Agriculture announced in August 2006 that trace amounts of the
 genetically modified Liberty Link rice were found in U.S. long-grain rice
 stocks, according to St. Louis attorney Don Downing. He was lead attorney for
 the plaintiffs in the first two cases.
 Bayer and Louisiana State University had been testing genetically modified rice,
 bred to resist a Bayer brand of herbicide, at a school-run facility in Crowley,
 La. Though the USDA said at the time of the crop contamination that the rice
 variety posed no health or environmental risk, Japan and the European Union
 moved to ban U.S. rice, leading to a plunge in rice prices and a drop in U.S.
 rice exports.
 LOAD-DATE: February 22, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: mbr
                  Copyright 2010 The Mobile Press Register Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 288
 
                              Voice of America News
                                February 12, 2010
 Genetically Modified Food Crops Suffers Setback in India
 BYLINE: Anjana Pasricha
 LENGTH: 536  words
 India has put on hold the commercial cultivation of genetically modified food
 crops. The decision is seen as a setback by advocates who believe such crops
 could help boost food supplies in the country.
 The eggplant is a popular vegetable in India, but it seldom appears in news
 headlines.
 Now, it is in the spotlight after the government indefinitely deferred plans to
 let farmers grow a genetically modified version of the vegetable, known as Bt
 brinjal, earlier this week.
 And other genetically modified food crops could meet a similar fate.
 So far, cotton is the only genetically modified crop grown in India, and many
 call it a success story. Since its cultivation in 2002, cotton yield has nearly
 doubled, and India has become a leading exporter.
 But Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh says the government wants to wait for
 more scientific data on the safety of genetically modified food crops for human
 consumption.
 "Bt cotton I can live with, but Bt brinjal I am a little worried about, because
 it is a food crop.... And there is no tearing hurry to introduce BT brinjal in
 our country," says Ramesh.
 The decision disappointed many who had hoped that genetically modified
 technology could play a central role in the country's efforts to raise
 production of staple foods.
 BT brinjal, for example, was expected to raise yields by up to 50 percent and
 cut farming costs by reducing dependence on pesticides.
 Economists and agricultural scientists say boosting farm yields is a priority
 for India. They say a growing population and diminishing farmlands leads to food
 shortages and rising food prices.
 India has been conducting field trials on genetically modified versions of crops
 such as rice, mustard, cauliflower and peas for nearly a decade.
 D.H. Pai Panandiker is an economist and chairman of the Indian subsidiary of the
 Washington-based International Life Sciences Institute. He says the country's
 food security will be threatened unless it adopts new technologies to boost
 yields.
 "There is tremendous scope for introducing biotechnology in normal crops like
 rice and wheat. One has to go by scientific evidence as already available and
 adopt it as fast as possible," said Panandiker.
 However, detractors insist the technology is a health hazard, and is being
 pushed ahead by multinational companies such as U-S based Monsanto, a leader in
 biotech crop biotechnology. An Indian seed company, Mahyco, in which Monsanto
 has a stake, had helped develop Bt brinjal.
 Vandana Shiva, an environmental activist who has led a long battle against
 genetically modified crops, says she is relieved that cultivation of the BT
 brinjal has been blocked. She says there is no room for genetically modified
 food in Indian homes.
 "Neither BT brinjal, nor BT eggplant, nor Bt potato nor Bt tomato will go
 through if there is an honest assessment. It is a crude technology at this
 stage. We need the science to evolve, we need more sophisticated modification
 systems," she said.
 Some scientists are concerned the decision on BT Brinjal will slow down further
 research on genetically modified food crops in the country. They say with
 controversy swirling around the new technology, the government will continue to
 adopt a cautious approach.
 LOAD-DATE: February 12, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Journal
            Copyright 2010 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 289
 
                              Voice of America News
                                February 12, 2010
 India Halts Growth of Genetically-Modified Eggplants
 BYLINE: Steve Baragona
 LENGTH: 870  words
 Indian officials have announced they will ban commercial planting of genetically
 modified eggplants until more tests demonstrate its safety. The decision follows
 heated public debate over the risks and benefits of the crop, which was designed
 to reduce the amount of insecticides applied to the vegetable.
 Researchers worldwide are developing GM crops to tackle some of the world's
 biggest challenges in agriculture, from drought in Africa to floods in Asia. But
 as the ruling in India demonstrates, public concerns about GM crops remain
 strong even after more than a decade on the market.
 Supporters say the GM eggplant would improve yields and reduce the use of
 harmful pesticides. Opponents say they are a threat to human health and
 environmental safety. These are the same battle lines that were drawn even
 before the first GM crops were introduced in the 1990s. And they haven't changed
 much since then.
 Same story
 The debate persists despite the fact that, for the past 13 years, GM crops have
 been grown and consumed without any evidence of a major health or environmental
 problem. An estimated 100 million hectares of GM crops were grown in 25
 countries in 2008. That should put the opposition to rest, says Nina Fedoroff, a
 plant geneticist and a U.S. State Department advisor. But it hasn't.
 "The only way that I can stay patient," she says, "is to recognize that this is
 not unique to GM foods, and it is not new."Fedoroff says one reason that
 hostility to GM foods persists is because scientific advances often move faster
 than public acceptance. In the 19th century, opposition to a new smallpox
 vaccine continued after scientists were convinced it was safe and effective. In
 the 1960s and 1970s, she says, the Green Revolution's high-yielding crop
 varieties, which fed millions in South Asia, had their detractors, too.
 "They were reputed to cause impotence, and all the things that people say GM
 plants cause today," she says. "And it just took work and dedication on the part
 of scientists who knew and believed that this was important for people to have.
 And now we look back and say, 'Oh, gee, that was great.'"
 Urgent need to "get beyond" anti-GM bias
 Fedoroff and a group of scientists from U.S. universities, international
 institutes and seed companies write in this week's issue of the journal Science,
 "There is a critical need to get beyond popular biases against the use of
 agricultural biotechnology." The article notes that there will be 3 billion more
 mouths to feed by mid-century while climate change threatens food supplies. GM,
 they say, is one of the technologies that can help meet the challenges.
 "But, you know, we are losing time," adds P. A. Kumar, director of India's
 National Research Center for Plant Biotechnology. He's been working on
 developing the controversial eggplant and other GM crops for the better part of
 two decades. He says the needs in India are urgent.
 "The food and nutritional security of this country is really under threat. On
 top of that, the environmental degradation, the quality of water, the quality of
 soil, the quality of [the] environment, are being compromised by the heavy use
 of pesticides in our agriculture," Kumar says.
 Not so fast
 The urgent call from supporters to move GM technology forward is matched by the
 intensity of opponents who say, "slow down."
 Mira Shiva, with the Indian group Doctors for Food and Biosafety, is one of
 them. She says, look at the experience with some pharmaceuticals.
 "Numerous drugs that were said to be very safe, over time they were found not to
 be safe," she says. "It happens. But they could be withdrawn. You cannot
 withdraw genetically modified [crops] at all. You cannot withdraw [them]. So,
 God forbid [that] tomorrow there are problems."
 Unanswered questionsDoug Gurion-Sherman used to look for problems with GM crops
 as a regulator with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He's now with the
 Union of Concerned Scientists. And he says one reason the doubts about GM crops
 persist is because even after more than a decade of use, some questions have
 gone unanswered.
 "I don't think there's any definitive data that shows that these plants cause
 harm," he says. "What [the data] point to is a general inadequacy of the data
 requirements."Gurion-Sherman says the data requirements for toxicity, for
 example, only call for 90-day tests, and they are not sensitive enough to detect
 problems if they do arise. Though more tests would cost the companies developing
 the plants more money, he says resistance to more rigorous testing is
 short-sighted.
 Question of trust
 "Until the proponents of the crop, who have adamantly resisted strengthening
 regulations, understand that public confidence is going to depend on regulatory
 agencies that can be counted on, that huge public mistrust is going to remain,"
 he adds.
 The question of trust could surface again. New GM crops are being developed that
 promise to cope with some of the world's biggest challenges in food production
 including tolerance to drought and salty soils and more efficient use of
 fertilizer. But, as India's moratorium on GM eggplant shows, these innovations
 will likely remain on the shelf unless the public trusts the regulators who say
 these crops are safe.
 LOAD-DATE: February 12, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Journal
            Copyright 2010 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 290
 
                              Voice of America News
                                 February 9, 2010
 India Refuses Permission for First Genetically Modified Food Crop
 BYLINE: Anjana Pasricha
 LENGTH: 432  words
 India has refused to allow commercial cultivation of its first genetically
 modified food crop citing lack of sufficient evidence about its safety. The
 decision was announced following a heated controversy over what would have been
 the world's first genetically modified vegetable.
 Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said Tuesday that the government is not going
 ahead with the cultivation of the genetically modified eggplant because there is
 no clear consensus on whether it is safe for human consumption.
 He says the government will wait for more scientific studies of the genetically
 modified eggplant, known as BT brinjal in India.
 "When there is so much opposition from state governments, when responsible civil
 society organizations and eminent scientists have raised many serious questions
 that have not been answered satisfactorily, when the public sentiment is
 negative, and when BT brinjal will be the very first genetically modified
 vegetable to be introduced anywhere in the world and when there is no overriding
 urgency to introduce it here, it is my duty to adopt a cautious, precautionary
 principle-based approach, and impose a moratorium on the release of BT brinjal,"
 said Miknister Ramesh.
 The eggplant is called brinjal in India and is a popular vegetable. But it is
 prone to attack by a pest which reduces yields.
 The genetically modified brinjal has undergone field trials since 2008, and was
 approved last year by India's genetic engineering approval committee.
 But an outcry by environmentalists, left wing politicians and several state
 governments over its approval led the minister to hold a series of public
 meetings in recent weeks.
 Minister Ramesh says the moratorium on BT brinjal will be in place until tests
 are carried out to everyone's satisfaction. "This has been a difficult decision
 to take because I had to balance many interests. I had to balance science and
 society, I had to balance producer and consumer," he said. Supporters of the
 genetically modified brinjal say it can boost yields by up to 50 percent and
 reduce dependence on pesticides. But detractors worry that it could pose a
 health hazard. They are also concerned that the hybrid brinjal would open the
 door for other genetically modified food crops.
 Advocates of genetically modified crops say they can boost food supplies
 substantially, but opponents say they can be a hazard for the environment and
 health.
 The genetically modified eggplant was to be marketed by Mahyco, an Indian
 partner of the American company Monsanto.
 India allowed the cultivation of genetically modified seeds for cotton in 2002.
 LOAD-DATE: February 10, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Journal
            Copyright 2010 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 291
 
                              Voice of America News
                                 February 8, 2010
 Our World ' 5 Februrary 2010
 BYLINE: Rosanne Skirble
 LENGTH: 3417  words
 MUSIC: "Our World" theme
 Straight ahead on Our World: The U.S. space agency pulls the plug on its plan to
 return humans to the moon; pictures from Pluto reveal dramatic changes in the
 dwarf planet; and a new web-based English/Creole dictionary for relief workers
 in quake-ravaged Haiti.
 LORI THICKE: "It contains a lot of interesting questions that you might ask
 someone to ascertain how serious their injuries are. And it gives a translation
 of those questions and their possible answers from English into Creole and from
 Creole back into English."
 Machine translators on the ground in Haiti, that and the battle in India over
 genetically modified food.
 Hi! I'm Rosanne Skirble sitting in for Art Chimes. Welcome to VOA's science and
 technology magazine, "Our World."
 Manned Lunar Missions Scrapped
 The U.S. space agency's program to put astronauts back on the Moon has been
 cancelled in the Obama Administration's proposed 2011 federal budget. In a news
 conference this week NASA administrator and former astronaut Charles Bolden said
 the new budget - which will actually increase by six billion dollars over the
 next five years - reflects a more sustainable and ambitious path to manned space
 exploration.
 BOLDEN: "We intend to blaze a new trail of discovery and development. We will
 facilitate the growth of new commercial industries, and we will expand our
 understanding of the earth, our solar system and the universe beyond."
 In an interview with Our World this week, the executive editor of Aviation Week
 and Space Technology magazine, Jim Asker, said the plan to scrap the 81-billion
 dollar moon program not only saves NASA money, but signals a dramatic change in
 the U.S. manned space program.
 ASKER: "NASA is returning to its roots of returning to its roots of being an
 agency that develops new technologies for space flight and does not try to
 develop and operate specific systems. It's really the first time that NASA has
 sort of thrown its hat over the fence and said, 'We believe that industry and
 entrepreneur can provide new ways to get to space instead of us designing all
 the vehicles and putting it out to industry and asking for bids, let's see what
 their best ideas are."
 What would be the new role for private industry?
 ASKER: "Ideally they would like private industry to develop a means to reach
 lower orbit with cargo and with astronauts. The immediate need NASA has, of
 course, is that it's got a very large and capable space station and it needs to
 keep that resupplied and have astronauts go up and down since the Space Shuttle
 is retiring. There is another means to get there. Russia has its own launch
 vehicles and spacecraft, but the idea is that U.S. industry would develop its
 own means to get there."
 Is the commercial sector ready for the challenge?
 ASKER: "In some ways it certainly is. The large industrial organizations with
 names you recognize like Boeing and Lockheed Martin have large rockets that they
 certainly will look at making them capable of carrying people. Then there are a
 number of entrepreneurial outfits that are exploring new cheaper means of
 getting to space. And then there is a lot of stuff that people would like to do
 in terms of funding technology, new kinds of propulsion systems that are cheaper
 than what we have now. Ultimately, I think everybody who follows space would
 like to see the U.S. and indeed the world get to the point where we don't have
 to use throw away rockets all the time, where we would have vehicles that work
 more like airplanes where a large portion or the whole thing could be reused."
 What's ahead for NASA in the short term. We've got five shuttle missions, and we
 also have the International Space Station. Is that what we see in the short
 term?
 ASKER: "For manned flight that's it for the U.S. There's a lot of unmanned space
 projects in the works. Mars continues to be of great interest. There will be
 some technologies that NASA will work on for manned space flight. They would
 like to do things like figure out how to use resources on the moon and
 eventually mars to create resources for humans to use in their activities there.
 There's a lot going on, but for the immediate future it's going to be winding
 down the space shuttle operations, but the Space Station will keep going on for
 quite some time."
 The President's budget must be approved by Congress. What opposition do you
 expect on Capitol Hill?
 ASKER: "I've been surprised at how little opposition has been so far. Perhaps
 the senators and congressmen are 'reading the tea leaves' [predictions] and
 seeing what the chances of prevailing against the President are, are more
 inclined to work with him, frankly than I expected."
 Jim Asker, executive editor of Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine.
 Dramatic Changes in Dwarf Planet Pluto Also in space news this week: NASA
 released the most dramatic images ever taken of the distant dwarf planet, Pluto.
 The images taken from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope show an icy, spotted,
 dark-molasses-colored world. Principal investigator Marc Buie of the Southwest
 Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado says the analysis shows that Pluto has
 become much redder during the past couple of years.BUIE: "The ground-based data
 records most recently published takes us up to the year 2000, and shows that
 Pluto had a certain reddish color that was constant for 50 years and something
 happened in those two years before these data were taken and then Pluto's color
 all of a sudden is significantly redder and this is still a mystery to be worked
 out."
 Buie says the new images -- which took four years and 20 computers working
 continually and simultaneously to process -- will help choreograph NASA's New
 Horizon robotic probe, targeted to fly by Pluto in 2015.
 Machine Translator Helps Haitian Relief Effort
 Among the rapid responders to the devastating January 12th earthquake in Haiti
 -- which left between as many as 200,000 people dead and 1.5 million homeless --
 are linguists and computer scientists. Among them is former Carnegie Mellon
 University linguist Greg Allen who went to Haiti in 1990s on U.S. army contract.
 Allen was fluent in Creole, the language widely spoken in Haiti. His mission on
 the project, dubbed Diplomat, was to develop an English/Creole speech and text
 translation system.
 ALLEN: "I spent nine months collecting data from different people within the
 Haitian community. And then we in-house translated everything that we could for
 a period of two years."
 Computer scientist Robert Frederking with Carnegie Mellon's Language Technology
 Institute was a lead investigator for Diplomat.
 FREDERKING: We built a portable translator that was on a laptop, and we actually
 sent it down to Haiti. It kind of sat on a shelf for four months and it came
 back [to the university]. Because it was kind of rare data, I made an effort to
 preserve it over the years after the project ended.
 When Greg Allen, now based in Paris with software giant SAP, watched news of the
 January 12th earthquake he knew that Carnegie Mellon still had the
 English/Creole database.
 ALLEN: "So I called up Carnegie Mellon, and I said, 'We need to do something.
 What can we do?'"
 On January 21, with Allen's help, Carnegie Mellon made the data public.
 EN: "We put out on the Internet site of Carnegie Mellon 13,000 parallel
 sentences and 35,000 parallel terms."
 This rich data set presented an opportunity for Microsoft Research. Their
 web-based translator service has 23 languages with more added every few months.
 Product manager Vikrum Dendi, responding to the crisis in Haiti, says his team
 put an English/Creole translator on the Internet within five days, adding,
 disaster-specific words and phrases.
 DENDI: "So we have taken medical terminology. We have taken other emergency-type
 notification and helped translated them into Haitian-Creole and then learned
 from them. So by doing that what we've been able to do is to deliver a better
 quality translating those kinds of messages and those kinds of text."
 Microsoft regularly updates the translator. Dendi says the more parallel
 sentences in the system, the more accurate the translation or what he calls a
 statistical model.
 DENDI: "And the system is able to learn from looking at all these sentences."
 The Haitian earthquake struck Translators without Borders with an explosion of
 interest. More than 1,000 Creole speakers from the Haitian Diaspora volunteered
 their translation services to the Paris-based humanitarian group. Co-founder
 Lori Thicke says the non-profit is distributing an English/Creole triage
 dictionary based on the new data.
 THICKE: "It contains a lot of interesting questions that you might ask someone
 to ascertain how serious their injuries are. And it gives a translation of those
 questions and their possible answers from English into Creole and from Creole
 back into English. For example, 'Where does it hurt? How long have you had this
 wound?' [It's] that sort of thing."
 Thicke says machine translators from Microsoft and more recently Google help
 volunteers increase their productivity, affording them a rapid first draft that
 can be later revised.
 THICKE: "They are helping us translate documents that might be instructions for
 building a water purification or for treatment protocols, for educational
 materials, all really important translations that there might not be a budget
 for." And over at Microsoft, Vikrum Dendi adds that his company is working to
 help integrate as many applications as possible for the translator on mobile
 devices like the cell phone.
 India Debates Genetically Modified Eggplant
 The latest battle over genetically modified foods is taking place in India.
 Researchers have engineered the genes of an eggplant to produce a natural
 insecticide, which could reduce the amount of bug spray farmers need to apply to
 the popular vegetable. But opponents say the gene-altered crop has not been
 adequately tested for its effects on health and the environment.
 VOA's Steve Baragona has more.
 BARAGONA: Indians call the eggplant the "king of vegetables." It's a popular
 ingredient in many native dishes. But a hungry little caterpillar causes big
 problems for Indian eggplant farmers.
 The caterpillar, called the fruit and shoot borer, eats holes in the stem of the
 plant, weakening it and reducing yields. It also munches on the eggplant itself,
 which is called a brinjal in India. Swapan Datta deputy director general of the
 Indian Council of Agricultural Research says consumers won't buy a worm-eaten
 brinjal.
 DATTA: "Instead of a damaged brinjal, if they see a nice-looking brinjal, they
 buy it. And they're also getting a lot of excessive residues of the pesticides."
 BARAGONA: They're getting pesticides with their eggplant because farmers must
 spray dozens of times each growing season to keep the fruit and shoot borer off
 their vegetables. In addition to the health considerations, these applications
 cost farmers a lot of money. But an Indian seed company called Mahyco has
 developed an eggplant that it says will dramatically reduce the amount of
 pesticides eggplant farmers spray, and consumers eat. Mahyco's genetically
 modified eggplant produces a protein called B-t, which kills the caterpillar.
 B-t is found naturally in a soil bacterium and has been used for decades as an
 organic insecticide. Datta's institution was among those reviewing the B-t
 brinjal for health and environmental safety.
 DATTA: "It is absolutely safe. There is no unintended effect, there is nothing
 indigestible...left, there is no toxicological effect. So the data with the B-t
 brinjal and non-B-t brinjal, there is no difference."
 BARAGONA: But every new genetically modified food has generated controversy, and
 the B-t brinjal is no exception.
 BHARGAVA: "I think it's a disaster."
 That's Pushpa Bhargava, one of the pioneers of biotechnology in India. He
 recommends a different set of tests that should be performed before any
 genetically modified crop is released.
 BHARGAVA: "Only about 10 to 15 percent of these tests [has] been done. And even
 these have been done by the company applying for permission for open release.
 And the company's credentials are as bad as could be."
 BARAGONA: The company at the heart of this debate is Mahyco's partner: the
 U.S.-based agribusiness giant Monsanto. Monsanto has a long history of conflicts
 with green groups over its chemical business, which included such controversial
 products as Agent Orange and D-D-T. Conflicts have continued as Monsanto has
 become a leader in crop biotechnology. Other B-t crops, including cotton and
 maize produced by Monsanto and other companies have been reviewed, approved and
 grown widely in the United States, Canada, Australia, and parts of Europe. To
 date, there have been no reports of serious environmental or health problems.
 But Vandana Shiva, a prominent Indian opponent of crop biotech, is not convinced
 that something won't come up.SHIVA: "I think for decades after D-D-T was sprayed
 you say nothing. Many of these impacts take place much later."
 Whether that criticism swayed him against B-t brinjal -- or whether farmers
 eager to spray fewer pesticides win out -- may be evident soon. The environment
 minister is expected to issue his opinion on February 10.
 Balancing Environmental Concerns and Economic Realities on the Farm
 Agriculture is the mainstay of economies in the American Midwest. Yet the
 intensive crop farming practices of the region are detrimental to the
 environment. And some farmers say measures to prevent or reduce pollution cost
 them too much money. A South Dakota ecologist thinks there's a better way. He's
 undertaking a project that promises to put environmental concerns on a par with
 economic realities. As Johanna Sailor reports, he's trying to prove a farmer can
 make a living off native prairie grasses.
 SAILOR: This is corn and soybean country. So coming across a 260 hectare plot of
 grass on prime South Dakota farmland is very unusual.
 JOHNSON: "I'm sure some are thinking we're nuts. Others think maybe these guys
 got something, maybe that's a good idea. We'd like to see prairie farms
 springing up all over eastern South Dakota someday."
 SAILOR: Carter Johnson is an ecologist at South Dakota State University, but
 here at EcoSun Prairie Farms, he's a farmer. This project is designed to prove
 that growing South Dakota's native plants can be profitable.
 Johnson's plants are as diverse as the revenue opportunities he expects they'll
 provide. He gently tugs some seeds off the tip of switch-grass. Seeds like these
 are one income stream. Prairie grass is also selling well as livestock feed.
 This year, Johnson will add cattle to the landscape to raise grass-fed beef.
 Since the fields here are not plowed, carbon held in the soil is not disturbed
 and released into the air. Some environmentalists suggest farmers should be paid
 to store the greenhouse gas in their fields, to offset emissions from industry
 and cars.
 And if cellulose-based ethanol fuel becomes economically viable, that would also
 be a market the prairie farm could enter.
 JOHNSON: "It's a different way to look at grass than planting it and letting it
 sit. Let's plant it and put it to work. And make some money off it, while we're
 also benefiting the environment. Sounds like a win, win deal to me.
 Capital investment is much lower here than on a traditional farm, because
 there's no need for costly equipment like tractors and combines... or the fuel
 to run them.
 As for the environmental benefits: More carbon is held in the ground, runoff
 from the fields is reduced, and what's grown here can be used for renewable
 fuels."
 SAILOR: Another big plus for Johnson: wetlands are welcome. As he maneuvers his
 truck through a seasonal wetland of two to three meter tall grass, Johnson stops
 to point out some newly sprouted prairie cord grass.
 JOHNSON: "We should be able to find the buds for next year there. They're right
 here. There's one of them right there. See that green bud, and it's sharp, sharp
 as a razor, so that it won't get grazed off. Here's another one here."
 SAILOR: Once dried, this prairie cord grass can be sold as hay. But it's
 especially valuable to Johnson, because its seeds can be sold to re-plant
 wetlands. So he can earn money, while restoring an important habitat for birds,
 insects, plants and other prairie creatures.
 Carter Johnson has devoted much his career to studying wetlands, only to watch
 them shrink year after year. The loss is due to climate change, but also because
 farmers -- including Johnson's ancestors -- drained wetlands to increase the
 amount of crop land.
 JOHNSON: "Some people think I assuaging my guilt from my Norwegian ancestors,
 that plowed up much of the prairie. I don't think that's the case. I'm an
 ecologist and so I think the whole idea of trying to live off nature and
 ecosystem services and goods is something we need to be doing, given -
 especially given the energy situation."
 SAILOR: At a typical South Dakota corn and soybean farm, second-generation crop
 farmer Larry Birgen fires up his combine. He likes the idea of being more
 environmentally friendly, and not needing costly equipment like this combine.
 But before Birgen converts any of his prime crop land, he says he needs to know
 that prairie farms can make money.
 BIRGEN: "If they get to the point and they can show it's economically feasible,
 I would definitely consider it."
 SAILOR: Ecologist Carter Johnson hopes to get to that point in a few years,
 showing that a prairie grass farm is a money maker, without government
 subsidies... and inspiring farmers to find creative ways to put environmental
 stewardship on a par with economic needs.
 Eco-Farm.org Fertile Ground for Sustainable Agriculture
 One group that's been closely following the trends in organic agriculture is the
 Ecological Farming Association, and their home on the Internet -- Eco-Farm.org
 -- happens to be our website of the week.
 Eco-farm is a non-profit group whose focus is on small-scale sustainable
 agriculture. Spokeswoman Marcy Coburn says informative blogs and other articles
 on the website help to promote education and networking.
 COBURN: "We have three blogs. We have a genetic engineering blog, which is the
 Genetic Engineering News Service that then goes out in e-mail, but also gets
 converted into a blog. That's posting information that people put out about that
 subject. And then we have a farmer blog where we have some guest farmers, who
 actually write for the farmer blog what they are growing this season or issues
 that they are having with water or climate change or anything like that."
 The third and newest blog is called Eco-farm NextGen and features 'mentor
 farmers' who dispense advice to, and answer questions from, those new in the
 field.
 COBURN: "I really see a need for that, especially because we get a lot of e-mail
 communication from people all over the world who are asking questions that we
 don't necessarily have researchers or staff on hand who can answer those
 questions. But we definitely have that kind of expertise in our extended
 cyber-network. So creating a forum for that kind of interaction is really
 exciting."
 In addition to the blogs, news and resource links on the site, Coburn says
 visitors have access to a full array of speakers and workshops from the recent
 Eco-Farm annual meeting in California, which included talks and workshops on
 advances in agricultural techniques, marketing strategies and research.
 COBURN: "And that's some amazing content, really high profile people, and it's
 really inspiring stuff. So that's really great and we encourage any kind of
 dialogue to happen as a result of listening to those. If people have questions
 or are inspired again, they can write into blogs and ask questions. We also link
 to PowerPoint presentations of some of the hot topic discussions that happen at
 the conference as well."
 And, Coburn suggests checking out the new media options for updated news and
 postings.
 COBURN: "You can go to our website, which is Eco-Farm.org and just click on
 either the Facebook button or the twitter button or both. Again that address:
 Eco-Farm.org."
 And, that's our program for this week.
 MUSIC: "Our World" theme
 That's our show for this week. We'd like to hear from you. You can email us at
 ourworld@voanews.com Or write us at -- Our World Voice of America Washington, DC
 Rob Sivak is our editor. Our technical director is Bob Doughty. I'm Rosanne
 Skirble. Join us online at voanews.com/ourworld or on your radio next week at
 this same time with Art Chimes as we explore the latest in science and
 technology on Our World.
 LOAD-DATE: February 9, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Journal
            Copyright 2010 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 292
 
                              Missouri Lawyers Media
                                 February 5, 2010
 Second modified rice trial nets $1.5M verdict from St. Louis federal jury
 BYLINE: Allison Retka
 LENGTH: 469  words
 When it comes to his multi-district litigation against Bayer CropScience, St.
 Louis plaintiffs' attorney Don Downing now boasts a 2-0 record.
 Last Thursday a St. Louis federal jury returned a $1.5 million verdict against
 the Germany-based biotech giant. It's the second of four test trials over the
 alleged mixing of genetically modified rice seeds with the crops of U.S.
 farmers.
 In early January another St. Louis federal jury awarded $2 million to two
 Missouri farmers who claimed prices for their crops sagged in 2006 when traces
 of the modified rice were found in shipments of U.S. rice.
 In the most recent "bellwether" suit, the jury awarded two Arkansas rice farmers
 and one Mississippi farmer about $1.5 million in compensatory damages after a
 four-week trial.
 But in both trials, the plaintiff farmers came up short in their quest for
 punitive damages. The juries sided with Bayer in all claims for punitive awards.
 Bayer didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. However, Reuters
 quoted a spokesman for the company in Germany as saying the company plans to
 assess the ruling and consider its options.
 "Bayer CropScience is standing by its view that the company has handled its
 biotech rice responsibly and appropriately at all times," the spokesman said.
 Bayer has maintained the rejection of the rice crops by European markets didn't
 dramatically reduce sales. The company also notes that the U.S. Department of
 Agriculture and U.S. Food and Drug Administration have said the biotech rice,
 developed to tolerate an herbicide, is safe for human consumption.
 Downing, of the St. Louis-based Gray, Ritter & Graham, was the plaintiffs' lead
 attorney in the first two cases and is co-lead counsel of the multi-district
 litigation. Downing said Friday that the juries have delivered consistent
 verdicts: they've said 'yes' to compensatory damages for past market losses and
 limited future losses and they've said 'no' to punitive awards.
 The theory of bellwether cases, he said, is that if the juries tend to agree on
 the negligence and the damages, the parties should agree on a global settlement
 for the 6,000 cases filed against Bayer by rice farmers.
 "The question is how many cases are sufficient to set a pattern that both sides
 feel comfortable that this are what the results are going to be," Downing said.
 He said attorneys for both sides likely hold settlement talks between now and
 June, when the next famer-brought suit is scheduled to go to trial in St. Louis.
 Two trials are scheduled for this summer and fall in U.S. District Court for the
 Eastern District of Missouri. Those trials will center on rice farmers from
 Louisiana and Texas. A third trial scheduled for April was represents all suits
 brought by rice exporters, who claim their businesses took a hit over the
 contamination kerfuffle.
 LOAD-DATE: February 13, 2010
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Corporate earnings
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2010 Dolan Media Newswires









Document Number: 293
 
                              Voice of America News
                                 February 5, 2010
 India Debates Genetically-Modified Eggplant
 BYLINE: Steve Baragona
 LENGTH: 719  words
 Indians call the eggplant the "king of vegetables". It's a popular ingredient in
 many native dishes.
 But a hungry little caterpillar causes big problems for Indian eggplant farmers.
 The caterpillar, called the fruit and shoot borer, eats holes in the stem of the
 plant, weakening it and reducing yields. It also munches on the eggplant itself,
 which is called a brinjal in India. Swapan Datta, deputy director general of the
 Indian Council of Agricultural Research, says consumers won't buy a worm-eaten
 brinjal.
 "Instead of a damaged brinjal, if they see a nice-looking brinjal, they buy it,"
 he says. But he says, "They're also getting a lot of excessive residues of the
 pesticides."
 Built-in pesticide
 They're getting pesticides with their eggplant because farmers must spray dozens
 of times each growing season to keep the fruit and shoot borer off their
 vegetables. In addition to the health considerations, these applications cost
 farmers a lot of money.
 An Indian seed company called Mahyco has developed an eggplant that it says will
 dramatically reduce the amount of pesticides eggplant farmers will need to
 spray. Mahyco's genetically modified eggplant produces a protein called Bt,
 which kills the caterpillar. Bt is found naturally in a soil bacterium and has
 been used for decades as an organic insecticide.
 Safety testing
 Datta's institution was among those reviewing the B-t brinjal for health and
 environmental safety.
 "It is absolutely safe," he says. "There is no unintended effect, there is
 nothing indigestible left, there is no toxicological effect. So the data with
 the Bt brinjal and non-Bt brinjal, there is no difference."
 But every new genetically modified food has generated controversy, and the Bt
 brinjal is no exception.
 "I think it's a disaster," says Pushpa Bhargava, one of the pioneers of
 biotechnology in India. He recommends a different set of tests that should be
 performed before any genetically modified crop is released. "Only about 10 to 15
 percent of these tests have been done," he says. "And even these have been done
 by the company applying for permission for open release. And the company's
 credentials are as bad as could be."
 New crops, old conflicts
 The company at the heart of this debate is Mahyco's partner company, the
 U.S.-based agribusiness giant Monsanto. Monsanto has a long history of conflicts
 with green groups over its chemical business, which included such controversial
 products as Agent Orange and DDT. Conflicts have continued as Monsanto has
 become a leader in crop biotechnology.
 A U.S. food policy expert says flaws in India's regulatory system may be adding
 to concerns about genetically-modified eggplants.
 Other Bt crops, including cotton and maize produced by Monsanto and other
 companies, have been reviewed, approved and grown widely in the United States,
 Canada, Australia and parts of Europe. To date, there have been no reports of
 serious environmental or health problems.
 But Vandana Shiva, a prominent Indian opponent of crop biotech, is not convinced
 that something won't come up.
 "I think for decades after DDT was sprayed you [heard] nothing. Many of these
 impacts take place much later," Shiva says.
 Regulatory questions
 Guillaume Gruere follows the biotech crop debate at the International Food
 Policy Research Institute in Washington, DC. He points to some flaws in India's
 regulatory system that may have added to people's concerns.
 "Maybe...part of why it's all debated, and why people are not confident in this
 process," he says, is because, "there have been some mistakes on whether they
 should include people or not [and] what types of tests they were running," and
 other problems with the system.
 Gruere says the tests that were done were sufficient, even if the process has
 been lacking.
 Public outcry
 India's genetic engineering approval committee endorsed the B-t brinjal. But
 with debate swirling around the issue, India's environment minister held a
 series of public meetings across the country in January, some of which became
 shouting matches between supporters and opponents.
 "He really asked for criticism, and he got it," Gruere says.
 Whether that criticism swayed him against Bt brinjal, or whether farmers eager
 to spray fewer pesticides will win out may be evident soon. On Feb.10, the
 environment minister is expected to issue his opinion.
 LOAD-DATE: February 8, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Journal
            Copyright 2010 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 294
 
                      The Santa Fe New Mexican (New Mexico)
                            February 4, 2010 Thursday
 SECTION: MAIN; Pg. A-2
 LENGTH: 714 words
 In brief
 Pakistan bombing kills 3 U.S. troops; 35 suspects detained
 SHAHI KOTO, Pakistan -- Authorities have detained 35 suspects in connection with
 a suicide car bombing that killed three U.S. soldiers in northwest Pakistan who
 were part a little-publicized mission to train local forces to fight the Taliban
 and al-Qaida, police said today. The killings Wednesday were the first known
 U.S. military fatalities in nearly three years in Pakistan's Afghan border
 region, drawing attention to a training program officials rarely discuss because
 of opposition here to American boots on Pakistani soil.
 The blast also killed three girls at a nearby school and a Pakistani
 paramilitary soldier traveling with the Americans. Two more U.S. soldiers were
 wounded, along with about 100 other people, mostly students at the school.
 Several were left trapped, bloodied and screaming in the rubble.
 Scott Brown expected to
 be sworn into Senate today
 BOSTON -- Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown changed course and demanded he be
 sworn in to replace the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy today, an accelerated
 timetable that conservatives had been clamoring for and one that Democrats
 quickly accepted -- and had already been moving to accommodate.
 Brown said he wanted to be present for unspecified votes, and his swearing-in
 would give the GOP 41 votes in the Senate -- the precise number it needs to
 sustain a filibuster of Democratic initiatives. Jim Manley, a spokesman for
 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said he expected a ceremony at 5 p.m. today.
 Bronze sculpture fetches record $104 million
 LONDON -- A life-size bronze sculpture of a man by Alberto Giacometti was sold
 Wednesday at a London auction for $104.3 million -- a world record for the most
 expensive work of art ever sold at auction, Sotheby's auction house said.
 It took just eight minutes of furious bidding for about 10 bidders to reach the
 hammer price for L'Homme Qui Marche I (Walking Man I).
 The sculpture by the 20th-century Swiss artist, considered an iconic Giacometti
 work, was sold to an anonymous bidder by telephone, the auction house said. The
 sale price trumped the $104.17 million paid at a 2004 New York auction for Pablo
 Picasso's 1905 Boy With a Pipe. That painting broke the record that Vincent van
 Gogh had held since 1990, and its sale was the first time that the $100 million
 barrier was broken. L'Homme Qui Marche I is a life-size sculpture of a thin and
 wiry human figure standing 72 inches tall.
 Mexico plants modified
 corn; activists appeal
 MEXICO CITY -- Capping a decade-long battle, private companies in Mexico have
 begun the first legal plantings of genetically modified corn, the Agriculture
 Department said Wednesday. Environmentalists and farm groups announced they have
 filed an appeal with the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, arguing the
 government has been unwilling or unable to halt the illicit spread of GM crops
 in Mexico, the birthplace of corn.
 They say the government shouldn't authorize legal plantings until it
 investigates contamination from past, illicit biotech planting. The Agriculture
 Department said planting has begun on some of the two dozen experimental plots
 granted approval late last year. They are mostly in northern states that
 government studies say are likely outside corn's "birthplace" region in central
 Mexico.
 Parents: Children were handed over to U.S. Baptists
 CALLEBAS, Haiti -- Parents in this struggling village above Haiti's capital said
 Wednesday that they willingly handed their children to American missionaries who
 showed up in a bus promising to give them a better life -- contradicting claims
 by the Baptist group's leader that the children came from orphanages and distant
 relatives.
 The 10 Baptists, most from Idaho, were arrested last week trying to take 33
 Haitian children across the border into the Dominican Republic without the
 required documents, according to outraged Haitian officials, who have called
 them child traffickers. The Haitian parents said they surrendered their children
 on Jan. 28.
 The orphanage worker, Issac Adrien, said he told the villagers their children
 would be educated at a home in the Dominican Republic so that they might
 eventually return to take care of their families. Many parents jumped at the
 offer.
 New Mexican wire services
 LOAD-DATE: February 4, 2010
 GRAPHIC: See pdf's for exact rendition, caption, graphics and photographer info.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                     Copyright 2010 The Santa Fe New Mexican
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 295
 
                              Voice of America News
                                 February 4, 2010
 Scientists, Donors Blast Ethiopia's Bio Safety Law
 BYLINE: Peter Heinlein
 LENGTH: 686  words
 Scientists and farmers are urging Ethiopia to reconsider a new biodiversity law
 they say restricts agricultural research and could hamper delivery of urgently
 needed food aid. The law has prompted foreign donors to cut off funding to
 Ethiopian scientific research institutions.
 Ethiopia's government held a two day forum this week to hear objections to a
 Biodiversity Proclamation approved by parliament last July, on the final day
 before summer recess. The law's stated objective is to protect biodiversity, as
 well as human health and animals, from 'the adverse effects of modified
 organisms'.
 But critics say the proclamation chokes off research into improving crop
 production in a country suffering chronic food shortages. Tilaye Feyisa,
 assistant professor of plant biotechnology at Addis Ababa University says anyone
 involved in studying genetic engineering is subject to strict government
 regulation.
 "It is really excellent proclamation to prevent the research in the areas of
 plant genetic engineering," said Tilaye Feyisa. "It stops, because if you break
 this proclamation, even unintentionally, you can be put in prison for one to
 three years."
 Tilaye says funding for research on genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, has
 dried up since the law went into effect.
 "The money we get is from outside sources," said Tilaye. "We write proposals,
 when the country is against GMOs, having this proclamation, we don't get any
 money for research from foreign donors. It is killing the scientific research."
 Tilahun Zewelde is a former plant scientist at the Ethiopian Research
 Organization. He now work at Uganda's Agriculture Biotechnology Support Program.
 Speaking at this week's meeting, he charged Ethiopia's law was written by
 environmental extremists and adopted without review by a parliament that had no
 idea of its consequences.
 "We can't even teach students life science and biotechnology," said Tilahun
 Zewelde. "And the main reason it was drafted by very biased people. Biased in
 the sense biotechnology is bad, genetic engineering is bad and multinationals
 are going to take over everything, control the seed business. And the actual
 technology users were not involved in drafting process. So it's one sided, not
 good for country."
 Biotechnology experts from other African nations came to the forum to express
 concerns about the Biosafety Proclamation. Togolese scientist Jacob Mignouna is
 Technical Director of the African Agricultural Technology Foundation. He says
 the law rejects conclusive evidence about the safety of genetically modified
 organisms in common use.
 "There's no need to reinvent the wheel," said Jacob Mignouna. "The world has
 moved on. This technology has been proven. This is the message our colleagues
 from Ethiopia should understand and look carefully and see how we can move
 forward to embrace new technology at the same time protecting biodiversity in
 this great country."
 But Minister of State for Agricultural Development Abera Deresa says Ethiopia is
 not convinced by available evidence that GMOs are safe. The Agriculture Ministry
 was a main sponsor of the forum, but Abera says the government has a duty to
 protect the public until the scientific community does more to prove GMOs pose
 no threat to health or to Ethiopia's biodiversity.
 "Among scientists there is a division," said Abera Deresa. "A certain number of
 scientists who are not for GMO, a certain number of scientists who are for GMO.
 So we have to assess why this is happening."
 Abera says the government is reviewing the Biosafety Proclamation, and may ask
 parliament to make changes. Meanwhile, aid donors say the law could restrict
 shipments of food intended for more than five million Ethiopians facing
 malnutrition.
 The United States provides nearly 80 per cent of Ethiopia's food assistance.
 Among the U.S. supplies currently on the way is roughly 30,000 metric tons of
 corn-soy blend and vegetable oil, which are typically produced from
 bioengineered corn and soy.
 The Ethiopian government has issued a waiver to allow the products to come in to
 the country, but the waiver is due to expire at the end of February.
 LOAD-DATE: February 5, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Journal
            Copyright 2010 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 296
 
                               Journal of Commerce
                             January 25, 2010 Monday
 Amber Waves of Grain;
 A record corn harvest is another good sign for exports, if shippers can find
 transportation capacity
 SECTION: MARITIME; Pg. WP
 LENGTH: 658  words
 2009's bumper corn crop that yielded a record 13.2 billion-bushel harvest should
 be good news for farmers, but whether they benefit from it will depend on the
 supply chain, according to an expert with the U.S. Grains Council.
 Alvero Cordero, the council's manager of international operations and marketing,
 said 80 percent of domestic corn grown is consumed in the United States.
 Competition tends to drive prices to equilibrium, so  most of the money comes
 from the export market,  he said.
 We are a consumer country,  Cordero said.  Sometimes we forget to look at how
 much grain we consume compared to what we could export.
 Corn is the fuel of an economic engine that could increase exports, but it will
 take more transportation capacity to get corn from the Midwest to the ports.
 Bulk corn shipments generally reach the New Orleans area by barge down the
 Mississippi River. The giant elevators operate at near capacity, which creates a
 buyer's market for any new crop that arrives downstream.
 We have not built any new facilities in the New Orleans area for the export
 markets in grains in the last 20 or 25 years,  Cordero said.  We funnel
 everything into New Orleans and neglect other opportunities. We're not using our
 elevators to full capacity in the Texas Gulf   Beaumont, Galveston, Houston and
 Corpus Christi.  Even smaller ports such as Lake Charles, La., could be better
 used, he said.
 One reason is apparent: Moving bulk grain on the river costs less than any other
 mode. The Midwest relies on trucking and railroads to reach the Texas ports.  Do
 we need better rail development from the Midwest to Texas? Or more rail into New
 Orleans?  Cordero asked.  I don't know, but those are the kind of questions we
 need to raise.
 The U.S. has some competitive advantages in the world corn market, he said. The
 supply is reliable year over year, and the U.S. keeps higher quality standards.
 That doesn't mean other countries aren't catching up.  In any given market,
 somebody will catch up sometime,  Cordero said.  Nobody can stand still and
 believe that we don't need to do any more changes.
 The need for greater supply-chain capacity for growers generally is also a
 challenge for the small numbers who grow  identity-preserved  grains for export.
 Those grains are genetically pure products certified free of genetically
 modified strains. Japan and some other countries ban the import of genetically
 modified foods, creating a thriving niche market for members of the Midwest
 Shippers Association, Executive Director Bruce Abbe said.
 Identity-preserved products are transported in containers, but growers face
 chronic shortages. Ocean carriers, which control the container supply, should
 rethink their markets, Abbe said.
 The ocean carriers tie everything to imports. The agricultural community is
 saying,  When can you look at the steady export supply, and start making food
 and grain products the head haul?  It's a new way of thinking for them, but
 that's what we keep hoping for,  he said.
 A lot of the identity-preserved grain and soybeans moves from the Midwest to
 Pacific Northwest ports. There are times when the corridor seems to be at
 capacity, making it difficult to find containers.
 The railroads roll through areas where there is IP grain waiting to go if we can
 get containers at a reasonable cost,  Abbe said.  As the ocean carriers start to
 see a recovery, we d hope they could put more capacity back into the PNW.
 U.S. identity-preserved growers also face international competition from Canada
 and South America, Abbe said.  Any time we can get more outlets out of the
 Midwest,  he said,  it's better for our farmers.
 Contact R.G. Edmonson at "mailto:bedmonson@joc.com".
 LOAD-DATE: February 5, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Magazine
                    Copyright 2010 Commonwealth Business Media
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 297
 
                                The New York Times
                             January 17, 2010 Sunday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Blue Skies
 BYLINE: By DANIEL W. DREZNER.
 Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at Tufts University
 and blogs for Foreign Policy magazine. His latest book is ''All Politics Is
 Global.''
 SECTION: Section BR; Column 0; Book Review Desk; Pg. 16
 LENGTH: 683 words
 Globalization at Mach Speed
 By Gregg Easterbrook
 243 pp. Random House. $26
 America could use a truly Whiggish book right about now. More than a year into
 the Great Recession, it has become much harder to believe in the idea of
 inexorable progress. The moment is ripe for a counterintuitive, optimistic
 perspective that shows, despite appearances to the contrary, that the world is
 getting better and better every day, in every way. Gregg Easterbrook tries hard
 to satiate our inner optimist with ''Sonic Boom.''
 This book is a natural sequel to ''The Progress Paradox'' (2004). There,
 Easterbrook explained why Americans were so despondent even though their quality
 of life had improved dramatically over the past generation. In ''Sonic Boom,''
 his principal thesis is that the 2008 financial crisis is merely a modest hiccup
 in a larger trend of ''growth, change and transformation at unprecedented
 velocity.'' Once the recession is over, he argues, rapid innovation and
 globalization will reassert themselves. Acknowledging the stresses renewed
 change will bring, Easterbrook nevertheless believes that the pluses vastly
 outweigh the minuses.
 A prolific writer for The Atlantic and The New Republic, Easterbrook knows how
 to capture a popular audience, as anyone familiar with his Tuesday Morning
 Quarterback column for ESPN.com is aware. But there are many problems with
 ''Sonic Boom,'' beginning with its title and central metaphor. Easterbrook
 argues that globalization is indeed like a sonic boom: ''noisy, superfast,
 covering huge amounts of territory.'' Unfortunately, that description better
 fits Easterbrook's writing style than his subject matter. At times, his prose
 reads like an unholy mixture of management-consultese and game-show host patter
 (''Quickly, what is Hutchinson Whampoa? The company is the world's largest
 operator of ports.'')
 Later, Easterbrook describes sonic booms as ''pleasing,'' which explains one
 source of the problem -- I'm pretty sure he is alone in attaching such an
 alluring adjective to such a loud noise. Rummaging around in Thomas Friedman's
 discarded metaphor bin is never a good idea, a fact that seems to dawn on
 Easterbrook halfway through this book. Sonic booms make fewer appearances in the
 later pages.
 As for the rest of the arguments here, Easterbrook tends to contradict himself
 or make sweeping declarations that don't hold up to scrutiny. At one point, he
 writes that the Internet is largely responsible for ''much faster, more
 compelling and more accurate news.'' Fine, except that just a paragraph earlier
 he characterizes the Internet as ''a source of befuddlement rather than
 enlightenment.''  Easterbrook makes both statements with equal conviction,
 leaving the reader himself a bit befuddled. He similarly goes back and forth on
 the utility of alternative energy subsidies and neoclassical economic theory.
 Even more puzzling are some of his blanket assertions. For example, he flatly
 states that ''no nation has backslid toward tyranny'' since the end of the cold
 war. Now, Stalinism might not be making a comeback, but it's hard to
 characterize recent developments in Venezuela, China or Russia as the flowering
 of liberty.
 Perhaps the central problem with ''Sonic Boom'' is the tension between its
 themes. Easterbrook is smart enough to acknowledge that the accelerating pace of
 innovation will create major disruptions in the organization of the global
 economy. At the same time, he believes that globalization is so powerful a
 macrotrend that no shock can stop it. Writers like Norman Angell held similar
 beliefs before the start of World War I -- and it took three generations before
 the global economy became as interconnected again.
 What's missing from ''Sonic Boom'' is any discussion of politics. Will aggrieved
 actors try to thwart future innovations as we have seen with stem cell research
 or genetically modified foods? I suspect that Easterbrook's conjectures are
 probably correct -- but I study this stuff for a living. ''Sonic Boom'' will not
 persuade either the pessimistic or the uninformed.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 TITLE: Sonic Boom: Globalization at Mach Speed (Book)
 LOAD-DATE: January 17, 2010
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Review
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 298
 
                                   Lawyers USA
                                 January 14, 2010
 Jury awards $2M to farmers in bellwether rice crops case
 BYLINE: Heather Cole
 LENGTH: 723  words
 The first jury to hear one of more than 1,000 cases against Bayer CropScience
 has decided two farmers deserve an award for past and future economic losses but
 no punitive damages for the accidental mixing of a modified rice seed with their
 crops.
 The trial begins a series of four test cases or "bellwether" lawsuits involving
 rice farmers in five states. The second trial is underway in the same federal
 court in St. Louis.
 The test cases will give both sides a sense of whether jurors will find Bayer
 CropScience liable and what damages they will award if they do, said St. Louis,
 Mo. attorney Don Downing, who represented the plaintiffs.
 "It was the first time an actual jury had an opportunity to hear the evidence
 and offer its view as to whether Bayer was responsible for the contamination and
 the extent of damages," Downing said.
 The jury in U.S. District Court in St. Louis awarded $1.9 million to Kenneth
 Bell and $53,000 to Johnny Hunter. Bell got slightly less than the amount he had
 sought for economic losses as well as future losses; Hunter got all he sought
 for his past losses, Downing said.
 Hunter subsequently got out of rice farming and didn't have a claim for future
 losses.
 After traces of biotech rice were found in shipments of commercial long-grain
 rice in 2006, the European Union and some other foreign markets shunned United
 States long-grain rice imports. That helped spark the lawsuits filed by rice
 farmers over depressed rice prices and the alleged contamination of land, seed
 and equipment.
 The plaintiffs in the other cases scheduled for trial have different claims and
 situations, Bruce Mackintosh, general counsel for Bayer CropScience, said in a
 release issued Dec. 4.
 The company said in its release that Bayer CropScience was disappointed in the
 compensatory damages award but pleased with the decision that punitive damages
 weren't warranted.
 Downing noted that Judge Catherine Perry submitted the punitive damages to the
 jury, indicating she believed that a reasonable jury could find punitive damages
 were appropriate.
 However, there is a high bar to meet to get punitives, Downing said. "It's
 something we're shooting for in the next case. "
 Rice farming 101
 Six thousand rice producers in Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana and
 Mississippi and 30 to 40 rice industry businesses filed suit after traces of
 Bayer's Liberty Link, a genetically modified rice variety, were discovered in
 long-grain rice supplies.
 The U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Food and Drug Administration have
 said the biotech rice, developed to be tolerant to an herbicide, is safe for
 human consumption although it has not yet been marketed, Bayer CropScience said
 its the release.
 Plaintiffs' attorneys looked around the country for experts familiar with rice
 commodities markets. Two of the agriculture economists had never testified in
 front of a jury before, Downing said.
 Jurors told attorneys that it didn't take them long to find Bayer negligent, but
 they spent a long time figuring out which of the seven different Bayer entities
 that had been sued were liable.
 In the end, all the entities were found to be liable, including German-based
 Bayer AG, the parent company.
 The jury was extraordinarily attentive even during the long hours when attorneys
 played video depositions from far-flung Bayer CropScience witnesses, Downing
 said.
 The farmers gave the jurors an education on rice farming, including taking
 stalks of rice and turning them into harvested and milled rice. Jurors reached
 in a bag to feel rice and heard from the farmers about the effect the mixing of
 the biotech rice had on their businesses.
 "Any time you have real people who suffered real harm and can tell that story to
 the jury," Downing said, "it's persuasive. "
 Plaintiffs' attorneys: Don Downing and Gretchen Garrison of Gray, Ritter &
 Graham in St. Louis, Mo.; Grant Davis of Davis, Bethune & Jones in Kansas City,
 Mo.; Bill Chaney of Looper, Reed & McGraw in Dallas.
 Defense attorneys: Mark Ferguson of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott in
 Chicago; Eric Olson of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott in Denver.
 The case: Bell v. Bayer CropScience; Dec. 4, 2009; U.S. District Court for the
 Eastern District of Missouri; Judge Catherine Perry.
 A version of this story originally appeared in Missouri Lawyers Weekly, a sister
 publication of Lawyers USA.
 LOAD-DATE: January 22, 2010
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Corporate earnings
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2010 Dolan Media Newswires









Document Number: 299
 
                               The Washington Post
                            January 14, 2010 Thursday
                                 Suburban Edition
 FDA post elevates food safety;
 New deputy is called upon to impose preventive solutions
 BYLINE: Lyndsey Layton
 SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A17
 LENGTH: 847 words
 A year ago, Michael Taylor was sitting in his office at George Washington
 University, considering a basic mission of the federal government: making sure
 food is safe. He'd devoted his career to food safety, working in and out of
 government, and he was finally in academia where he could think deeply about
 what was wrong and how to fix it.
 And then the call came.
 The Obama administration wanted Taylor to implement the solutions he had been
 designing. A string of food poisoning outbreaks nationally had sickened
 thousands and killed dozens.  Both parties in Congress were calling for tough
 new laws. The president promised the public that he would strengthen food
 safety.
 In July, Taylor became an adviser to Margaret Hamburg, commissioner of the Food
 and Drug Administration, and last Wednesday,  he was named deputy commissioner
 for foods, a new position that elevates food in an agency long criticized for
 placing greater emphasis on drugs and medical devices.
 Congress is moving ahead with legislation to grant vast new authority to the FDA
 to ensure food safety -- the House passed a bill last year and the Senate is
 expected to take up its version soon -- and Taylor will be responsible for
 implementing new laws aimed at preventing outbreaks instead of merely reacting
 after they occur.
 "We are at an historic tipping point -- a moment when the forces have aligned
 like never before; the president, Congress, industry and the public have stepped
 up their support for our mission," Taylor told a gathering of FDA staff members
 last month.
 Taylor is a familiar figure at the FDA. He began his career as a staff attorney
 at the agency in 1976. Then he worked for a decade at King & Spaulding, which
 represented Monsanto Corp., the agribusiness giant that developed genetically
 engineered corn, soybeans and bovine growth hormone.
 He returned to the FDA in 1991 as deputy commissioner for policy and pushed
 through requirements that producers of seafood and juices adopt measures to
 prevent bacterial contamination. During the same period, the FDA approved
 Monsanto's bovine growth hormone, and Taylor was partly responsible for a
 controversial policy that said milk from BGH-treated cows did not have to be
 labeled as such.
 In 1994, Taylor went to the U.S. Agriculture Department to run its food-safety
 program. He required meat and poultry producers to take measures to prevent
 bacterial contamination, despite strong opposition from those industries.
 Observers expect Taylor to impose those same kinds of preventive controls on all
 the foods regulated by the FDA.
 After the USDA, Taylor went to work for Monsanto as a vice president for public
 policy. He moved on to a think tank and then a teaching stint at GWU.
 "He is the quintessential revolving door," said Marion Nestle, a professor of
 nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University. Taylor's
 support for BGH and Monsanto's other genetically modified products at the FDA
 was "questionable," she said. "On the other hand, when he went to USDA, what he
 did there was absolutely heroic. He's been very strong on food safety."
 It's one thing to recognize the weak spots and craft a strategy for change; it's
 another to make it happen and persuade 3,000 FDA employees who work on food
 issues to follow suit.
 "This is really about building a new system," he said. "It's about rethinking
 how we do everything -- from inspections to rulemaking -- so that we're acting
 in real time in a way that is preventive."
 To that end, Taylor has been bringing together divisions to make the agency more
 nimble. Food regulation is split among the Center for Food Safety and Applied
 Nutrition, where much of the scientific research takes place; the Center for
 Veterinary Medicine, which regulates the manufacture and sale of food additives
 and drugs for animals; and the Office of Regulatory Affairs, which handles
 inspections of domestic and imported products and works with state and local
 officials.
 Traditionally, the three sections were managed separately. Any proposed policy
 change had to be approved by each division and then was sent for review by the
 general counsel in the commissioner's office. It took years to get anything
 done, Taylor said.
 Now, Taylor has pulled together a senior leadership team that cuts across the
 three divisions and has created similar cross-sectional teams to work on core
 issues. "The idea is to get the best thinking on the table early," he said.
 Taylor has already taken some steps that suggest a new, more muscular approach
 to regulation. The agency has been cracking down on nutrition claims on
 processed foods, saying that some food makers have overstated the health
 benefits of their products.
 In the first real political test of the new leadership, Taylor tried to ban the
 sale of raw oysters harvested from the Gulf Coast between April and October
 unless they are treated to kill a potentially lethal bacterium. Sen. Mary
 Landrieu (D-La.) and others vigorously protested the move. The FDA agreed to put
 off action to study the issue. Taylor said the agency is not backing down, just
 regrouping.
 LOAD-DATE: January 14, 2010
 DISTRIBUTION: Maryland
 GRAPHIC: IMAGE; Michael Taylor, the FDA's new deputy commissioner for foods, is
 a familiar figure at the agency.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2010 The Washington Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 300
 
                Agriculture Department Documents and Publications
                                 January 13, 2010
 Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc.; Availability of Petition and Environmental
 Assessment for Determination of Nonregulated Status for Corn Genetically
 Engineered for Insect Resistance;
 Federal Register Extracts
 LENGTH: 1692  words
 SUMMARY: We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
 Service has received a petition from Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc., seeking a
 determination of nonregulated status for corn designated as transformation event
 MIR162, which has been genetically engineered for insect resistance. The
 petition has been submitted in accordance with our regulations concerning the
 introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms and products. In
 accordance with those regulations, we are soliciting comments on whether this
 genetically engineered corn is likely to pose a plant pest risk. We are also
 making available for public comment an environmental assessment for the proposed
 determination of nonregulated status.
 DATES: We will consider all comments we receive on or before March 15, 2010.
 ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
 * Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
 (http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetailandd=APHI
 S-2009-0072) to submit or view comments and to view supporting and related
 materials available electronically.
 * Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send two copies of your comment to
 Docket No. APHIS-2009-0072, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,
 Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please
 state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2009-0072.
 Reading Room: You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our
 reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South
 Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal
 reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
 holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817
 before coming.
 Other Information: Additional information about APHIS and its programs is
 available on the Internet at (http://www.aphis.usda.gov).
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Subray Hegde, Biotechnology Regulatory
 Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301)
 734-0810, email: (subray.hegde@aphis.usda.gov). To obtain copies of the
 petition, draft environmental assessment or plant pest risk assessment, contact
 Ms. Cindy Eck at (301) 734-0667, email: (cynthia.a.eck@aphis.usda.gov). Those
 documents are also available on the Internet at
 (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/07_25301p.pdf), (http://
 www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/07_25301p_pea.pdf) and
 (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/07_25301p_pra.pdf).
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, "Introduction of
 Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are
 Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests," regulate,
 among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or
 release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced
 through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to
 believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are
 considered "regulated articles."
 The regulations in SEC 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to
 the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination
 that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and
 (c) of SEC 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of
 nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the
 petition.
 On September 10, 2007, APHIS received a petition seeking a determination of
 nonregulated status (APHIS Petition Number 07-253-01p) from Syngenta
 Biotechnology, Inc., of Research Triangle Park, NC (Syngenta), for corn (Zea
 mays L.) designated as transformation event MIR162, which has been genetically
 engineered for insect resistance, stating that corn line MIR162 is unlikely to
 pose a plant pest risk and, therefore, should not be a regulated article under
 APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340.
 As described in the petition, the MIR162 corn line has been genetically
 engineered to express the VIP3Aa20 protein. The VIP3Aa20 gene is based on the
 sequences from Bacillus thuringiensis, a common soil bacterium. The VIP3Aa20
 gene confers tolerance to certain lepidopteran (caterpillar) pests of corn.
 Expression of the VIP3Aa20 gene is driven by the corn ubiquitin promoter
 (ZmUbilnt), and uses the terminator sequence from 35S RNA of cauliflower mosaic
 virus (CaMV). MIR162 corn also contains the manA gene from E. coli, which
 encodes the enzyme phosphomannose isomerase (PMI), and was used only as a
 selectable marker during transformant selection and confers no other benefits to
 the transformed corn plant. The manA gene is also driven by the ZmUbilnt
 promoter, and uses the Nopaline Synthase (NOS) gene from Agrobacterium
 tumefaciens as a terminator sequence. All of these sequences are
 well-characterized and are non-coding regulatory regions only. Therefore, these
 sequences will not cause the MIR162 corn line to promote plant disease.
 A single copy of these genes and other DNA regulatory sequences were introduced
 into the corn genome with the transformation vector pNOV1300 using disarmed
 (non-plant pest causing) A. tumefaciens transformation. Plant cells containing
 the introduced DNA were selected by culturing them in sugar mannose. After the
 initial transformation, the antibiotic cefotoxime was included in the culture
 medium to kill any remaining Agrobacterium. Therefore, no part of the plant pest
 A. tumefaciens remained in Syngenta MIR162 corn due to the transformation
 method.
 Syngenta's MIR162 corn line has been considered a regulated article under the
 regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because it contains gene sequences from plant
 pathogens. The MIR162 corn line has been field tested in the United States since
 1999 as authorized by USDA APHIS notifications and permits (see appendix A of
 the petition). In the process of reviewing the permits for field trials of the
 subject corn, APHIS determined that the vectors and other elements used to
 introduce the new genes were disarmed and that the trials, which were conducted
 under conditions of reproductive and physical confinement or isolation, would
 not present a risk of plant pest introduction or dissemination.
 Field tests conducted under USDA APHIS oversight allowed for evaluation in a
 natural agricultural setting while imposing measures to minimize the risk of
 persistence in the environment after completion of the test. Data are gathered
 on multiple parameters and used by the applicant to evaluate agronomic
 characteristics and product performance. These data are used by APHIS to
 determine if the new variety poses a plant pest risk. Syngenta has petitioned
 APHIS to make a determination that the MIR162 corn line and the progeny derived
 from its crosses with other nonregulated corn shall no longer be considered
 regulated articles under 7 CFR part 340.
 APHIS has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) in which it presents two
 alternatives based on its analyses of data submitted by Syngenta, a review of
 other scientific data, and field tests conducted under APHIS oversight. APHIS is
 considering the following alternatives: (1) Take no action, i.e., APHIS would
 not change the regulatory status of the MIR162 corn line and it would continue
 to be a regulated article, or (2) grant nonregulated status to corn line MIR162
 in whole.
 In SEC 403 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), "plant pest" is
 defined as any living stage of any of the following that can directly or
 indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plant or plant
 product: A protozoan, a nonhuman animal, a parasitic plant, a bacterium, a
 fungus, a virus or viroid, an infectious agent or other pathogen, or any article
 similar to or allied with any of the foregoing.
 The MIR162 corn line is subject to regulation by other Federal agencies. The
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for the regulation of
 pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
 (FIFRA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.). FIFRA requires that all pesticides,
 including herbicides, be registered prior to distribution or sale, unless exempt
 from EPA regulation. In order to be registered as a pesticide under FIFRA, it
 must be demonstrated that when used with common practices, a pesticide will not
 cause unreasonable adverse effects in the environment. Under the Federal Food,
 Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), pesticides
 added to (or contained in) raw agricultural commodities generally are considered
 to be unsafe unless a tolerance or exemption from tolerance has been
 established. Residue tolerances for pesticides are established by EPA under the
 FFDCA, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enforce the tolerances
 set by EPA. Syngenta submitted the appropriate regulatory package to EPA on
 November 2, 2007, seeking an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
 residues from the Vip3Aa20 protein from B. thuringiensis. On August 6, 2008, EPA
 granted the exemption.
 FDA's policy statement concerning regulation of products derived from new plant
 varieties, including those genetically engineered, was published in the Federal
 Register on May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22984-23005). Under this policy, FDA uses what
 is termed a consultation process to ensure that human and animal feed safety
 issues or other regulatory issues (e.g., labeling) are resolved prior to
 commercial distribution of a bioengineered food. In compliance with the FDA
 policy, Syngenta submitted a food and feed safety and nutritional assessment
 summary to FDA for their MIR162 corn line in 2007. FDA completed their
 consultation on MIR 162 corn on December 9, 2008, concluding that FDA had "no
 further questions concerning grain and forage derived from corn event MIR162."
 National Environmental Policy Act
 --This is a summary of a Federal Register article originally published on the
 page number listed below--
 Notice.
 Citation: "75 FR 1749"
 Federal Register Page Number: "1749"
 "Notices"
 LOAD-DATE: January 13, 2010
            Copyright 2010 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 301
 
                              Voice of America News
                                 January 12, 2010
 Biotech Soybeans Promise Heart Benefits
 BYLINE: Steve Baragona
 LENGTH: 687  words
 "I'd much rather have my yogurt and granola bar and salad dressing with omega-3
 than have to take a capsule every morning." - Roy Fuchs, Monsanto
 Genetically modified foods have been controversial ever since they were
 introduced. But a new variety of GM soybean nearing commercialization promises
 to deliver health benefits that could change how people think about agricultural
 biotechnology. Today's genetically modified crops are designed to help farmers
 by making weed and insect control easier. But they're not designed to help
 consumers, says Jane Rissler, with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
 "The farmers and the companies have profited and benefited, and consumers have
 taken whatever risks there are," she says.
 In the decade or more since GM crops have been on the market, those perceived
 risks to the natural environment and to human health, have not materialized. But
 many consumers remain uncomfortable with anyone tinkering with their food.
 That's especially true in Europe, where farmers are prohibited from growing most
 GM crops.
 Monsanto readies GM soybean oil
 But a new crop could complicate the picture. The giant U.S. seed and biotech
 company Monsanto is on the verge of introducing genetically modified soybeans
 that produce substantial amounts of omega-3 fatty acids. Research shows that a
 diet rich in omega-3s is good for the heart and the brain.
 Roy Fuchs heads soybean research at Monsanto. He says conversations with
 European regulators about the new omega-3-rich soybeans have been encouraging.
 "They have been saying for the last decade or two, 'When will biotechnology
 deliver a trait that consumers can see, they can experience, and benefit [from]
 themselves?' So, they see this as really the first of a number of products that
 will have direct consumer benefits and an opportunity to change the conversation
 from productivity to human health," Fuchs explains.
 Will consumers eat up GM ingredients for their health?
 Omega-3 rich GM soybeans could change the conversation because soybean oil is
 practically ubiquitous in Western processed foods. It's in everything from
 breads and granola bars to salad dressings. Fuchs says you could get your full
 daily allotment of one type of omega-3s just by eating three products made with
 the new soybean oil.
 These days, Fuchs takes a capsule of fish oil every day to get his omega-3s,
 "But I'd much rather have my yogurt and granola bar and salad dressing with
 omega-3 than have to take a capsule every morning," he says.
 Providing convenient ways to increase the amount of omega-3s in the American
 diet could provide some real benefits, according to University of Southern
 California pharmacology professor Roger Clemens, a spokesman for the American
 Society for Nutrition.
 "Particularly as our population gets older, this population's at the highest
 risk of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and obviously
 Alzheimer's [disease]," he says. "So, those five major [diseases] may be
 impacted by this type of [decision] to provide more omega-3 fatty acids in the
 American diet."
 While few would argue that a food rich in omega-3 fatty acids would be a
 healthful addition to any diet, skeptics aren't convinced that Monsanto's
 genetically modified soybean is the best source for those nutrients.
 Will perceived risks outweigh possible benefits?
 And questions remain about possible health risks from the GM soybean oil itself,
 Rissler says.
 "This is a rather substantial interference with the oil metabolism processes of
 soybeans," he says. "And this, to us, raises some potential -- and I say
 potential -- safety issues that we think need more careful consideration," he
 adds.
 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently gave its approval to Monsanto's
 soybean oil. But Rissler says the FDA's approval process relies too heavily on
 the company's own safety testing data.
 Monsanto expects their omega-3 soybean oil to hit the market in the next few
 years. Then, the question will be whether consumers warm to genetically modified
 foods made with their health in mind, or remain wary of anyone tinkering with
 the fundamental chemistry of their food.
 LOAD-DATE: January 13, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Journal
            Copyright 2010 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 302
 
                       Chico Enterprise-Record (California)
                             January 11, 2010 Monday
 Non-GMO label getting a local push by Lundberg Family Farms
 BYLINE: By HEATHER HACKING - Staff Writer
 LENGTH: 678 words
 RICHVALE -- Lundberg Family Farms is among the leaders in a trend to label foods
 as non-GMO.
 GMO stands for genetically modified organisms, which are created through
 transferring genes from one organism to another.
 Most Americans consume genetically modified foods every day. The majority of
 soy, cotton, corn and canola grown in the United States contains genetically
 modified crops, most of which have been altered to resist pests and weeds.
 Other genetically modified foods may contain higher nutrients, are more tolerant
 to adverse growing conditions or produce higher yields.
 Previously there has been no organized system in the United States for people to
 know whether the foods they buy contain GMOs.
 Over the past two years, Lundberg Family Farms, which produces organic rice
 products, and others in the organic industry have created a new labeling system
 and verification process to label foods as "non-GMO."
 The group is a nonprofit organization called the Non-GMO project.
 Grant Lundberg, chief executive officer of his family's business in Richvale,
 said Lundberg Family Farms has long been opposed to genetically modified foods,
 created through biotechnology.
 Some genetically modified crops, such as corn and soybeans, spread pollen easily
 and can cross-pollinate with other crops, Lundberg explained.
 "There is the potential to lose a lot of genetic history because when a product
 is released, it is very hard to keep it contained," Lundberg said.
 Some food consumers have also had difficulty if they want to buy foods that do
 not contain genetic modifications.
 About two years ago, the company that specializes in organic rice products
 joined other natural food companies to develop a nonprofit group to label
 non-GMO products, "to give the consumers an informed choice about what they are
 eating," Lundberg said.
 The program has set up a "supply chain from seed breeders all the way through to
 retailers and consumers," he continued.
 The program includes a third-party verification process, followed by inclusion
 of the non-GMO label.
 "We know our customers have those concerns," Lundberg said. "The person who goes
 into the natural food store has certain expectations of their food. Our hope for
 the project is that we're creating a standard."
 Other companies that helped fund the labeling project include Whole Foods
 Market, Eden Organic, Nature's Path and United Natural Foods.
 Lundberg said many foreign countries, including Japan, Australia and the
 European Union, require labeling if products contain genetically modified foods,
 which creates a trade barrier for some U.S. products.
 "The general U.S. ag policy has been pro-GMO," Lundberg said.
 Currently, 50 brands in the United States and Canada have signed up for the new
 non-GMO project, he said, accounting for about 3,000 products.
 Part of the labeling criteria includes a protocol to trace, test and segregate
 foods used, said Megan Westgate, executive director for the Non-GMO Project,
 based in Southern California.
 The standard chosen by the group is 0.9 percent or less GMOs in foods   the same
 standards used in the European Union, Westgate explained.
 The goal of the program is to make testing very efficient, so companies that do
 not use genetically modified foods don't end up spending a lot of money on
 testing.
 For example, Westgate said, 91 percent of soy grown in the United States is
 genetically modified. If a company uses soy oil, testing each truckload could
 cost up to $16,000 a year.
 But if the soy oil is tested further up the supply chain, the cost for testing
 is greatly reduced, she said.
 "We're creating a structure in making non-GMO an affordable and practical thing.
 "The most efficient place to test is when a crop is processed," Westgate said.
 In the next couple of months, companies will be using up the remainder of their
 packaging material and rolling out with the redesigned containers that include
 the non-GMO seal.
 She said the hope is that people will see the labels and become more informed
 about GMOs.
 Staff writer Heather Hacking can be reached at 896-7758 or hhacking@chicoer.com
 LOAD-DATE: January 25, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
             Copyright 2010 MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 303
 
                              Missouri Lawyers Media
                                 January 11, 2010
 Verdicts & Settlements January 11, 2010: Farmers win $2M in bellwether rice
 crops case
 BYLINE: Heather Cole
 LENGTH: 957  words
 The first jury to hear one of more than 1,000 cases against Bayer CropScience
 decided two farmers deserved an award for past and future economic losses but no
 punitive damages for the accidental mixing of a modified rice seed with their
 crops.
 The trial began a series of four test cases or "bellwether" lawsuits involving
 rice farmers in five states. The second trial is scheduled to start today in the
 same federal court in St. Louis.
 The test cases will give both sides a sense of whether jurors will find Bayer
 CropScience liable and how much in damages they will award if they do, said Don
 Downing, an attorney with Gray, Ritter & Graham who represented the plaintiffs.
 "It was the first time an actual jury had an opportunity to hear the evidence
 and offer its view as to whether Bayer was responsible for the contamination and
 the extent of damages," Downing said.
 The jury in U.S. District Court in St. Louis awarded $1.9 million to Kenneth
 Bell and $53,000 to Johnny Hunter, both of southeastern Missouri. Bell got
 slightly less than the award he had sought for economic losses as well as future
 losses; Hunter got all he had asked for his losses, Downing said. Hunter stopped
 farming rice and didn't have a claim for future losses.
 After traces of the biotech rice were found in shipments of commercial
 long-grain rice in 2006, all countries in the European Union and some other
 foreign markets shunned United States long-grain rice imports. That spurred the
 lawsuits filed by rice farmers over depressed rice prices and the alleged
 contamination of land, seed and equipment.
 The plaintiffs in other cases scheduled soon for trial have different claims and
 situations, Bruce Mackintosh, general counsel for Bayer CropScience, said in a
 release issued Dec. 4, the date of the verdict. The United States arm of Bayer
 CropScience is headquartered in Raleigh, N.C.
 Bayer CropScience was disappointed in the compensatory damages award but pleased
 with the decision that punitive damages aren't warranted, the company said in
 the release.
 U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Perry submitted the punitive damages to the
 jury, showing she determined that a reasonable jury could find punitive damages
 were appropriate, Downing said.
 However, there is a high bar to meet to get punitive damages, Downing said.
 "It's something we're shooting for in the next case. "
 Six thousand rice producers in Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana and
 Mississippi and 30 to 40 rice industry businesses filed lawsuits after traces of
 Bayer's LibertyLink, a genetically modified rice variety, were discovered in
 long-grain rice supplies. About half of the long-grain rice crop is exported,
 with much of it going to Europe, Downing said.
 However, Bayer CropScience said in the statement that most long-grain rice grown
 in the United States is consumed outside of Europe and its marketing remains
 unaffected by the European regulatory system.
 The U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Food and Drug Administration have
 said the biotech rice, developed to tolerate an herbicide, is safe for human
 consumption although it has not yet been marketed, Bayer CropScience said in the
 release.
 Plaintiffs' attorneys looked around the country for experts familiar with rice
 commodities markets. Two of the agriculture economists who testified had never
 testified in front of a jury before, Downing said.
 Jurors told attorneys that it didn't take them long to find Bayer negligent, but
 they spent a long time on the verdict form figuring out which of the seven
 different Bayer entities that had been sued were liable. In the end, all the
 entities were found to be liable, including German-based Bayer AG, the parent
 company.
 The jury was extraordinarily attentive even during the long hours attorneys
 played video depositions from far-flung Bayer CropScience witnesses, Downing
 said.
 The farmers gave the jurors an education on rice farming, including taking
 stalks of rice and turning them into harvested and milled rice. Jurors reached
 in a bag to feel rice and heard from the farmers about the effect the mixing of
 the biotech rice had on their businesses.
 Harvested rice and two of the most widely sold rice seed varieties were
 contaminated and were planted by unknowing farmers, Downing said. They then
 couldn't plant in those fields in 2007 for fear of contamination. In addition,
 prices for rice were depressed because of the loss of the European market, he
 said.
 "Any time you have real people who suffered real harm and can tell that story to
 the jury," Downing said, "it's persuasive. "
 $2 million verdict
 Tort negligence
 Court: U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri
 Case Number/Date: 4:06MD1811/Dec. 4
 Judge: Catherine Perry
 Plaintiffs' Experts: Rene Van Acker, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada
 (containment expert); Colin Carter, University of California Davis, Davis,
 Calif. (agriculture economist); Bruce Babcock, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
 (agriculture economist); Eric Frye, Spectrum Economics, Kansas City (damages);
 Neil Rutger, Davis, Calif. (rice geneticist)
 Defendants' Experts: Alan McHughen, University of California Riverside,
 Riverside, Calif. (liability), Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, University of
 Missouri, Columbia (agricultural economist); Cheryl Shuffield, Little Rock, Ark.
 (damages expert); Ronnie Helms, Stuttgart, Ark. (liability)
 Caption: Kenneth Bell and J.H. Hunter Farms, et al., v. Bayer CropScience, et.
 al.
 Plaintiffs' Attorney: Don Downing and Gretchen Garrison, Gray, Ritter & Graham,
 St. Louis; Grant Davis, Davis, Bethune & Jones, Kansas City; Bill Chaney,
 Looper, Reed & McGraw, Dallas
 Defendants' Attorneys: Mark Ferguson, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott,
 Chicago; Eric Olson, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott, Denver
 LOAD-DATE: January 19, 2010
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Legal activity (lawsuits etc.)
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2010 Dolan Media Newswires









Document Number: 304
 
                         The Gridley Herald (California)
   This content, including derivations, may not be stored or distributed in any
   manner, disseminated, published, broadcast, rewritten or reproduced without
                       express, written consent from STPNS
                                 January 8, 2010
 Lundberg among the first to become "Non-GMO Verified"
 BYLINE: The Gridley Herald staff
 LENGTH: 493  words
 Enrollment in Non-GMO Project Nears 3000 Products
 RICHVALE, CA, January 6, 2010 - Lundberg Family Farms announced today that 66 of
 their products are among the first products to be officially "Non-GMO Verified"
 by the Non-GMO Project. The "Non-GMO Verified" seal means that verified Lundberg
 products have been produced according to rigorous best practices for GMO
 avoidance, which includes testing of risk ingredients.
 "It is very important for the consumer to have an educated choice between food
 containing GMO's and those that are Non-GMO," says Grant Lundberg, CEO of
 Lundberg Family Farms. "It has been my pleasure to work with the Non-GMO Project
 and like minded members of the natural foods community to draft the first
 comprehensive Non-GMO standards in the United States. I could not be prouder
 that Lundberg Family Farms is among the first companies to have our products
 officially verified."
 Grant Lundberg serves as one of eleven governing members of the Non-GMO
 Project's board of directors that has been involved in initiating, funding, and
 writing standards for the Non-GMO Project since its inception. The Non-GMO
 Project is a non-profit organization, created by leaders representing all
 sectors of the organic and natural products industry in the U.S. and Canada, to
 offer consumers a consistent non-GMO choice for organic and natural products
 that are produced without genetic engineering or recombinant DNA technologies.
 As the Project evolved, it became clear that in order for the initial vision of
 standardized labeling to be possible, a 3rd party verification program was
 needed that would identify products compliant with a uniform, consensus-based
 definition of non-GMO. With the help of technical consultants FoodChain Global
 Advisors, and fueled by the passion of a dynamic array of industry leaders, the
 Non-GMO Project has successfully created a collaborative non-GMO verification
 program that began enrolling products in the fall of 2008.
 Companies enrolled in the Non-GMO Project are serious about keeping GMOs out,
 and work hard to do so. While many products make claims regarding their GMO
 status (e.g. "GMO free"), these are not legally or scientifically defensible,
 and are not verified by a third party. The Non-GMO Project is the only
 organization offering independent verification of testing and GMO controls for
 products in the U.S. and Canada. To date enrollment in the program is close to
 3,000 products from over 50 brands. Visit www.lundberg.com to view a list of
 Lundberg Family Farms products that have been Non-GMO Verified.
 About Lundberg Family Farms
 Since 1937, the Lundberg family has been growing healthy, great tasting rice
 while respecting and sustaining the earth. Today, the third generation carries
 on the family heritage by using eco-positive farming methods that produce
 wholesome, healthful rice, rice cakes, rice chips and risottos while improving
 and protecting the environment for generations to come.
 GEOGRAPHIC: Gridley CALIFORNIA, USA (92%) California UNITED STATES (94%); NORTH
 AMERICA (94%); CANADA (90%) United States
 LOAD-DATE: April 17, 2010
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Business
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2010 SmallTownPapers, Inc.
                                All Rights Reserved
                              SmallTownPapers, Inc.
                        Copyright 2010 The Gridley Herald









Document Number: 305
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                              January 8, 2010 Friday
 Monsanto states its case on seed competition
 BYLINE: BY Jeffrey Tomich o jtomich@post-dispatch.com > 314-340-8320
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. C3
 LENGTH: 433 words
 Monsanto Co., which faces a steady barrage of criticism and an inquiry from
 antitrust regulators, continued to make its case this week that the U.S. seed
 market is competitive and that its biotech seed innovations are benefitting
 farmers, not hurting them.
 The company this week released a copy of its statements to the departments of
 Justice and Agriculture, which are conducting a series of workshops this year
 about competition in agribusiness.
 Monsanto's statements are part of a 21-page paper titled "Observations on
 Competition in the U.S. Seed Industry." In it, the company argues that no seed
 company owns a dominant market share, and that many choices of biotech and
 conventional seed exist within a wide band of prices.
 "It is important to distinguish what products farmers actually choose from
 whether or not they have robust, meaningful choices," Monsanto said. "In other
 words, the fact that farmers purchase high performing products that may cost
 more does not mean that they were forced to make those decisions."
 Monsanto also contends that its biotech traits, which are licensed to
 competitors, have helped reduce prices for conventional seed.
 The Creve Coeur-based company has faced anti-competitive claims in the past,
 most recently surrounding its Delta Pine & Land Co. acquisition. In recent
 months, however, the company's position in the biotech corn and soybean seed
 business has riled critics and competitors, including chief rival Pioneer
 Hi-Bred International Inc.
 Pioneer, a DuPont subsidiary, alleged anti-competitive behavior in a lawsuit
 against Monsanto in June. The claim was a response to a lawsuit initiated by
 Monsanto, in which it said Pioneer violated intellectual property rights. Both
 lawsuits are still pending in federal court in St. Louis.
 In August, the Justice Department and USDA announced the workshops on
 competition in agriculture.
 More recently, Monsanto acknowledged that the Justice Department has informally
 sought information concerning the company's genetically modified seed business.
 Monsanto spokesman Lee Quarles on Thursday said the company has continued to
 have discussions with the department and other agribusiness interests concerning
 the subject of competition. He declined to be more specific.
 Dan Turner, a DuPont spokesman, declined to comment on Monsanto's submission to
 the Justice Department. DuPont planned to make its comments on the topic of
 competition in agriculture public on Friday, he said.
 The first competition workshop will be March 12 in Ankeny, Iowa, a suburb of Des
 Moines, and will cover issues that concern row crop farmers.
 LOAD-DATE: January 8, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2010 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 306
 
                         Lincoln Journal Star (Nebraska)
                             January 7, 2010 Thursday
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. A4
 LENGTH: 378 words
 OMAHA - Berkshire Hathaway Inc. on Wednesday filed documents for a $1 billion
 debt offering with proceeds to retire existing debt due this year.
 The company, in a regulatory filing, said it plans to offer $750 million in
 senior unsecured notes due 2040 and $250 million in floating rate senior
 unsecured notes due 2012.
 As of Sept. 30, Berkshire Hathaway Finance Corp. had no secured indebtedness and
 $12.1 billion of debt.
 Berkshire Hathaway Inc. had $169 million of debt and its subsidiaries had $37.8
 billion of debt.
 Moody's Investors Service assigned an Aa2 rating to the notes. The rating
 denotes high quality.
 Walt Disney Co.'s ESPN and Discovery Communications Inc. plan to start 3-D
 television networks, following the success of 3-D films such as "Avatar."
 ESPN 3-D will start in June and broadcast 85 live events in the first year, the
 sports network announced Tuesday. Discovery, Sony Corp. and Imax Corp. announced
 a joint venture Tuesday to introduce a 3-D channel in 2011.
 Time Warner Cable spokeswoman Maureen Huff said the company has had "preliminary
 discussions" with ESPN and Discovery about carrying their new networks but
 declined to comment further.
 NEW YORK - Monsanto Co., the world's largest seed producer, reported a
 first-quarter loss as sales of corn and soybean seeds dropped and prices for
 Roundup herbicide declined.
 The loss in the three months ended Nov. 30 was 2 cents a share, excluding some
 items, St. Louis-based Monsanto said Wednesday. That trailed the average
 estimate of break-even results from 14 analysts in a Bloomberg survey. Sales
 fell 36 percent to $1.7 billion.
 The company is developing new genetically modified corn and soybean seeds to
 boost profit as sales of Roundup weed killer are hurt by cheaper generic
 versions. Profit from seeds and gene licensing fell 12 percent as Latin American
 sales dropped, and earnings from glyphosatebased weed killers, including
 Roundup, tumbled 89 percent.
 Monsanto employs about 400 people in Nebraska, where it has two seed companies,
 NC+ Hybrids in Lincoln and Fontanelle in Dodge County, plus seed processing
 plants in Waco and Kearney.
 - From staff and wire reports
 LOAD-DATE: January 12, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2010 Lincoln Journal Star
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 307
 
                       Monterey County Herald (California)
                              January 3, 2010 Sunday
 Events calendar
 BYLINE: The Monterey County Herald
 LENGTH: 2580 words
 Today
 World Music Workshop. 9:30 -11:30 a.m. at Esalen Institute, 55000 Highway One,
 Big Sur. World Music Workshop by Ancient Future Leader Matthew Montfort. $385.
 667-3005, www.esalen.org .
 New Year's wildlife cruise. Two-hour guided boat tour through Elkhorn Slough
 leaving at 9:15 a.m. at Moss Landing Harbor, Highway 1, Moss Landing. Cost:
 Friends of Joyce Porter charity benefit. 7-11p.m. Friday, Jan. 8, at the Fuse
 Lounge, 3665 Rio Road, Carmel. Live music by Victory Lane, belly dancing, silent
 auction, no-host bar, appetizers. Benefit to help with hospital costs. $25.
 Fifth annual Champions of the Arts Gala. 5-10p.m. Saturday, Jan. 23, at Embassy
 Suites Hotel Monterey Bay, 1441 Canyon Del Rey Boulevard, Seaside. Wine
 reception and silent auction followed by a gourmet dinner. Special performances
 and award presentations to Ron Dias, Belle Yang, Tonatiuh Danzantes Del Quinto
 Sol, Carol Diggery Shields, Carla Baldassari, Ewalker James and the family of
 William Stone. All proceeds benefit arts education in Monterey County. $75
 before Jan. 17, $85 after. For reservations, call 622-9060 or see
 www.artsformontereycounty.org .
 Rancho Cielo culinary round-up. 5-8p.m. Sunday, Jan. 31, at Monterey Plaza Hotel
 and Spa, 400 Cannery Row, Monterey. Chaired by Bert Cutino, the western-themed
 fundraiser will feature many local chefs and Monterey County wineries. Live and
 silent auctions, featuring
 furniture made by the Rancho Cielo students. $125 per person. 444-3533.
 Six week beginner's yoga. 7-8p.m. Mondays, Jan. 4-25, at Seaside Yoga Sanctuary,
 1360 Fremont Blvd, Seaside. Introduction to yoga. Learning how to do the poses
 safely and adapt them to specific needs; while decreasing stress and improving
 sleep. $65 or $120/couple. 899-9642, www.seasideyogasanctuary.com .
 Learn Photoshop basics, 11a.m.-noon Saturdays, Jan. 9-30, at the John Steinbeck
 Library, 350 Lincoln Ave., Salinas. Four-part class designed to teach the basics
 of Photoshop. Free. Space is limited. Advance registration required. 758-7311.
 Rose pruning seminar. 10:30a.m. Saturday, Jan. 9, at McShane's Nursery, 115
 Monterey-Salinas Highway, Salinas. Free. 455-1876.
 Fruit tree pruning seminar. 1:30p.m. Saturday, Jan. 9, at McShane's Nursery, 115
 Monterey-Salinas Highway, Salinas. Free. 455-1876.
 Memory strategies to enhance learning. 6:30?8:30p.m. Wednesday, Jan. 13, at
 Chartwell School, McMahan Hall Multipurpose Room, 2511 Numa Watson Road,
 Seaside. Workshop focuses on how memory impacts a student's ability to study.
 Speech/language pathologist Dawn Anderle, M.A., will offer practical strategies
 for parents on how to help their child understand how memory works, activities
 to enhance memory and studying techniques. Free. 394-3468, www.chartwell.org .
 Craig Ferguson. 8p.m. Friday, Feb. 12, at Sunset Center, Ninth and San Carlos in
 Carmel. The Scottish-American comedian, writer, director, actor and current host
 of CBS's The Late Late Show, makes his debut appearance at the Sunset Center.
 $32-$62. 620-2048, www.sunsetcenter.org .
 Dances of Universal Peace. 7-9p.m. Saturday, Jan. 9, at the Unitarian
 Universalist Church of the Monterey Peninsula, 490 Aguajito Road, Carmel. Master
 dance leader Nancy Norris will teach the simple, easy-to-learn melodies, words,
 and steps. $5-$10 donation. 624-7404.
 Friends of the Monterey Public Library giant book sale. 10a.m.-4p.m. Sat-Sun,
 Jan. 9-10, in the Library Community Room, Monterey Public Library, 625 Pacific
 St., Monterey. A preview for Friends of the Library members will be held
 3:30-5:30p.m. Friday, Jan. 8. 646-5601.
 "Grocer's Son" 5:30p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 5, at Harrison Memorial Library Park
 Branch, Mission and Sixth avenues, Carmel. French with English subtitles. It's
 summer, and 30-year-old Antoine is forced to leave the city to return to his
 family in Provence. Free. Limited seating. 624-2811.
 GMO film festival. 11a.m.-8p.m. Saturday, Jan. 9, at Cannery Row IMAX, 640 Wave
 St., Monterey. Festival to raise awareness about the dangers of genetically
 modified foods. $6. 372-4629, www.gmofreemontereycounty.org
 "Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land." 6:30p.m. Monday, Jan. 11, in the
 Community Room of the Monterey Public Library, 625 Pacific St., Monterey.
 Combining American and British TV news clips with observations of analysts,
 journalists, and political activists, the film provides a historical overview, a
 media comparison, and an examination of factors which have distorted U.S. media
 coverage. Free. 238-6675.
 "For my Father" 5:30p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 2, at Harrison Memorial Library Park
 Branch, Mission and Sixth, Carmel. Hebrew with English subtitles. Terek, a
 Palestinian forced on a suicide mission in Tel Aviv to redeem his father's
 honor, is given a second chance when the fuse on his explosive vest fails to
 detonate Free. Limited seating. 624-2811.
 Author presentation of "Sixty Feet, Six Inches" by Reggie Jackson and Bob
 Gibson. 7p.m. Wednesdsay, Jan. 13, at Carpenter Hall, Sunset Center, Ninth and
 Mission, Carmel. Jackson will talk about his new book and professional baseball
 career. Proceeds benefit Harrison Memorial Library. $10. 624-2811.
 "Lady in the Locker Room" talk and booksigning with Flo Snyder. 7p.m. Friday,
 Jan. 22, at National Steinbeck Center, 1 Main St., Salinas. Free. 775-4726.
 Monterey County Genealogy Society. 7p.m. Thursday, Jan. 7, at the Family History
 Center, 1024 Noche Buena, Seaside. Dr. Rob Chapman will host a program on
 NewEnglandAncestors.org   Web site of the New England Genealogical Society,
 founded in 1845. 375-2340,
 www.mocogenso.org .
 Team In Training information meeting. Train to run or walk a marathon or half
 marathon, complete a triathlon, cycle a 100-mile century ride or perform an
 adventure hike while raising money to help fight blood cancers and improve the
 quality of life of blood cancer patients and their families. An information
 meeting will be held at 6:30p.m. Thursday, Jan. 7, at Sunset Center, San Carlos
 and Ninth Avenue in Carmel. 800-482-8326,
 www.teamintraining.org/sj .
 Youth and Honors Orchestras of Youth Music Monterey auditions. 4-4:30p.m. for
 Youth Orchestra, 6:15-6:45p.m. for Honors Orchestra, Tuesday, Jan. 6, at
 Monterey High School Band Room, 700 Pacific St., Monterey. 375-0645,
 www.youthmusicmonterey.org .
 Back to Nowhere. 9p.m. Saturday, Jan. 9, at Woody's, 125 Ocean View Blvd.,
 Pacific Grove. 21 and over. No cover. 649-6800.
 Peter Toth piano recital. 8p.m. Friday, Jan. 15, at All Saints' Episcopal
 Church, Ninth and Dolores in Carmel. Hungarian piano virtuoso, Peter Toth, will
 present a recital that will include works by Schubert, Brahms, and Liszt. $20
 for adults, $10 for students. 624-3883, allsaintscarmel.org .
 Microtonic Harmonic. 9p.m. Friday, Jan. 15, at Woody's, 125 Ocean View Blvd.,
 Pacific Grove. 21 and over. No cover. 649-6800.
 Tanymas. 9p.m. Saturday, Jan. 16, at Woody's, 125 Ocean View Blvd., Pacific
 Grove. 21 and over. No cover. 649-6800.
 Richard Stoltzman with the Borromeo String Quartet. 8p.m. Saturday, Jan. 16, at
 Sunset Center, San Carlos Street and Ninth Avenue, Carmel. $39-$62. Free
 pre-concert lecture by Kai Christiansen, Musicologist 7-7:30 p.m., Studio 105 at
 Sunset Center. Program includes Mozart's Clarinet Quintet in A, K. 581,
 Hindemith's Clarinet Quintet, Op. 30 and Schumann's String Quartet in A minor,
 Op. 41, No. 1. 625-2212, www.chambermusicmontereybay.org .
 Bob Harp. 8p.m. Thursday, Jan. 21, at East Village Coffee Lounge, 498 Washington
 St., Monterey. American folk. All ages. No cover. 373-5601.
 Monterey Symphony "Sizzle from Iceland." 2p.m. final rehearsal $15, 7 p.m.
 performance $20-$39, Saturday, Jan. 23, at Sherwood Hall, 940 N. Main St.,
 Salinas. Works by Rossini, Barber and Beethoven. 646-8511,
 www.montereysymphony.org .
 Discover Yosemite in Winter. 7-8:30p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 5, at REI, at the corner
 of Imjin Parkway and Second Avenue in Marina. Yosemite Association's Resident
 Naturalist Pete Devine will take you to the heart of Yosemite's winter
 wonderland, as he share slides and information on great places to snowshoe,
 cross country ski, or winter camp. Free. 883-8048.
 "What Does Sustainability Really Look Like?" 6:30p.m. Wednesday, Jan. 6, at
 Hidden Valley Music Seminars, Carmel Valley Road at Ford Road, Carmel Valley.
 The speaker, Caren Black, is a former Monterey County resident who left to
 homestead and has six years experience with self-reliant living. Free. 659-1115.
 "Stories from behind the lens with Tom G. O'Neal." 7-9p.m. Wednesday, Jan. 6, at
 The Alternative Cafe, 1230 Fremont Blvd. Seaside. O'Neal will talk about the
 background stories of his photos taken of famous musicians from the 1960s and
 '70s, including Crosby, Stills & Nash, Steppenwolf and Joni Mitchell. Many of
 his photos from that era will be on display. Free. 583-0913.
 Carmel Valley Voices. 2-3:30p.m. Sunday, Jan. 10, at Sanctuary Bible Church
 Hall, 8340 Carmel Valley Road, Carmel. Dorothy Micheletti will recount the
 history of Youth Music Monterey, and student musicians from the program's
 orchestras will perform. Free. 659-5877.
 "Up From the Ashes" birth of the Hotel Del Monte Art Gallery with John Sanders.
 10:30 a.m. Wednesday, Jan. 13, Monterey Museum of Art La Mirada, 720 Via Mirada,
 Monterey. John Sanders, special collections manager at the Naval Postgraduate
 School's Dudley Knox Library, will offer a stunning look at the Hotel Del Monte
 Art Gallery the historic commercial gallery where the works of the Monterey
 Peninsula Art Colony, including Gottardo Piazzoni, Xavier Martinez and Evelyn
 McCormick, were first disseminated. $10 MMA members, $15 all others. 372-5477.
 Learn the Ropes: Inside Climb. 6-8p.m. Wednesday, Jan. 6, at Sanctuary Rock Gym,
 1855 East Ave., Sand City. introduction to rock climbing. Indoor program will
 teach skills to get started. Learn safety tips, technique, footwork and
 training. Equipment rental and full gym day-use are included. $45 district
 residents, $50 all others. 372-3196, ext. 3, www.mprpd.org
 Renovation 5k run/walk and just run kids one mile fun run. Check in at 7:30a.m.
 in Rotary Park, 570 Walker Drive, Soledad. The 10k Run and 5k Run/Walk begin at
 8:30 a.m. The Just Run Kids Fun Run and Obstacle Course begin at 11 a.m. The
 Renovation Run is to raise money for Phase II of Soledad-Mission Recreation
 District's Renovation Project: Soledad Pool Locker Room. Pre-registration fees
 are $25 for adults and $15 per child. 678-3745, www.soledadrec.com .
 Whale watching with the American Cetacean Society. 7-9a.m. Saturday, Jan. 16, at
 Fisherman's Wharf in Monterey. Fundraising cruise on Monterey Princess. $20 for
 ACS members, $30 for all others. Send checks to ACS, P.O. Box HE, Pacific Grove,
 CA 93950. For information, call 646-8743 or 419-1051.
 Discover Croatia. March 15-25. Trip includes 11 days and 15 meals. Highlights
 are Zagreb, Bled, Pletna boat ride, Lipica Stud Farm, wine tasting, Opatija
 Plitvice Lakes National Park, Split, Diocletian Palace, Korcula Island and
 Dubrovnik. $3,269 per person. 373-3304.
 Tours of The Steinbeck House. 1-3p.m. Sundays through Aug. 30 (except Father's
 Day   June 14), at The Steinbeck House, 132 Central Ave., Salinas. Adults $5,
 seniors/students (with ID) $3, children under 6 free when accompanied by a
 parent. 424-2735.
 Garland Ranch Regional Park. For a schedule of hikes on Saturdays and Sundays
 see www.mprpd.org . The park is at 700 W. Carmel Valley Road, Carmel Valley. The
 Web site also includes hikes at other Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District
 parks. Free.
 Sierra Club hikes. Schedule of hikes at www.ventana.sierraclub.org . Free.
 Historic garden tours. 10:30a.m. ongoing Fridays. Tours start at Casa del Oro
 Memory Gardens at Pacific and Scott streets, Monterey. Visit the gardens
 associated with Old Monterey Historic Adobes. $5 donation. Reservations at
 649-3364; leave a message.
 Tours of Point Pinos Lighthouse. Self-guided tours from 1-4p.m.
 Thursdays-Mondays. The lighthouse is on Ocean View Boulevard in Pacific Grove.
 The entrance is from Asilomar Avenue. $2 donation suggested. 648-3176 or
 www.ci.pg.ca.us .
 Point Sur Lightstation State Historic Park walk tours. Tours at 10a.m. and 2p.m.
 Saturdays, 10a.m. Sundays and 1p.m. Wednesdays. Arrive early. Tours are three
 hours and limited to 40 people. Meet outside the Highway 1 farm gate, 19 miles
 south of Rio Road (just north of the Point Sur Naval Facility). $10 adults/$5
 for ages 6-17/age 5 and under free. Moonlight tours begin in April. Details:
 625-4419 or www.pointsur.org .
 Docent-led tours of Elkhorn Slough.
 10a.m. and 1p.m. Saturdays and Sundays, rain or shine. Early bird tours are
 scheduled for 8:30a.m. the first Saturday of the month. Meet at the visitor
 center at 1700 Elkhorn Road, Watsonville. $2.50 day-use fee. 728-2822,
 www.elkhornslough.org .
 Carmel Walks. 10a.m. Tue-Fri; 10a.m. and 2p.m. Saturdays. The two-hour walk
 includes a tour of Carmel cottages, secret gardens and hidden courtyards. Meet
 in the outdoor courtyard of the Pine Inn, Lincoln Street and Ocean Avenue,
 Carmel. $25. 642-2700, www.carmelwalks.com .
 Robinson Jeffers Tor House Tour. Tours hourly form 10a.m.-4p.m. Fridays and
 Saturdays. $7 general/$4 college students/$2 for high school students. 26304
 Ocean View Avenue, Carmel. Reservations: Mon-Thu from 9a.m.-1p.m. at 624-1813 or
 Fri.-Sat. after 9:30a.m. at 624-1840.
 Monterey State Park tours. Guided tours to four house museums   Larkin House,
 Stevenson House, Cooper-Molera Adobe and Casa Soberanes   are free. The
 45-minute guided tours cover the history of Old Monterey and includes the
 exterior of some of the most historic houses in Monterey. The Custom House, the
 oldest government building in California, is open daily from 10a.m.-4p.m. The
 Pacific House Museum, home to the Monterey Museum of the American Indian is also
 open daily from 10a.m.-4p.m.. Tours are offered at least once per day, except
 Thursdays. 649-7118, www.parks.ca.gov/mshp .  ONGOING DAILY
 Trolley tours with local historian Gary Munsinger. 8p.m. daily trolley tour of
 Old Monterey. Meet at 527 Hartnell St., downtown Monterey. Relive the tales of
 Old Monterey. Visit the sites of the ghost in the garden, ancient burial
 grounds, hidden treasure, hauntings, hangings and frequent ghostly sightings.
 $28 adults/$9 children under 12. Also, there is a daily wine trolley tour, which
 begins at 11a.m. Meet at Portola Hotel and Spa at Monterey Bay in downtown
 Monterey for the five-hour tour. $49 per person (does not include wine
 tastings). All tours by reservation only. 624-1700, www.toursmonterey.com .
 Monterey Movie Tours. 1p.m. daily. Passengers will board a bus in front of the
 Portola Hotel and Spa at Monterey Bay, 2 Portola Plaza, Monterey. The three-hour
 daily tour takes passengers to some of the 190 locations of films that have been
 shot around the Peninsula. There is also live narration aboard the bus along
 with movie clips. $49 adults/$45 seniors/$35 children. 372-6278.
 LOAD-DATE: January 6, 2010
 GRAPHIC: Carmel Valley photographer Tom ONeal will discuss his experiences
 shooting famous rock musicians, such as this shot of Crosby, Stills and Nash, in
 Stories from behind the lens with Tom G. O'Neal, Wednesday at The Alternative
 Cafe in Seaside.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2010 The Monterey County Herald
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 308
 
                            Huntsville Times (Alabama)
                             January 2, 2010 Saturday
 HudsonAlpha's success
 BYLINE: Patricia C. McCarter, Times Staff Writer
 SECTION: LOCAL NEWS; Pg. 1A
 LENGTH: 796 words
 Biotech institute brings in donations, expands education offerings
 In a year when business news too often involved layoffs and declining stock
 value, the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology was a bright spot on the
 local economic scene.
 Now open two full years, the research/education/business venture founded by Jim
 Hudson and Lonnie McMillian in Cummings Research Park is still exploding with
 announcements concerning its growth and successes.
 Some of that good news came through contributions to HudsonAlpha.
 Much of the nonprofit institute's work is funded by grants and donations, and
 some huge donations were seen by its founders. Hudson and his late wife, Susie,
 gave $500,000 at the beginning of 2009, and this past fall, McMillian committed
 $1.6 million toward developing the greenspace that runs the entire length of the
 nearly mile-long campus.
 Linda Smith, wife of the late Mark Smith, who was a former business partner of
 McMillian, donated $1 million to fund cancer research. Three anonymous donors
 gave a total of $1.5 million to jump-start the institute's endowment fund.
 In 2009, the institute, built by $50 million in state support pledged by Gov.
 Bob Riley and $80 million in private donations, saw one of its 15 tenant
 companies, Diatherix Laboratories, grow by 1,000 percent as it produced the
 H1N1-09 influenza diagnostic test.
 In May, the rapid-response test was developed by Dr. Jian Han, faculty
 investigator at the institute.
 Diatherix CEO Dennis Grimaud said the majority of H1N1 deaths have involved
 "co-infected" patients, meaning that they had swine flu plus another infection.
 Because the Diatherix test checks for nearly two dozen other viruses and
 bacteria while checking for H1N1, doctors can know within 24 hours how to treat
 their patients for multiple infections.
 In a $17.6 million deal announced last month, another tenant company, Applied
 Genomics, was bought by California-based Clarient, which provides cancer
 diagnostics. The deal adds "significant capabilities that fill a gap in our
 corporate offering," Clarient CEO Ron Andrews said at the time.
 HudsonAlpha added two top-notch faculty investigators this year: Dr. Greg Barsh
 of Stanford University School of Medicine and Dr. Shawn Levy of Vanderbilt
 University Medical Center.
 The HudsonAlpha Genome Sequencing Center completed its transition to the
 Huntsville campus from Stanford in 2009. With funding from the Department of
 Energy, genome sequencing data may lead the way to improve biomass yield to
 convert plant materials - such as soybeans, sugar cane and switchgrass - into
 liquid fuel.
 On the more academic side of the house, Dr. Neil Lamb said HudsonAlpha's
 education program has "come into its own."
 Namely, the institute initiated its BioTrain summer internship program, with 26
 of the brightest science students in the state - from high school sophomores to
 graduate students - conducting biotech research.
 "Some of the high school interns are still working part-time," said Lamb,
 director of educational outreach. "The companies they worked for have been
 pleased with the quality of these students."
 This coming summer, HudsonAlpha will likely expand BioTrain to include 40
 interns, he said. Applications for the highly competitive program can be found
 at hudsonalpha.org/biotrainlink.
 Also in 2009, the education component crafted five hands-on labs for students
 across the state, and those labs have been used by 4,000 high school pupils.
 "It allows them to take concepts from textbooks and give it real-world
 application," Lamb said. "It answers the question of 'why' they should be
 learning science."
 Lamb said HudsonAlpha has invested $120,000 in each of the five hub sites, most
 of which are in universities.
 Also, HudsonAlpha developed a four-week curriculum for teachers to be trained in
 new lab methods, including testing for genetically modified food and cancer
 identification. A two-week training academy for high school life science
 teachers covers updates in genetics.
 "It's extra work for teachers" to attend training at HudsonAlpha, Lamb said,
 "but the payoff is phenomenal."
 In 2009, the institute doubled the size of its Biotech 101 classes - which allow
 community members to learn about biotech - thanks in part to the opening of the
 Jackson Center conference facility on the HudsonAlpha campus. A four-part
 Biotech 201 class is planned for February.
 Also, the institute designed four-course biomedical academies for Bob Jones and
 Sparkman high schools so students can get a solid sense of biotech to determine
 if they wish to pursue that field.
 "And there's a number of digital education pieces I'll be able to introduce in
 2010, for elementary to high school students," Lamb said. "And there's a whole
 slew of other ideas my team and I are putting on the drawing board."
 LOAD-DATE: January 15, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: hut
                  Copyright 2010 The Huntsville Times Co., Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 309
 
                         Daily Camera (Boulder, Colorado)
                  Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News
                              January 1, 2010 Friday
 2010: A look ahead for Boulder County: What to expect in the coming year
 BYLINE: Daily Camera, Boulder, Colo.
 LENGTH: 2600 words
 Jan. 1--With 2009 officially in the history books, Boulder County has another
 year to look forward to that includes new business ventures, high-profile
 criminal trials, mid-term elections and some city and county choices that are
 sure to spark controversy along the way.
 There also are signs that the national economy is on its way to recovery, and
 Boulder County may ride that wave though planned development, upgrades to
 infrastructure and policy changes.
 There even are some things happening this year that are just plain fun, such as
 a rare total solar eclipse and the winter Olympics.
 Here's a look at what the year will bring to Boulder, Colorado and the world.
 How big is that house?
 On Monday, new
 rules go into effect restricting just how big houses can be built in Boulder.
 The "compatible-development" ordinance will impact about 13,000 homeowners in
 the city, setting rules for how much square footage homes can have, how much of
 a footprint buildings can take up and how much three-dimensional space houses
 can fill.
 The rules are the result of nearly two years of public debate. Recognizing that
 fact, the City Council plans to review how the rules are working within six
 months -- a review that's sure to re-ignite the emotional debate about property
 rights.
 Republicans eye 2010 gains
 With the Democrats having taken control of the presidency and both houses of
 Congress in 2008, Republicans have their sights set on making up ground in the
 2010 mid-term elections. Some see this year's elections as a referendum on
 President Barack Obama.
 In Boulder County, voters will decide on a new assessor, clerk and recorder,
 sheriff, coroner, surveyor, treasurer and one county commissioner. Statewide,
 voters will elect a governor, along with one U.S. senator and several U.S.
 representatives.
 Boulder Rep. Jared Polis is among those up for re-election later this year.
 You have a prescription for what?
 Facing a sudden influx of medical-marijuana dispensaries in the city, Boulder
 has promised to review an ordinance that would regulate where and how they
 operate.
 Dispensaries up until November were completely unregulated in Boulder. The City
 Council then passed an interim ordinance that requires new dispensaries to stay
 at least 500 feet away from schools or licensed day-care centers, and prohibits
 them from opening in areas with three or more existing dispensaries within 500
 feet. Those rules expire March 31.
 At the same time, the state Legislature plans to consider new regulations that
 could have the effect of eliminating retail-model dispensaries, even as it
 formally legalizes large-scale
 growing operations, and making it harder for younger patients to get
 medical-marijuana cards.
 Saying that too many recommendations are coming from too few doctors -- and
 particularly from doctors with a financial stake in the medical-marijuana
 business -- the state Department of Public Health and Environment wants new
 regulations on doctors.
 Medical marijuana advocates have vowed to fight any regulations that limit
 patient access to the drug, and new restrictions almost certainly will be
 challenged in court.
 Wastewater goes green
 In the first quarter of the year, Boulder's 75th Street Wastewater Treatment
 Plant will get a big jolt from what will become one of the largest solar arrays
 in Colorado.
 The one-megawatt (1 million watts) plant will be made up of 4,452 solar panels
 mounted on the ground. When it's complete, the array is expected to generate
 about 15 percent of the average daily power needed to run the water-treatment
 plant.
 Casey welcomes back students
 Students at Boulder's Casey Middle School moved their day-to-day operations to
 Platt Middle School last January, and by the start of the 2010-2011 school year,
 the tweens should be back in their new and improved digs at 2410 13th St.
 The Boulder Valley School District expects to certify the totally reconstructed
 school -- which cost nearly $33 million -- to be occupied again in June, meaning
 students can start back in August.
 The
 new school will feature all of the newest and greenest amenities, according to
 Boulder Valley construction plans.
 Who Foods?
 By summer, two Boulder grocery stores now owned by Whole Foods could be in the
 hands of others. As a result of a settlement last year reached with the Federal
 Trade Commission, Whole Foods must sell some of the stores it acquired from Wild
 Oats -- including the stores off Broadway and Arapahoe Road and in the Basemar
 Shopping Center.
 Broomfield teen tried in girlfriend's homicide
 Alexander Paul Pacheco, 19, of Broomfield, will be tried in March on homicide
 charges after police arrested him Jan. 24 on suspicion of killing Kelsey
 Shannon, a Westlake Middle School student, who disappeared Oct. 14, 2008.
 Her badly decomposed body was found Jan. 21 in a drainage ditch near her
 family's Broomfield home. Pacheco is accused of strangling Shannon, his former
 girlfriend, and stabbing her in the neck before having sex with her corpse.
 His first-degree murder trial is scheduled to start March 1.
 Lafayette's name game
 Lafayette is working with a team of revitalization experts to bring new life to
 its struggling downtown area. Recommendations include a "sexier" name for South
 Public Road, better marketing and adding public spaces.
 The city's agenda also includes finding a tenant for the vacant Albertsons
 building -- and all the other vacant spots on the south side of town.
 Buried in paperwork
 Louisville's planning department will spend the first few months of the year
 working on the preliminary plans that have been submitted for the
 much-anticipated arrival of ConocoPhillips.
 The City Council hopes to have the plans for the Houston-based energy company
 approved by August or September. The Louisville campus will be constructed in
 three phases over the next 23 years.
 Open to business
 Erie is laying out the welcome mat, hoping to attract more businesses to its
 small but growing community. Top on the town's wanted list: a hotel and a second
 grocery store.
 Voters in April also should have a chance to decide on a controversial proposal
 to connect Bonanza Drive to Vista Ridge Parkway -- a connection that town
 leaders say is essential to attracting that grocery store.
 Paying for books
 Superior voters will decide whether to pay more in property taxes so the town
 can afford the fee for residents to use the Louisville Public Library. Residents
 also likely will vote on whether the town should build its own small library
 branch instead.
 Total blackout
 According to NASA, parts of the world should expect to see a rare celestial
 event on July 11: a total solar eclipse.
 Boulder County residents, unfortunately, won't be among the lucky viewers.
 Instead, the total blackout of the sun caused by the moon moving in front of it
 is expected to be seen only in the Southern Hemisphere.
 If you want to see it, but don't have access to a boat that day, plan a trip to
 the Cook Islands or Easter Island -- they're the only places on land where the
 event can be witnessed.
 Olympics, eh?
 Get ready for downhill skiing, speed skating and some two-man luge. The winter
 Olympic games will take place in Vancouver, Canada, from Feb. 12 through 28.
 These games will represent the third time America's northern neighbor has hosted
 the winter Olympics, and the first time for the province of British Columbia.
 Boulder stabbing suspect heads to court
 Traci Housman, the Boulder woman accused of stabbing her husband to death in
 August, is scheduled to be arraigned early in the new year. In October, a judge
 ruled there was enough evidence to try Housman for murder.
 Quiet time
 University of Colorado students will have a new place this year to eat sushi and
 meditate.
 The university's $84.4 million Center for Community building will open in the
 fall, bringing several CU offices under the same space. Those offices include
 the Office of International Affairs, Career Services, Disability Services and
 the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Resource Center.
 The 323,000-square foot building also will feature a sushi spot and other dining
 options as well as a meditation room.
 Houston, we have a space station
 According to the U.S. State Department, the International Space Station should
 be completed sometime in 2010. When it's finished, the station will measure 110
 meters across and 88 meters long.
 The station is a joint project of the United States, Canada, Japan, Russia,
 Brazil, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway,
 Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
 Teachers back to bargaining
 Just two months after "reluctantly" agreeing to a contract for the 2009-2010
 school year, the Boulder Valley School District will begin negotiations with its
 teachers' union for the 2010-2011 school year.
 Teachers want the school district to implement a "professional salary schedule,"
 which would increase starting pay for teachers and reward continuing education.
 District officials said they cannot commit to implementing a new salary schedule
 because of the dire economic outlook at the state level. The last round of
 teacher-district negotiations dragged on for months and nearly resulted in a
 strike.
 More money, less problems
 The city of Boulder will have to find a way to fix its budget woes, with the gap
 between revenue and spending growing more each year. A Blue Ribbon Commission II
 aimed at finding solutions is due to report to the city soon.
 Boulder's master plan
 Every five years, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan undergoes a major review
 so that the document that guides development in Boulder keeps up with the times.
 Such a review will happen this year, and could have major implications for where
 new homes and businesses are allowed to be built.
 Tech acquisition
 The European Commission is expected to decide whether Oracle Corp. can acquire
 Sun Microsystems Inc. The deal's approval -- or even its demise -- could have
 broad impacts on Boulder and Broomfield counties' largest private-sector
 employer and the area's tech scene.
 To drive or not to drive
 Before October, a decision should be made on whether Hayek Chevrolet in Longmont
 will keep its storied franchise. The dealership received a termination letter
 from General Motors last year and has been fighting to keep the Chevrolet brand
 on its lot.
 Separately, similar news could be decided for King Auto Group, a Longmont dealer
 that reportedly received termination letters from both GM and Chrysler.
 Ward Churchill is still Ward Churchill
 The unending saga of Ward Churchill likely will continue this year.
 The tenured University of Colorado professor was fired from the Boulder campus
 in 2007, after faculty investigations into his body of work found that it was
 littered with plagiarism and academic fraud.
 Churchill sued the university claiming a First Amendment violation, alleging CU
 really fired him because of his controversial essay about the Sept. 11 terrorist
 attacks. A jury last summer said Churchill deserved $1 in damages, but a Denver
 judge declined to give Churchill his job back.
 University officials expect appellate court judges to rule on Churchill's appeal
 in 2010, said CU system spokesman Ken McConnellogue.
 Pricey gets pricier
 A CU education might become more expensive this year. Gov. Bill Ritter gave the
 school an early OK to raise tuition by up to 9 percent. But some CU regents have
 said they want to temper the costs of tuition. The Board of Regents will set
 tuition rates for the next academic year in the spring.
 Businesses get ClimateSmart
 Despite the fact that Boulder County voters turned down a ballot measure that
 would have doubled the amount of money available through the county's popular
 ClimateSmart loans, the program is still running on the bonds allocated in 2008.
 The county will open the loan program -- which allows property owners to borrow
 money to make energy-efficiency upgrades -- to commercial properties for the
 first time in early 2010.
 The loans will be offered again to homeowners later in the year, and voters can
 expect to be asked again in November to expand the funding for the program.
 Alleged dog taper goes to trial
 Abby Toll, the former University of Colorado student accused of binding and
 taping her boyfriend's dog to a refrigerator last spring, is set to be tried on
 a felony animal cruelty charge in April.
 Cold case finally goes to trial
 Rudy Gaytan, already in prison for a 1996 rape, is scheduled to go on trial in
 February for the murder of 30-year-old Tammera Tatum in Longmont three years
 earlier. Police claim they connected Gaytan to Tatum's death last year through a
 DNA match.
 Jail goes green
 Boulder County will begin making major upgrades to its jail using funds approved
 by voters in November.
 The building will get solar panels, an insulated and reflective roof, efficiency
 upgrades to the lighting and cooling systems, and a biomass burner that will
 heat the building with beetle-killed wood cleared from the county's open space
 lands.
 The commissioners expect that the improvements will halve the jail's $250,000
 annual utility bill.
 Genetically modified food, oh, what to do?
 The Boulder County commissioners hope to have a plan in place for managing
 genetically modified crops on open space land by early fall when farmers start
 to make decisions on what to plant in 2011.
 County staffers spent the spring and summer of 2009 wrestling with a request
 from a group of six farmers to grow genetically modified sugar beets on land
 they lease from the county.
 After a handful of long and heated public meetings, the commissioners decided to
 put the sugar beet decision on hold while open space staffers work to create a
 comprehensive plan for biotech crops. The new plan may also affect genetically
 modified corn, which has been grown on open space land since 2003.
 The taxman cometh
 Property values will be reassessed by Boulder County this year.
 The last time property values were assessed, in June 2008, the worst of the
 recession had not yet hit. This has allowed the property tax revenue in the
 county to stay stable, which, in turn, has kept the county's general fund in
 good shape.
 The commissioners -- and other groups that rely on property taxes, including the
 school districts -- are keeping a wary eye on this year's assessment, watching
 for a slump in housing values.
 Low-income green housing nearly a go
 The Boulder County Housing Authority hopes to break ground in late 2010 on the
 Josephine Commons, a 153-unit near-zero energy community that will largely serve
 low-income families.
 The houses will be heavily insulated and solar-powered, and they may take
 advantage of ground-source heating and cooling.
 The project, which will be built on land the county owns in Lafayette, will be
 modeled after a pilot project completed in Lafayette in the fall of 2009.
 Longmont stabbing suspect singled out
 Raymond Palomino, who Longmont police said is the man primarily responsible for
 the April stabbing death of 19-year-old Logan Sisson, goes to trial in late
 January.
 He was one of four people arrested in Sisson's death. Two of his co-defendants
 pleaded guilty in December to being an accessory to murder and agreed to testify
 against Palomino. The fourth defendant in the case, Robert Wittmer, is scheduled
 for trial in February.
 To see more of the Daily Camera, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to
 http://www.thedailycamera.com./ Copyright (c) 2010, Daily Camera, Boulder, Colo.
 Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. For reprints, email
 tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax
 to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave.,
 Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.
 INDUSTRY: Crime/law
 LOAD-DATE: January 1, 2010
 ACC-NO: 20100101-BO-2010-A-look-ahead-for-Boulder-County-0101
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                           Copyright 2010 Daily Camera









Document Number: 310
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                              January 1, 2010 Friday
 BYLINE: From staff and wire reports|||
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. C7
 LENGTH: 407 words
 China blasts U.S. duties on steel pipes - China on Thursday criticized a U.S.
 decision to slap antidumping duties on Chinese-made steel pipes, demanding that
 Washington reverse the move and saying its goods are no threat to American
 producers. The U.S. International Trade Commission decision will affect Chinese
 exports worth about $2.8 billion and is the biggest steel trade dispute in U.S.
 history. "The Chinese side expresses strong dissatisfaction and resolute
 opposition to this ruling," the Commerce Ministry said in a statement.
 10 banks get $29.3 million in U.S. aid - The Treasury Department said Thursday
 it has pumped $29.3 million into 10 banks, as part of the taxpayer-funded
 program to shore up the financial system. The aid comes from a $700 billion
 financial bailout program created last year during the height of the financial
 crisis.
 Icahn upping ante on Trump casinos bet - Billionaire investor Carl Icahn plans
 to pump more money into his bid to buy Donald Trump's bankrupt casinos. In court
 papers filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New Jersey, the billionaire's
 investment company says it will commit $125 million more in financing to buy
 struggling Trump Entertainment Resorts Inc.
 Monsanto is tops - Forbes Magazine has named Monsanto Co. as its company of the
 year for 2009. The designation was based on the company's increase in sales over
 the past five years and average return on capital. While Monsanto has been
 successful financially, the Creve Coeur-based company has had a more difficult
 time winning over skeptics of genetically modified foods, Forbes said. And the
 company's expanding market share in corn and soybean seed has caught the
 attention of antitrust regulators. (Jeffrey Tomich )
 Boeing gets C-17 work - Boeing Co. won a $263.5 million modified contract to
 provide systems support for the Air Force's C-17 transport plane, the Pentagon
 announced on its website Thursday.
 4 top Wells Fargo execs get stock - Wells Fargo & Co.'s four top executives
 won't get cash bonuses for 2009, but are receiving performance-based stock
 awards currently worth a combined $25 million that are designed to keep them
 from being lured away by rival banks.
 Banks' tapping of Fed's emergency lending program eases a bit - Banks average
 daily borrowing of $18.74 billion from the Federal Reserve's emergency lending
 program last week was slightly less than $18.75 billion the previous week, a
 sign credit stresses are easing.
 LOAD-DATE: January 3, 2010
 NOTES:  digest
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2010 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 311
 
                          The Christian Science Monitor
                             December 21, 2009 Monday
 More herbicide use reported on genetically modified crops;
 A report has found that farmers are using more herbicides on genetically
 engineered soybeans, corn, and cotton because of resistant weeds.
 BYLINE: Julie Masis Contributor to the Christian Science Monitor
 LENGTH: 1037 words
 A report released by the Organic Center found that the amount of herbicides used
 on genetically engineered crops has increased in the past 10 years, not
 decreased as might be expected. Since many genetically engineered crops were
 modified so that farmers could spray Roundup, or Glyphosate, to kill the weeds
 in their fields but not the crops themselves, the expectation was that less
 herbicide would be required. But the new report found that this is not what
 happened.
 The authors of the report, entitled "Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on
 Pesticide Use," used US Department of Agriculture data to look at America's
 three largest genetically engineered crops - soybeans, corn, and cotton. They
 found that the amount of herbicides used on them has increased from 1996 to 2008
 by approximately 7 or 8 percent, with a particularly sharp increase from 2005
 on.
 In particular, the amount of Roundup that is used on genetically engineered
 crops has multiplied several times during the time period, says the report's
 main author, Charles Benbrook, who's the chief scientist at the Organic Center.
 "This big increase in herbicide is driven largely by the emergence of
 Roundup-resistant weeds," Dr. Benbrook says. But "industry is still saying to
 the public that genetic engineering [has] reduced herbicide use."
 Benbrook found that Roundup-resistant weeds have become a particularly big
 problem in soybeans. Roundup originally killed all weeds, leaving only soybeans
 in the fields, but after a few years, farmers had to use more Roundup as well as
 the older, more toxic chemicals to kill the weeds, according to the authors of
 the report.
 Troy Roush, a farmer in Indiana, says resistant weeds became such a big problem
 that this year he decided to switch back to conventional soybeans.
 "The only advantage a genetically modified soybean has over the value of
 (conventional soy) is diminished," Mr. Roush says. "We might as well not pay for
 the technology and use conventional seeds."
 His fields of genetically engineered soybean became infested with "mare's tail",
 a bushy weed that looks like the tail of a horse, and with
 genetically-engineered corn, he says. Because Roush rotates corn and soybeans on
 the same field, the Roundup-resistant corn actually became a weed when it went
 to seed the following year.
 Because of these problems, Roush is now back at growing soybeans the old way and
 using a more toxic 2,4-D herbicide. He is saving money on seeds (genetically
 engineered seeds cost five times more than the seeds a farmer saves himself),
 and he can make more from selling his crop to customers in the European Union
 and Japan, who prefer non-genetically modified soy.
 The authors of the report also found that the amount of insecticide used on
 genetically modified crops decreased during the same time period (although by a
 smaller amount). According to the report, herbicide use grew by 383 million
 pounds from 1996 to 2008, while insecticide use decreased by 64 million pounds
 due to the adoption of crops that are engineered to resist insects.
 Farmer John Reifsteck from Illinois, says he used to have a problem with root
 worms that chewed the roots off his corn plants, causing them to fall over. Now
 that he's growing genetically modified corn, the worms no longer come. That's
 because genetically engineered corn plants contain a toxin that is safe for
 humans, but repels the worms.
 "It irritates their stomach, they don't like it, they quit feeding, and they
 move away," Mr. Reifsteck explains.
 Before bioengineering, Reifsteck used a toxic insecticide on his corn, which he
 described as "the most dangerous product that I handle." He had to wear a
 respirator and rubber gloves, and have blood tests, he says. Now he doesn't need
 to treat the corn as much because it's engineered to repel worms on its own.
 "I'm happy or I wouldn't be using them," he says about genetically engineered
 crops.
 Karen Batra, the spokeswoman for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and
 Bob Callanan, of the American Soybean Association, also say that farmers are
 happy with bioengineered crops. That the majority of farmers adopted the
 technology speaks for itself, they say. They also point out that the Organic
 Center's report considered all herbicides as one group, without making a
 distinction between the more toxic herbicides, which are now being used less,
 and weed-killers such as Roundup, which are generally considered more benign.
 On the issue of weed resistance, Mr. Callanan of the Soybean Association has a
 different solution. Although he admits that resistance to Roundup became a
 problem about three years ago, he says the best way to tackle weed resistance is
 with new technology. A soybean called Liberty Link, that is engineered to be
 resistant to a different type of herbicide, is currently being introduced.
 Rotating Liberty Link and Roundup Ready crops will reduce resistance, he says.
 "Every farmer I know is using less herbicides than they ever had in the past.
 It's a cleaner, better crop than it was," Callanan says about genetically
 engineered soybeans.
 But organic food advocates say that the bioengineering industry is on a slippery
 slope, and as scientists engineer plants to be resistant to new types of
 herbicides, more chemical residues are going to end up in food and in the
 environment.
 Efforts are currently underway to engineer a corn variety that is resistant to
 2,4-D, which is considered a carcinogen, says Bill Freese, a policy analyst at
 the Center for Food Safety who worked on the report.
 If the project is successful, farmers will be able to spray the herbicide
 directly on the corn, rather than use hooded sprayers or spray before seedlings
 sprouted as they have done in the past, he says.
 "That's bad news because that will mean more residues on the corn," Mr. Freese
 says. "We see that as very much the wrong approach because it's going to mean
 even more use of these nasty herbicides, more pollution of the environment, and
 more impact on farmers as well as consumers."
 Editor's note: For more articles about the environment, see the Monitor's main
 environment page, which offers information on many environment topics. Also,
 check out our Bright Green blog archive and our RSS feed.
 LOAD-DATE: December 22, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
               Copyright 2009 Christian Science Publishing Society
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 312
 
                          The Christian Science Monitor
                             December 21, 2009 Monday
 More herbicide use reported on genetically modified crops;
 A report has found that farmers are using more herbicides on genetically
 engineered soybeans, corn, and cotton because of resistant weeds.
 BYLINE: Julie Masis Contributor to the Christian Science Monitor
 LENGTH: 1039 words
 A report released by the Organic Center found that the amount of herbicides used
 on genetically engineered crops has increased in the past 10 years, not
 decreased as might be expected. Since many genetically engineered crops were
 modified so that farmers could spray Roundup, or Glyphosate, to kill the weeds
 in their fields but not the crops themselves, the expectation was that less
 herbicide would be required. But the new report found that this is not what
 happened. The authors of the report, entitled "Impacts of Genetically Engineered
 Crops on Pesticide Use," used US Department of Agriculture data to look at
 America's three largest genetically engineered crops - soybeans, corn, and
 cotton.
 They found that the amount of herbicides used on them has increased from 1996 to
 2008 by approximately 7 or 8 percent, with a particularly sharp increase from
 2005 on. In particular, the amount of Roundup that is used on genetically
 engineered crops has multiplied several times during the time period, says the
 report's main author, Charles Benbrook, who's the chief scientist at the Organic
 Center. "This big increase in herbicide is driven largely by the emergence of
 Roundup-resistant weeds," Dr. Benbrook says. But "industry is still saying to
 the public that genetic engineering [has] reduced herbicide use." Benbrook found
 that Roundup-resistant weeds have become a particularly big problem in soybeans.
 Roundup originally killed all weeds, leaving only soybeans in the fields, but
 after a few years, farmers had to use more Roundup as well as the older, more
 toxic chemicals to kill the weeds, according to the authors of the report. Troy
 Roush, a farmer in Indiana, says resistant weeds became such a big problem that
 this year he decided to switch back to conventional soybeans. "The only
 advantage a genetically modified soybean has over the value of (conventional
 soy) is diminished," Mr. Roush says. "We might as well not pay for the
 technology and use conventional seeds." His fields of genetically engineered
 soybean became infested with "mare's tail", a bushy weed that looks like the
 tail of a horse, and with genetically-engineered corn, he says. Because Roush
 rotates corn and soybeans on the same field, the Roundup-resistant corn actually
 became a weed when it went to seed the following year. Because of these
 problems, Roush is now back at growing soybeans the old way and using a more
 toxic 2,4-D herbicide. He is saving money on seeds (genetically engineered seeds
 cost five times more than the seeds a farmer saves himself), and he can make
 more from selling his crop to customers in the European Union and Japan, who
 prefer non-genetically modified soy. The authors of the report also found that
 the amount of insecticide used on genetically modified crops decreased during
 the same time period (although by a smaller amount). According to the report,
 herbicide use grew by 383 million pounds from 1996 to 2008, while insecticide
 use decreased by 64 million pounds due to the adoption of crops that are
 engineered to resist insects. Farmer John Reifsteck from Illinois, says he used
 to have a problem with root worms that chewed the roots off his corn plants,
 causing them to fall over. Now that he's growing genetically modified corn, the
 worms no longer come. That's because genetically engineered corn plants contain
 a toxin that is safe for humans, but repels the worms. "It irritates their
 stomach, they don't like it, they quit feeding, and they move away," Mr.
 Reifsteck explains. Before bioengineering, Reifsteck used a toxic insecticide on
 his corn, which he described as "the most dangerous product that I handle." He
 had to wear a respirator and rubber gloves, and have blood tests, he says. Now
 he doesn't need to treat the corn as much because it's engineered to repel worms
 on its own. "I'm happy or I wouldn't be using them," he says about genetically
 engineered crops. Karen Batra, the spokeswoman for the Biotechnology Industry
 Organization, and Bob Callanan, of the American Soybean Association, also say
 that farmers are happy with bioengineered crops. That the majority of farmers
 adopted the technology speaks for itself, they say. They also point out that the
 Organic Center's report considered all herbicides as one group, without making a
 distinction between the more toxic herbicides, which are now being used less,
 and weed-killers such as Roundup, which are generally considered more benign. On
 the issue of weed resistance, Mr. Callanan of the Soybean Association has a
 different solution. Although he admits that resistance to Roundup became a
 problem about three years ago, he says the best way to tackle weed resistance is
 with new technology. A soybean called Liberty Link, that is engineered to be
 resistant to a different type of herbicide, is currently being introduced.
 Rotating Liberty Link and Roundup Ready crops will reduce resistance, he says.
 "Every farmer I know is using less herbicides than they ever had in the past.
 It's a cleaner, better crop than it was," Callanan says about genetically
 engineered soybeans. But organic food advocates say that the bioengineering
 industry is on a slippery slope, and as scientists engineer plants to be
 resistant to new types of herbicides, more chemical residues are going to end up
 in food and in the environment. Efforts are currently underway to engineer a
 corn variety that is resistant to 2,4-D, which is considered a carcinogen, says
 Bill Freese, a policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety who worked on the
 report. If the project is successful, farmers will be able to spray the
 herbicide directly on the corn, rather than use hooded sprayers or spray before
 seedlings sprouted as they have done in the past, he says. "That's bad news
 because that will mean more residues on the corn," Mr. Freese says. "We see that
 as very much the wrong approach because it's going to mean even more use of
 these nasty herbicides, more pollution of the environment, and more impact on
 farmers as well as consumers." Editor's note: For more articles about the
 environment, see the Monitor's main environment page, which offers information
 on many environment topics. Also, check out our Bright Green blog archive and
 our RSS feed.
 LOAD-DATE: February 19, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
               Copyright 2009 Christian Science Publishing Society
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 313
 
                     Chattanooga Times Free Press (Tennessee)
                            December 19, 2009 Saturday
 Letter to the Editors
 SECTION: LETTERS; Pg. B7
 LENGTH: 366 words
 Prison too good for animal abusers
 You asked the question in your paper -- should animal abusers go to prison?
 Seventy percent said "yes" and 29 percent said "no." I say "no." Why put them in
 prison to feed and clothe and roll the red carpet for them to walk on to go for
 exercise.
 They are not fit to live. This is why we need a public hanging every Saturday
 morning. Cremate the body and throw the ashes to the wind. This includes all
 puppy mill owners, all involved in dog fights and rooster fights, onlookers
 included.
 Please take note -- our prisons are too full now.
 When our police or Humane Society find animals abused, the abuser needs no
 trial. Our police work too hard -- they bring an abuser to court and the dear
 sweet judge smiles and dismisses the case.
 It wouldn't do for me to be in authority.
 Don't buy foods that are modified
 In Saturday's article (Dec. 12) regarding Pilgrims' Pride illegal immigrants, I
 found the comment "when we become a country whose own laws are not important
 enough to follow, we are only hurting ourselves ..." to be misguided.
 Illegal immigrants are being prosecuted, but no one's questioning the people
 responsible for hiring them. In 2006, six Swift & Co. plants were raided and it
 was exposed they were openly advertising jobs in Mexican publications.
 The meat-packing industry has been flooded with illegal immigrants since the
 introduction of genetically engineered (GE) corn, which our government
 subsidizes to provide cheaper corn feed for livestock. Mexican farmers couldn't
 compete with cheaper priced American corn that was entering their country after
 NAFTA was enacted.
 Many Mexican corn fields have been tainted with GE corn from outside seeds
 coming into that country, which means their thousands of years old strain of
 corn is being destroyed and replaced with a crop that requires chemical
 treatment for survival, thereby putting them out of business.
 Powerful special interests want to make bigger profits, and we want to buy
 cheaper products. What can we do about it? Shop organic, boycott foods
 containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), boycott mass-produced meats,
 support local farmers and buy grass-fed beef.
 LOAD-DATE: December 19, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2009 Chattanooga Publishing Company









Document Number: 314
 
                                The New York Times
                             December 18, 2009 Friday
                               Late Edition - Final
 As Patent Ends, a Seed's Use Will Survive
 BYLINE: By ANDREW POLLACK
 SECTION: Section B; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 3
 LENGTH: 992 words
 Facing antitrust scrutiny over its practices in the biotechnology seed business,
 Monsanto has said it will  not stand in the way of farmers eventually using
 lower cost alternatives to its genetically modified soybeans.
 In letters to seed companies and farm groups this week, Monsanto said that it
 would allow farmers to continue to grow its hugely popular Roundup Ready 1
 soybeans even after the patent protecting the technology expires in 2014.
 The letter countered a widespread impression in the agriculture business that
 Monsanto planned to force farmers and seed companies to migrate to a successor
 product called Roundup Ready 2 Yield, which will remain under patent and is more
 expensive.
 The issue has potentially broad implications for the agriculture industry
 because Roundup Ready soybeans will be the first widely grown biotechnology crop
 to lose patent protection since gene splicing became a mainstay of crop science
 in the 1990s.
 Because farmers and seed companies would no longer have to pay royalties to
 Monsanto on the gene after 2014, Roundup Ready soybeans would become
 agricultural biotechnology's equivalent of a generic drug.
 Monsanto's statement comes as the Justice Department is investigating possible
 antitrust concerns in the seed business, looking in particular at Monsanto,
 which dominates the business of supplying crop traits developed through genetic
 engineering. Critics, including some competitors, say that Monsanto has great
 leverage over the seed business and growers through restrictive contracts that
 must be signed  to use Monsanto's genes or to grow the genetically modified
 crops.
 Monsanto calls such criticisms  baseless. But it certainly is getting harder for
 seed companies to avoid using the Roundup Ready bacterial gene,  which makes the
 plants impervious to the widely used herbicide glyphosate, which Monsanto sells
 as Roundup.
 That allows farmers to spray their fields to kill weeds without harming the
 crops.   More than 90 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States contain
 it. So do about two-thirds of the nation's corn and cotton crops, though those
 are protected by different patents that expire later than the soybean patent.
 Gerald A.  Steiner, executive vice president for corporate affairs at Monsanto,
 said Thursday that Monsanto was not changing its policy on how it would handle
 the soybean patent expiration, but was merely clarifying its intentions.
 ''What's different,'' he said, ''is we have made a very comprehensive
 communication of what we are going to do.''
 But  the widespread impression in the seed business was that Monsanto was
 backing away from a previous policy.
 ''The only thing we were told was that as of 2014 you would not be able to sell
 any more Roundup Ready 1,'' said Jack Debolt,  manager of Advanced Genetics, a
 coalition of small Ohio seed companies that license the Roundup Ready gene from
 Monsanto to put in their seeds.
 Monsanto's biggest competitor, DuPont's Pioneer Hi-Bred seed company, has also
 accused Monsanto of antitrust violations including, as it says in a lawsuit, an
 effort to ''remove Roundup Ready from the market prior to the time when
 competitors will be able to produce a generic product.''
 Mr. Steiner of Monsanto said one reason for the company's letters this week was
 to counter statements made by Pioneer, which Monsanto has sued alleging  patent
 infringement.
 Roundup Ready seed can cost as much as $75 an acre compared with $30 to $35 for
 soybean seeds that are not genetically modified, according to James Beuerlein,
 a soybean specialist at Ohio State University. The difference in price is
 thought to reflect mainly royalties paid to Monsanto.
 While Monsanto sells Roundup Ready seeds itself, it also licenses the technology
 to other seed companies. Some seed industry executives and academic soybean
 specialists say that Monsanto was not planning to renew licenses for that
 Roundup Ready 1 trait that expired before 2014, so that seed companies would
 have no choice but to move to Roundup Ready 2.
 But in its letters this week, Monsanto said it would now extend all contracts
 for Roundup Ready 1 until the patent's expiration date. It also said it would
 not enforce language in some  contracts that would have required seed companies
 to destroy or return Roundup Ready seed when the patent expired.
 And Monsanto said seed companies could continue to sell seeds containing the
 Roundup Ready 1 trait without jeopardizing their access to the successor
 technology.
 Monsanto also said that after the patent expired it would allow farmers to save
 Roundup Ready 1 seeds from one year's crop to plant the next. Monsanto said it
 would not enforce other patents that might protect those seeds.
 Many soybean farmers used to save seeds, but with Roundup Ready seeds they have
 been contractually obliged  to buy new seeds each year. Monsanto has taken legal
 action against hundreds, if not thousands, of farmers it has accused of saving
 seed.
 ''This is a pretty big concession for Monsanto,'' said Shawn Conley,  a soybean
 specialist at the University of Wisconsin, who said saving seed could save
 farmers a lot of money.
 Still, it is uncertain how long Roundup Ready 1 would  survive in  generic form.
 Some nations require licenses for the import of genetically engineered crops to
 be periodically renewed. Monsanto said it would maintain those licenses through
 2017. But if they expired after that, American farmers would not be permitted to
 export the Roundup Ready 1 generic soybeans to certain countries, which would
 discourage them from growing those crops.
 Monsanto said it was confident that most farmers and seed companies would move
 to Roundup Ready 2, which uses the same bacterial gene but places it in a
 different location in the soybean DNA. Monsanto said that Roundup Ready 2 crops
 would have higher yields,  and that other desirable traits would be added to
 those crops over time.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: December 18, 2009
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO: In 2014, the patent for Monsanto's Roundup soybean seeds will
 expire, the first expiration on a widely used bioengineered crop. (PHOTOGRAPH BY
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 315
 
                             December 1, 2009 Tuesday
 BYLINE: Andrew Batson
 SECTION: Section A; Column 1; Pg. 13
 LENGTH: 63 words
 China's Agriculture Ministry has approved production and consumption of two
 strains of genetically modified rice and corn; further testing is needed before
 grains can be grown on commercial scale; widespread production could complicate
 trade with places like Europe that restrict genetically modified foods; US
 companies have been urging speedier approval of such crops; graph (M)
 DEPARTMENTS (88%); CONSUMPTION (88%) Agriculture; Grain; Rice; Corn; Genetic
 Engineering; Tests and Testing
 PERSON: Andrew Batson
 (92%) China; Europe
 LOAD-DATE: December 2, 2009
 GRAPHIC: Graph
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Abstract
                    Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
                               All Rights Reserved
                            Information Bank Abstracts









Document Number: 316
 
                                The New York Times
                             November 29, 2009 Sunday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Battling the Skeptics
 BYLINE: By DARSHAK SANGHAVI.
 Darshak Sanghavi, the chief of pediatric cardiology at the University of
 Massachusetts Medical School, is Slate's health care columnist and the author of
 ''A Map of the Child: A Pediatrician's Tour of the Body.''
 SECTION: Section BR; Column 0; Book Review Desk; Pg. 26
 LENGTH: 1308 words
 How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and
 Threatens Our Lives
 By Michael Specter
 294 pp. The Penguin Press. $27.95
 The optimistic view of science is that the theories advanced with its methods
 will have self-evident appeal to an educated public. Why, then, do people so
 often behave unscientifically? A sitting congressman claims he's seen a U.F.O.;
 a former Playboy model insists, against overwhelming evidence, that childhood
 vaccines cause autism; Las Vegas vacationers expect to beat the casinos; former
 British Prime Minister Tony Blair treats his children with homeopathic remedies.
 Science utopians can be touching in their naivete, much like high school
 chemistry whizzes who try to figure out why the popular kids never pay them any
 attention. But they fail to appreciate a salient point: scientists may get how
 the atoms of the universe combine, but they're often dweebs in the real world.
 In any event, there are two ways to deal with scientific illiteracy: take a
 long, hard look at the forces that repel so many from science, or throw up your
 hands and write people off as fools.
 Michael Specter, a science and public health writer for The New Yorker, shows
 little interest in the first approach in his pugnacious new book, ''Denialism,''
 which carries the ominous subtitle ''How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific
 Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives.'' He devotes chapters to
 anti-vaccine zealots, purveyors of organic foods, promoters of alternative
 medicines and opponents of race-based medicine, accusing each group of turning
 ''away from reality in favor of a more comfortable lie.''
 Specter is not the first to take on doubters of science. More than a decade ago,
 Michael Shermer -- who believed in alien abduction and megavitamin therapy
 before becoming a confirmed skeptic -- adopted a more sympathetic tack in ''Why
 People Believe Weird Things.'' Shermer wisely realized that the public's view of
 science is refracted by human psychology. For example, we are wired to see
 patterns even when none may exist. And from science, as from any explanatory
 framework, we tend to seek instant gratification, the reassuring company of
 others, and simplicity.
 But Specter isn't much interested in the roots of denialism, much less in
 engaging productively with it. While his book brims with passion and many
 interesting facts, he repeatedly pulls rabble-rousing tricks -- this in a book
 that accuses others of forgoing rational debate -- and his annoyance is rarely
 focused. The opening chapter, ''Vioxx and the Fear of Science,'' is ostensibly
 about Merck's blockbuster pain drug, which was linked to heart attacks and
 eventually pulled from shelves. But Specter never clearly presents the clinical
 data itself. Instead, he spins a tale of Big Pharma greed indirectly feeding
 public skepticism of science, and in an effort to push as many buttons as
 possible, somehow pulls in the writings of Goethe, forced sterilization of the
 ''feebleminded,'' the Unabomber, the Bhopal disaster, the Vietnam War, Chernobyl
 and Josef Mengele.
 Paradoxically, Specter ends the chapter by castigating the public for not being
 more forgiving about Vioxx, whose risks he concludes were relatively small,
 about the same as driving a car. (He quotes the initial whistle-blower as saying
 he now ''would be perfectly happy if it was back on the market.'') His ire has
 no clear target, and he doesn't explain just what party -- drug companies?
 patients? regulators? -- engaged in ''denialism.''
 Specter unwittingly provides several examples of how unscientific beliefs
 gestate. He is enthralled by the use of the personal genome map to detect racial
 differences in health and accuses skeptics of denialism. On the basis of a
 single anecdote (from the founder of a personal genomics company) about a man
 who underwent expensive, repeated testing that caught prostate cancer -- in
 truth, by dumb luck -- he seems to endorse an unproven and probably harmful
 cancer screening practice. Later, citing a study showing that the widely used
 asthma drug albuterol is 7 percent less effective in Puerto Ricans than in
 Mexicans, he overgeneralizes the results and dismisses the drug as ''effective
 on whites but not on many Hispanics'' because of genetic differences. Specter
 promotes the heavily marketed cardiac drug BiDil as working ''far better for
 blacks than for whites,'' but neglects the persistent controversy around how
 well the drug really performs among blacks in clinical practice.
 Specter used to be a denialist himself. Back in 2001, he wrote a balanced, even
 sympathetic profile of a doctor named Nicholas Gonzalez, who scored a $1.4
 million federal grant to study, among other things, the benefits of coffee
 enemas in treating cancer. In 2004, inspired by Britney Spears's use of a diet
 pill called Zantrex-3, he wrote another nuanced article exploring the powerful
 political and corporate forces behind the sales of alternative medicines, in
 which he seemed less sanguine about their use. Now, in a chapter called ''The
 Era of Echinacea,'' Specter completes his conversion. He regrets supporting
 Gonzalez's project (''Studies like that just made the ridiculous seem worth
 investigating,'' he writes), linking it to the same kind of magical thinking
 behind South African President Thabo Mbeki's denial that H.I.V. causes AIDS.
 Here, Specter could have explored how even a prestigious science writer like
 himself was seduced by the highly unlikely possibility that coffee enemas might
 cure pancreatic cancer. (After all, the flip side of denialism is faith, which
 isn't always bad.) But rather than attempting to understand his former fellow
 denialists, he pushes them out of reasoned conversation, declaring, ''Denialism
 is a virus, and viruses are contagious.''
 It's hard to identify the intended audience for this book, or how it might make
 a difference. Specter gets quite exercised by the anti-vaccine lunatic fringe,
 but doesn't explore ways of winning over the undecided or mildly suspicious,
 like the many people concerned about the swine flu vaccine. Similarly, he argues
 that opposition to genetically modified food in the affluent West is preventing
 the spread of technology needed to feed the developing world. There may be some
 truth to this claim; however, statements like ''The Western cult of organic food
 is nothing more than a glorious fetish of the rich'' are unlikely to convince
 devoted Whole Foods shoppers to rethink their position.
 In his haste to sort people into two bins -- either scientifically enlightened
 or in denial -- Specter overlooks an important trend: for better or worse,
 people are more skeptical of authority than they used to be and want to think
 for themselves, which includes grappling with the minutiae of science. Not so
 long ago, for example, patients rarely questioned doctors before undergoing
 surgery or taking their pills (for example, estrogen replacement therapy to
 prevent heart attacks), a blind obedience to authority that arguably cost many
 more lives than, say, vaccine refusal does now. What we are seeing is the
 democratization of science, not the rise of denialism.
 Over time the right will be separated from the wrong, perhaps more rapidly than
 in the past. In the meantime, Specter might draw comfort from the fact that
 children no longer suffer widely from chicken pox and childhood bacterial
 infections because of vaccines introduced in the 1990s; that harmful practices
 like hormone replacement therapy were stopped; and that next year researchers in
 Africa will begin testing genetically modified crops expected to prevent
 childhood deaths caused by malnutrition. The list goes on. Specter has written a
 frustrated book about ''denialism'' but could just as well have described the
 hopeful signs of a new era.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 TITLE: Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the
 Planet, and Threatens Our Lives (Book)
 LOAD-DATE: November 29, 2009
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Review
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 317
 
                                Chicago Sun Times
                            November 19, 2009 Thursday
                                  Final Edition
 Food poisoning, stomach flu get same treatment; You should see doctor if
 symptoms are severe
 BYLINE: Mehmet Oz and Michael Roizen, King Features Syndicate
 SECTION: EASY; You Docs; Pg. W7
 LENGTH: 484  words
 Q. How can you tell whether you have a stomach virus or food poisoning? What do
 you do for each?
 A. A stomach virus and food poisoning are tougher to tell apart than twin tigers
 at two miles. They have the same symptoms -- that dynamic duo of vomiting and
 diarrhea -- and the same danger (dehydration, which can be life-threatening).
 When either is relatively mild, you don't really need to know which is which.
 They're treated in the same way: fluids to replace what you've lost, rest,
 giving your stomach a break and then easing into easily digestible food, such as
 gelatin, rice or chicken.
 But if your symptoms last for several days, or if you develop a fever, you need
 to see your doctor.
 Q. I have a cat and a 15-month-old daughter. My neighbor told me about germs the
 cat may carry on to the carpet or tile floor from his cat box to my daughter.
 Are there any serious germs to worry about?
 A. Your cat and your toddler should be able to coexist peacefully as long as
 she's not treating the litter pan as her personal sandbox.
 Cats aren't particularly germy, but there are a few diseases they can pass along
 to humans, especially babies. Toxoplasmosis, for example, is a parasitic
 infection that cats can pick up by eating infected rodents or birds.
 Following a few simple rules should keep the whole family (cat included) safe:
 Don't allow your cat and kid to be alone together -- at least until your child
 is age 5. Not gonna happen? At least make sure your child doesn't kiss the pet
 on the lips or put their hands in their mouths after handling the animal.
 Keep kitty inside. Outdoor cats (and dogs) are more likely to pick up more than
 fleas and ticks. They can acquire roundworms and hookworms from the feces of
 other animals and pass them along. These worms can burrow their way into your
 intestines and other parts of the body where they can cause some serious damage,
 even blindness. Make sure your pets are tested and wormed regularly.
 Clean up all pet waste immediately.
 Q. I recently read a newspaper article that said there wasn't a big difference
 between organic and regular beef if animals are fed corn that is genetically
 modified. Is there a difference?
 A. You get no advantages if the cow eats genetically modified corn. The big
 difference with organic beef is that the animals raised this way don't get the
 antibiotics and other chemicals given to those raised conventionally.
 Also, to be called organic, cattle must have access to pastures, which provide
 the bulk of their dietary needs. Finding out whether they used that access is
 difficult.
 If you're looking for a vastly different meat product for the occasional times
 you eat meat, look for 100 percent grass-fed organic beef. Cattle fed on grass
 alone have less saturated fat, more vitamin E, more beta-carotene and as much as
 40 percent more omega-3 fatty acids -- the heart- and brain-healthy fats found
 in fatty fish --than corn-fed beef.
 LOAD-DATE: November 26, 2009
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Column
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2009 Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 318
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                           November 11, 2009 Wednesday
                               Correction Appended
 Monsanto to speed up new seed availability Company is betting farmers will trade
 up to more expensive biotech corn and beans.
 BYLINE: By Jeffrey Tomich o jtomich@post-dispatch.com > 314-340-8320 Bloomberg
 News contributed to this story
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. A10
 LENGTH: 521 words
 Monsanto Co. said it will speed up the availability of higher yielding biotech
 corn and soybean seed as the company aims to meet ambitious profit goals laid
 out two years ago.
 Creve Coeur-based Monsanto will offer more than 4 million acres of its SmartStax
 corn and up to 10 million acres of its Roundup Ready2Yield soybeans in 2010. The
 company had previously said availability of SmartStax corn would be limited to 3
 to 4 million acres and the new soybeans to 7 to 8 million acres.
 The new biotech seeds will be available to all U.S. growers by 2012, a year
 ahead of schedule, executives said Tuesday.
 The announcement kicked off Monsanto's biennial investor conference in Research
 Triangle Park, N.C., where the company operates a new research center. It is the
 first such meeting since CEO Hugh Grant promised to double the company's 2007
 gross profit in five years.
 Grant said the key to meeting that goal lies in the company's seed business.
 More specifically, it depends on the willingness of farmers to trade up to new,
 more expensive biotech corn and soybean seeds. The other key to meeting the
 profit goal is greater adoption of biotech traits by growers in Latin America,
 he said.
 "The elephant in the room is 'Can Monsanto deliver in 2010? Can Monsanto deliver
 in 2011? Can they really double gross profit by 2012?' The answer is 'yes,'" he
 said.
 Executives also presented data indicating that Roundup Ready2Yield soybeans
 delivered an average yield increase of 7.3 percent compared with the first
 generation of soybeans, which are genetically modified to resist applications of
 Roundup weed killer. Average yield gains were even greater in the largest
 soybean growing states, the company said.
 Roundup Ready2Yield soybeans were sewn on 1.5 million acres in 2009, the first
 year they were available. As recently as September, company officials stood
 behind a promise that the beans would deliver average yield gains of 7 to 11
 percent.
 The company dismissed reports that cast doubt on whether the soybeans would
 deliver the promised yield gains, or enough to justify a higher price.
 About 20 farm managers and seed distributors in five states said in a report
 released Oct. 27 that yields from the new soybean seeds didn't meet their
 expectations, said Jon Gates, research director at OTR Global, a research firm
 based in Purchase, N.Y.
 "The initial performance here is not meeting the expectation in a pretty broad
 area," Gates said.
 Goldman Sachs analyst Robert Koort cited conflicting reports from growers in a
 Nov. 3 note. In the report, one farmer called them "the real deal," while
 another indicated a reluctance to pay a premium for the beans, which are priced
 at $74 an acre, or $22 an acre more than the first generation Roundup Ready
 soybeans, for 2010.
 "There seem to be mixed responses regarding the quality of RR2 soybeans," Koort
 wrote. But "with only 51 percent of the soybean crop harvested, we believe it's
 premature to draw a conclusion regarding yields."
 Monsanto said its yield results reported Tuesday are based on 25,000 data
 points, a much broader sampling than anecdotal reports that caused shares to
 sag.
 LOAD-DATE: January 21, 2010
 CORRECTION:Correction published, Friday, November 13, 2009 - Bloomberg News
 contributed to this report on Monsanto seed availability. The credit line was
 left off due to an editing error.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2009 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 319
 
                                The New York Times
                             November 6, 2009 Friday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Rules on Modified Corn Skirted, Study Says
 BYLINE: By ANDREW POLLACK
 SECTION: Section B; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 3
 LENGTH: 516 words
 As many as 25 percent of the American farmers growing genetically engineered
 corn are no longer complying with federal rules intended to maintain the
 resistance of the crops to damage from insects, according to a report Thursday
 from an advocacy group.
 The increase in farmers skirting the rules, from fewer than 10 percent a few
 years ago, raises the risk that insects will develop resistance to the toxins in
 the corn that are meant to kill them, the report says. And it raises questions
 about whether the Environmental Protection Agency and the agricultural
 biotechnology industry are adequately enforcing the rules.
 The data ''should be a wake-up call to E.P.A. that the regulatory system is not
 working,'' Gregory Jaffe, the report's author, wrote in a letter Thursday to
 Lisa P. Jackson, the administrator of the federal agency. Mr. Jaffe is the
 biotechnology project director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest,
 a Washington advocacy group that does not oppose genetically engineered crops
 but favors stricter regulation.
 The crops in question, called BT corn, have bacterial genes spliced into their
 DNA that cause the plants to make toxins that kill certain insects when they
 feed on the crop. In 2008, about 49 million acres of BT corn was grown,
 accounting for 57 percent of domestic corn acreage.
 So far there appears to be little sign that insects are growing  resistant to
 the toxins in the corn. If they were to, however, it would not only render the
 crops ineffective but would hurt organic farmers who use sprays of bacterial BT
 toxins as natural pesticides.
 To stave off such resistance, E.P.A. requires farmers in the Corn Belt to plant
 20 percent of their fields with non-BT corn to serve as a refuge for insects.
 The idea is that if an insect becomes impervious to the BT toxin, it is likely
 to mate with a nonresistant insect from the refuge, and the offspring would not
 be resistant.
 Four big biotechnology companies  -- Monsanto, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Syngenta and Dow
 AgroSciences  -- jointly do an annual survey of corn growers to assess
 compliance.
 Mr. Jaffe obtained these reports from the E.P.A.  under the Freedom of
 Information Act. From 2003 to 2006, about 90 percent of farmers growing corn
 resistant to the corn borer established refuges of the required size. But the
 rate fell to 80 percent in 2007 and 78 percent in 2008.
 Only 74 percent of farmers were setting up a big enough refuge for corn
 resistant to the rootworm in 2008, down from 89 percent in 2006. And only 63
 percent of farmers had their rootworm refuges close enough to their fields.
 Nicholas Storer, chairman of Agricultural Biotechnology Stewardship Technical
 Committee, the industry group that does the surveys, said the seed companies
 recognized the problems and for the last two years have been undertaking a
 ''Respect the Refuge'' campaign, sending postcards to farmers and putting
 billboards alongside highways in the Corn Belt.
 ''We're not happy to see negative trends,'' Dr. Storer said.
 The E.P.A. said it would evaluate the report and take action if necessary.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: November 6, 2009
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO: A field of genetically modified corn near Santa Rosa, Calif.
 Farmers are required to grow some unmodified corn.(PHOTOGRAPH BY RICH
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 320
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                             November 6, 2009 Friday
 Modified crop rules sometimes ignored Lack of 'refuge' zones could harm crops.
 BYLINE: By Georgina Gustin o ggustin@post-dispatch.com > 314-340-8195
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. B1
 LENGTH: 769 words
 More farmers are failing to plant required "refuge" zones near fields where
 genetically modified corn is grown, possibly increasing chances that
 pesticide-resistant bugs will harm crops in years to come, according to a report
 released Thursday by an advocacy group.
 The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based group critical
 of government oversight of the biotech industry, said that as much as 15 percent
 of the country's corn acreage was out of compliance with federal rules. In
 recent years, compliance rates have dropped from around 90 percent to between 60
 and 80 percent, the group's report concluded.
 "Clearly farmers aren't doing as good a job as they should be," said Greg Jaffe,
 the report's author.
 Roughly 60 percent of the corn grown in the United States last year was "Bt"
 corn that has been genetically modified with genes from the Bacillus
 thuringiensis bacteria to produce toxins that will kill rootworms and corn
 borers, pests that have the capacity to damage vast amounts of corn. Rules set
 by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2001 say that farmers who grow Bt corn
 must also grow a certain percentage of non-GM corn nearby. These "refuge zones,"
 in theory, are supposed to reduce the risk that rootworms or corn borers that
 survive the toxins breed with each other, thereby developing resistance to the
 technology.
 But the number of farmers planting these required refuge zones has dropped, and
 compliance rates plunged from above 90 percent in 2003 and 2005 to as low as 63
 percent for certain Bt varieties, according to the report, which is based on
 federal data.
 Four companies are registered to market Bt corn - Creve Couer-based Monsanto,
 Syngenta, Dow AgroSciences and Pioneer
 Hi-Bred International. They are responsible for educating farmers about the
 proper size and location of refuge zones. Each year, a group representing these
 companies called the Agricultural Biotech Stewardship Technical Committee,
 submits a required annual report to federal regulators, based on the industry's
 assessments, showing the level of farmer compliance with refuge zone
 requirements.
 "Obviously this isn't new to us," said Nicholas Storer, chairman of the group.
 "We've been acting on this information for a year."
 Storer said the drop in compliance, which the group does not refute, is the
 result of a combination of factors.
 "This happened at the same time the price of corn started to increase, and there
 were concerns about food shortages globally," he explained. "Farmers felt some
 pressure to maximize production."
 In other words, farmers may have planted in these refuge zones.
 At the same time, Storer and others said, Bt corn with "stacked" traits that
 provide resistance to both corn borer and rootworm, hit the market. These
 stacked trait varieties had new and more complicated refuge requirements. In
 areas where genetically modified cotton is grown, largely in the south, the
 requirements are even more stringent.
 "It's getting a little more confusing than it used to because they're stacked
 traits and different requirements," said Mike Geske, the recent president of the
 Missouri Corn Growers Association.
 "I raise 1,000 acres of corn, and I might have 20 fields, and each one has a
 compliance requirement. I could have one field that falls short, and the whole
 [farm] is out of compliance."
 Geske pointed out, however, that fewer farmers in the southern cornbelt are
 planting Bt corn these days.
 "Down here we're not getting as much of a yield bump, and it's interfering with
 our no-till practices because the Bt stalks are much stronger," Geske said. "The
 seed is more expensive, and we're getting a premium for non-GMO."
 In a letter sent to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, the Center for Science in
 the Public Interest called on the agency to pressure registered Bt corn
 companies to impose fines on growers who fail to comply with the rules. So far,
 Storer said, the companies have withheld the technology from at least 12 farmers
 who have repeatedly violated refuge guidelines.
 Farmers, industry and the center, all pointed out Thursday that no resistance in
 the pests has been discovered so far. But, they say, it's only a matter of time.
 "We've come into this assuming that pests are clever and they'll find a way,"
 Storer said. "It's in our interest to [comply]. We're certainly not sitting
 still and assuming resistance won't happen."
 Still, the performance recently has been dipping.
 "There's enough fault to go around," said Jaffe. "Clearly, the registrants
 aren't putting enough pressure on the farmers, and the EPA isn't putting enough
 pressure on the registrants."
 LOAD-DATE: November 7, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2009 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 321
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                            November 5, 2009 Thursday
 Monsanto makes Chinese inroads Research facility is the first of its kind in the
 country.
 BYLINE: By Georgina Gustin o ggustin@post-dispatch.com > 314-340-8195
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. A13
 LENGTH: 504 words
 Biotech seed giant Monsanto announced Thursday the opening of a new research
 facility in China, its latest venture into the world's largest potential
 consumer market.
 The facility in Beijing will serve as a base for Monsanto collaborations with
 Chinese scientists and is the first of its kind in that country.
 "Monsanto has made a commitment to develop advanced biotech and breeding
 technology in China," said Steve Padgette, vice president of biotechnology for
 the company, who was in China for the formal unveiling of the facility. "The
 establishment of the center will give Chinese researchers access to our global
 research network and to our industry-leading product development pipeline."
 The research center has three goals: to conduct independent research, seek
 opportunities to collaborate with Chinese scientists, and provide technical
 support to Monsanto's business in China, Padgette said.
 Monsanto already has forged several partnerships with Chinese researchers and
 government-backed biotech research enterprises. The Chinese government has been
 supporting research, especially into genetically modified rice, the country's
 most consumed grain.
 But China has yet to authorize genetically modified rice for consumption,
 officials here say.
 "They're still finding their way. They're still talking about authorizing their
 first genetically engineered rice variety, but it hasn't happened," said Mike
 Wach, of BIO, an industry group that represents Monsanto and other biotech
 companies. "I think they're still struggling."
 Rice growers and consumers have been resistant to genetically modified rice, and
 no company grows it commercially for food consumption. Earlier this year,
 Greenpeace protestors stood outside Monsanto's Beijing office with banners
 reading "Monsanto: Hands Off China's Food."
 "There's certainly been some resistance," Wach said, "and (China) probably feels
 that pressure. It's a major crop for them."
 China grows some genetically modified cotton, and imports genetically modified
 corn and soy, after relaxing import rules in 2004. The country is the largest
 export market for American soybeans, 90 percent of which contain Monsanto
 traits.
 The company recently announced a collaboration with Huazhong Agricultural
 University in China and established a $1 million RMB scholarship to encourage
 biotech research.
 Qifa Zhang, a top scientist at the university, said the new center will expand
 the partnership. "The establishment of the center will have a key role in
 further strengthening our collaboration and speeding up commercialization and
 marketing of new technology," Zhang said in a statement.
 Last year, Monsanto announced it would pour $84 million into a joint venture
 between the China National Seed Group Corp.
 "We already work with several research institutions on novel agricultural
 traits," said Monsanto's John Mclean, who will head up the new center. "We
 firmly believe that technological advances will increase productivity and
 contribute to finding solutions to the challenges facing agriculture."
 LOAD-DATE: November 5, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2009 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 322
 
                               The Washington Post
                             November 3, 2009 Tuesday
                                  Every Edition
 SECTION: HEALTH; Pg. HE03
 LENGTH: 236 words
 Irrational obstructiveness
 "Denialism" (Penguin Press, $27.95)
 Actress and anti-vaccination activist Jenny McCarthy is probably not going to be
 a big fan of this book by New Yorker staff writer Michael Specter: He points to
 McCarthy and other people who link vaccines and autism despite epidemiological
 studies to the contrary as  examples of "how irrational thinking hinders
 scientific progress, harms the planet, and threatens our lives." He calls this
 phenomenon "denialism." The six chapters of the book read like New Yorker
 articles; Specter cites vaccination, genetically modified food, prescription
 medications and genomics among the areas where the public fears science at least
 as much as it embraces it.
 Beyond the here and now
  "PopSci's Future Of" (Science Channel)
 Take a tour of the year 2034 every Monday at 9 p.m. on the Science Channel with
 this new TV series, produced in cooperation with Popular Science magazine.
 Comedian and blogger Baratunde Thurston is the charismatic host, leading the
 viewer from one freaky invention to the next with wide-eyed enthusiasm. In one
 recent episode, "The Future of Habitat," Thurston test-drove a computer-operated
 car around the Stanford University campus,  made ice cream on an anti-griddle
 that freezes instead of grills and learned about a chip that checks  the body
 for disease by reading the DNA in a drop of blood.
 -- Rachel Saslow
 LOAD-DATE: November 3, 2009
 DISTRIBUTION: District-Maryland
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2009 The Washington Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 323
 
                              Voice of America News
                                 November 2, 2009
 Ethiopia Biodiversity Law Threatens Food Aid Shipments
 LENGTH: 618  words
 DATELINE: Addis Ababa
 Ethiopia is reviewing a newly-passed law that could restrict imports of food aid
 at a time when millions of its people are suffering from severe malnutrition.
 VOA's Peter Heinlein in Addis Ababa reports on the unintended consequences of a
 regulation designed to protect Ethiopia's biodiversity.
 Ethiopia's parliament passed the Proclamation on Bio Safety with little notice
 on the final day before its summer recess in July. There was no debate, and no
 dissenting votes.
 The proclamation gives the Ethiopian Environmental Protection Authority power to
 block the import of GMOs, or genetically modified organisms. The idea was to
 protect the country's diverse life forms against genetically engineered seeds
 and grains that some scientists believe may pose health hazards.
 But EPA regulators soon realized the proclamation also covers the vast majority
 of the food aid Ethiopia receives.
 With the country in the third year of a drought, authorities have just issued an
 appeal for more aid to feed 6.2 million severely malnourished people. Member of
 Parliament Bulcha Demeksa says lawmakers approved the Bio Safety Proclamation
 without realizing its consequences.
 "I do not think the parliament understood it. Because everybody knows that food
 from Australia and Canada, all of them are produced with genetic engineering,
 and to say we do not want food from these countries is not tenable, it is not
 intelligent," Demeksa said.
 The United States is by far the largest food-aid donor to Ethiopia. At the
 moment, the U.S. Agency for International Development has 300,000 metric tons of
 commodities such as wheat, corn-soy blend and vegetable oil on the way to meet
 the country's urgent needs.
 USAID Country Director Thomas Staal says he has received assurances from
 Agriculture Ministry officials that the law will not be an obstacle to getting
 aid to needy Ethiopians.
 "We've gotten assurances from them that it's not going to stop our food aid,
 it's already en route, some of it, and we're working with them trying to provide
 them input into what we're bringing in, and they're looking at their rules, and
 there's going to be a number of directives that will sort of roll out this law
 and those directives are still under discussion," Staal said.
 In a telephone interview, Ababu Anage, head of the Ecosystems Department of the
 Environmental Protection Authority defended the law as necessary to protect
 human and animal health. But he said enforcement of the new law is still a
 subject of negotiation.
 "We are not saying we will not [permit] any GMOs to this country. We need the
 GMOs, but we should give emphasis on the bio safety aspect of it," Anage said.
 USAID's Thomas Staal says he has emphasized to Ethiopian officials that all
 American food aid meets U.S. health standards.
 "So we do not think it causes any problem with the environment here, and not to
 people's health or safety. We do not bring in food that we do not eat ourselves
 in America. And second, we would not bring in any food here that would be
 unhealthful to the Ethiopian people," said Staal.
 Last year, the United States donated close to $700 million worth of food aid to
 Ethiopia, or 80 percent of the total the Horn of Africa country received.
 But many see the aid as inefficient. A U. S. Government Accountability Office
 report suggested more than 40 percent of the cost of the aid goes for
 transportation and other overhead costs.
 In a speech to parliament last month, Ethiopia's Prime Minister Meles Zenawi
 criticized what he called the 'food aid industry'. He accused 'industry actors'
 of deliberately inflating the number of Ethiopians in need of aid, and suggested
 their motive is more about profit than about saving lives.
 LOAD-DATE: November 2, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Journal
            Copyright 2009 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 324
 
                            Investor's Business Daily
                            October 29, 2009 Thursday
 IndexIQ Unveils Inflation-Hedged ETFs Alternative To TIPS? ETFs are benchmarked
 to CPI and commodities, rotate among sectors
 SECTION: Mutual Funds; Pg. A06
 LENGTH: 714 words
 Undeterred by tepid response to its first two offerings, IndexIQ has rolled out
 two more ETFs with hedging strategies: IQ CPI Inflation Hedged ETFand IQ ARB
 Global Resources ETF.
 IQ CPI aims to offer solace to those worried about inflation. The Bureau of
 Labor Statistics comes up with the CPI by crunching cost of goods, services and
 housing numbers from about 23,000 retailers and service providers and 50,000
 landlords or tenants. The data cover 87 urban areas across the country.
 The ETF of ETFs can include any combination of equity, fixed income,
 commodities, currencies and real estate, inverse and leveraged ETFs.
 Holdings are selected by a quantitative model. It's designed to provide the
 return of the CPI, as measured by the consumer price index on a rolling 12-month
 period, plus a real return of 2% to 3%.
 "The goal is to provide those returns with low volatility and hopefully with a
 high correlation to the CPI," said Adam Patti, CEO of IndexIQ.
 The fund will rebalance every month when new CPI data are released. The 0.65%
 expense ratio includes a 0.45% management fee and 0.17% from the underlying
 ETFs.
 Why would an investor want to buy the CPI ETF instead of Treasury
 inflation-protected securities, whose yield and underlying principal are
 automatically adjusted to inflation?
 "TIPS were launched in 1997. So they've never been tested in an inflationary
 environment and they're fairly volatile," Patti said. "Since inception, TIPS
 have provided 30% to 40% correlation to inflation. It's not a good inflation
 proxy."
 IQ CPI is currently 91% weighted in bonds, followed by gold at 7% and trace
 amounts of the yen and oil. "As inflation rears its ugly head, you'll see
 short-term bonds go down and higher-yielding assets classes go up," Patti said.
 Some asset managers call the debut of an inflation-centered product ill-timed.
 Inflation won't rear its ugly head until wages increase, says Robert Stein,
 managing partner of Astor Financial, and that's not likely to happen soon with
 the high rate of unemployment.
 "TIPS are a better way to hedge inflation because you're not relying on
 someone's model," Stein said. "Their way of hedging inflation is not any better
 than a buy-and-hold approach."
 IQ ARB Global Resources Index includes 99 companies that engage in the
 production of livestock, metals, grains, energy, timber, water and coal.
 Holdings are screened from eight sectors based on price action and valuation.
 "We have a dynamic weighting that's designed to achieve outperformance by
 finding sectors that are undervalued but have price momentum," Patti said.
 The ETF seems similar to Market Vectors RVE Hard Asset Producers ETF or iShares
 S&P North American Natural Resources, says Gary Gordon, president of Pacific
 Park Financial. "They merely create a new way to pick stocks that they like with
 unique rebalancing and weighting rules, and then call those stocks an index," he
 said.
 Patti contends that his fund is better than existing broad-based commodity ETFs
 because it's not overweighted in energy and is hedged with 20% short exposure to
 the S&P 500 and MSCI EAFA indexes, "which reduces correlation and volatility."
 The fund rebalances monthly and has an expense ratio of 0.75%.
 ALPS' Commodity-Based ETFs
 Coincidentally Tuesday, ALPS ETF Trust released two equity-based commodity ETFs:
 Jefferies TR/J CRB Global Agriculture Equity Index Fund and Jefferies TR/J CRB
 Global Industrial Metals Equity Index Fund.
 CRBA holds 35 companies engaged in producing seeds, genetically modified foods,
 chemicals, fertilizers, livestock, farm and irrigation equipment. Companies must
 get at least half of their revenue from agriculture and have a minimum market
 cap of $750 million. The fund will rebalance quarterly.
 It will compete against Market Vectors Agribusiness ETF, with its $1.6 billion
 in assets, and PowerShares Global Agriculture ETF.
 CRBI includes 35 global companies engaged in the production and distribution of
 aluminum, copper, iron ore, nickel, steel and other metals. Companies must also
 have a minimum market cap of $750 million and get at least half their revenue
 from metals. It uses a modified market-cap weighting system.
 The ETF will compete with Market Vectors Gold Miners, Market Vectors Steel and
 SPDR S&P Metals & Mining.
 Both funds carry 0.65% expense ratios.
 LOAD-DATE: October 28, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2009 Investor's Business Daily, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 325
 
                              Voice of America News
                                 October 29, 2009
 GM Crops Dominate US Farms, but Organic Increasing
 LENGTH: 674  words
 DATELINE: Washington
 As farmers across the United States are bringing in the harvest, silos are
 filling up with record or near-record quantities of corn and soybeans. To an
 extent not seen anywhere else in the world, U.S. farmers have embraced varieties
 that are genetically modified -- GM for short. But that doesn't tell the whole
 story. There's another movement shifting a small portion U.S. farming away from
 GM crops and toward organic agriculture. With experts calling for a variety of
 approaches to deal with the growing demand for food,
 Meet the corn earworm. Keeping the earworm and its cousin, the European corn
 borer, out of crops is one of the main reasons Champlain, Virginia, farmer Jay
 Hundley plants genetically modified corn.
 "We've seen an advantage on that," Hundley says, "the European corn borer, they
 can be a problem. It pretty much tends to them 100 percent. Corn earworm, it
 does have an affect on them, and you don't see anywhere near as many in the
 cornfields."
 Hundley also grows GM soybeans. They are designed to make killing weeds easier
 because these soybeans will survive treatment with an herbicide called Roundup.
 Roundup kills nearly all of the weeds farmers commonly deal with. Hundley says
 the herbicide-tolerant soybeans give him more flexibility when he sprays his
 fields -- and he likes that convenience.
 "It's time savings, stuff like that. We don't have to be there today. We can
 wait until tomorrow," Hundley said.
 The GM seeds cost more. And his contract with the seed company doesn't let him
 save them to plant the next year. But, he says, the benefits outweigh the costs.
 Farmers across the United States have come to the same conclusion. This year, 85
 percent of the corn and 91 percent of the soybeans grown in the U.S. are
 genetically modified. No other country grows nearly as much. While the vast
 majority of corn, soybeans and cotton in the United States are genetically
 modified, a small but growing group of farmers are going in a different
 direction.
 About 200 kilometers north, in Adamstown, Maryland, Nick Maravell is also
 farming corn and soybeans. But Maravell does not raise genetically modified
 crops. "What we're trying to do is encourage things that would happen
 naturally," Maravell said.
 Maravell is one of an increasing number of organic farmers -- those who don't
 use chemical fertilizers, insecticides or weed killers. Organic cropland makes
 up a tiny fraction of the total acreage in the United States -- just one half of
 one percent in 2005, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But that
 figure represents a doubling of total organic acreage since 1997.
 Part of the reason Maravell doesn't grow GM crops is because he is concerned
 about unintended consequences.
 "With genetically modified organisms, they have been released into the
 environment. They can take on a life of their own. That is, they can reproduce
 and spread and cross-breed with other species," Maravell says, "and i don't feel
 that we have really quite mastered what we're doing with these yet."
 The GM crops have received a green light from regulators in the U.S. Much of
 Europe remains opposed, but the scientific body advising Europe's food safety
 regulators recently said current varieities are unlikely to harm health or the
 environment.
 But Maravell says another reason he doesn't grow GM crops is because he doesn't
 need them to get good yields.
 "As an organic farm, we present an alternative," Maravell says, "and as you can
 see, we produce crops here. We're not overrun with insects, disease, or weeds.
 We can do it without the genetically modified [crops]."
 In a good year, Maravell admits he doesn't produce as much as his neighbors who
 use chemical fertilizers and GM crops. But in a dry year he says he out-produces
 them.
 And Maravell's organic products fetch a premium price, which helps his bottom
 line.
 With the need to protect the environment and feed the planet both growing
 steadily, many experts predict farmers will call on both genetically modified
 and organic agriculture to meet the demands.
 LOAD-DATE: October 29, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Journal
            Copyright 2009 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 326
 
                          Deming Headlight (New Mexico)
                             October 23, 2009 Friday
 Healthwise: Fight the flu with a little soap
 BYLINE: By Larry Miller
 LENGTH: 767 words
 If you're thinking about rolling up your sleeve for a questionable and costly
 H1N1 vaccine, you might want to reconsider. Protecting against any flu,
 including swine flu H1N1, may be as simple as rolling up your cuffs and washing
 your hands.
 When we look at history and research over the past 100 years, we find that good
 old fashioned washing your hands, common sense hygiene and fresh, whole foods
 have contributed more to the control of diseases than vaccines, antibiotics and
 pharmaceuticals. Most of what we read is produced in writers factories funded by
 interests that profit from disinformation.
 A review of 59 studies on strategies to reduce viral germs and found online at
 www.BMJ.com (British Medical Journal), proves that simply washing our hands
 throughout the day and keeping our distance from sick people significantly
 lowers our risk of getting or spreading viruses - swine flu H1N1 is a virus.
 Antibiotics have no effect on viruses. Their only benefit would be if there is,
 or is the possibility of, a secondary bacterial infection.
 The BMJ study found that wearing a mask and gloves can lower your risk of
 getting the flu or any other viral infection. Their focus was on viruses but the
 same strategy using hygiene, avoiding crowded places, especially hospitals and
 sick people plus wearing a mask and gloves would hold true for bacterial
 infections.
 Even though the more expensive masks that are being marketed for the swine flu,
 like the "N95" mask, are probably more comfortable, the study found the more
 expensive masks to be no more effective than the kind you can buy at the local
 hardware store for a few bucks.
 Does wearing a mask and gloves, when you're in a situation where others are
 sick, coughing and spreading germs that may make you ill, bother you? You may
 find getting over that stigma will be easier and more comfortable than getting
 over the flu, colds, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism or other respiratory
 problems.
 I just read an interview with Jeffrey M. Smith, who has authored multiple books
 on genetic engineering, GMO foods (genetically modified organisms) and the
 health problems they can cause. His books are backed by research done by
 scientists from all over the world.
 The research has shown that GMO foods, GMO seeds, and the foods they produce,
 can cause thousands of toxic reactions in humans and animals. If you've been a
 longtime reader of mine, you know about some of the other diseases that are
 connected to, or exacerbated by, GMO foods. The most common GMO foods in the
 U.S. diet are soy, corn, cotton, canola and meat that has been raised on GMO
 feed. Other common U.S. GMO foods are zucchini, yellow squash, Hawaiian papaya,
 some tobacco, other animal products (eggs, etc.) that have been raised on GMO
 feed, cheeses and dairy products from rbGH treated cows, most pharmaceuticals
 and, as if the other side effects weren't bad enough, aspartame, aka
 Nutra-Sweet.
 The entire interview is much too long for the space I have here but I'm pursuing
 the rights to republication and, if I can secure them, I will have the entire
 interview posted on our www.newliferoadmap.com as soon as time permits. I also
 plan to have articles from The Institute for Responsible Technology Web site
 posted on our site, www.newliferoadmap.com .
 How and why has GMO been so highly promoted in the U.S. if it isn't safe, proven
 through extensive scientific testing and trials in real life situations? The
 George H. W. Bush administration was convinced that genetically engineered foods
 would increase U.S. exports and establish our domination in the world food trade
 marketplace. The Bush administration ordered the FDA, and other regulatory
 agencies, to approve them anyway, and do it quickly.
 A new position was created in the FDA to oversee GMO policy. The appointed
 director was former Monsanto attorney Michael Taylor, who also later became
 Monsanto's vice president. Monsanto is the world's largest biotech corporation
 and largest commercial producer of genetically engineered seed, including the
 terminator seed technology. Terminator seed crops produce sterile seeds
 eliminating seed saving by farmers and requiring the farmer to buy new seed each
 time they plant. Seed will adapt to local growing conditions and what is right
 for one area may produce very little, or nothing, in another. Monsanto's
 objective isn't better production, higher quality food or lower costs to
 farmers. They're after increasing the bottom line and controlling the world's
 food supply.
 Larry R. Miller is a freelance writer and photographer. He can be reached at his
 web site, www.larryRmiller.com
 LOAD-DATE: October 23, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
           Copyright 2009 Deming Headlight, a MediaNews Group Newspaper
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 327
 
                              Voice of America News
                                 October 21, 2009
 New Drive to Fight World Hunger With GM Crops
 LENGTH: 628  words
 DATELINE: London
 Britain's national academy of science is calling for a multi-billion-dollar
 research program on global food security. The Royal Society says genetically
 modified plants should be an essential tool for feeding the world by 2050, but
 activists object that GM foods destroy the livelihood of small-scale farmers.
 Britain's Royal Society has released a report looking at how science and
 technology can be used to fight a food shortage it says is expected to hit the
 globe by 2050.
 A Royal Society research team member, Jules Pretty, says the team took into
 account a number of changes that are expected in coming decades, such as climate
 change, massive rises in world population, and new consumption patterns.
 "When you put that all together it suggest that we are going to need something
 like 50 percent more, perhaps 100 percent more, food from our existing land and
 that is a very significant challenge and we believe we need to be thinking
 seriously about that right away," said Pretty.
 The Royal Society says farmers will have to grow improved crop varieties to meet
 growing food demands. It calls for genetic improvement of crops through
 conventional plant breeding and through direct genetic modification of crops.
 Pretty says the Royal Society is not giving blanket support for GM foods, but
 says GM crops should be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
 He says because GM crops can be designed to be resistant to insects and disease
 they may also be better for the environment. He highlights the example of potato
 blight, a common pest that can destroy crops.
 "At the moment typically farmers will apply 12 [applications] of fungicide each
 season to potatoes, which means driving your tractor up and down 12 times and
 using an awful lot of fungicide," said Pretty. "Now if that GM potato is
 effective and works then the environmental impact will be substantially less
 because the chemicals are not being used and there will be less fossil fuel
 use."
 But Britain and many other European countries have resisted the introduction of
 GM food crops.
 Kirtana Chandrasekaran is from the environmental group Friends of the Earth. She
 says a four-year scientific study initiated by the World Bank says there is
 little role for genetic modification in feeding the poor on a large scale.
 She says genetic modification is hugely expensive and patent heavy, which means
 the industry is dominated by large multi-national corporations.
 "You have seen massive evidence of huge social impacts in South America,
 farmers, up to 90,000 farmers, being displaced from their land in places like
 Paraguay because of the advent of massive GM intensive mono cultures, urban
 poverty increasing, food security has decreased all across the southern corner
 of Latin America dramatically over the last decade," said Chandrasekaran.
 She says Africa has by and large resisted GM crops because it does not benefit
 poor farmers.
 She says for developing countries to improve their crop output, investment needs
 to be made in promoting traditional farming techniques.
 "You have traditional knowledge which has existed for hundreds of years, which
 is absolutely being starved of any kind of policy support or funding because
 governments seem so obsessed with genetic modification," said Chandrasekaran.
 The United Nations has predicted the world's population will reach nine billion
 by 2050.
 The Royal Society is calling for the British government to contribute around $3
 billion to fund the research into science that improves crops and sustainable
 crop management.
 Anti-GM forces in Britain have successfully destroyed many field trials of GM
 crops. Their campaign has led some scientists to give up GM research and others
 to call for the British government to carry out trials at secure or secret
 sites.
 LOAD-DATE: October 21, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Journal
            Copyright 2009 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 328
 
                     San Gabriel Valley Tribune (California)
                             October 18, 2009 Sunday
 Michael Gerson: Gates' green revolution for Africa
 LENGTH: 777 words
 When you are Bill Gates - directing a foundation with assets larger than the GDP
 of 104 countries - your enthusiasms get amplified on a global scale. Six or
 seven years ago, Gates read a book by Gordon Conway, "The Doubly Green
 Revolution: Food for All in the Twenty-First Century," which argued for a second
 green revolution, this time in Africa. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has
 since devoted several hundred million dollars to this cause. It is now on the
 policy agenda of the president, the secretary of state and the G-20, which
 recently pledged $22 billion to help poor farmers increase their productivity.
 During a recent conversation, Gates described himself as a "city boy," but spoke
 with typical, wonkish intensity about wheat rust, marker-assisted selection and
 finger millet outputs. "The world moved away from a focus on seeds and plant
 disease in a dangerous way for 20 years," he told me. Gates is determined to
 push a revival.
 His reasons are strategic. Approximately three-quarters of Africans are employed
 in agriculture, but about 30 percent of people on the continent suffer from
 hunger and malnutrition. Over the next few decades, African farmers will need to
 feed a growing population without expanding into ecologically important lands,
 while adapting to climate disruptions that make drought, pests and floods more
 common. They will need Gates' help, and more.
 There is a precedent. The first green revolution - driven by the use of better
 seeds, fertilizers and pesticides - was arguably the greatest humanitarian
 achievement in history, saving the lives of an estimated 1 billion people
 worldwide. Starting in the 1960s, farmers doubled, tripled, even quadrupled
 their productivity. But the revolution missed Africa.
 In Africa, says Gates, "it won't happen as quickly as late-'60s India, or
 early-'80s China. ... Africa is not just missing seeds, which is the coolest
 thing." It also requires less-cool things such as "roads and markets ...
 extension services and education about best practices."
 But seeds are part of the need. The better breeds of the first green revolution
 are not as relevant to Africa. "In India and China," says Gates, "corn, wheat
 and rice are over 80 percent of output. In Africa, these are 40 to 50 percent.
 There are a ton of other things - cassava, sorghum, millet." Improving the crops
 of the poor has not gotten much focus from scientists and agribusiness. In
 addition, Africa "has more variety of ecosystems - you see huge variations,"
 which demands more hearty seed varieties of every type. So Gates is attempting
 to fill a gap - to encourage both the development of crops ignored by the market
 economy and the provision of those crops to Africans, royalty-free.
 Most of this innovation is done through traditional breeding methods. But about
 5 percent of Gates' agricultural funding goes to the genetic modification of
 crops - a practice he vigorously defends. "The benefits of genetically modified
 crops have come slower in general than people thought, even in the U.S.," he
 told me. "But they are starting to show good results." Gates cites the
 genetically aided development of a strain of rice that can survive for two weeks
 under floodwaters.
 Will the resistance to genetically modified food by European regulators,
 activists and media be a problem? "It could be a big obstacle," admits Gates.
 This opposition began "at a time when the benefits (of this technology) were
 small - tomatoes that lasted longer on the shelf - and at the same time as
 Chernobyl and mad cow disease. People wondered if scientists were tough enough
 on themselves about the risks they were creating. Now the benefits are likely to
 come - offsetting the damage of climate change, addressing the situation of the
 poor. The maturity of science is greater and the experience with these crops has
 been very good."
 Gates' push for a second green revolution demonstrates much about his
 philanthropic method, which is non-ideological and results-driven. His faith in
 scientific progress is admirably old fashioned. It is trendy in some quarters of
 the environmental community to accept the grave warnings of science on global
 climate and ecological breakdown, but to dismiss the promise of science in
 addressing great needs. Protesters attack "Frankenfoods" and trash fields of
 genetically modified crops -- imposing a cost they will not bear themselves.
 "A lot of stuff we do," says Gates, "is based on optimism about innovation for
 the needs of the poorest." And the poorest benefit because Bill Gates finds seed
 varieties cool.
 mgerson@globalengage.org .
 Michael Gerson is a syndicated columnist with Washington Post Writers Group.
 LOAD-DATE: October 19, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
    Copyright 2009 MediaNews Group, Inc. and Los Angeles Newspaper Group, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 329
 
                            Mobile Register (Alabama)
                             October 16, 2009 Friday
 Gates' green revolution
 SECTION: A; Pg. 09
 LENGTH: 596 words
 More Opinion
 Gates' green revolution
 WASHINGTON - When you are Bill Gates - directing a foundation with assets larger
 than the GDP of 104 countries - your enthusiasms get amplified on a global
 scale.
 Six or seven years ago, Gates read a book by Gordon Conway, "The Doubly Green
 Revolution: Food for All in the Twenty-First Century," which argued for a second
 green revolution, this time in Africa. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has
 since devoted several hundred million dollars to this cause. It is now on the
 policy agenda of the president, the secretary of state and the G-20, which
 recently pledged $22 billion to help poor farmers increase their productivity.
 During a recent conversation, Gates described himself as a "city boy," but spoke
 with typical, wonkish intensity about wheat rust, marker-assisted selection and
 finger millet outputs. "The world moved away from a focus on seeds and plant
 disease in a dangerous way for 20 years," he told me. Gates is determined to
 push a revival.
 His reasons are strategic. Approximately three-quarters of Africans are employed
 in agriculture, but about 30 percent of people on the continent suffer from
 hunger and malnutrition. Over the next few decades, African farmers will need to
 feed a growing population without expanding into ecologically important lands,
 while adapting to climate disruptions that make drought, pests and floods more
 common. They will need Gates' help, and more.
 There is a precedent. The first green revolution - driven by the use of better
 seeds, fertilizers and pesticides - was arguably the greatest humanitarian
 achievement in history, saving the lives of an estimated 1 billion people
 worldwide. Starting in the 1960s, farmers doubled, tripled, even quadrupled
 their productivity. But the revolution missed Africa.
 Africa, says Gates, "is not just missing seeds, which is the coolest thing." It
 also requires less-cool things such as "roads and markets ... extension services
 and education about best practices."
 Improving the crops of the poor has not gotten much focus from scientists and
 agribusiness. So Gates is attempting to fill a gap - to encourage both the
 development of crops ignored by the market economy and the provision of those
 crops to Africans, royalty-free.
 About 5 percent of Gates' agricultural funding goes to the genetic modification
 of crops - a practice he vigorously defends. Gates cites the genetically aided
 development of a strain of rice that can survive for two weeks under
 floodwaters.
 Will the resistance to genetically modified food by European regulators,
 activists and media be a problem? "It could be a big obstacle," admits Gates.
 This opposition began "at a time when the benefits (of this technology) were
 small - tomatoes that lasted longer on the shelf - and at the same time as
 Chernobyl and mad cow disease . . . Now the benefits are likely to come -
 offsetting the damage of climate change, addressing the situation of the poor.
 It is trendy in some quarters of the environmental community to accept the grave
 warnings of science on global climate and ecological breakdown, but to dismiss
 the promise of science in addressing great needs. Protesters attack
 "Frankenfoods" and trash fields of genetically modified crops - imposing a cost
 they will not bear themselves.
 "A lot of stuff we do," says Gates, "is based on optimism about innovation for
 the needs of the poorest." And the poorest benefit because Bill Gates finds seed
 varieties cool.
 Michael Gerson is a columnist with The Washington Post Writers Group. His e-mail
 address is michaelgerson@cfr.org
 LOAD-DATE: October 28, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: mbr
                  Copyright 2009 The Mobile Press Register Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 330
 
                      The Post-Standard (Syracuse, New York)
                            October 14, 2009 Wednesday
 SECTION: OPINION; Pg. A13
 LENGTH: 251 words
 To the Editor:
 Former Monsanto executives, lobbyist and supporters are once again being
 appointed to high-ranking positions in our food safety agencies. It started with
 Obama's appointment of former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, an avid supporter of
 genetically modified organism seeds produced by Monsanto, as secretary of
 agriculture. This was followed by Obama's appointment of Michael Taylor, former
 Monsanto lobbyist and vice president, to the senior advisory position at the
 Food and Drug Administration.
 Taylor's associations with Monsanto and the government date far back, and his
 back and forth movement from the FDA to Monsanto, combined with other former
 Monsanto executives following the same path, has birthed what many call the
 revolving door.
 Many blame this revolving door for the lax food standards, including no labeling
 requirements for genetically modified organisms, no labeling requirement for
 bovine growth hormone in our dairy and meat products and for allowing those two
 nasty things to be in our food. This is because genetically modified foods are
 produced with seeds from Monsanto, and cows that produce dairy are raised with
 bovine growth hormone, which is also a product of Monsanto.
 To just put some perspective on this, many other European countries require
 labeling of genetically modified organisms and have banned bovine growth hormone
 in food products because in some studies it has been linked to cancer.
 Are we seeing the appalling conflicts of interests yet?
 Nate Hughes
 Weedsport
 LOAD-DATE: October 15, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                           Copyright 2009 Post-Standard
                               All Rights Reserved
                               All Rights Reserved.









Document Number: 331
 
                          Portland Press Herald (Maine)
                            October 14, 2009 Wednesday
                                  FINAL Edition
 Farmers, foodies and activists take on a giant
 BYLINE: Avery Yale Kamila Staff Writer
 SECTION: FOOD & DINING; Natural Foodie; Pg. F5
 LENGTH: 757 words
 To say Maine farmer Ryan Parker dislikes Monsanto would be an understatement.
 ''I hate Monsanto with every fiber of my being,'' Parker said. ''I have a lot of
 issues with everything they're doing.''
 He's not alone. An international chemical and biotech giant, St. Louis-based
 Monsanto is a frequent target of agriculture reformers, human rights
 campaigners, environmental activists and natural foodies.
 Those who lament the current industrial agriculture system and the often
 nutritionally deficient, environmentally destructive and contaminated food that
 it produces see Monsanto as the system's poster child.
 In response, activists around the globe have organized the International Day of
 Opposition to Monsanto this Friday. In Maine, 13 communities will host film
 screenings, talks and seed swaps aimed at raising awareness of the company's
 practices.
 Accompanied by clever marketing, use of lawsuits against farmers and chummy
 relationships with regulators, Monsanto has rapidly developed a number of
 genetically modified crops. Many of these seeds (which haven't been
 independently tested for safety) come imbedded with pesticides or are resistant
 to the company's flagship herbicide, Roundup.
 While all of this is disturbing on its own, Monsanto's truly sinister side can
 be seen in its patenting of seeds.
 These patents make it illegal for farmers to save seeds and replant them the
 following year (a practice that is as old as farming itself). Even worse,
 farmers who don't plant Monsanto's patented seeds, but happen to have their
 non-genetically modified crops crossed with the patented variety, find
 themselves in possession of Monsanto's property and subject to persecution.
 Does all this have you concerned that you're eating genetically modified food?
 Monsanto thinks you shouldn't worry, which is why the company, according to its
 Web site, continues to oppose mandatory labeling of genetically-modified foods.
 After a request for comment about their practices, Monsanto spokesman John
 Combest said: ''Because Monsanto is a leader in biotechnology, our company and
 products are often the subject of activist campaigns. Unfortunately, the
 information provided by our critics is not always balanced or accurate.''
 But you may recall when Monsanto sued Oakhurst Dairy over its labels proclaiming
 the Maine milk to be free of Monsanto's bovine growth hormone. Oakhurst later
 settled the lawsuit out of court and agreed to change the wording of its label.
 Today, the Grocery Manufacturers of America estimates that between 70 percent
 and 75 percent of all processed foods in this country's supermarkets contain
 genetically modified ingredients.
 All of this adds up to ample motivation for Bob St. Peter, the director of Food
 for Maine's Future and the coordinator of Friday's events in Maine, to beat the
 anti-Monsanto drum.
 ''They're the biggest seed company in the world, and they're the most
 aggressive,'' St. Peter said. ''So they deserve special attention. In addition,
 they've produced some of the most toxic substances this planet has ever seen.''
 These chemicals include Agent Orange, DDT and PCBs, plus food additives such as
 saccharin and aspartame.
 Parker, who describes his chem-free farming style as ''beyond organic,'' was
 propelled into helping with Friday's events after hearing Monsanto's ads airing
 on Maine Public Radio, courtesy of programming licensed by American Public
 Media. The ads claim Monsanto is ''committed to sustainable agriculture'' and
 working to ''increase crop yield.''
 The latter claim was called into question by a recent Union of Concerned
 Scientists report showing organically grown crops significantly outperform
 genetically modified crops in terms of yield.
 But then Monsanto, which is often accused by activists of making misleading
 statements and falsifying research, has never been a slave to truth. For
 example, in 1996, Monsanto agreed to change its ads for Roundup in response to
 complaints by the New York Attorney General that the company portrayed the
 herbicide as environmentally safe.
 There is one thing the Fortune 500 company is a slave to, and that's profits.
 Strangely enough, this is the one place where I found a bright spot for people
 like Parker and St. Peter. Last week, the company's quarterly earnings report
 revealed declining sales and a loss of $233 million.
 If activists have their way, Friday's events will convert more farmers into
 activists and further erode the multinational's profit base.
 Staff Writer Avery Yale Kamila can be contacted at 791-6297 or at:
 akamila@pressherald.com
 LOAD-DATE: October 14, 2009
 GRAPHIC: Courtesy photo
 ''The World According to Monsanto'' will be shown in several places around Maine
 on Friday as part of the day of opposition to the corporation's practices.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2009 Blethen Maine Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 332
 
                               The Bismarck Tribune
                              October 4, 2009 Sunday
 Sugar beets spur county to reconsider biotech food
 SECTION: DAKOTA WIRE; Pg. 1C
 LENGTH: 328 words
 BOULDER, Colo. (AP) - Famuer Rasmussen Jr. and five other farmers filed what
 they thought was a routine request to grow genetically modified sugar beets on
 public land in Colorado's Boulder County. The county already had allowed
 genetically altered corn.
 But the farmers got an earful.
 Complaints from residents and organic food activists concerned about the crops'
 safety and local businesses hoping to maintain Boulder as a center for natural
 and organic products prompted county commissioners to reassess their genetically
 modified crops policy.
 "This went from a campfire to a raging wildfire," the Rasmussen, 45, said of the
 reaction to the six farmers' December request.
 While farmers like Rasmussen already grow genetically modified sugar beets on
 private land, the prospect of devoting more county-owned land to the new crops
 was too much for opponents.
 Aurora Organic Dairy Chairman Mark Retzloff opposed the altered corn six years
 ago, but said a lack of public awareness may have led the county to allow it.
 "Many of us decided this time we needed to be proactive," he said. "Last time,
 it wasn't made an issue to the public."
 The protests are part of the growing battles over genetically modified
 organisms, or GMO. At issue in Boulder County is Monsanto Corp.'s Roundup Ready
 sugar beets, which Rasmussen wants to grow on land leased from the county.
 About 95 percent of the 1.15 million acres of sugar beets planted nationwide
 have been bred to resist the weed killer Roundup, also made by Monsanto,
 according to the American Sugarbeet Growers Association. The beets were widely
 commercially used for the first time last year.
 Communities like Mendocino County in California, spurred by voters, have banned
 genetically modified organisms, but Boulder is the only city with such strong
 opposition to Roundup Ready sugar beets, said Luther Markwart, executive vice
 president of the growers association.
 "This is all theater for opposition to biotech," Markwart said.
 LOAD-DATE: October 5, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
        Copyright 2009 The Bismarck Tribune, a division of Lee Enterprises
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 333
 
                         Research & ResearchBreakingNews
                                   October 2009
 High Hopes and Altered Genes
 LENGTH: 1714  words
 HIGHLIGHT:Biotech has had a turbulent history. Its future is unlikely to be
 staid.
 Biotech has long been a high-risk, high-reward industry. It is an industry in
 which numerous firms, including many small-caps and start-ups, intensively
 research possible new products that could lead to high profits and rapid growth,
 but which also carry significant chances of never reaching any customers or
 generating any revenues.
 Biotech also has a history of being buffeted by the vicissitudes of politics.
 The industry has been a political lightning rod, with criticisms coming from
 diverse parts of the ideological spectrum; genetically modified foods have
 generated much opposition on the left, for example, while embryonic stem cells
 have met much resistance on the right.
 Health care reform efforts have repeatedly shown a capacity to roil biotech
 stocks. During the Clinton administration's reform push in the early 1990s,
 biotech stocks underperformed not only the broader market but also traditional
 pharmaceutical stocks on concerns that price controls would strip away profits
 from breakthrough drugs. The Obamacare debate also has fueled an up-and-down
 ride for biotech, albeit mitigated by expectations that health insurers, rather
 than biotech or drug firms, faced the greater vulnerabilities in the legislative
 maneuvering. Indeed, biotech got a boost from its summer victory in lobbying for
 extended patent protection for biological drugs.
 Nevertheless, a decade into the 21st century, this most futuristic of industries
 faces major financial challenges as well as political uncertainties. In May,
 merchant bank Burrill and Co. estimated that 135 out of 342 publicly traded
 biotech firms were operating with less than a year of cash, and that 42 percent
 of these were down to less than six months of cash.
 Unlike Big Pharma, which can fund much R&D from existing product sales, biotech
 firms typically depend heavily on equity financing. Yet biotech IPOs have become
 notably rare amid market volatility. Consequently, capital for the biotech
 sector has depended to a growing degree on acquisitions - with pharmaceutical
 companies buying large and small biotech firms, and large biotech firms
 absorbing smaller ones.
 Such transactions have included Roche's $47 billion takeover earlier this year
 of the remaining 44 percent of Genentech (in which it had long held a majority
 interest), Eli Lilly's acquisition of ImClone Systems in 2008, Gilead Science's
 purchase of CV Therapeutics earlier this year and Bristol-Myers Squibb's recent
 acquisition of Medarex.
 The industry's future profile thus may be different from its historical one,
 with more big players and fewer small ones. Still, any resulting moderation in
 the volatility of biotech stocks will likely be limited by the inherently
 uncertain nature of biotech research and by recurrent political clashes over the
 costs and uses of biotech products. Provided that political pressures do not
 actually cripple its capacity for innovation, biotech can be expected to remain
 an industry with high risks punctuated by occasional large payoffs.
 Biotech's Rise
 The roots of biotech can be traced back over centuries, involving such
 precursors as the fermentation of yeast in beer production. The modern biotech
 industry, though, began on April 7, 1976, when biochemist Herbert Boyer and
 venture capitalist Robert Swanson founded Genentech to develop drugs based on
 the technology of recombinant DNA, in which genes from multiple sources are
 combined into a single molecule. Boyer and geneticist Stanley Cohen had
 pioneered such gene splicing earlier in the decade.
 Genentech went public on Oct. 14, 1980, with 1 million shares offered at $35
 each. Investors bid the price up to $89 in a matter of minutes, and the stock
 closed for the day at $70. The company, by the way, at this point still had no
 actual products, though it had achieved some important laboratory milestones,
 such as cloning human insulin.
 This vivid demonstration of investor appetite for biotech opened the way for
 waves of new issues. Early entrants included Cetus (later part of Chiron, which
 in turn was bought by Novartis), which tapped the market for $107 million in
 March 1981. The pace of IPOs quickened in 1983, with Amgen and Biogen among the
 firms going public. A further surge of offerings in 1986 conveyed Genzyme and
 ImClone, among others.
 Increasingly, the biotech industry's products reached market as well. In 1982,
 Genentech's Humulin, a diabetes treatment using human insulin produced by
 genetically engineered bacteria, became the first biotech drug to get FDA
 approval. By the late 1980s, biotech drugs had been approved for illnesses
 ranging from cancer to heart disease to kidney transplant rejections.
 Industry revenues reached $8 billion in 1992. New biotech drugs in the early
 1990s included Amgen's Neupogen, to boost low white blood cells during
 chemotherapy, and Chiron's Betaseron, to treat multiple sclerosis. Biotech firms
 pushed into agriculture as well. Calgene's Flavr Savr tomato, with an added gene
 to resist rotting, was the first commercially available genetically modified
 food, arriving on supermarket shelves in 1994.
 The Clinton Effect
 The clash over the Clinton administration's health care reform effort
 demonstrated the vulnerability of biotech stocks to political pressures. The
 prospect of price controls on pharmaceuticals was particularly damaging, as it
 threatened to undercut the rationale for the huge up-front expenditures that
 biotech firms were making to develop new products.
 According to a 2007 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper by
 University of Connecticut finance professors Joseph H. Golec and John A. Vernon,
 biotech stocks dropped by 51 percent during a period in 1992-1993 when the
 Clinton proposal was developed and debated. Traditional pharmaceuticals were
 also hit but less hard, losing 32 percent, while broad market indicators gained
 by more than 10 percent.
 Biotech stocks began edging upward after the Clinton health care plan was
 defeated in the summer of 1994, and by the following year the industry was in a
 full-fledged rally. The Nasdaq Biotechnology Index rose 88.5 percent in 1995,
 compared to 37.6 percent for the S&P 500. Biotech then leveled off for a couple
 of years, with Nasdaq's sector index generating slight losses while the broad
 market continued to soar.
 The industry became decidedly hot again in the late 1990s. The Nasdaq biotech
 index registered gains of 44.3 percent in 1998 and 101.6 percent in 1999. This
 rise was not simply a side effect of the Internet boom, even though investor
 enthusiasm for all things technological helped boost biotech shares. Biotech now
 had a major portfolio of products with revenues (in contrast to many dot-com
 firms). By January 2000, there were 92 biotech drugs and vaccines on the market,
 and dozens more FDA approvals when counting new uses of existing drugs. Progress
 toward mapping the human genome was raising the prospect of a new frontier for
 the industry. Plus, biotech was pushing further into agriculture, with
 transgenic soybeans, corn and cotton among its products.
 New Century Tumult
 Biotech stocks continued surging early in 2000, with Nasdaq's biotech index
 closing at 1,596.53 on March 6. Nearly a decade later, that remains its all-time
 high. The index fell by 12 percent on March 14 after President Clinton and
 British Prime Minister Tony Blair sparked fears that their governments were
 broadly opposed to patenting gene-based products. (In fact, the politicians were
 merely noting that raw data of the human genome cannot be patented, but a
 misstatement by a White House spokesman fed the confusion.)
 The misunderstanding hastened a biotech stock slide driven by larger forces, as
 the dot-com bubble burst and the stock market overall lost momentum. The Nasdaq
 biotech index closed 2000 at 1,084.51 In the equity-averse years of 2001 and
 2002, the biotech benchmark lost 16.2 percent and 45.3 percent respectively,
 compared to drops of 11.9 percent and 22.1 percent for the S&P 500.
 In 2003, biotech staged a rebound, Nasdaq's index for the industry rising 45.7
 percent, outpacing the S&P 500's gain of 28.7 percent. But the biotech marker's
 annual returns over the next four years were in the single digits, consistently
 underperforming the overall market. In 2008, Nasdaq's biotech index fell another
 12.6 percent, making biotech a relatively tranquil sector amid the S&P
 benchmark's 37 percent drop.
 After starting 2009 around 730, the biotech index hit lows just above 600 in
 early March. Aiding the decline were concerns that a stepped-up government role
 in health insurance would bring new pressure to lower drug prices. The sector
 recovered in subsequent months, the index hitting 822 on August 4, shortly after
 the House and Senate passed amendments granting biotech firms 12 years of patent
 protection against generic competitors (the Obama administration had suggested a
 limit of seven years).
 As the health care conflict plays itself out, biotech stocks may undergo further
 gyrations in reaction to policy developments. As has long been the case, the
 biotech industry has much riding on what happens in politics, as well as in labs
 and clinical trials.
 Biotech's Diverse ETFs
 Exchange-traded funds offer a way to invest in biotech while reducing exposure
 to the hit-or-miss nature of the sector's individual stocks. Here are six ETFs
 focused on biotech:
 - iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology (IBB)
 - SPDR S&P Biotech (XBI)
 - Biotechnology HOLDRs (BBH)
 - First Trust Amex Biotechnology Trust (FBT)
 - PowerShares Dynamic Biotech & Genome (PBE)
 - PowerShares Global Biotech (PBTQ)
 The funds vary considerably in their holdings. IBB, which tracks the Nasdaq
 Biotechnology Index, holds over 120 stocks on a cap-weighted basis, giving broad
 exposure to the sector. FBT, tracking the NYSE Arca Biotechnology Index, holds
 20 stocks on an equal-weighted basis with quarterly rebalancing. BBH, a grantor
 trust, is highly concentrated, recently holding some 68 percent in two stocks
 (Amgen and Gilead).
 XBI, which tracks the S&P Biotechnology Select Index, holds some 25
 equal-weighted stocks. PBE focuses on 30 stocks, using a methodology that
 evaluates firms based on investment merit criteria. PBTQ, tracking the Nasdaq
 OMX Global Biotechnology Index, offers exposure to foreign as well as domestic
 biotech stocks.
 LOAD-DATE: May 7, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Magazine
                 Copyright 2009 The National Underwriter Company
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 334
 
                         Research & ResearchBreakingNews
                                   October 2009
 High Hopes and Altered Genes;
 Biotech has had a turbulent history. Its future is unlikely to be staid.
 SECTION: ISSUES October-1-2009
 LENGTH: 1713  words
 Biotech has long been a high-risk, high-reward industry. It is an industry in
 which numerous firms, including many small-caps and start-ups, intensively
 research possible new products that could lead to high profits and rapid growth,
 but which also carry significant chances of never reaching any customers or
 generating any revenues.
 Biotech also has a history of being buffeted by the vicissitudes of politics.
 The industry has been a political lightning rod, with criticisms coming from
 diverse parts of the ideological spectrum; genetically modified foods have
 generated much opposition on the left, for example, while embryonic stem cells
 have met much resistance on the right.
 Health care reform efforts have repeatedly shown a capacity to roil biotech
 stocks. During the Clinton administration's reform push in the early 1990s,
 biotech stocks underperformed not only the broader market but also traditional
 pharmaceutical stocks on concerns that price controls would strip away profits
 from breakthrough drugs. The Obamacare
 debate also has fueled an up-and-down ride for biotech, albeit mitigated by
 expectations that health insurers, rather than biotech or drug firms, faced the
 greater vulnerabilities in the legislative maneuvering. Indeed, biotech got a
 boost from its summer victory in lobbying for extended patent protection for
 biological drugs.
 Nevertheless, a decade into the 21st century, this most futuristic of industries
 faces major financial challenges as well as political uncertainties. In May,
 merchant bank Burrill and Co. estimated that 135 out of 342 publicly traded
 biotech firms were operating with less than a year of cash, and that 42 percent
 of these were down to less than six months of cash.
 Unlike Big Pharma, which can fund much R&D from existing product sales, biotech
 firms typically depend heavily on equity financing. Yet biotech IPOs have become
 notably rare amid market volatility. Consequently, capital for the biotech
 sector has depended to a growing degree on acquisitions - with pharmaceutical
 companies buying large and small biotech firms, and large biotech firms
 absorbing smaller ones.
 Such transactions have included Roche's $47 billion takeover earlier this year
 of the remaining 44 percent of Genentech (in which it had long held a majority
 interest), Eli Lilly's acquisition of ImClone Systems in 2008, Gilead Science's
 purchase of CV Therapeutics earlier this year and Bristol-Myers Squibb's recent
 acquisition of Medarex.
 The industry's future profile thus may be different from its historical one,
 with more big players and fewer small ones. Still, any resulting moderation in
 the volatility of biotech stocks will likely be limited by the inherently
 uncertain nature of biotech research and by recurrent political clashes over the
 costs and uses of biotech products. Provided that political pressures do not
 actually cripple its capacity for innovation, biotech can be expected to remain
 an industry with high risks punctuated by occasional large payoffs.
 Biotech's Rise
 The roots of biotech can be traced back over centuries, involving such
 precursors as the fermentation of yeast in beer production. The modern biotech
 industry, though, began on April 7, 1976, when biochemist Herbert Boyer and
 venture capitalist Robert Swanson founded Genentech to develop drugs based on
 the technology of recombinant DNA, in which genes from multiple sources are
 combined into a single molecule. Boyer and geneticist Stanley Cohen had
 pioneered such gene splicing earlier in the decade.
 Genentech went public on Oct. 14, 1980, with 1 million shares offered at $35
 each. Investors bid the price up to $89 in a matter of minutes, and the stock
 closed for the day at $70. The company, by the way, at this point still had no
 actual products, though it had achieved some important laboratory milestones,
 such as cloning human insulin.
 This vivid demonstration of investor appetite for biotech opened the way for
 waves of new issues. Early entrants included Cetus (later part of Chiron, which
 in turn was bought by Novartis), which tapped the market for $107 million in
 March 1981. The pace of IPOs quickened in 1983, with Amgen and Biogen among the
 firms going public. A further surge of offerings in 1986 conveyed Genzyme and
 ImClone, among others.
 Increasingly, the biotech industry's products reached market as well. In 1982,
 Genentech's Humulin, a diabetes treatment using human insulin produced by
 genetically engineered bacteria, became the first biotech drug to get FDA
 approval. By the late 1980s, biotech drugs had been approved for illnesses
 ranging from cancer to heart disease to kidney transplant rejections.
 Industry revenues reached $8 billion in 1992. New biotech drugs in the early
 1990s included Amgen's Neupogen, to boost low white blood cells during
 chemotherapy, and Chiron's Betaseron, to treat multiple sclerosis. Biotech firms
 pushed into agriculture as well. Calgene's Flavr Savr tomato, with an added gene
 to resist rotting, was the first commercially available genetically modified
 food, arriving on supermarket shelves in 1994.
 The Clinton Effect
 The clash over the Clinton administration's health care reform effort
 demonstrated the vulnerability of biotech stocks to political pressures. The
 prospect of price controls on pharmaceuticals was particularly damaging, as it
 threatened to undercut the rationale for the huge up-front expenditures that
 biotech firms were making to develop new products.
 According to a 2007 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper by
 University of Connecticut finance professors Joseph H. Golec and John A. Vernon,
 biotech stocks dropped by 51 percent during a period in 1992-1993 when the
 Clinton proposal was developed and debated. Traditional pharmaceuticals were
 also hit but less hard, losing 32 percent, while broad market indicators gained
 by more than 10 percent.
 Biotech stocks began edging upward after the Clinton health care plan was
 defeated in the summer of 1994, and by the fol
 lowing year the industry was in a full-fledged rally. The Nasdaq Biotechnology
 Index rose 88.5 percent in 1995, compared to 37.6 percent for the S&P 500.
 Biotech then leveled off for a couple of years, with Nasdaq's sector index
 generating slight losses while the broad market continued to soar.
 The industry became decidedly hot again in the late 1990s. The Nasdaq biotech
 index registered gains of 44.3 percent in 1998 and 101.6 percent in 1999. This
 rise was not simply a side effect of the Internet boom, even though investor
 enthusiasm for all things technological helped boost biotech shares. Biotech now
 had a major portfolio of products with revenues (in contrast to many dot-com
 firms). By January 2000, there were 92 biotech drugs and vaccines on the market,
 and dozens more FDA approvals when counting new uses of existing drugs. Progress
 toward mapping the human genome was raising the prospect of a new frontier for
 the industry. Plus, biotech was pushing further into agriculture, with
 transgenic soybeans, corn and cotton among its products.
 New Century Tumult
 Biotech stocks continued surging early in 2000, with Nasdaq's biotech index
 closing at 1,596.53 on March 6. Nearly a decade later, that remains its all-time
 high. The index fell by 12 percent on March 14 after President Clinton and
 British Prime Minister Tony Blair sparked fears that their governments were
 broadly opposed to patenting gene-based products. (In fact, the politicians were
 merely noting that raw data of the human genome cannot be patented, but a
 misstatement by a White House spokesman fed the confusion.)
 The misunderstanding hastened a biotech stock slide driven by larger forces, as
 the dot-com bubble burst and the stock market overall lost momentum. The Nasdaq
 biotech index closed 2000 at 1,084.51 In the equity-averse years of 2001 and
 2002, the biotech benchmark lost 16.2 percent and 45.3 percent respectively,
 compared to drops of 11.9 percent and 22.1 percent for the S&P 500.
 In 2003, biotech staged a rebound, Nasdaq's index for the industry rising 45.7
 percent, outpacing the S&P 500's gain of 28.7 percent. But the biotech marker's
 annual returns over the next four years were in the single digits, consistently
 underperforming the overall market. In 2008, Nasdaq's biotech index fell another
 12.6 percent, making biotech a relatively tranquil sector amid the S&P
 benchmark's 37 percent drop.
 After starting 2009 around 730, the biotech index hit lows just above 600 in
 early March. Aiding the decline were concerns that a stepped-up government role
 in health insurance would bring new pressure to lower drug prices. The sector
 recovered in subsequent months, the index hitting 822 on August 4, shortly after
 the House and Senate passed amendments granting biotech firms 12 years of patent
 protection against generic competitors (the Obama administration had suggested a
 limit of seven years).
 As the health care conflict plays itself out, biotech stocks may undergo further
 gyrations in reaction to policy developments. As has long been the case, the
 biotech industry has much riding on what happens in politics, as well as in labs
 and clinical trials.
 Biotech's Diverse ETFs
 xchange-traded funds offer a way to invest in biotech while reducing exposure to
 the hit-or-miss nature of the sector's individual stocks. Here are six ETFs
 focused on biotech:
 -iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology (IBB)
 - SPDR S&P Biotech (XBI)
 -Biotechnology HOLDRs (BBH)
 -First Trust Amex Biotechnology Trust (FBT)
 - PowerShares Dynamic Biotech & Genome (PBE)
 - PowerShares Global Biotech (PBTQ)
 The funds vary considerably in their holdings. IBB, which tracks the Nasdaq
 Biotechnology Index, holds over 120 stocks on a cap-weighted basis, giving broad
 exposure to the sector. FBT, tracking the NYSE Arca Biotechnology Index, holds
 20 stocks on an equal-weighted basis with quarterly rebalancing. BBH, a grantor
 trust, is highly concentrated, recently holding some 68 percent in two stocks
 (Amgen and Gilead).
 XBI, which tracks the S&P Biotechnology Select Index, holds some 25
 equal-weighted stocks. PBE focuses on 30 stocks, using a methodology that
 evaluates firms based on investment merit criteria. PBTQ, tracking the Nasdaq
 OMX Global Biotechnology Index, offers exposure to foreign as well as domestic
 biotech stocks.
 INSURANCE (69%); PATENTS (66%); MERCHANT BANKING (64%) stocks; biotech; biotech
 investing; 2009; etfs; ETFs; health care; health care reform; Clinton; Obama
 LOAD-DATE: January 20, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Magazine
                 Copyright 2009 The National Underwriter Company
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 335
 
                         Lincoln Journal Star (Nebraska)
                           September 30, 2009 Wednesday
 Letters to the Editor;
 SECTION: OPINION; Pg. B7
 LENGTH: 564 words
 How is it Lancaster County can spend millions on making sure those who break the
 law and go against society can live in new surroundings and enjoy three square
 meals a day, TV, etc., and now is considering spending $50,000 on a horse-racing
 survey, but it doesn't care about our frail and elderly?
 I just don't get it.
 Jon Smaha, Lincoln
 I was just wondering when the citizens of Lancaster County voted for the sale of
 the Lancaster Manor and when they authorized the county commissioners to pursue
 its sale? I must have been out of town when that vote came around, because I
 certainly don't recall going to the polls.
 I may be wrong about this, but I always have thought the county commissioners
 worked for the citizens of Lancaster County and not for their own agendas, as I
 believe the sale of the manor has become.
 If this is the case, I think we, the citizens of this county, should demand that
 the proposed sale of the manor be placed on a special ballot.
 Who profits from this sale? I don't think it will be the current residents of
 the manor nor the future residents, one of which may be me because I am a
 retired military veteran without the monies that will ensure my care as I age.
 The citizens of Lancaster County should stand up and not let these few board
 members decide the fate of our parents, grandparents, loved ones and possibly
 our own future care. We should find an experienced administrator with sound
 ethics and with the honesty and integrity to manage the facility.
 We shouldn't let outsiders in. We should keep the manor operated by the county.
 Jeannie G. Morehart, Hickman
 Regarding the article "Star Link risk appears dead, not buried" (Sept. 20),
 genetically modified foods are still a controversial issue. However, the article
 does not give that impression.
 A grain inspection official is quoted: "Here in the United States, people don't
 have a concern for food safety. If it's USDA approved, they take for granted
 that it's safe."
 Maybe there are many people in the United States not concerned about whether
 their food is safe because they just trust the government and big business.
 There are, on the other hand, many people who are concerned about the safety of
 food and are interested in purchasing organic, nongenetically modified foods.
 The documentary "Food, Inc." showed that the government and big business have
 not always done a good job of protecting our health.
 Jeffrey M. Smith, one of the world's leading experts on genetically modified
 foods, explains what is meant by the term "genetically modified.""They're
 inserted with bacterial genes that allow them to survive otherwise deadly doses
 of poisonous herbicide." Plants may be inserted with a variety of genes, not
 necessarily bacteria.
 What are some concerns with genetically modified crops? The government allows
 these foods on the market with no requirements for testing.
 It is interesting that farmers have stated that when given an option of two
 identical-looking crops, animals will not eat the genetically modified crop.
 Contrary to what the article stated, allergies to genetically modified foods are
 not a thing of the past."It is noteworthy that children with autism are often
 allergic to corn and soy," Smith said in an article published a month ago. Corn
 and soy are the two most common foods that are genetically modified.
 Craig Imig, Lincoln
 LOAD-DATE: September 30, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2009 Lincoln Journal Star
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 336
 
                            Denver Westword (Colorado)
                           September 24, 2009 Thursday
 Chef Elise Wiggins wants you to feel good about food
 BYLINE: Lori Midson
 LENGTH: 1950  words
 I want people's eyes to roll into the back of their heads when they eat my
 food," says Elise Wiggins, the ber-talented executive chef of Panzano, a
 Northern Italian restaurant in the Hotel Monaco. Food, like sex, should always
 be sensual, she explains. The lovely Louisiana native would put her hands in
 different foods to familiarize herself with textures, and always knew that she'd
 like to be a chef. "Ever since I can remember, I've wanted to cook," says
 Wiggins, who cooked in kitchens throughout South America, Mexico and the South
 and ended up in Colorado because of intuition. "I had this calling at a young
 age that I wanted to cook in Colorado. This is where I want to live and die. My
 soul is here."
 And so are her cattle. Wiggins recently partnered exclusively with John and
 Debbie Medved, who raise certified Black Angus steers and Scottish Highlands
 cattle at their Bear Mountain Ranch in Genesee. Wiggins is now buying entire
 steers from the ranch for Panzano, with the intent of utilizing as much of the
 steer, from nose to tail, as possible. "I'm a country girl, and when I was
 growing up, we'd break down the whole animal," says Wiggins. "We didn't waste
 much of anything."
 And that seems to be Wiggins's motto: Waste not, want not. I recently sat down
 with the Panzano chef over coffee and telling tarot-card readings to talk about
 her new beef partnership with the Medveds, her aversion to yelling and throwing
 plates in the kitchen, her disdain for bulls' testicles and her admiration for
 Julia Child.
 Six words to describe your food: Big, bold, umami, multi-layered, texturally
 complex.
 Ten words to describe you: Naughty, energetic, loyal, passionate, creative,
 adventurous, competitive, driven, playful and direct.
 Culinary inspirations: Julia Child. I didn't watch Sesame Street as a child; I
 watched Julia Child cook. She was so much fun - she took the stuffiness out of
 cooking. I want to be her...
 Proudest moment as a chef: I was a line cook at a Dallas restaurant called
 Grotto when, for the first time since I'd been cooking, I cooked something - a
 duck sausage that we stuffed - that was totally mine, and the customers loved
 it. Not long after that night, we put that dish on the menu. It was such a
 feel-good moment for me, with lots of oohs and aahs.
 Favorite ingredient: Pesto. It goes with everything - steaks, pasta, eggs,
 seafood, you name it. Right now at the restaurant I'm doing a bisteca with pesto
 and arugula salad, and it's the number-one best-seller on the menu. It's so
 light and refreshing that it can take something heavy like a steak and make it
 lighter. I don't know why pesto isn't the next condiment...like ranch.
 Favorite Colorado product: My beef. It's raised for me organically in the
 foothills on a ranch with 600 acres of open field. They feed on Colorado alfalfa
 hay - the Cadillac of all feed - finished with corn, and the beef has a shocking
 amount of marbling and tastes fabulous.
 Most overrated ingredient: Filet mignon. It's the most expensive cut of meat -
 all because of demand - and yet it doesn't have any fat, so it doesn't have any
 flavor. It's just soft...and that's it. Customers will sometimes ask for it, but
 I refuse to have it my menu. That's where I draw the line.
 Most undervalued ingredient: Outside skirt steak. It's got so much marbling, and
 it's not only tender, juicy and full of fatty flavor, but you can cook it until
 it's completely done and it will still taste great - plus it's cheap.
 Best food city in America: Yikes. That's hard, but I love Atlanta because of the
 farm mecca that surrounds it - and because of the long growing season, chefs can
 get whatever fruit and vegetables they want. It's a great place for livestock,
 too. Then there's Seattle, where you can catch your fish right out of the water
 and have it on your plate that same day. The fish tastes just like ocean, and
 it's all right there in front of you. There's no shelf life.
 Favorite music to cook by: Billie Holiday. She's sultry and romantic, which is
 usually how I feel when I'm cooking.
 Rules of conduct in your kitchen: My staff can't come in with an attitude. If
 they're the least bit pissy, I won't let them on the line; they can either go
 home or check it. I'm really lucky, though, because the crew that I have is so
 congenial. We have an open kitchen at Panzano, and I insist that it be a happy
 place to cook - that you must be in a happy place emotionally. I also tell
 everyone that I want them fat, which is why each person at every station has a
 spoon so they can taste the food. I can seriously turn into the devil if my crew
 isn't trying the food while they're cooking. I'm a Nazi about that. And If I
 catch someone trying to pass something over me - and then call them on it -
 their eyes turn into puppy eyes. I always tell my staff: Don't make my head pop
 off and land in Mississippi.
 Favorite New York restaurant: I could go on and on about my favorite New York
 restaurants...but I love the straightforward and classic approach to food at the
 Spotted Pig. And I love the rustic Italian food at Babbo, which has got to be
 one of the only restaurants where you can serve calf's-brains ravioli and
 actually make money from it. Gramercy Tavern is consistently really fantastic,
 too, with an almost infallible, tried-and-true technique. If you order a steak
 at a certain temp at Gramercy Tavern, that's how you're going to get it every
 time.
 One food you detest: Bulls' balls. I don't like the taste at all. Maybe that's
 why I'm a lesbian.
 One food you can't live without: Louisiana hot-pepper sauce. I'll put it on
 pizza, eggs and on a lot of comfort foods, like red beans and rice. You can make
 the worst thing in the world palatable with pepper sauce.
 Most embarrassing moment in the kitchen: It was 2001, and I was the executive
 chef at Palio, a four-diamond Westin resort restaurant in Puerto Rico. The chefs
 were assigned uniforms consisting of black jackets and polyester pants - pants
 that no one had told me needed to get stitched again because they were so cheap
 that they'd unravel after a couple of washings. So one day I'm leaning forward
 while talking to my cooks through the pass-out line with my legs spread and my
 butt facing the dining rooms and servers stations, and I keep overhearing the
 male servers saying, "Mira! Mira!" which means, "Look! Look!" But every time I'd
 turn around, they'd quickly turn away and act like nothing had happened.
 Finally, a female manager from another restaurant whispered in my ear, "Nice
 ass!" I thought she was joking and shrugged it off, but she said, "No, no, your
 pants are split and you can see everything!" I jolted upright, threw my hands
 around to my backside and completely felt everything exposed from the top of my
 belt loop to the very middle of my crotch where the seams are sewn together. The
 kicker was that I wasn't wearing underwear. It's hysterical when I think about
 it now, but when it happened, I was mortified and wanted to crawl into a hole.
 What you'd like to see more of in Denver from a culinary standpoint: Creative
 gluten-free dishes. Celiac disease and wheat allergies are on the rise, and more
 and more people are being diagnosed every day. Wheat's in so many things - ice
 cream, Tabasco, soy sauce, Twizzlers - and we're putting way too much of it into
 our bodies, and our bodies are starting to reject it.
 What you'd like to see less of in Denver from a culinary standpoint: Use of
 products that have pesticides and hormones, and genetically modified foods.
 Denver has the best: Ethnic food. I really love Denver's authentic little
 pockets of ethnic restaurants. Sahara, El Taco de Mexico and Little India's are
 some of my favorites.
 Denver has the worst: Cajun French. I'm not talking about places like Bayou
 Bob's or Lucile's (love their biscuits, though), but about refined Cajun/Creole
 food - that collection of old and different cultures that are fused together.
 Favorite cookbooks: Pork and Sons, by Stphane Reynaud; Bones: Recipes, History
 and Lore, a cookbook by Jennifer Mclagan that uses alternative parts of the
 animal that most people have never even thought to use; The Splendid Table, by
 Lynne Rossetto Kasper, because all the recipes have a history behind them and
 the Italians are wonderful storytellers; and Raw Food: Real World, a cookbook by
 Matthew Kenney and Sarma Melngailis that teaches you how to get full nutrition
 with full flavors from raw foods. It's also a book that really challenges me to
 use different techniques at the restaurant.
 What show would you pitch to the Food Network? I'd love to do a show that's a
 cross between The Great Race and Top Chef. Chefs would be dropped off in one
 country with a limited amount of money and have to travel to another country to
 cook the ultimate meal, while collecting exotic ingredients along the way that
 they'd also have to transport to their final destination. No travel by car or
 plane would be allowed, so the chefs would have to get to each country by
 motorcycles or rail or kayaks - all without letting their food perish. They'd
 have 48 hours to accomplish this, and that would include the time it takes to
 prepare the final meal. The other kicker is that each contest would utilize a
 different cooking method.
 Weirdest thing you've ever eaten: Chapulines in Oaxaca. They're fried
 grasshoppers, and I've got this mental block when it comes to eating bugs. It
 grosses me out, but I'll try anything once.
 Current Denver culinary genius: There's such diversity here that I could give
 you a litany of people who deserve props, even though guests tell me all the
 time that we haven't been given enough credit for our culinary talent. I
 honestly can't name just one or two chefs, because there are so many. I will
 say, though, that John Imbergamo, who does our PR, is amazing. The man is like
 an octopus; he has his hands in everything. He's so deeply connected and never
 betrays a confidence, which is something I really respect. He's a superstar.
 You're making a pizza. What's on it? Anchovies, peppers and pepperoni.
 You're making an omelet. What's in it? Crispy housemade pancetta and Fontina
 cheese.
 After-work hangout: My home. I pull fifteen-hour days, plus I work at a lot of
 fundraisers, and the last thing I want to do at the end of a long day is stay
 out late and feel lousy in the morning. I'll watch CNN for a little bit, talk to
 my girlfriend, read a bit and go to bed.
 Favorite Denver restaurant other than your own: Potager. It's perfectly executed
 food with minimal manipulation. Chef Terri Ripetto perfectly pairs ingredients
 and then lets them speak for themselves.
 Favorite celebrity chef: Julia Child. I know she's gone, but she was the best -
 so funny, entertaining and informative. There will never be another chef as good
 as she was.
 Celebrity chef that should shut up: Giada De Laurentiis. I get it. I know that
 guys love her. And I like boobs and all, but that's all they show when she
 cooks. It drives me nuts.
 Hardest lesson you've learned: You can't lead a team by force. When I was coming
 up through the ranks and cooking with Germans and Italians screaming at me and
 throwing plates, I realized that they were using fear to try and get the best
 out of me, but instead I was always nervous and would screw up even worse; I'd
 never get optimum results. I demand perfection, but I never yell, because
 yelling doesn't motivate people. I want my team to succeed, and I believe in
 pushing people, but instead of using force and yelling, I always ask, "Where's
 your love? That's not enough love."
 What's next for you? Win the lottery and open my own restaurant. At some point,
 I'd really like to do an upscale Louisiana, Southern-style place with things
 like tasso and boudin blanc.
 LOAD-DATE: September 24, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: den
                       Copyright 2009 Denver Westword, LLC
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 337
 
                         The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon)
                           September 23, 2009 Wednesday
                                 Sunrise Edition
 Vigor Marine wins job to refurbish ship Judge rules against Monsanto on seeds
 BYLINE: Jonathan Brinckman; Scott Learn, The Oregonian
 SECTION: Business
 LENGTH: 464 words
 Vigor Marine wins job to refurbish ship
 Vigor Marine, a ship repair company on Swan Island, on Tuesday was awarded a
 $13.1 million contract to upgrade and refurbish one of the ships that the
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration plans to relocate to Newport.
 The work, slated to begin this October and end in November 2010, will include
 upgrading the hydrographic system of the 231-foot Rainier, as well as working on
 the engine and making structural repairs.
 Vigor Marine is owned by Portland-based Vigor Industrial, which employs between
 300 and 600 on Swan Island. Vigor Industrial also owns Cascade General, the
 Shipyard Commerce Center and Specialty Finishes, all in the Portland Shipyard on
 Swan Island.
 "This is a major, major project," said Amy Hill, a spokeswoman for Vigor
 Industrial. "It helps us stay strong in a very difficult time."
 The contact was half funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
 2009, known as the stimulus act. The shipyard also received $1.6 million in
 stimulus act funds for five upgrade projects.
 The 42-year-old Rainier, designed and outfitted for conducting coastal
 hydrographic surveys, is slated to relocate from Seattle to Newport in 2011.
 -- Jonathan Brinckman
 Judge rules against Monsanto on seeds
 Regulators improperly granted agricultural giant Monsanto permission to freely
 sell genetically engineered sugar beets and seeds, a federal judge has ruled in
 a lawsuit that sprang from the Willamette Valley.
 U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White on Monday agreed with arguments from
 Willamette Valley organic seed growers that wind-born pollen from the transgenic
 plants --engineered to resist Roundup, a Monsanto herbicide --could contaminate
 their crops.
 "This Court finds that the potential elimination of farmer's choice to grow
 nongenetically engineered crops, or a consumer's choice to eat nongenetically
 engineered food . . . has a significant effect on the human environment," White
 wrote.
 The U.S. Department of Agriculture should have conducted a full environmental
 impact analysis that considered those issues before it deregulated genetically
 engineered sugar beets in 2006, White said.
 Oregon doesn't grow many sugar beets, which supply about half the nation's
 sugar. But the Willamette Valley is the nation's main source of sugar beet
 seeds, with up to 5,000 acres devoted to their production.
 The Center for Food Safety, Earthjustice, the Organic Seed Alliance and other
 advocacy groups sued the USDA last year over the sugar beets' deregulation.
 In October, they will ask White to suspend planting of genetically modified
 sugar beets and sugar beet seeds until an environmental impact statement is
 prepared, said Andrew Kimbrell, the center's executive director. That would
 affect next spring's plantings.
 -- Scott Learn
 LOAD-DATE: October 9, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                           Copyright 2009 The Oregonian
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 338
 
                     The San Francisco Chronicle (California)
                           September 23, 2009 Wednesday
                                  FINAL Edition
 Judge strikes down USDA approval of genetically modified sugar beets;
 BYLINE: Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
 SECTION: Metro; Pg. D2
 LENGTH: 581 words
 The government illegally approved a genetically modified, herbicide-resistant
 strain of sugar beets without adequately considering the chance they will
 contaminate other beet crops, a federal judge in San Francisco has ruled.
 The ruling by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White rejected the U.S. Department of
 Agriculture's decision in 2005 to allow Monsanto Co. to sell the sugar beets,
 known as "Roundup-Ready" because they are engineered to coexist with Monsanto's
 Roundup herbicide.
 Sugar beets produce 30 percent of the world's sugar and, according to consumer
 groups, half the granulated sugar in the United States. This year's planting,
 centered in Oregon's Willamette Valley, is the first to include a full crop of
 the Monsanto product.
 White said the USDA, in concluding that the new crop would have no significant
 environmental effects, discounted the likelihood that wind-borne pollen would
 spread to fields where conventional sugar beets, table beets and the beet
 variety known as Swiss chard are grown.
 Planting genetically modified sugar beets has a "significant effect" on the
 environment, White said in his ruling Monday, because of "the potential
 elimination of a farmer's choice to grow non-genetically engineered crops, or a
 consumer's choice to eat non-genetically engineered food."
 He said the department must prepare an environmental impact statement, which
 would include public input.
 White did not immediately prohibit distribution of the genetically modified
 sugar beets, but a lawyer for plaintiffs in the case said they would ask the
 judge for an injunction against sales until the review was completed.
 The ruling "sends a very clear message to the USDA to protect American farmers
 and consumers and not the interests of Monsanto," said Kevin Golden, a San
 Francisco attorney for the nonprofit Center for Food Safety, which opposes
 genetically modified foods and supports organic farming.
 Golden said the ruling could also affect herbicide use, because the
 Environmental Protection Agency has allowed more herbicide spraying in areas
 where the resistant crops are grown.
 Representatives of the Agriculture Department and Monsanto were unavailable for
 comment. Luther Markwart, spokesman for the 10,000-member American Sugar Beet
 Growers Association, said the group is "looking forward to aggressively
 advocating" for farmers who want to use the altered beets.
 The ruling followed a similar decision in 2007 by another federal judge in San
 Francisco, Charles Breyer, to halt the nationwide planting of Monsanto's
 genetically engineered strain of alfalfa until the USDA conducted an
 environmental study. A federal appeals court upheld Breyer's decision last year.
 The department's 2005 decision on sugar beets acknowledged that pollen from the
 genetically modified crop could spread to other beet crops. But the USDA said
 farmers would not be harmed because they would still be able to buy
 non-genetically modified seeds.
 White, however, cited studies that said winds can carry sugar beet pollen at
 least 2 1/2 miles, much farther than the voluntary buffer zones between beet
 crops recommended by Oregon agriculture officials.
 He said the department had failed to consider the economic effects of its
 decision and had provided no evidence for its conclusion that non-genetically
 modified sugar beets would remain available to farmers.
 "The ruling "sends a very clear message to the USDA to protect American farmers
 and consumers."
 Kevin Golden, attorney, Center for Food Safety
 PERSON: Jeffrey White
 LOAD-DATE: September 23, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2009 San Francisco Chronicle
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 339
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                           September 23, 2009 Wednesday
 Sugar beets need more study Judge rules USDA improperly approved genetically
 modified sugar beets.
 BYLINE: BY jeffrey tomich o jtomich@post-dispatch.com > 314-340-8320
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A12
 LENGTH: 471 words
 A federal judge ruled the U.S. Department of Agriculture improperly approved
 genetically modified sugar beets in 2005 and ordered the agency to conduct a
 more exhaustive study of the crop's environmental impact.
 The decision on Monday by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White in San Francisco
 represents the second victory for opponents of genetically modified foods in the
 span of a few months. It is also represents another possible setback for Creve
 Coeur-based Monsanto Co., the biotech giant striving to expand its offering of
 crops that are resistant to Roundup Ready herbicide.
 In June, a federal appeals court upheld a 2-year-old ban on Monsanto's biotech
 alfalfa. In both cases, courts ruled that regulators must conduct a more
 thorough review of genetically modified crops before approving them.
 Monsanto spokesman Garrett Kasper said Judge White's order found fault with the
 procedure used by the Agriculture Department, not "the safety or efficacy of
 Roundup Ready sugar beets."
 The ruling doesn't affect the company's ability to license its Roundup Ready
 technology for sugar beets. For now, seed companies can continue to sell the
 seed and growers can continue to plant it, Kasper said.
 About 30 percent of the world's refined sugar comes from sugar beets. And in
 just four years after their introduction, Roundup Ready sugar beets are planted
 on more than 1 million acres, or 95 percent of the total sugar beet acreage in
 North America, according to Monsanto.
 The beets were genetically engineered to withstand applications of glyphosate
 herbicide.
 The Washington D.C.-based Center for Food Safety and other environmental groups
 and organic seed companies filed a lawsuit in January 2008. The plaintiffs
 claimed the Agriculture Department violated federal law by deregulating the
 beets without sufficiently studying the environmental impact and the potential
 consequences for growers whose fields may be contaminated by cross-pollination.
 Oregon's Willamette Valley produces almost all of the nation's sugar beet seed,
 and is a major source of seed for red table beets and chard. Plaintiffs argued
 that the genetically modified seed could contaminate non-GM seed and devastate
 organic farmers.
 "Organic seed growers are directly threatened, and the USDA failed to protect
 those farmers and the consumers who want to eat their food," said Zelig Golden,
 staff attorney for Center for Food Safety in San Francisco.
 Plaintiffs also argued that genetically modified sugar beets would lead to more
 glyphosate residue in sugar and encourage farmers to apply more weed killer to
 their fields, promoting the development of herbicide-resistant "super weeds."
 Attorneys for Monsanto, the sugar beet industry, regulators and Center for Food
 Safety are scheduled to return to court in late October to discuss the remedies
 phase of the case.
 LOAD-DATE: September 23, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2009 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 340
 
                                 University Wire
                           September 23, 2009 Wednesday
 Freedom Conference allows organizers to vent about G-20
 BYLINE: By Caitlyn Christensen, The Pitt News; SOURCE: U. Pittsburgh
 LENGTH: 673 words
 A grassroots coalition concerned with world economic issues hosted the 2009
 Freedom Conference at Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Hall yesterday evening.
 "We are coming here out of fear of big government," organizer Michael McMullen
 said. "We are a broad-based coalition of conservative groups seeking
 alternatives to the G-20."
 McMullen said close to 450 tickets were sold for the event, but there were fewer
 than 100 people in attendance.
 Keynote speaker G. Edward Griffin compared the United States government to a
 genie granting the wishes of the American people.
 "We should be careful what we wish for," Griffin said. "Americans are making the
 wish to the government genie for unlimited quantities of money to protect them
 from hardships. Instead, they are getting unlimited quantities of money that
 limit their personal freedoms."
 Griffin wrote a book about the foundation and corruption of the Federal Reserve
 System. In his talk, he cited the Federal Reserve as the source of the economic
 crisis, an accusation which feature speaker Thomas E. Woods supported.
 Woods, a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, called for auditing a
 Federal Reserve System that can "make money out of thin air."
 "The failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are small potatoes compared to the
 Reserve," Woods said, citing central banks as the cause of economic instability.
 Woods said the G-20 is the final stepping stone in the process to replace the
 dollar with a new global currency.
 "People aren't falling for it anymore," Woods said. "The government wants to
 limit our currency. When you have a world currency, you're stuck. You can't flee
 anywhere."
 "A giant prison is the model for all of this," Woods said.
 Woods apologized to Pittsburgh for having to host the G-20 Summit.
 "I'm sorry you have to be here for the G-20," Woods said. "What a scam."
 Featured speaker Joan Veon, an independent international reporter, said the
 United Nations is seeking to erase the barriers between countries to "create a
 new world order." Veon said the G-20 is finalizing country interdependence.
 "They who control the central banks of the world control the entire world and
 its people," Veon said. "He who has the gold makes the rules."
 She said that a global economic conspiracy stretched back to the 1970s, with
 Nixon taking the United States off the gold standard. The G-20's proposal of a
 "new global currency" is another step in limiting national sovereignty, leaving
 countries with no barriers and "nothing protecting its citizens."
 "My only advice is to plan for the unexpected at home, work and church," Veon
 said. "Cry out to God to help us."
 She concluded her talk by quoting biblical Psalm 37:4-5, "Delight yourself in
 the Lord and commit your way to him."
 Audience member Diane Spicher attended the event to obtain an "unbiased"
 perspective on the G-20 Summit.
 "We feel that our republic is in jeopardy. We have to fight attacks against our
 Constitution, limiting our right to bear arms, taking and taking more and more
 of our liberties," Spicher said.
 Audra Weiss, who assisted in coordinating the event, said it's very important to
 understand the concept of globalization because of its hidden implications.
 "The agenda of globalization is eugenics," Weiss said. "The people who fund the
 UN want to fund eugenics."
 Weiss said that the United Nations is already practicing eugenics through the
 fluoridation of water, vaccines and genetically modified food
 "It's all part of the agenda to control the population," Weiss said.
 Veon briefly referred to the purported United Nation's eugenics practices in her
 speech, but she did not expand upon the matter.
 Herman Bauer attended the event for educational purposes and said that he agreed
 with most of what was said at the event.
 "That's not panic in there-that's unbridled, ugly truth," Bauer said. "Reports
 on the economy are being falsified. Whether or not this is true, time will tell.
 But we can already see that balance of power in the world has ended. Politics is
 now a two-party race."
 (C) 2008 The Pitt News via UWIRE
 LOAD-DATE: September 23, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                     Copyright 2009 The Pitt News via U-Wire









Document Number: 341
 
                   Wisconsin State Journal (Madison, Wisconsin)
                           September 23, 2009 Wednesday
 SECTION: OPINION; Pg. A12
 LENGTH: 1042 words
 According to his Friday guest column, dairy farmer and Wisconsin Farm Bureau
 Federation president Bill Bruins wants people to think some of us are uninformed
 about the source of our food or that we are against Wisconsin farmers' success.
 It seems that for the federation, it's all about the money. That mindset creates
 megafarms that look more like factories than farms.
 Has Bruins been to the Dane County Farmers Market? Most of those farmers do not
 use chemicals to grow food. Where is the support for sustainable or organic
 farming from the federation? Go to their Web site ( www.wfbf.com/ ) and search
 "organic" or "sustainable." As expected - "no results found."
 Look at the overgrowth of lake algae fed by fertilizers from our yards and
 farms. How much effort has the federation put into changing farm practice to
 protect our lakes, streams and drinking water?
 Their concern is how much they contribute to Wisconsin exports. That's great,
 but there are limits.
 Michael Pollan is expressing the concerns we have as Wisconsinites and Americans
 about our health, food and planet.
 - Ross Shrago, Madison
 U.S. ignores effects of modified foods
 Bill Bruins claims Michael Pollan's focus on sustainability doesn't consider how
 modern agriculture brings billions of dollars and jobs to Wisconsin. He says
 Pollan's plan "would starve much of the world and require the rest to spend more
 time and money in pursuit of food."
 Bruins' views are typical of those who support conventional "genetically
 modified" seed technology used in the majority of industrial food. They talk
 profit, not health or safety.
 Europe, Canada and dozens of other countries banned the same GM foods that go
 unlabeled in U.S. grocery stores. The Food and Drug Administration, assured only
 by Monsanto, requires no human safety studies for its altered foods. Animal
 studies, however, show toxicity to every organ system.
 While Bruins says Pollan's ideas are "narrow and elitist," Pollan has appeared
 at Monsanto-sponsored conferences. Studies show organic techniques can produce
 more food per acre.
 Perhaps Bruins should meet with Pollan and discuss industrial versus sustainable
 food systems. Pollan will be at Madison's Food For Thought Festival on Saturday.
 - Rosanne Lindsay, Fitchburg
 Raise awareness of stem cell research
 Today is stem cell awareness day, a time to inform the public and generate grass
 roots support for research. The future of stem cell research holds great promise
 for curing chronic diseases such as diabetes, arthritis, Alzheimer's,
 Parkinson's and more.
 My family, like most others, has experienced the daily heartaches and challenges
 caused by one or more chronic diseases. My decision to become a patient advocate
 for stem cell research funding and regenerative medicine is both personal and
 public.
 Last year America spent $2.3 trillion on health care costs, 75 percent of which
 was due to chronic, currently incurable illnesses. This money could better be
 spent on education and cell-based science.
 For ideas on how you or your health care organization can advocate for stem cell
 funding: danecountyalmanac.blogspot.com/.
 - Bill Benedict, Madison
 Catholic traditions created by man
 More than a few things bothered me about Sunday's article about the Society of
 Jesus Christ the Priest, none more than the Rev. Alfonso Galvez's statements
 regarding the "quality" of seminarians (calling them weak spirited) and newly
 ordained priests and his disregard for the role of women in the liturgy.
 He also advocates a return to tradition, calling the post-Vatican II period a
 time when the church "found herself invaded by liberal Protestant theology and
 by various currents of Marxist ideology." What?
 This tradition with all its superficial trappings and requirements was created
 by man, not Christ. The last time I checked, Christ was not Catholic. He said,
 in Mark 2:27, "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
 God does not have an inferiority complex to worry about how we worship. What God
 needs is for us to deliver Christ's message of peace, love, unity, compassion
 and generosity. That's why I'm Catholic.
 Live your faith. Wrap yourself in Christ, not tradition.
 - Lee Haas, Madison
 Embrace teachings that upheld church
 The Catholic mass has ties to ancient Rome. Failing to observe those traditions
 by complying with the latest cultural trends and pandering to those who want the
 Holy See to bend centuries of custom to suit their personal views will turn the
 Catholic church into just another Protestant church with kneeling.
 Those who have become unhappy with their Catholic church becoming so Catholic
 should reevaluate their faith and look into the several dozens of
 Christian-based faiths that have embraced a "modern" view on religion.
 The very definition of being a Roman Catholic is to embrace the traditions and
 teachings of the Vatican and recognize the Pope as the Vicarius Christi. Any
 group, such as the Society of Jesus Christ the Priest, that brings me closer to
 the traditions of the Latin rite earns my respect and support.
 In a world that changes for the worse every day toward a future that is bleak at
 best, can't we have one ancient tradition that has withstood wars, famines and
 plagues as proof that the human spirit can persevere? You don't have to be a
 Roman Catholic to appreciate that.
 - Brian Lee, Madison
 Now who will trust U.S. government?
 Can the world trust the United States government?
 Polish and Czech leaders took great political risks by agreeing to allow the
 U.S. to build defensive missile emplacements in their countries to protect
 Europe and the U.S. against Iranian missiles.
 Within our territory, CIA officers conducted interrogations of terrorists
 responsible for the killing of thousands of U.S. citizens - using techniques
 approved by the legal counsel of the administration in power at the time - and
 known to have prevented more attacks.
 The Obama administration has pulled the rug out from the Poles and Czechs, and
 the CIA. The Pole and Czech leaders were embarrassed politically, and CIA
 officers were threatened with prison.
 Who, on either side of the ocean, will now trust the U.S. government enough to
 make serious commitments to further the war on terror and help protect us from
 rogue states?
 - Dean B. Smith, Madison
 LOAD-DATE: September 25, 2009
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Letter
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                     Copyright 2009 Madison Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 342
 
                      The Post-Standard (Syracuse, New York)
                            September 22, 2009 Tuesday
 SECTION: CNY; WEIGHING-IN; Pg. C2
 LENGTH: 546 words
 Words cannot adequately describe the sick-to-my-stomach feeling I experienced
 after seeing the film documentary "Food, Inc."
 It's been described as powerful, passionate and eye-opening by critics, and it
 is. The film is playing at 7:30 p.m. Wednesday at the Manlius Art Cinema.
 Divided into chapters, the film takes viewers into slaughterhouses and a Tyson
 chicken-processing plant and details corporate agri-business tactics that
 threaten farmers. It also explains how obesity, diabetes and fast food are
 related.
 Not only did I witness the deterioration of almost the entire food chain on
 which I survive, I was troubled with the role I played as an insistent consumer
 of "bigger, faster, cheaper ... please."
 Since viewing "Food, Inc.," the words "factory farms" and "GMOs (genetically
 modified organisms)" are foremost in my thoughts and now guide what I purchase
 to eat.
 I thought I was a shining example of health and wellness by eating enormous
 salads, double portions of vegetables and endless fresh fruit, year round. Yet,
 I was clueless about the genetically modified vegetables I was devouring. And I
 had never considered where on earth summer fruit originates in the middle of
 December in Central New York.
 Hoping that someone still lets cows graze on grass and chickens run around
 outside breathing fresh air somewhere, I turned to the Internet to find some
 local farms, and I found dozens.
 Thankfully, many farms in our area still farm the way I remember farming,
 without seeds that are modified to grow food faster and cheaper. I sent them
 desperate e-mails begging for advice. All of the local farmers responded; some
 even invited me to come and meet their cows. I wanted to replace the pictures
 still haunting me from "Food, Inc."
 I visited Creekside Meadows Farms in Tully -- and breathed a sigh of relief. Who
 would have ever thought I would be happy to see cows eat grass? Freezers line
 the insides of an empty barn there, and I purchased soup bones and a free-range,
 chemical-free chicken. That chicken was the first chicken in more than 20 years
 that did not give me indigestion. What was in my previous chickens that always
 made me sick?
 Another understanding I got from "Food, Inc" is just how expensive all of that
 "cheap" food really is to our society.
 We don't save any money eating chemical-laden fast food, which wrecks havoc on
 our bodies, even if it does cost less than fruits and vegetables and whole
 grains. What we save at the checkout comes back twofold in medical bills.
 The best part of "Food, Inc." is its message of hope, that we have the power,
 the control and the ability to dictate what the food industry will feed us with
 the purchases we make.
 Everything we buy is tracked and recorded. By purchasing chemical-free food,
 homegrown produce and local livestock from the remaining independent farmers, we
 send a strong message of demand. We can come out of this as winners.
 Supporting local farms, purchasing local produce and chemical-free food is now a
 big part of my journey to better health. I am thankful for the memory of "Food,
 Inc." will haunt me for years to come.
 Bunny Dimmel, of Liverpool, is a teacher for the Syracuse school district who
 has lost more than 250 pounds. She weighs in every other week. Reach her through
 asmith@syracuse.com
 LOAD-DATE: September 23, 2009
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO Courtesy of Magnolia Pictures THE FILM "Food, Inc." is a
 documentary about the nation's food industry and its effects on our health and
 environment. It plays Wednesday at the Manlius Art Cinema.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                           Copyright 2009 Post-Standard
                               All Rights Reserved
                               All Rights Reserved.









Document Number: 343
 
                         Lincoln Journal Star (Nebraska)
                            September 20, 2009 Sunday
 StarLink risk appears dead, not buried;
 Ten years ago, the state dealt with a panic when genetically modified corn hit
 food supply.
 SECTION: FRONT PAGE; Pg. A1
 LENGTH: 959 words
 Ten years ago, Nebraska farmers worked their way through corn harvest, hauled
 off 1.15 billion bushels to sale or storage, and put their graingathering
 equipment away for the winter.
 It all seemed normal enough.
 But normalcy started to unravel the next summer, when a genetically modified
 variety of corn called StarLink turned up in Taco Bell taco shells and then in
 loads of corn delivered to grain elevators and other delivery points in the
 state.
 The trouble, in the early days of biotechnology, was that StarLink was not
 approved for human food use. It was not supposed to be in food-processing
 plants, and it was not supposed to be co- mingled with the supply of
 conventional corn.
 And trouble quickly rolled up to the front door of the Lincoln Inspection
 Service, licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to do grain quality
 tests in Southeast Nebraska.
 Corn purchasers scrambled to find corn not contaminated with StarLink.
 "It was a complete fiasco here, you might say," said Carolyn Buckmaster, now in
 her 29th year in a Garfield Street laboratory. "It was a very terrific
 workload."
 Traces of the footprint left by one of the biggest food-safety stories of the
 decade remain in 2009.
 It's been nine years since StarLink was pulled from the seed-corn market and
 five since StarLink-contaminated corn turned up in Lincoln.
 And it's been more than a year since the Food and Drug Administration gave what
 amounted to an all-clear signal on safety concerns.
 Yet Buckmaster and her peers are still doing the $8 tests for its presence.
 They're grinding up corn samples, adding water and dropping test strips into the
 solutions.
 Mark Fulmer, manager of the inspection business, said grain buyers still seem to
 want the sense of assurance that goes with negative results.
 So far this year, that's been the case 400 times.
 "It's something to protect themselves," he said, and it may say something about
 the sensitivities that go with food safety scares.
 "All it takes is just a rumor of something bad," he said.
 Back in 2000 and 2001, fears were fed by the possibility consumers with
 potentially deadly food allergies would eat taco shells made from corn that
 might, because of its altered gene structure, trigger a severe reaction.
 Dave Schneider, now general manager of the Farmers Cooperative Company at
 Waverly, has equally painful memories from the time he worked at the Plymouth
 elevator in Jefferson County at the start of this decade.
 Schneider said farmers and elevators were not ready to deal with an
 unprecedented situation in which federal regulators had decided to allow a corn
 product genetically endowed with insect resistance to be used for feed,but not
 for food.
 "It was nearly impossible to prepare for that in so short a period of time," he
 said of the government expectation that StarLink would be segregated from other
 corn.
 "The other thing is that it becomes the local elevators, all of a sudden, who
 are expected to do police work."
 It was hard to make order out of so much disorder.
 And there had to be an element of trust about whether farmers had any StarLink
 corn in the loads they brought to Plymouth.
 "Our primary function was to simply ask the producer," Schneider said."And we
 did the best we could."
 The StarLink debacle triggered lawsuits and tens of millions of dollars in
 payments to farmers and others in the grain-supply pipeline. The objective was
 to get the bio-tech corn into channels where livestock consumption, rather than
 human consumption,was assured.
 Over time,the allergy worries proved unfounded. And as Nebraska farmers finish
 out a decade of corn production, an estimated 91 percent of all corn is grown
 from genetically modified seed.
 Kelly Brunkhorst of the Nebraska Corn Board said farmers recognize the value
 that comes with insect and herbicide resistance.
 "Those efficiencies have led to greater production." A record corn crop of 1.55
 billion bushels is expected in 2009.
 In hindsight, the contamination risk that went with approving corn for feed use
 and not for food is seen as a huge mistake.
 "I think we've learned a lot about the regulatory approval process," Brunkhorst
 said, "and being sure we have full regulatory approval versus a split release."
 Konstantinos Giannakas, an agricultural economist at the University of
 Nebraska-Lincoln, continues to do research on the market and welfare effects of
 genetically modified products in the agri-foods system.
 "What we do know is that StarLink was at some point in the past," Giannakas
 said. "Ten years ago, most of the time, feels like three years ago."
 There is little to suggest lingering concerns about gene alterations of grain
 and other food basics among U.S. consumers, he said. That is not the case in
 many European countries, including his birthplace of Greece.
 Much more common in much of Europe, he said, is talk about "Frankenfoods" and
 "playing God."
 He cited a lack of trust in the food safety inspection system, in general, plus
 a very strong pro-organic movement in Greece.
 Grain inspection official Fulmer agrees there's no widespread evidence of that
 on this side of the Atlantic.
 "Here in the United States, people don't have a concern for food safety," he
 said. "If it's USDA-approved, they take for granted that it's safe."
 Giannakas thinks European attitudes will soften as U.S. consumers show no ill
 effects from eating foods with a genetically modified organism link and as the
 next generation of food biotechnology moves from farmer benefits to consumer
 benefits such as Vitamin A-enriched rice and high-protein wheat.
 He's not one to pass judgment on what happened with StarLink 10 years ago. At
 minimum, "there was a failure in the system."
 Beyond that, "did they overreact? I don't know."
 Reach Art Hovey at 473-7223 or ahovey@journalstar.com
 LOAD-DATE: September 22, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2009 Lincoln Journal Star
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 344
 
                                  The Boomerang!
   This content, including derivations, may not be stored or distributed in any
   manner, disseminated, published, broadcast, rewritten or reproduced without
                       express, written consent from STPNS
                                September 17, 2009
 Are Organic Foods Better for Kids?
 BYLINE: The Boomerang! staff
 LENGTH: 331  words
 (www.newsusa.com)-More than two-thirds of consumers buy organic products, and
 many decide to "go organic" when they become parents. Why? Because many feel
 that healthier food choices mean choosing organic food.
 What is organic? Organic refers to the" way meat, dairy, fruits and vegetables
 are grown and processed. Organic fanning prohibits the use of toxic and
 persistent chemicals, antibiotics and genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
 Is organic food worth the sometimes higher cost? "Yes," says best-selling author
 and pediatrician Dr. William Sears.
 Sears says pollutants in the air and water and in food all have uie potential to
 harm your child's health. "So, while you're keeping them safe from environmental
 toxins, give them organic food that's free of pesticides and chemical
 fertilizers."
 Growing bodies are more vulnerable to the carcinogenic risks of pesticides, says
 Sears, since pesticides are stored in fat, and infants and toddlers have
 proportionately more body fat than adults. He also points out that adult food
 "safety limits" may not be safe for children -- kids don't eat or metabolize
 pesticides like little adults, and the amount of food they eat is greater in
 proportion to their body weight than the same food eaten by an adult.
 "Are organic foods really that much healthier?" asks Dr. Sears. "Yes," he
 answers. "I believe they're the best choice for kids."
 In fact, Sears recommends organic dairy such as yogurt as a first food. He
 specifically recommends YoBaby brand organic yogurts, since they not only are
 made with organic milk and ingredients, but also feature a unique blend of six
 probiotic cultures to help boost immunity and promote digestive health.
 He also recommends that parents choose organic fruits and vegetables, or if
 organic choices aren't available, choose fruits and vegetables with the least
 amount of pesticide residue.
 To learn more about organics and how to shop smarter, visit Produce at
 http://about.newsusa.com/redi-rect/?memberID=203.
 GEOGRAPHIC: Palouse Washington United States
 LOAD-DATE: December 3, 2009
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Energy
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2009 SmallTownPapers, Inc.
                                All Rights Reserved
                              SmallTownPapers, Inc.
                          Copyright 2009 The Boomerang!









Document Number: 345
 
                     Indian Country Today (Oneida, New York)
                  Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News
                           September 16, 2009 Wednesday
 Groups discuss food security for the 21st century and beyond
 BYLINE: Indian Country Today, Oneida, N.Y.
 LENGTH: 608 words
 Sep. 16--SANTA FE, N.M. -- The Native Earth Bio-Culture Council and the
 Institute of American Indian Arts' Center for Lifelong Education will host the
 Fourth Annual Symposium for Sustainable Food and Seed Sovereignty from Sept. 25
 -- 26 at IAIA, 83 Avan Nu Po Road in Santa Fe.
 The symposium will include internationally recognized speakers as well as
 regional and local experts in the areas of food security and sustainable
 ecology. It will also include panels on youth issues in the 21st century, food
 and nutrition, water issues, traditional farming, land restoration and medicinal
 herbs, as well as a heritage seed exchange. A light breakfast and full lunch
 will be served each day, and is included in the price of registration.
 NEBCC is a consortium of like-minded organizations including the Institute of
 American Indian Arts' Center for Lifelong Education, the Institute of Natural
 and Traditional Knowledge, the Pueblo of Tesuque Agricultural Program, the
 Traditional Native American Farmers' Association and Tewa Women United. NEBCC
 was created to bring awareness to the prevalence, presence and threat of
 genetically modified food seeds and foods. This organization promotes healthy,
 traditional, sustainable methods of agriculture that exist as viable
 alternatives to the dangers of corporate agriculture.
 In cooperation with the Native American communities of Northern New Mexico and
 their tradition of agriculture and self-sufficiency, the NEBCC seeks to have
 people abandon their reliance on corporate agriculture and the consumerism
 lifestyle that surrounds them.
 Keynote speakers include author Jeffrey M. Smith and youth activist Erica
 Fernandez. Smith is a best-selling author and leading spokesperson on the health
 dangers of Genetically Modified Organisms. He first captured the public's
 attention in 2003 with his books "Seeds of Deception" and "Genetic Roulette."
 Fernandez was roused into activism after she found out that a liquefied natural
 gas facility was proposed for the coast of Oxnard and Malibu, Calif. where a
 36-inch pipeline was to be routed through low-income neighborhoods. She worked
 with the Sierra Club and Latino No to mobilize youth and Latino voices in
 protests and public meetings.
 Other participants include Rowen White and Ben Powless, both Mohawks from the
 northeast United States. White will speak about the importance of seed saving,
 while Powless will address issues of youth involvement in the health of the
 world.
 Members of the Guatemalan group Qachuu Aloom, a Maya-run organization in rural
 Guatemala that was created to rebuild communities in the aftermath of their
 36-year civil war, will be giving a presentation on their work, offering a seed
 blessing and holding workshops. The International Council of 13 Indigenous
 Grandmothers will be present to offer seed blessings and exchanges, as well.
 For further information on this event, including details on registration,
 vending space and program fees, visit www.foodandseedconference.info or call
 Emigdio Ballon at (505) 955-7723, Rick Vigil at (505) 955-7709 or Karen Fragua
 at (505) 424-2387.
 For more information about the Institute of American Indian Arts, including the
 Center for Lifelong Education, visit www.iaia.edu.
 To see more of Indian Country Today, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to
 http://www.indiancountry.com. Copyright (c) 2009, Indian Country Today, Oneida,
 N.Y. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. For reprints, email
 tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax
 to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave.,
 Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.
 INDUSTRY: Agriculture/Food
 LOAD-DATE: September 21, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2009 Indian Country Today









Document Number: 346
 
                            Investor's Business Daily
                            September 15, 2009 Tuesday
 A Real Humanitarian
 SECTION: Issues & Insights; Pg. A10
 LENGTH: 409 words
 Science: Norman Borlaug has died at age 95. Most will respond to the news by
 saying "Who?" And that's a shame. Borlaug did more for humanity than all of the
 government programs ever devised put together.
 Borlaug was known as the father of the Green Revolution, but he was no
 environmentalist. Unlike the greens, he was actually concerned about the
 condition of man.
 While misanthropes and neo-Malthusians were predicting mass starvation, Borlaug
 developed technologies that dramatically increased the yields of food crops and
 made them more resistant to disease. Between 1960 and 1990, the agronomist's
 work was responsible for more than doubling world food production.
 So, for all his contributions, what did Borlaug reap? Anonymity. While he did
 win the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the
 Congressional Gold Medal -- one of only five persons to have won all three -- it
 was the Paul Ehrlichs and Lester Browns who won public notoriety for
 pessimistically predicting that food production would not be able to keep up
 with the growing global population.
 The Ehrlichs and Browns were different from Borlaug in two important ways.
 First, they and their followers advocated policies based on radical social
 change that requires heavy government intervention into private affairs. Borlaug
 focused on science. Second, he was right; they were wrong.
 While he never received the honor he deserved in life, the tributes to Borlaug
 have been generous in his death. Perhaps the greatest of these is a comment from
 Josette Sheeran.
 "Norman E. Borlaug saved more lives than any man in human history," she said.
 "His heart was as big as his brilliant mind, but it was his passion and
 compassion that moved the world."
 What makes her statement so special is that she is executive director of the
 United Nations World Food Program. As head of an organization that's tried to
 feed the hungry through political means, but has failed to distinguish itself as
 being particularly effective in meeting its goal to end world hunger, she is
 tacitly admitting that science is superior to politics.
 Though Borlaug has passed away, his Green Revolution needn't die. Aggressive
 advancements in the research and use of genetically modified foods, which he
 supported, would carry on the good work he has done. That would actually be the
 most fitting tribute to a man whose life was far more important than the legion
 of lesser lights who garnered much more attention.
 LOAD-DATE: September 14, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2009 Investor's Business Daily, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 347
 
                              Waste & Recycling News
                                September 14, 2009
 Company creates biodegradable bottle
 BYLINE: Tracy Hayhurst
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 0032
 LENGTH: 956 words
 Enso Bottles LLC's plastic bottles harbor a secret ingredient, one that sends a
 "come and get me" signal.
 The message is for microbes found in landfills, and it's what prompts the
 company to say it has introduced the world's first biodegradable plastic bottle.
 The Phoenix-based company, in conjunction with several partners, is rolling out
 PET bottles that contain the proprietary EcoPure additive, which the company
 says makes the bottles biodegradable in aerobic and anaerobic environments, and
 does so without compromising the quality or clarity of the PET.
 After operating a small bottled water company, and realizing that only 20 to 30%
 of plastic bottles ever get recycled -- the rest end up in landfills -- Danny
 Clark said he started looking for alternatives to PET plastic, which can stay
 intact in landfills for hundreds of years.
 He founded Enso Bottles in early 2008 and started looking for a company to help
 him develop a biodegradable bottle. Clark found a partner in Bio-Tec
 Environmental, of Albuquerque, N.M., and they began a trial-and-error approach
 to find a plastic additive that would attract microbes and facilitate the
 biodegradation of bottles, Clark said.
 He looked at other types of plastic, including PLA (polylactic acid) or corn
 plastic, but said he found too many issues with it: Much of it comes from
 genetically modified corn, and while it breaks down more easily than traditional
 PET, it is compostable, not biodegradable, and the composting needs to be done
 at a commercial site, not in a consumer's back yard.
 With Enso Bottles, the organic compound is added to the PET resin via a pellet,
 and that pellet is added in the manufacturing process.
 "It's not chemically binding to the PET, it's kind of statically doing it, so
 when the bottle goes into a microbial environment it will get recognized as
 food," Clark said. "One component of the additive is a swelling agent, and once
 the microbes start to colonize, the polymer chain will open up. Everything gets
 broken down."
 This breakdown leaves behind either methane (anaerobic) or carbon dioxide
 (aerobic) and inert humus based on the environment the bottle is placed into,
 and having the plastic biodegrade from microbial digestion does not leave behind
 polymer residue or toxic materials, the company states on its Web site.
 Most plastics on the market cannot attract enough microbial activity to start
 the breakdown process, and that's why many plastic bottles and containers remain
 intact for centuries, Clark said.
 Laboratory test results show that Enso bottles in a perfect anaerobic
 environment will fully biodegrade in 250 days, according to the company. It will
 take longer in a microbial environment found in landfills and composting sites.
 Interest from bottlers and the beverage industry has been "huge," Clark said.
 "Our company is an environmental company, not a manufacturer," Clark said. "We
 brought resources together to address a problem we saw, and we want to work with
 recyclers and the bottling industry."
 Native Waters of Fall River, Mass., started using Enso plastic bottles several
 months ago.
 "By combining our locally sourced water with the Enso earth-friendly,
 biodegradable bottles, we hope to take a step forward in the battle to stop
 plastic containers from filling our waterways, streets and landfills," Rodger
 Cohen, vice president and co-founder of Native Waters, said in July when the
 company announced it was using the bottles.
 But not everyone is on board with such additives and claims of biodegradability.
 The National Association for PET Container Resources has called for restraint in
 the use of degradable additives in PET packaging, citing concerns that data has
 not been made publicly available to substantiate claims of degradability of PET
 resin products containing such additives; the effect of degradable additives on
 the quality of the PET recycling stream; the impact of degradable additives on
 products made from recycled PET; and the impact on the service life of these
 products.
 "We urge manufacturers of PET resin and packaging to refrain from introductions
 of degradable additive-containing products until data is made available for
 review and verification so we can better understand these products and their
 potential ramifications," Tom Busard, NAPCOR's chairman, said in May when the
 association issued a statement on the issue.
 Clark said the resistance stems from a lack of understanding about how the
 additive works.
 Adding EcoPure doesn't change the shelf life of a PET container or its physical
 characteristics, he said. "Someone will say, 'Well, what if we recycle it into
 carpet and the carpet is walked on and dirt is introduced to the PET in the
 carpet.' The thing is, you would have to have active fungus and mold there for
 any kind of reaction, and if you have that, you probably don't want that carpet
 anyway."
 Also, the additive accounts for just a fraction of a bottle's composition; it's
 still 99.9% PET. Colored bottles use more of an additive than Enso products,
 Clark said.
 While bottles with EcoPure will biodegrade in a landfill, that's not the end
 goal of the company, Clark said. Keeping bottles from entering the landfill to
 begin with is the objective, but in the meantime, the company wants to address
 the current problem.
 Long term, the company wants to develop renewable sources of bioplastics that
 come from non-food feedstocks.
 Clark said Enso is working on a buyback and recycling program for its bottles,
 which are used for beverages, shampoos, oils and more, to extend the life of the
 fossil fuels used to create the original material.
 For more information, contact Enso Bottles at 866-936-3676 or visit
 www.ensobottles.com.
 Copyright 2009 Crain Communications Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 LOAD-DATE: September 18, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Magazine
 JOURNAL-CODE: wn
                       Copyright 2009 Crain Communications
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 348
 
                                The New York Times
                             September 4, 2009 Friday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Biotech Foods Are Safe
 SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Editorial Desk; LETTER; Pg. 20
 LENGTH: 218 words
 To the Editor:
 Re ''Biotech-Free, Mostly'' (news article, Aug. 29):
 Plants derived from agricultural biotechnology undergo stringent reviews by
 three federal agencies -- the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental
 Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture -- and all commercialized
 agricultural biotechnology products are safe.
 Second, the F.D.A. does require labeling of products derived from agricultural
 biotechnology if the food differs from its conventionally grown counterpart in
 nutrition or safety, including allergenicity.
 Voluntary claims, like the G.M.O.-free label mentioned in your article,
 indicating no genetically modified organisms, are allowed by the F.D.A.,
 provided such labels are truthful, do not mislead consumers and are verifiable.
 Third, agricultural biotechnology provides real benefits to farmers and
 consumers around the world through increased yield and fewer impacts on the
 environment.
 The effort for voluntary labeling and increased testing is also likely to
 increase the cost of food, and it will do nothing to help feed the 60 million
 children in developing countries who go to school hungry every day.
 Sharon Bomer Lauritsen Executive Vice President Food and Agricultural
 Biotechnology Biotechnology Industry Organization Washington, Aug. 31, 2009
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: September 4, 2009
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Letter
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 349
 
                Agriculture Department Documents and Publications
                                September 2, 2009
 Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.; Availability of Petition and Environmental
 Assessment for Determination of Nonregulated Status for Genetically Engineered
 High-Oleic Soybeans
 LENGTH: 1564  words
 SUMMARY: We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
 Service has received a petition from Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.,
 seeking a determination of nonregulated status for soybean designated as
 transformation event 305423, which has been genetically engineered to have
 higher levels of oleic acid, and lower levels of linoleic and linolenic acids in
 the soybean oil. The petition has been submitted in accordance with our
 regulations concerning the introduction of certain genetically engineered
 organisms and products. In accordance with those regulations, we are soliciting
 comments on whether this genetically engineered soybean is or could be a plant
 pest. We are also making available for public comment an environmental
 assessment for the proposed determination of nonregulated status.
 DATES: We will consider all comments we receive on or before November 2, 2009.
 ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
 * Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
 http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetailandd=APHIS
 -2007-0156 to submit or view comments and to view supporting and related
 materials available electronically.
 * Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send two copies of your comment to
 Docket No. APHIS-2007-0156, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,
 Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please
 state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0156.
 Reading Room: You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our
 reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South
 Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal
 reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
 holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817
 before coming.
 Other Information: Additional information about APHIS and its programs is
 available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Karen Green, Biotechnology Regulatory
 Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301)
 734-0672, e-mail: karen.c.green@aphis.usda.gov To obtain copies of the petition
 or the draft environmental assessment, contact Ms. Cindy Eck at (301) 734-0667,
 e-mail: cynthia.a.eck@aphis.usda.gov The petition, the draft environmental
 assessment, and the plant pest risk assessment are also available on the
 Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/06_35401p.pdf,
 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/06_35401p_ea.pdf, and
 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/06_35401p_pra.pdf.
 Background
 The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, "Introduction of Organisms and Products
 Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which
 There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests," regulate, among other things, the
 introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment)
 of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that
 are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such
 genetically engineered organisms and products are considered "regulated
 articles."
 The regulations in SEC 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to
 the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination
 that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and
 (c) of SEC 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of
 nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the
 petition.
 On December 20, 2006, APHIS received a petition seeking a determination of
 nonregulated status (APHIS Petition No. 06-354-01p) from Pioneer Hi-Bred
 International, Inc., of Johnston, IA (Pioneer), for soybean (Glycine max L.)
 designated as transformation event 305423, which has been genetically engineered
 for higher levels of oleic acid, a monounsaturated fat in soybean oil, stating
 that soybean line 305423 does not present a plant pest risk and, therefore,
 should not be a regulated article under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340.
 As described in the petition, 305423 soybean has been genetically engineered to
 suppress the expression of the soybean endogenous microsomal omega-6 desaturases
 gene (FAD2-1). The introduced endogenous FAD2-1 gene fragment acts to silence
 expression of the endogenous FAD2-1 gene, which is responsible for an increased
 level of oleic acid and decreased levels of linoleic acid, a major
 polyunsaturated fatty acid present in soybean oil.
 In addition, Pioneer 305423 soybean contains a slightly modified version of an
 endogenous acetolactate synthase gene (ALS). Expression of the protein can
 increase the inherent tolerance level to the ALS-inhibiting class of herbicides.
 This trait is intended for selecting and identifying this bioengineered event,
 rather than as a separate commercial trait as this version of the gene does not
 confer commercial levels of herbicide tolerance in Pioneer 305423 soybean.
 APHIS has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) that presents two
 alternatives based on APHIS' analyses of data submitted by Pioneer, a review of
 other scientific data, and information obtained during field tests conducted
 under APHIS oversight. APHIS may either: (1) Take no action, i.e., APHIS would
 not change the regulatory status of 305423 soybeans and they would continue to
 be regulated articles, or (2) deregulate 305423 soybeans in whole.
 Section 403 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), defines "plant
 pest" as any living stage of any of the following that can directly or
 indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plant or plant
 product: A protozoan, a nonhuman animal, a parasitic plant, a bacterium, a
 fungus, a virus or viroid, an infectious agent or other pathogen, or any article
 similar to or allied with any of the foregoing. APHIS views this plant pest
 definition broadly to cover direct or indirect injury, disease, or damage not
 just to agricultural crops, but also to other plants, for example, native
 species, as well as organisms that may be beneficial to plants, such as
 honeybees.
 The FDA's policy statement concerning regulation of products derived from new
 plant varieties, including those genetically engineered, was published in the
 Federal Register on May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22984-23005). Under this policy, FDA
 uses what is termed a consultation process to ensure that human and animal feed
 safety issues or other regulatory issues (e.g., labeling) are resolved prior to
 commercial distribution of a bioengineered food. Pioneer submitted a food and
 feed safety and nutritional assessment summary to the FDA for 305423 soybeans.
 On January 15, 2009, the FDA concluded their review of the data submitted by
 Pioneer and had no further questions regarding the safety of 305423 soybean.
 National Environmental Policy Act
 To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of any
 potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed determination of
 nonregulated status for 305423 soybeans, an EA has been prepared. The EA was
 prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on
 Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR
 parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and
 (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).
 In accordance with 7 CFR 340.6(d), we are publishing this notice to inform the
 public that APHIS will accept written comments regarding the petition for a
 determination of nonregulated status from interested or affected persons for a
 period of 60 days from the date of this notice. During the same comment period,
 we are also soliciting written comments from interested or affected persons on
 the plant pest risk assessment and on the EA prepared to examine any
 environmental impacts of the proposed deregulation determination for the subject
 soybean event. The petition, plant pest risk assessment, EA, and any comments we
 receive are available for public review, and copies of the petition, plant pest
 risk assessment, and EA are available as indicated in the FOR FURTHER
 INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.
 After the comment period closes, APHIS will review all written comments received
 during the 60-day comment period and any other relevant information. All public
 comments received regarding the petition, plant pest risk assessment, and draft
 EA will be available for public review. After reviewing and evaluating the
 comments on the petition, plant pest risk assessment, draft EA, and other data,
 APHIS will furnish a response to the petitioner, either approving in whole or
 denying the petition. APHIS will then publish a notice in the Federal Register
 announcing the regulatory status of Pioneer's 305423 soybean and the
 availability of APHIS' written decision.
 Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.8,
 and 371.3.
 Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of August 2009.
 Kevin Shea,
 Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
 Notice.
 Citation: "74 FR 45413"
 Federal Register Page Number: "45413"
 "Notices"
 LOAD-DATE: September 2, 2009
            Copyright 2009 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 350
 
                                 The Denver Post
                             August 29, 2009 Saturday
 Hysterics win a round in farm debate
 BYLINE: Vincent Carroll The Denver Post
 SECTION: Pg. B-11
 LENGTH: 734 words
 The Luddites won a round this week in Boulder County.
 Yes, the science-challenged activists who fear genetically modified crops
 succeeded in keeping GM sugar beets from being grown by six farmers on open
 space land - at least for the time being.
 If I seem to harp on this conflict, having laid out the farmers' case some weeks
 ago, it's because the overall stakes are so large. Fear-mongers have retarded
 the adoption of GM crops elsewhere, too, even when their advantages are clear.
 GM crops are mostly prohibited in Europe, for example, because of popular fear
 of "Frankenstein foods." Then again, Europeans used to execute witches by the
 thousands, too, with roughly the same degree of supporting evidence. Some things
 never change.
 The Boulder farmers were so shocked by the raw emotion of opponents that they
 eventually asked commissioners to postpone a decision. Naturally the
 commissioners obliged. You wouldn't expect three beleaguered officials to tell
 the hysterics to take a hike, would you?
 Never mind that county staff recommended the commission approve the
 applications, or that genetically modified corn is already grown on open space
 there. For that matter, the county already slashes rates for leaseholders
 willing to switch to organic farming, open space director Ron Stewart told me
 recently. What's next: outright payments to accelerate the transition?
 For a contrasting view of GM crops, we might consult villagers in Bangladesh
 about a new variety of rice that can withstand submersion for weeks during
 floods. Pamela Ronald, a University of California at Davis geneticist who helped
 develop the variety, says 4 million tons of rice are lost to flooding each year
 in the region - enough "to feed 30 million people for one year."
 That's roughly 100 times the population of Boulder County, in case you wondered.
 "Some people worry that genetically engineered crops will cross-pollinate nearby
 species and invade pristine ecosystems and destroy native populations," Ronald
 explained to Reed Magazine. "Others fear that genetically engineered foods are
 unsafe or unhealthy to eat. So far, those concerns are driven more by
 technological anxiety than by science. There is broad consensus in the
 scientific community that the process of genetic engineering poses no more risk
 than that of conventional breeding."
 Ronald is married to an organic farmer and is far from complacent about the use
 of pesticides. Indeed, she sees genetic engineering as a potential boon to
 organics, as she and her husband explain in "Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming,
 Genetics, and the Future of Food" (Oxford University Press, April 2008).
 Incredibly, federal organic standards bar genetically engineered ingredients.
 To be fair, the fierce opposition to GM beets is fueled in part by loathing for
 Monsanto, which owns the beet seeds and whose Roundup is used in growing them.
 But it's not just Monsanto that stokes passions. It's fear of genetic
 engineering itself and an exaggerated belief in the superiority of organic food.
 If some folks want to pay a premium for organic products, so be it. But they
 should spare us their litany of fairy tales. Organic farming no doubt can be
 better for the land in many locales - and reducing pesticide use is a laudable
 goal - but its lower yields are woefully unsuited to meet the world's needs.
 Nor is organic food necessarily safer to eat. As The New York Times explained in
 March, "An organic certification technically has nothing to do with food
 safety."
 Nutrition? "On the basis of a systematic review of studies ... there is no
 evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and
 conventionally produced foodstuffs," researchers at the London School of Hygiene
 & Tropical Medicine concluded recently in The American Journal of Clinical
 Nutrition.
 When I contacted Professor Dawn Thilmany of Colorado State University's
 Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, she told me a similar story.
 The evidence is "inconclusive in terms of nutritional values," she said, adding
 only that vitamin C might be enhanced by organic farming and antioxidant levels
 perhaps improved.
 "We need a vision for what we want to have happen on our agriculture open
 space," commissioner Ben Pearlman declared. Please notice: He said a vision, not
 a Luddite-driven hallucination. So maybe there's hope yet that reason will
 prevail.
 E-mail Vincent Carroll at vcarroll@denverpost.com
 LOAD-DATE: August 30, 2009
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Column
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2009 The Denver Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 351
 
                                The New York Times
                             August 29, 2009 Saturday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Biotech-Free, Mostly
 BYLINE: By WILLIAM NEUMAN
 SECTION: Section B; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 1374 words
 Alarmed that genetically engineered crops may be  finding their way into organic
 and natural foods, an industry group has begun a campaign to test products and
 label those that are largely free of biotech ingredients.
 With farmers using gene-altered seeds to grow much of North America's corn,
 soybeans, canola and sugar, ingredients derived from biotech crops have become
 hard for food companies to avoid. But many makers of organic and natural foods
 are convinced that their credibility in the marketplace requires them to do so.
 The industry group, the Non-GMO Project, says its  new label is aimed at
 reassuring consumers and will be backed by rigorous testing.
 ''There's a vulnerability here that the industry is addressing,'' said Michael
 J. Potter, the founder and president of Eden Foods and a board member of the
 Non-GMO Project, the organization responsible for the testing and labeling
 campaign.
 As plantings of conventional crops with genetic modifications soared in recent
 years, Mr. Potter put in place stringent safeguards to ensure that the organic
 soybeans he bought for tofu, soy milk and other products did not come from
 genetically engineered plants. He even supplies the seed that farmers use to
 grow his soybeans.
 But many other companies have not been so careful, and as a result, Mr. Potter
 said, the organic and natural foods industry is like ''a dirty room'' in need of
 cleaning.
 ''What I've heard, what I know, what I've seen, what's been tested and the test
 results that have been shared with me, clearly indicate that the room is very
 dirty,'' Mr. Potter said.
 Hundreds of products already claim on their packaging that they do not contain
 genetically modified ingredients, but with little consistency in the labeling
 and little  assurance that the products have actually been tested. The new
 labeling campaign hopes to clear up such confusion.
 The initials GMO stand for genetically modified organism. Participants in the
 Non-GMO Project include major players in the organic and natural foods business,
 like Whole Foods Market.
 Whole Foods plans to place the project's seal on hundreds of products it markets
 under its ''365'' store brand. Nature's Path, a leading manufacturer of organic
 packaged foods like cereals, frozen waffles and granola bars, has also embraced
 the initiative.
 The project's seal, a butterfly perched on two blades of grass in the form of a
 check mark,  will begin appearing on packaged foods this fall. The project will
 not try to guarantee that foods are entirely free of genetically modified
 ingredients, but that manufacturers have followed procedures, including testing,
 to ensure that crucial ingredients contain no more than 0.9 percent of biotech
 material. That is the same threshold used in Europe, where labeling is required
 if products contain higher levels.
 Dag Falck, a project board member who is the organic program manager of Nature's
 Path, said testing and labeling were needed to protect the industry from the
 steady spread of biotech ingredients. His company has been testing for such
 ingredients for several years and is strengthening those measures.
 ''The thing is, if we have a contamination problem that's growing in organics,
 what will happen one day when someone tests something and finds out that
 organics is contaminated beyond a reasonable amount, say 5 or 10 percent?'' he
 said. ''Consumers would lose all faith in organics.''
 While a consensus has developed among scientists that the genetically modified
 crops now in cultivation are safe, many biotech opponents say that questions
 remain over whether such foods pose health risks and whether the crops, and
 agricultural practices associated with them, could damage the environment.
 The genetic modifications used in major crops in the United States largely
 involve traits beneficial to farmers. Some make the plants resistant to insects
 while others allow them to tolerate sprayings of a common herbicide used to
 combat weeds.
 Plantings of crops with genetic modifications have risen sharply over the last
 decade, to the point that about 85 percent of corn and canola and 91 percent of
 soybean acreage this year was sown with biotech seed. Few food products in the
 supermarket lack at least some element derived from these crops, including oils,
 corn syrup, corn starch and soy lecithin.
 The most recent agricultural sector to convert is sugar beets. Once this year's
 crop is processed, close to half of the nation's sugar will come from
 gene-engineered plants.  Monsanto, a major developer of such seeds, has said it
 plans to develop biotech wheat, and scientists are moving forward on other
 crops.
 Farmers who want to plant without using biotechnology are often surrounded by
 neighbors whose fields are sown with genetically modified crops. And
 manufacturers who want to avoid genetically engineered crops and their
 byproducts find that increasingly difficult to do.
 Pollen from a biotech field may be carried by wind or insects to fertilize
 plants in a nonbiotech plot. At harvest and afterward, biotech and nonbiotech
 crops and their byproducts are often handled with the same farm equipment,
 trucks and so on. If the equipment is not properly cleaned, the two types of
 foodstuffs can mix.
 While federal organic regulations bar farmers from planting genetically
 engineered seed, they are silent on what should be done about issues like
 pollination from nearby biotech crops. Few regulations govern foods labeled
 ''natural,'' but retailers say consumers of those products want them to be free
 of genetically engineered ingredients.
 ''There's some GMO presence in almost everything today,'' said Lynn Clarkson,
 president of Clarkson Grain Company, in Cerro Gordo, Ill., which specializes in
 handling nonbiotech corn and soybeans.
 Mr. Clarkson tests every truckload that farmers bring him, rejecting 5  to 7
 percent of corn and soybean loads because they contain more than 0.9 percent of
 genetically modified material.
 The Non-GMO  project works with companies to test their ingredients and improve
 manufacturing processes.  It will also spot test products in stores.
 Officials with the project would not provide details of the test results
 conducted so far under the program.
 Sandra Kepler, the chief executive of Food Chain Global Advisors, a consulting
 company that administers the project, said it was too early to draw conclusions
 and that much of the testing  had been done on ingredients used by companies
 with safeguards already in place.
 The executives of several companies participating in the project, including Eden
 and Nature's Path, said their products had come up clean in the tests. But
 several executives also said they were aware of positive tests for other
 companies, which they would not identify.
 ''People are going to be reluctant to say,  'My brand of cereal, we found some
 contaminated products and we changed sources,' '' said Michael S. Funk, a
 project board member who is co-founder and chairman of United Natural Foods, a
 major distributor. ''Nobody wants to have that information out there.'' He said,
 however, that he believed the number of cases was small.
 Labeling of food products for  biotech content, or lack of it, has long been
 controversial. The biotechnology industry fought off early efforts to require
 labeling of genetically modified foods. Then, when some natural foods makers
 began using labels saying they were free of biotech ingredients, the Food and
 Drug Administration criticized the labels as potentially misleading.Labeling
 remains a gray area, with a host of products continuing to make such claims.
 Supporters of the biotech industry questioned whether the new labeling campaign
 would pass muster with the F.D.A. ''It's very important that the labels on those
 products are used for marketing and branding purposes and not to make statements
 about food safety,'' said Karen Batra, a director of communications of the
 Biotechnology Industry Organization, a lobbying group.
 The F.D.A. said  it did not have authority to approve labels before they
 appeared in the marketplace.  Once a label is in use, the agency could initiate
 a review if it received consumer complaints or had concerns the label was
 misleading.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: August 29, 2009
 GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: Above, a technician processing DNA for a test of biotech crops
 in Fairfield, Iowa. Top, a Whole Foods store in Edgewater, N.J.(PHOTOGRAPH, TOP,
  ABOVE, GENETIC ID)(B4) ILLUSTRATION: A campaign hopes to back up claims some
 food makers are already making.(ILLUSTRATION BY THE NEW YORK TIMES)(B1)
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 352
 
                          St. Petersburg Times (Florida)
                             August 29, 2009 Saturday
                            4 State / Suncoast Edition
 SECTION: TAMPA BAY; THE CONSUMER'S EDGE; Pg. 4B
 LENGTH: 674 words
 HIGHLIGHT:A burger without the cow. Chicken nuggets without the bird. It's
 called cultured meat, and it's being studied. Ground beef from a petri dish - it
 could be what's for dinner.
 Imagine a hamburger without slaughtering a cow. How about a chicken nugget
 without, well, wringing a chicken's neck?
 Jason Matheny believes he has the answer: cultured meat.
 I'm sure PETA is doing a party dance about now at the thought of it.
 Matheny's vision proposes a healthier, more environmentally friendly source of
 our protein - one that doesn't involve eating farm-raised animals.
 Instead, the production of cultured meat takes cells from a farm animal, then
 bathes and multiplies them in a nutrient-rich mix.
 An Oxford University study suggests that cultured meat would reduce meat's
 greenhouse gas emissions by more than 80 percent and cut its water use by more
 than 90 percent. (It takes about 2,000 gallons of water to produce 16 ounces of
 red meat.)
 What's more, the fat content of the cultured meat could be controlled and a
 hamburger could be enriched with omega-3, which prevents rather than causes
 heart attacks. And food-borne disease could be significantly reduced.
 But what really was striking was Matheny told me that a "single cell could be
 used to produce enough meat to feed the global population for a year."
 Talk about your miracles of biblical proportions.
 Even so, one has to wonder about a lab-produced hamburger or sausage link.
 "There's people strictly against any genetically modified food source," said Jay
 Wenther, executive director for the American Meat Processors Association.
 "People are very environmentally conscience. But most of them are only willing
 to go so far."
 The question is: How seriously should we take Matheny's notion?
 Matheny has worked for some the most prestigious research institutions in the
 world, including the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in
 Laurel, Md., the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical
 Center and the nonprofit New Harvest meat substitutes research organization. He
 has studied at Johns Hopkins, Duke University and the University of Chicago.
 Over the next five to 10 years, Matheny expects cultured ground meat products
 such as hamburger, sausage and chicken nuggets to hit the market for
 consumption. It will take a few decades, he said, for a steak or a whole turkey.
 Wenther says the meat industry, like any other industry, can always make
 improvements, but he believes U.S. meat products are safe and healthy, despite
 some pronouncements.
 "Everything is in moderation," he said. "If you're going to put 2 tablespoons of
 butter on your chicken or eat a 2-pound steak, that's another thing. But
 petri-dish produced meat? It's hard for me to grasp overall."
 So here's the Edge for those eating natural meat, courtesy of the U.S.
 Department of Agriculture:
 - Check the temperature. The USDA urges us to cook meats at the appropriate
 temperatures to ensure health and safety of the product before consumption.
 Steaks and roasts: 145F. Fish: 145F. Pork: 160F. Ground beef: 160F. Egg
 dishes: 160F. Chicken breasts: 165F. Whole poultry: 165F.
 - Wash hands and surfaces often. Wash your hands with warm, soapy water for 20
 seconds before and after handling food. Wash the cutting boards, dishes and
 utensils you use with hot, soapy water after preparing each food item. Wash
 fruits and vegetables with cold water before using. There is no need to wash or
 rinse meat or poultry.
 - Don't cross-contaminate. Separate raw, cooked, and ready-to-eat foods while
 shopping, preparing or storing. Never place cooked food on an unwashed plate
 that previously held raw meat, poultry or seafood.
 - Refrigerate promptly. Refrigerate or freeze perishables, prepared foods and
 leftovers within two hours.
 Ivan Penn can be reached at ipenn@sptimes.com or (727) 892-2332.
 Where's the beef?
 - It takes 2,000 gallons of water to produce 16 ounces of red meat.
 - An 8-ounce prime cut of beef contains about 600 calories.
 - The fossil fuel production for 8 ounces of prime beef requires two-thirds of a
 gallon of gas.
 Questions about meat safety
 Contact the USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline: 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854)
 www.IsItDoneYet.gov
 LOAD-DATE: September 1, 2009
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO - iStockphoto.com
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                     Copyright  2009 Times Publishing Company
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 353
 
                            Star-News (Wilmington, NC)
                             August 29, 2009 Saturday
                                   1ST Edition
 BYLINE: William Neuman; New York Times News Service
 SECTION: FROM 1A; Pg. 4A
 LENGTH: 372 words
 Alarmed that genetically engineered crops may be finding their way into organic
 and natural foods, an industry group has begun a campaign to test products and
 label those that are largely free of biotech ingredients.
 With farmers using gene-altered seeds to grow much of North America's corn,
 soybeans, canola and sugar, ingredients derived from biotech crops have become
 hard for food companies to avoid. But many makers of organic and natural foods
 are convinced that their credibility in the marketplace requires them to do so.
 The industry group, the Non-GMO Project, says its new label is aimed at
 reassuring consumers and will be backed by rigorous testing.
 "There's a vulnerability here that the industry is addressing," said Michael J.
 Potter, the founder and president of Eden Foods and a board member of the
 Non-GMO Project, the group responsible for the testing and labeling campaign.
 The initials GMO stand for genetically modified organism.
 As plantings of conventional crops with genetic modifications soared in recent
 years, Potter put in place stringent safeguards to ensure that the organic
 soybeans he bought for tofu, soy milk and other products did not come from
 genetically engineered plants. He even supplies the seed that farmers use to
 grow his soybeans.
 But many other companies have not been so careful, and as a result, Potter said,
 the organic and natural foods industry is like "a dirty room" in need of
 cleaning.
 Hundreds of products already claim on their packaging that they do not contain
 genetically modified ingredients, but with little consistency in the labeling
 and little assurance the products have actually been tested.
 The new labeling campaign hopes to clear up such confusion.
 Participants in the Non-GMO Project include major players in the organic and
 natural foods business, like Whole Foods Market.
 The project's seal, a butterfly perched on two blades of grass in the form of a
 check mark, will begin appearing on packaged foods this fall.
 The project will not try to guarantee that foods are entirely free of
 genetically modified ingredients, but that manufacturers have followed
 procedures, including testing, to ensure that key ingredients contain no more
 than 0.9 percent of biotech material.
 LOAD-DATE: February 5, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2009 Star-News, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 354
 
                                 The Denver Post
                             August 27, 2009 Thursday
 Boulder leaves door open for modified beets A decision will come after a review
 of county policies on open space.
 BYLINE: Monte Whaley The Denver Post
 SECTION: DENVER & THE WEST; Pg. B-04
 LENGTH: 388 words
 BOULDER - Some railed against the
 Monsanto corporation, the agribusiness giant that could see its genetically
 engineered sugar beets gain a foothold in Boulder County open space.
 Others warned that if the beets are planted, Boulder County would lose its
 status as the world leader in organically grown foods.
 But after seven hours of passionate - sometimes heated - public input, Boulder
 County commissioners agreed early Wednesday that GMO (genetically modified
 organism) crops might have a place in the county's 17,000 acres of farmland.
 "I don't think today is the right day to make a final decision about genetically
 modified beets," said Commissioner Ben Pearlman. "They need to be part of a
 comprehensive look at what we want out of agriculture on our county's open-space
 land."
 The commissioners agreed to hold off on any decision until planners develop a
 broader policy on agriculture in the county. That could take a year, say county
 staff members.
 Besides GMOs, the policy would include plans for more organic acreage and ways
 to help sustain conventional family farming.
 "We need a vision for what we want to have happen on our agriculture open space
 that we lease out for production," Pearlman said.
 A policy would perhaps help the county avoid any more "hand to hand combat" over
 genetically altered crops, added Commissioner Will Toor.
 The six Longmont-area farmers who asked permission to plant the genetically
 enhanced sugar beats also requested a delay. They cited the rancor their
 application caused among organic growers and others in Boulder County.
 "We had no idea this would become as emotionally charged as it has," said Jules
 Van Thuyne Jr.
 The farmers - as well as a group of agriculture experts - told the commissioners
 at Tuesday's hearing that labor costs would decline if they used the Roundup
 Ready crops. The county farmers could be more competitive in a market already
 dominated by enhanced sugar beets.
 "We were just asking to use another tool to let us succeed in this market," Van
 Thuyne said.
 Monsanto critic and local farmer Steve Demos said Boulder must hold on to its
 "aura" as a leader in the natural foods movement.
 "Boulder is the epicenter for natural and organic foods," Demos said. "Boulder
 is our brand, and everyone in the United States knows it."
 Monte Whaley: 720-929-0907
 or mwhaley@denverpost.com
 LOAD-DATE: August 27, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2009 The Denver Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 355
 
                        Austin American-Statesman (Texas)
                            August 26, 2009 Wednesday
                                  Final Edition
 Eat local? It's better to eat smart, author says
 BYLINE: Addie Broyles American-Statesman STAFF
 SECTION: LIFESTYLE; Pg. D01
 LENGTH: 1245 words
 Eating local has become the trend du jour for foodies, restaurants and farmers,
 but is it really the solution to the world's agricultural, health and
 environmental problems?
 Texas State University associate history professor James E. McWilliams was a
 typical "locavore," shopping at farmers' markets and eating as much food as
 possible from within a 100-mile radius until he couldn't ignore a nagging
 thought: Is eating this way really going to help us sustainably feed nearly 10
 billion people by 2050?
 In a 2007 New York Times article, he challenged the idea that reducing food
 miles - how far food has to travel from the field to the plate - cuts fossil
 fuel consumption, a notion that he says hit a deep nerve in the food and
 agriculture communities. He started looking further into the assumptions about
 organic versus conventional farming, genetically modified foods and use of
 chemicals to grow food.
 The result is "Just Food: Where Locavores Get It Wrong and How We Can Truly Eat
 Responsibly" (Little, Brown and Company, $25.99), a book that encourages eaters
 to rethink the ethics of eating local.
 "(The locavore philosophy) is flawed by its own simplicity," he told the
 American-Statesman last week. Not only is it next to impossible to eat entirely
 local year-round, he says, the environmental impact of doing so isn't as great
 as we might think. It's easy to persuade people to buy locally grown heirloom
 tomatoes, but it's not as sexy to educate them on the pitfalls of
 taxpayer-funded corn subsidies.
 The book comes at a time when public awareness about the food industry is at an
 all-time high. Books and films such as "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and "Fast Food
 Nation" have shown millions of people the downside of the industrial agriculture
 system: confined animal feeding operations, excessive pesticide and fertilizer
 use, genetically modified crops. National corporations and restaurants are
 jumping on the "eat local" bandwagon by advertising where their products are
 made and where the ingredients come from.
 But McWilliams writes the proposed solution - eating organic food grown from
 local farmers - is "not only pragmatically unachievable but simplistically
 smug." He does credit the locavore movement for getting Americans to pay
 attention to where their food comes from and what goes into producing it, but he
 says it's time to be realistic about its limits.
 It sounds like a good idea to eat only food that is grown nearby, but you can't
 sustain an entire nation, much less the world's growing population, on this
 philosophy, he says. He's found only a few places in the country, including
 southern Virginia and some parts of the Pacific Northwest, where it would be
 possible to eat only food that comes from nearby.
 While we carefully count food miles, we miss the big picture, he says. Consider
 economies of scale: Transporting 50 tomatoes 50 miles requires the same energy
 as transporting 2,000 tomatoes 2,000 miles, he says. And if it's winter and your
 local tomatoes are grown in a hothouse or if a local farmer is growing them in a
 dry region with poor soil, each tomato requires substantially more energy to
 grow than those grown farther away in a more suitable climate.
 In fact, McWilliams writes, studies have found that transportation makes up only
 11 percent of the total energy cost of food. Preparing food at home, he points
 out, takes up 25 percent. (" 'Cook efficiently' just doesn't have the same
 rousing ring as 'eat local,' " he writes.)
 The "eat local" ethic occupies much of our attention as socially concerned
 citizens, he says, which means we don't have the energy to consider less
 glamorous actions we could take, like encouraging lawmakers to shift subsidies
 away from corn growers or learning about the differences between potentially
 safe synthetic chemicals, which have to be applied only in small amounts, and
 potentially harmful natural chemicals that require multiple applications.
 "As responsible consumers, we have a duty to be aware of all the options that
 are out there," he says. "Buy local when it's available, but buying local
 doesn't have the wide-ranging impact that people think it does."
 McWilliams is more concerned with what we buy than where it comes from. Fruits,
 vegetables, legumes and nuts, for example, require far less water, land and
 fossil fuel to grow than processed foods and meat.
 "If you really want to make radical change in sustainable agriculture, stop - or
 drastically reduce - the amount of meat you eat," he says. A study recently
 found that if you cut red meat out of your diet just once a week, you'd have the
 same impact as if you bought all your food from local sources.
 Research shows that livestock produce more greenhouse gases than all the cars,
 trucks and other forms of transportation in the world combined and require
 hundreds of times more water than grains, fruits and vegetables. Grass-fed red
 meat is better than conventional, grain-fed beef in terms of sustainability, but
 it's just the lesser of two evils, McWilliams says. In one year, ranchers can
 produce 75 pounds of grass-fed beef an acre versus 35,000 pounds of fish. (Fish
 are more efficient at turning food into protein because they float.)
 As a historian, McWilliams says the myth of "agrarian innocence" is hurting
 progress toward real sustainability. "Farming is ... the art of strategizing
 against the natural world." Romanticizing food production means we often reject
 scientific research, for example, of how genetically modifying seeds could help
 farmers in Indonesia deal with a longer flood season.
 "The way we are using (genetic modification) now is ludicrous," he says, but to
 ignore them completely is equally as damaging. In coming decades, we are going
 to have to grow more food on less land using less chemicals, he says, and it
 would be a huge mistake to ignore the possible solutions genetic modification
 offers for controlling pests and increasing yields. For instance, one kind of
 genetically modified cotton in India has allowed farmers to reduce the use of
 harmful pesticides by 80 percent, McWilliams writes.
 "Genetically modifying (seeds) allows you to pinpoint exactly what you want to
 do," he says. Farmers have been cross-breeding crops for thousands of years, but
 now scientists can do it more efficiently in a lab.
 Don't mistake McWilliams' opinions on genetically modified crops as support for
 industrial agriculture. He says that like many locavores, he's disgusted by the
 "coldly profit-driven" techniques of companies such as Monsanto. "Their tactics
 as corporations have turned the consumer away from even talking about
 genetically modified crops," he says.
 So how do you persuade the biggest agribusinesses to change their ways? If
 corporations such as Wal-Mart are responding to the growing number of
 sustainable agriculture advocates, it's possible that biotechnology companies
 would respond to enough public pressure and increased government regulation, he
 says.
 Any one of these solutions alone won't solve the world's food problems,
 McWilliams says. He isn't telling everyone to stop eating meat (although he
 stopped two years ago while researching this book), and he isn't saying that
 genetically modified seeds will eliminate world hunger, but "consumers are ready
 to take on more complexity" when it comes to what goes into a food supply, he
 says.
 "We should get away from the easy and go to the gray," he says. "There's a lot
 of potential in that gray area."
 abroyles@statesman.com; 912-2504
 LOAD-DATE: August 26, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2009 The Austin American-Statesman
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 356
 
                                 The Denver Post
                             August 25, 2009 Tuesday
 EDITORIAL Common ground on Boulder beets Genetically modified sugar beets should
 be allowed to be grown on Boulder County land, but with some safeguards.
 SECTION: Pg. B-11
 LENGTH: 388 words
 It's understandable that some residents might be concerned about the planting of
 genetically modified beets on Boulder County land.
 The term "genetically modified" sounds horrifying. But truth be told, much of
 the food we eat, from corn to soybeans, is already genetically modified.
 There are legitimate worries that the beets, which are bred to be resistant to
 the herbicide in Roundup, might cross-pollinate with other plants and create
 super-weeds or other unintended breeds.
 But we also think that, given the appropriate safeguards, there is a place for
 agricultural advances such as these, which have the potential to boost
 production and cut costs in a world where people go hungry every day.
 The Boulder County commissioners today will hear a request from six farmers who
 want to plant the modified beets on land they are leasing from Boulder County.
 Organic farmers in Boulder County are particularly concerned, saying not enough
 is known about genetically modified crops and that publicly owned land ought to
 be used to grow organic food.
 We agree that there ought to be continuing research and monitoring of modified
 crops, their utility, and how they affect the world around them, but genetically
 engineered crops are far from new in the U.S.
 A 2008 report from the non-partisan Government Accountability Office said there
 had been six unauthorized releases of genetically engineered crops into the food
 and feed supply chain, but there was no evidence of adverse impact.
 In 2008, 80 percent of the corn, 92 percent of soybeans and 86 percent of cotton
 planted in this country were genetically engineered varieties, according to the
 GAO report.
 In fact, Boulder County already allows genetically engineered corn to be grown
 on county land.
 Boulder County staff has recommended that if commissioners were to approve
 genetically modified beets on county land, farmers should be required to pluck
 flowers - which could allow for cross-pollination - from beets. That sounds like
 a reasonable expectation. Since the sugar beet is harvested before the usual
 flowering stage, the risk should be minimal and easily detected.
 As Boulder County commissioners dive into this high-interest issue, we hope
 they'll pursue a policy that allows farmers to make use of important
 agricultural advances, while still insisting on reasonable safeguards.
 LOAD-DATE: August 25, 2009
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Editorial
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2009 The Denver Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 357
 
                                 The Denver Post
                              August 24, 2009 Monday
 Boulder tackles modified crops SUGAR BEETS Some say food genetically altered to
 survive herbicide is easier to grow. Critics say too much is unknown.
 BYLINE: Monte Whaley The Denver Post
 SECTION: DENVER & THE WEST; Pg. A-15
 LENGTH: 357 words
 The battle of the beet - the genetically modified sugar beet - is set to be
 fought before the Boulder County commissioners Tuesday.
 A proposal to allow six farmers to plant the genetically altered crop on 960
 acres of county land has divided the community.
 Two advisory committees have split over whether to allow the Roundup Ready
 plants, which are modified to resist the Monsanto Co. herbicide Roundup.
 County planners say they want to delay the decisions until they can frame an
 overall policy for genetically modified organisms or GMOs.
 Traditional farmers and organic growers have angrily debated the issue.
 The farmers argue that Roundup Ready sugar beets are more cost-effective and
 easier to grow.
 Organic producers say not enough is known about genetically-altered food and
 that county land should be reserved for organic crops.
 "This decision is being watched worldwide because this is a war being brought by
 industrial agriculture to have complete control over our food supply," said
 Michael Brownlee, an organizer for Transition Colorado, which advocates for
 local self-reliance for food and fuel.
 County planners are offering the commissioners other alternatives besides a
 straight yes or no vote.
 They say the commissioners could delay a decision until the county's Parks and
 Open Space department can development a broader policy governing GMOs on county
 land.
 The commissioners also could give conditional approval for the Roundup Ready
 sugar beets but limit their total acreage. Boulder County has 1,518 acres of
 Roundup Ready corn on county open space and the commissioners could set a 2010
 and 2011 limit of 1,200 acres for beets and corn. This would reduce acreage but
 give individual farmers the option to choose which GMO crop best suits their
 operation.
 Commissioners could also limit Roundup Ready sugar beet production to between
 400 and 500 acres.
 "We've asked that maybe the commissioners step back and take more time to look
 at the broader issue," said Tina Nielsen, special projects manager for the
 county's Parks and Open Space. "This might make this more palatable for them."
 Monte Whaley: 720-929-0907
 or mwhaley@denverpost.com
 LOAD-DATE: August 24, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2009 The Denver Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 358
 
                         Albuquerque Journal (New Mexico)
                              August 23, 2009 Sunday
 At World's End, What Is Your Apocalyptic Vision?
 BYLINE: KAREN PETERSON Of the Journal
 SECTION: FRONT PAGE; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 801 words
 A couple of months
 ago, Slate.com
 offered readers an
 interactive game that allowed them to vote for the apocalypse scenario they felt
 was mostly likely to result in America's downfall. Now that the stock market is
 some 2,000 points above where it was earlier in the summer, this seems a less
 potentially useful activity for the idle moment than it did at the time.
 Nonetheless, a couple of weeks ago, Slate posted its analysis of the results,
 plus a "social map" of the 144 apocalypses-of-choice scenarios most frequently
 linked by voters. Slate editors noted that the top five most popular included
 "loose nukes" - nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists - and antibiotic
 resistance. Also in the top five: China dumps its billions in U.S. Treasury
 securities, and oil production virtually ends. "Israel-Arab War," which voters
 ranked No. 5, nudged out obesity as the more likely to bring the country to its
 knees.
 Interestingly enough, the right-wing views that have been generating media
 hysteria in recent weeks were far down the popularity list. "Socialist
 revolution," for example, was ranked 20th by voters, while gay marriage was 39th
 most threatening. "The Rapture" ranked 28th, ahead of "alien invasion" in
 likelihood, apparently, and also well ahead of illegal immigration in
 nationdestroying seriousness. Ranked at 119, illegal immigration may barely
 count as a threat in game participants' view.
 Meanwhile, among the left's "end of times" fantasies, globalization ranked only
 81st. "Modified organisms," presumably including genetically modified food crops
 and animals, ranked 66th.
 The "Obama as God" scenario - described as "the president, by far the most
 popular in history domestically and abroad, becomes the leader of a global
 religious cult" - ranked 24th, just ahead of "supervolcano," my favorite ever
 since I read David Keys 1999 book, "Catastrophe."
 Keys very plausibly (in my view) explains everything from the fall of the Roman
 Empire to the rise of both Islam and Western European civilization as resulting
 from a fifth- or sixth-century volcanic eruption in what is now Indonesia. His
 thesis really involves climate change - the post-eruption globe-enveloping dust
 cloud darkened the sun for several years and altered climates on all five
 continents.
 Yet climate change doesn't seem to have been a really popular scenario among
 this summer's apocalypse fans. That may have been because there was no obvious
 catchall term like "global warming" to vote for. "Rising sea levels" ranked
 14th, while other climatological phenomena, like "climate migration," "ocean
 acidification" and "climate wars," were way down there - "climate wars" was
 110th, for example. On the other hand, "peak water," described as "the
 overpopulated, overheated Southwest runs out of water, instigating mass
 migration to Canada," ranked seventh, and just ahead of obesity, as a possible
 cause of our coming demise.
 But let's not forget antibiotic resistance, the third most favored apocalypse
 scenario among voters. Keys' theory about the collapse of Ancient World
 civilizations also involved a germ: bubonic plague. Keys argues that drastic
 climate change brought about by the volcanic eruption pushed plague out of its
 safe (for humans) evolutionary niche in rodents in the Horn of Africa and from
 there along the ancient trading routes that, even in those supposedly
 nonglobalized times, effectively linked China with Europe as far west as Great
 Britain.
 The resulting depopulation and political instability brought about the Dark
 Ages, the Mongol invasions, the rise of Islam. ... And the rest, of course, is
 history.
 Slate's "Choose Your Own Apocalypse" game was just that, and purely from a
 statistical standpoint, it's hard to take it seriously. Only 60,000 or so people
 had voted when editors tallied results in early August. The editors also note
 that the voting was international - and estimated 15 percent of voters, for
 example, posted their choices via a single Russian Web site. But these 60,000
 voters made a total of 255,000 choices among the 144 scenarios.
 Unfortunately, next to nobody (a mere 11 percent) entered any demographic data
 about themselves - stuff like age, sex or political persuasion - so Slate's
 analysis of those results is less than reliable. Slate also slants toward the
 liberal or progressive side of the political center, and that might explain why
 "Obama as God" came out as less popular among Slate.com voters than obesity or
 an Arab-Israel war.
 Nevertheless, my own apocalyptic proclivities apparently reflect the same
 demographic bias editors detected among voters - women apparently are slightly
 more likely to favor bacteria as a top nation-destroying threat. Men, on the
 other hand, are more worried about the rise of China - and the dumping of those
 U.S. Treasury securities.
 LOAD-DATE: August 24, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2009 Albuquerque Journal









Document Number: 359
 
                     Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock)
                             August 20, 2009 Thursday
 Rice farmers in state, elsewhere file lawsuit on engineered strain Told too late
 about gene, plaintiffs say
 LENGTH: 486 words
 Almost 1,500 rice farmers from Arkansas and 11 other states are suing German
 conglomerate Bayer Cropscience and affiliated companies, claiming the farmers'
 crops were corrupted by a genetically engineered strain of rice produced by
 Bayer.
 The lawsuit was filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
 Arkansas, Eastern Division.
 A similar case was filed in Lonoke County Circuit Court in 2006 - but by far
 fewer farmers, about 14.
 "You now have more than 100 times the number of plaintiffs," said Don McKenna, a
 partner at Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton of Birmingham, Ala., who represents the
 1,486 farmers.
 While the dollar amount being sought in damages is not given in the complaint,
 McKenna said that "the size of the claim being brought against the Bayer
 defendants [has] multiplied tremendously." The case was filed this week because
 it was the third anniversary of the Aug. 18, 2006, announcement by the U.S.
 Department of Agriculture that traces of an unapproved, genetically engineered
 rice were found in U.S. supplies of long-grain rice.
 A three-year statute of limitation on claims in such cases exists in Arkansas,
 although that may be extended for certain legal reasons, McKenna said.
 By late August 2006, Asian and European trading partners already had moved to
 limit U.S. long-grain rice imports, and rice prices declined.
 Arkansas production accounted for nearly half of the 2005 U.S. rice crop.
 The complaint alleges that Bayer and Riceland Foods Inc. confirmed traces of the
 Liberty Link rice in a Riceland shipment of long-grain rice by early 2006, but
 farmers, the government and the public were not told until late July or August.
 Arkansas produces more longgrain rice than any other state, the complaint said.
 More than 85 percent of the plaintiffs in the case filed Tuesday are from
 Arkansas, McKenna said, adding that about half the rice farmers in the state are
 represented.
 Their complaint maintains that Bayer was negligent in not protecting the rice
 supply and claims fraud through concealment of the problem from the farmers.
 In addition, the farmers allege in court documents, Bayer is liable for "all
 damages proximately caused by Liberty Link" and that planting, testing, growing,
 harvesting and otherwise handling Liberty Link was "ultrahazardous activity" on
 the part of the defendants.
 A spokesman for Bayer said he couldn't comment Wednesday afternoon on the suit
 because he hadn't seen it.
 Besides the suit filed Tuesday and the Lonoke County case, similar cases are
 pending in other Arkansas counties, in addition to multidistrict litigation in
 St. Louis, McKenna said.
 A new trial date for the Lonoke County case will be set in September at a
 scheduling conference, McKenna said.
 The case filed Tuesday will now be addressed by a multidistrict panel or judge
 in St. Louis, where consolidated discovery, such as depositions, will be
 performed.
 This article was published 08/20/2009
 LOAD-DATE: August 20, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2009 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 360
 
                                  The Vindicator
   This content, including derivations, may not be stored or distributed in any
   manner, disseminated, published, broadcast, rewritten or reproduced without
                       express, written consent from STPNS
                                 August 20, 2009
 Lane introduces new business to Rotarians
 BYLINE: The Valley Falls Vindicator staff
 LENGTH: 303  words
 Marilyn Zieg introduced guests Brian and Shana Lane, owners of Valley Ag., when
 the Valley Falls Rotary Club met Aug. 13.
 Brian Lane spoke on the preparation for their new business on Highway 4.
 The facility the Lanes are having built is a soybean seed enterprise that will
 consist of four large storage bins. A $70,000 computer will be installed to
 spray a fine mist of fungicide on the seed to protect it from rotting. The
 development of the site is in cooperation with Monsanto Chemical Company.
 A counting wheel is part of the facility that will count the seeds. The business
 will encourage purchase of seeds in bulk, rather than bags.
 Lane has visited the Ottawa Co-op, which has a similar facility that has been
 operating for 10 years. It sold 20,000 units the first year and is now selling
 150,000 units.
 Lane showed photos of an establishment similar to what he is building, showing
 the computer to be used and the large bins.
 In the near future genetic modification of corn seed will be able to protect a
 crop from drought. By 2030 the researchers estimate the soybean yields will be
 double from what it is now. The Ford Motor Company is installing seats in cars
 made from crushed soybeans and many new products are expected, Lane said.
 Valley Ag.'s downtown location will be transferred to the new site which is
 expected to open by Nov. 1 to 15.
 The warehouse will remain downtown. The site is located on a 6-acre plot. The
 builders are using local firms as much as possible, Lane said.
 Lane hopes other businesses will be attracted to the commercial site and he said
 a couple of interested parties have contacted him.
 President Daryl Sales presided at the business meeting. He announced that
 volunteers for ticket sale at the Valley Falls football games will be signed up
 next week for the season that starts in two weeks.
 GEOGRAPHIC: Valley Falls Kansas United States
 LOAD-DATE: November 9, 2009
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Small Town Business
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2009 SmallTownPapers, Inc.
                                All Rights Reserved
                              SmallTownPapers, Inc.
                          Copyright 2009 The Vindicator









Document Number: 361
 
                         Albuquerque Journal (New Mexico)
                              August 16, 2009 Sunday
 Summer's an artistic statement;
 Teens get to express themselves through two murals and a corn maze through
 Project Sunrise
 BYLINE: Dan Mayfield Journal Staff Writer
 SECTION: ARTS; Pg. F1
 LENGTH: 624 words
 The students just call him "Brandt" or "Mister." Over the summer, Richard Brandt
 encouraged 26 students, mainly from the South Valley, to create two new giant
 murals and one 2-acre corn maze.
 Looking like an unlikely teacher, with a 14-inch-long goatee and a long shirt
 emblazoned with his Rock Star Farming business name, Brandt has been working to
 get Project Sunrise off the ground for two years. This year he received a
 $129,000 grant from the Youth Conservation Corps, and with two teams of students
 has created a mural on Isleta Boulevard at the South Valley Economic Development
 Center, a second at Armijo Elementary and a corn maze, all in the South Valley.
 The murals feature both Dennis and Csar Chvez, crops native to the South
 Valley and local farmers.
 "I've always wanted to do something like this, make a statement," said
 20-yearold Rodney Jones, who became one of the foremen on the project this
 summer. "It was like a dream come true. There was crazy teamwork. It's also a
 good opportunity to get work into your portfolio."
 Jones, like the 25 others in the program, came to the program because of his art
 background. Each of the students had to submit a rsum, a portfolio of work, a
 statement of intent and provide references. The few students who were picked for
 the program get paid $8 an hour and were given the materials they needed by the
 YCC. Most said they're headed for a career in art or design.
 Project Sunrise director Brandt, a former art and agriculture teacher at the
 South Valley Academy, wanted to combine his two loves with a summer project.
 With the help of several sponsors, he said, he was able to pay the students and
 pay for materials.
 Since April, students from mainly the South Valley have been working on the two
 murals, the most visible of which is at the Economic Development Center.
 "It will make us much more visible in the community," said Tim Nisley, program
 manager at the center. "It was just a gray cinder-block wall."
 Before the program started, the students were treated to several guest speakers
 who talked about agriculture, art and genetically modified food. Several of the
 students responded to the idea of GMOs, or Genetically Modified Organisms, and
 incorporated the idea into the murals.
 "They bothered me. I'm the guy that won't say anything in the drive-through so
 they don't spit in my food," Jones said. "I don't like anyone messing with my
 food. It's gross."
 At the Armijo Elementary mural, student Juan Pablo Morales created a red chile,
 complete with fangs, horns and legs, to represent his view of modified food.
 "I watch a lot of sci-fi movies, and I thought of a genetically modified
 creature," he said.
 The students spent about two weeks drawing the two murals on graph paper and had
 to scale the drawings to the walls using chalk lines.
 But the corn maze was much more difficult, Brandt said.
 The corn maze isn't open to the public, Brandt said, but the students drew the
 dragonlike design, scaled it to fit a 2-acre field, then weeded and planted the
 field.
 "The kids were challenged to think in abstract terms," Brandt said. "The corn is
 organic, and the kids called charities to find some that could take the corn
 when it's done."
 Karina Zubiate, a 16-yearold South Valley Academy senior, became the project
 foreman for the maze and said the crews pieced the maze together the
 oldfashioned way, by using 350 pieces of rebar stuck in the ground and a lot of
 string.
 "I thought it was going to be easy, but it's not," she said.
 Like others on the team she was referred to the program through her art teacher.
 Overall, the students said the program was better than a regular summer
 vacation.
 "I don't really do nothing during the summer," Ernie Garcia said. "I learned a
 lot and made friends."
 LOAD-DATE: August 17, 2009
 GRAPHIC: RICHARD PIPES/JOURNAL Karina Zubiate works on a mural at the South
 Valley Economic Development Center as part of a summer project for art students
 with the Youth Conservation Corps. Zubiate, 16, also was coordinator on a corn
 maze the students built.
 RICHARD PIPES/JOURNAL Students Vincent Trujillo, top, and Javier Portillo from
 the Youth Conservation Corps' summer Project Sunrise work on a mural at Armijo
 Elementary in the South Valley.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2009 Albuquerque Journal









Document Number: 362
 
                     San Gabriel Valley Tribune (California)
                            August 12, 2009 Wednesday
 Letters to the editor: Foods not harmful
 LENGTH: 946 words
 Regarding a recent letter about genetically modified food. Letter writer Bryan
 Wells stated genetically engineered foods are untested, unlabeled and continue a
 toxic model of food production.
 The fact is that most genetically modified foods have been tested and found safe
 for human consumption. If they weren't the FDA would not approve their sale on
 the American market.
 One might bring up the ban in Europe. I would note that the ban in Europe is not
 based on science or medicine but on pure politics. The decision by the FDA,
 unlike the decisions by many EU governments, is based on scientific facts, not a
 need to protect local agriculture.
 Let take another consumer product that people eat a lot of. Popcorn and cereal.
 Both are made from corn. Most Americans are unaware that the corn that goes into
 these products is genetically modified. Has any gotten sick or died from eating
 corn puffs lately? How about after eating popcorn? I didn't think so.
 Genetically modified food might not sound appealing, just as water with a little
 bit of chemical in it is not appealing. But will it kill you?
 Absolutely not. All of us eat genetically modified foods every day and no one
 has been harmed as consequence of consuming these products.
 Robert Canales
 Whittier
 No train on Beverly
 Metro's plan is to expand light-rail service along the eastside Gold Line into
 Whittier along the Greenway Trail from Pioneer to Mar Vista. The four possible
 routes include trains along the Pomona (60) Freeway, Beverly/Greenway Trail,
 Beverly/Whittier Boulevard and Washington Boulevard.
 I personally oppose the Beverly Boulevard /Greenway Trail route for the
 following reasons:
 The Greenway Trail is one of the best investments Whittier has ever made for the
 health and safety of its citizens. People all over the city use it extensively
 during the day and early evening. To place a train along this path makes
 absolutely no sense. It will disrupt the quality of life along the trail and
 will endanger the thousands of people who use the trail to get to work and
 school.
 Metro may have to take private property by eminent domain in order to have
 enough room for the train tracks. To add this burden to homeowners during the
 current economic challenges many already face in untenable.
 Metro plans to put several stations along the Beverly Boulevard/Greenway Trail
 route, but two of the three have no space for parking lots for riders.
 Therefore, the people taking the train will be parking on Broadway and
 Philadelphia on the streets, which just leads to limited parking in an already
 crowded area.
 Metro wants to hear from Whittier citizens concerning which route we want. The
 Washington Boulevard route, (which is endorsed by the Whittier City Council)
 makes the most sense since Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital is the largest
 employer in Whittier.
 Jeanne Renner
 Whittier
 Anti-illegal immigration
 Re the Perspectives page "Hate on the rise," Sunday, Aug 9:
 Perhaps it was not his intention, but columnist Thomas Elias seems to absurdly
 imply that anti-illegal immigration viewpoints equal hate-mongering. At no point
 does he caution that there are, of course, plenty of non-hateful anti-illegal
 immigration viewpoints (such as those from an African-American Democrat married
 to a Mexican American Republican).
 Perhaps Elias would like to further opinionate that criticism of American
 foreign policy is equal to anti-Americanism, encourages hatred of Americans and
 forms a perfect storm for terrorism? If so, the FBI should also be extremely
 vigilant.
 Gary Thornton
 Montebello
 Do like Texas
 I have a way to greatly reduce the size of the California deficit - follow the
 lead of the Texas Legislature!
 The Texas Legislature meets in regular session on the second Tuesday in January
 of each odd-numbered year. The Texas Constitution limits the regular session to
 140 days.
 The governor may call the Legislature into special sessions (the Legislature may
 not call itself into special sessions) and the governor can call as many special
 sessions as he wishes. The Texas Constitution limits each special session to 30
 days.
 Wouldn't it be great if the California Legislature was a part-time legislature?
 The assembly members and senators would have to get regular jobs the rest of the
 time.
 Texas does not have a state income tax and yet is doing well financially.
 California would be so much better off if the legislators were not in Sacramento
 year-round, thinking of ways to spend our money.
 Anne Ross
 Montebello
 VIP care
 Instead of expecting our elected officials to study a 1000-plus page universal
 health plan document before being pressured into approving it, they first need
 to know how much it will cost.
 A better plan would be a one liner: Enroll all Americans in the health plan that
 covers all congressmen and senators.
 Bernard Parsons
 Covina
 Address free coverage
 I just don't understand why the federal government is not stopping state
 governments from giving free Medi-Cal benefits to foreigners? I work in the
 oncology field and see this all the time. We have seen many patients who fly in
 from other countries pay cash for their consultations, and then return to the
 office for chemotherapy with full Medi-Cal benefits, now paying nothing out of
 their own pocket. There's even a breast cancer program here in California that
 doesn't require the person to live here, yet gives them full medical coverage
 for their condition.
 I'm glad these people are receiving treatment and extending their life but still
 can't help but wonder: Why are these types of programs being allowed to
 continue, when so many of this nation's citizens are going without coverage? Is
 it any wonder our state is in debt?
 Janette Sanchez-Perez
 Azusa
 LOAD-DATE: August 13, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
    Copyright 2009 MediaNews Group, Inc. and Los Angeles Newspaper Group, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 363
 
                               The Washington Post
                            August 12, 2009 Wednesday
                                  Every Edition
 Snob Appeal;
 Won't Someone Knock Heirloom Tomatoes Off Their Pedestal?
 BYLINE: Jane Black; Washington Post Staff Writer
 SECTION: FOOD; Pg. E01
 LENGTH: 1027 words
 The best tomato I ate last summer was not an heirloom tomato. If those don't
 seem like fighting words, then clearly you do not take tomatoes seriously.
 In the food world, and in that especially obsessive corner populated by tomato
 aficionados, heirlooms are the embodiment of all that is good, which is to say
 they are not perfectly round, perfectly red and utterly tasteless supermarket
 tomatoes. We food snobs prize heirlooms for their personalities. These
 old-fashioned varieties are lumpy, cracked and creviced, with glorious names
 such as Casady's Folly or Mullens' Mortgage Lifter (which is not to be confused
 with Radiator Charlie's Mortgage Lifter or Quisinberry's Mortgage Lifter). And
 they come in nearly all the colors of the rainbow. They can be red, of course.
 But they are also yellow, streaked with tangerine like a summer sunset, pale
 green, bronze-and-purple and bruised black as if they've just escaped from a
 backyard tomato smackdown.
 I have eaten terrific heirloom varieties; indeed, I'm quite partial to the Black
 Prince, which hails from Siberia, a place one doesn't normally associate with
 tomatoes. But a week ago, I paid $4.99 a pound for a locally grown heirloom that
 was slightly mealy, tasted overwhelmingly bland and paled in comparison with a
 perfectly round, perfectly red commercial hybrid, dubbed Early Girl, that I ate
 last year and am still dreaming about at the height of this year's tomato
 season.
 Call me persnickety, but someone needs to take a stand here: "Heirloom" is not
 synonymous with "good."
 The key to a great tomato is how it is grown. Tomatoes, both commercial hybrids
 and heirlooms, like hot nights and plenty of water. The best ones are eaten
 still warm from the garden. "Heirloom" has become another buzzword, like "farm
 to table," complained Jeremy Fox, the chef at vegetarian restaurant Ubuntu in
 Napa, which serves farm-to-table heirlooms as well as hybrids invented by the
 restaurant's full-time gardener. "It's about quality," he said. "If a tomato
 tastes good, it's a good tomato. Nothing else matters."
 That wasn't always the case. In the beginning, only serious backyard gardeners
 swooned over heirlooms. Some, undoubtedly, were concerned about flavor. But for
 most, growing heirlooms -- which they defined as any variety that can reproduce
 from seed and existed before World War II -- was more about preserving
 biodiversity. Only within the past decade did chefs and trend-crazed food
 writers latch on to the term: NewsBank, a database that tracks more than 2,500
 sources, found 1,097 references to heirloom tomatoes in 2008, up from 77 a
 decade earlier.
 Over the years, writers have praised their looks: the psychedelic colors and
 shapes that result in what Restaurant Eve chef-owner Cathal Armstrong calls
 "they're-so-ugly-they're-beautiful" tomatoes. They applauded their flavor: the
 fruity explosion of the Casady's Folly and the candy sweetness and lemon notes
 of that Mullens' Mortgage Lifter. Soon, heirlooms had been transformed into a
 status symbol, and not just for foodies. In 2005, a New York Times style writer
 described a pair of $635 jeans as "the apparel form of heirloom tomatoes, good
 the way things used to be, but at 10 times the price."
 Indeed, heirloom tomatoes rose to such prominence that sociologists began to
 study them as a cultural phenomenon. In a 2007 article in the journal Sociologia
 Ruralis, Jennifer Jordan examined the pressing question of why a growing number
 of consumers had acquired a taste for $7-a-pound "bug-eaten, calloused, mottled
 and splitting tomatoes that may or may not taste good."
 The answer, Jordan concluded, was that heirloom tomatoes had evolved into a
 "marker of distinction." The lumpy, imperfect fruit had become a kind of mascot
 for the good-food movement that is against industrial agriculture's embrace of
 pesticides, against the development of genetically modified foods, in favor of
 preserving small farms and in support of local and seasonal food. Some people
 sought out heirlooms for their flavor, a reaction to the pretty but insipid
 industrial hybrids. (Jordan reports that university labs were instructed "to
 imagine the tomato as a projectile" in their efforts to develop fruit that could
 survive long-distance shipping and extended refrigeration.) But for many, the
 growing or purchase of heirloom tomatoes was about making a statement.
 Heirlooms' popularity took a toll on their taste, however. As farmers and
 supermarkets realized they could extract high prices for heirlooms, they
 increased production. And, in some cases, quality fell; hence the gorgeous but
 mealy and bland heirloom I bought last week.
 A stunning but disappointing tomato: Does that remind you of anything?
 Which is why this year I'm noting a quiet revolt against heirlooms, even among
 those of us who tend to blindly believe that everything handmade, organic and
 artisanal is best. Seed saving is still an important goal. But hybrids, after
 all, are the result of plant breeding, a technology as old as farming itself.
 Protecting heritage species is essential, but Maine farmer Barbara Damrosch (who
 writes for this newspaper) says she sees nothing wrong with Burpee's hybrid
 Brandy Boys, which she says are more productive and easier to grow than their
 famous pink heirloom precursor, the Brandywine.
 New Jersey-based writer and gardener Laura Schenone learned that the hard way.
 Last summer, she grew exclusively Black Princes and Brandywines. The tomatoes
 were small and so was her yield. "They tasted pretty good," she told me. "But
 the little tomato plant from some mass-produced seed company that my son brought
 home from school was better, with lots of bright, tangy fruit all summer."
 This year, Schenone has mostly switched to the Ramapo tomato, a hybrid version
 of an old New Jersey tomato that has been bred in the lab to taste good, resist
 rot and produce well. The Ramapos look boring, she admits: There are no pretty
 green stripes or sunset blushes. But they are big and round and turning red,
 while the few remaining heirlooms in her garden are still puny and green. "The
 [heirlooms] will be good, too," Schenone told me. "But not necessarily better."
 Amen.
 LOAD-DATE: August 12, 2009
 DISTRIBUTION: Montgomery County
 GRAPHIC: IMAGE; Illustration By Serge Bloch For The Washington Post; Photos By
 Julia Ewan -- The Washington Post
 IMAGE; Illustration By Serge Bloch For The Washington Post; Photos By Julia Ewan
 -- The Washington Post
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2009 The Washington Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 364
 
                          The Christian Science Monitor
                              August 10, 2009 Monday
 Hillary Clinton aims to revive US influence in Angola;
 The secretary of State's visit to Africa's top oil producer on Sunday and Monday
 is being seen as an effort to counter China's clout there.
 BYLINE: Scott Baldauf Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
 LENGTH: 632 words
 Hillary Clinton's visit to Angola on Sunday and Monday shows that the cold war
 is well and truly over, but that its techniques are alive and well. Once a
 battleground between Soviet-armed and Cuban-trained government forces and an
 American-armed rebel force, Angola has belatedly become the center of a
 different kind of rivalry between the US and China - over Angola's oil
 resources. Just months after Angolan president Jose Eduardo dos Santos traveled
 to China to extend a lengthy line of credit, Mrs. Clinton has arrived to witness
 a major corporate agreement between Chevron and the government of Angola. Angola
 has become Africa's largest oil producer, ahead of Nigeria and Libya. Clinton
 also signed a trade agreement that would pave the way for more US investment in
 this wartorn African country, particularly in job-producing areas such as
 agriculture.
 Clinton downplayed any question of rivalry with China, saying, "I am not looking
 at what anyone else does in Angola. I am looking at what the United States can
 do to further and deepen our relationship and provide assistance and support for
 the changes the Angolan government is undertaking." US comes late to the game In
 addition to purchasing Angola's oil, the US has also agreed to help build two
 hydroelectric plants in Angola, and has approved plans for America's main aid
 agency, USAID, to invest in Angola's coffee- and banana-farming businesses. The
 US is coming late to the game. China - which gives no lectures on good
 governance or human rights - has already loaned Angola billions of dollars to
 improve its oil-production infrastructure, helping it become the largest African
 oil producer and China's largest oil supplier, ahead of Saudi Arabia. "Dos
 Santos is playing the old cold-war game, where you don't put all your eggs in
 one basket," says Richard Cornwell, an independent security analyst in Tshwane
 (Pretoria). "If he can get this Obama administration - which has proved itself
 to be a lot more pragmatic than many thought it would be - to invest more in
 Angola, and particularly in the agricultural sector, that makes a lot of sense."
 Viewing the US with suspicion Angola's political class views America with some
 suspicion, since America backed the UNITA rebel militia against the ruling party
 of Mr. Dos Santos, who has ruled the country since shortly after independence in
 1975. Now an opposition party, UNITA continues to complain that the Dos Santos
 government has misused the country's oil wealth for its own enrichment instead
 of for improving the lives of the poor, and that it has tightly restricted
 democratic rights. Angola's foreign minister, Assuncao Afonso dos Anjos, said
 that his country was fresh from the civil war and that it needed more time for
 implementation of democracy. Angola held its first free parliamentary elections
 last year, and will hold presidential elections in 2010. US to increase
 agricultural aid But if the US is serious about improving relations with Angola,
 says Mr. Cornwell, it will pay as much attention to helping Angola create jobs
 in the agricultural sector as it does on securing the 7 percent of its oil
 supplies that it buys from Angola. "Agriculture is the key," he says. "We're not
 talking the Green Revolution here, with genetically modified food and
 pesticides. We're just talking about getting the basics right. There is no
 reason that Africa needs to import 60 to 70 percent of its food." Reducing the
 amount of food that Africa imports, and increasing the amount that it produces,
 will create the kind of productive, stable economy that America says it really
 wants to see in Angola, he adds. "Food makes all the difference."  Joaquim
 Pereira and Armando Gonzales of the Center of African Journalists contributed to
 this report from Luanda, Angola.
 LOAD-DATE: February 19, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
               Copyright 2009 Christian Science Publishing Society
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 365
 
                            Christian Science Monitor
                             August 10, 2009, Monday
 Hillary Clinton aims to revive US influence in Angola
 BYLINE: Scott Baldauf Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
 SECTION: WORLD; Pg. 6
 LENGTH: 636 words
 DATELINE: Johannesburg, South Africa
 Hillary Clinton's visit to Angola on Sunday and Monday shows that the cold war
 is well and truly over, but that its techniques are alive and well.
 Once a battleground between Soviet-armed and Cuban-trained government forces and
 an American-armed rebel force, Angola has belatedly become the center of a
 different kind of rivalry between the US and China - over Angola's oil
 resources.
 Just months after Angolan president Jose Eduardo dos Santos traveled to China to
 extend a lengthy line of credit, Mrs. Clinton has arrived to witness a major
 corporate agreement between Chevron and the government of Angola.
 Angola has become Africa's largest oil producer, ahead of Nigeria and Libya.
 Clinton also signed a trade agreement that would pave the way for more US
 investment in this wartorn African country, particularly in job-producing areas
 such as agriculture.
 Clinton downplayed any question of rivalry with China, saying, "I am not looking
 at what anyone else does in Angola. I am looking at what the United States can
 do to further and deepen our relationship and provide assistance and support for
 the changes the Angolan government is undertaking."
 US comes late to the game
 In addition to purchasing Angola's oil, the US has also agreed to help build two
 hydroelectric plants in Angola, and has approved plans for America's main aid
 agency, USAID, to invest in Angola's coffee- and banana-farming businesses.
 The US is coming late to the game.
 China - which gives no lectures on good governance or human rights - has already
 loaned Angola billions of dollars to improve its oil-production infrastructure,
 helping it become the largest African oil producer and China's largest oil
 supplier, ahead of Saudi Arabia.
 "Dos Santos is playing the old cold-war game, where you don't put all your eggs
 in one basket," says Richard Cornwell, an independent security analyst in
 Tshwane (Pretoria). "If he can get this Obama administration - which has proved
 itself to be a lot more pragmatic than many thought it would be - to invest more
 in Angola, and particularly in the agricultural sector, that makes a lot of
 sense."
 Viewing the US with suspicion
 Angola's political class views America with some suspicion, since America backed
 the UNITA rebel militia against the ruling party of Mr. Dos Santos, who has
 ruled the country since shortly after independence in 1975.
 Now an opposition party, UNITA continues to complain that the Dos Santos
 government has misused the country's oil wealth for its own enrichment instead
 of for improving the lives of the poor, and that it has tightly restricted
 democratic rights.
 Angola's foreign minister, Assuncao Afonso dos Anjos, said that his country was
 fresh from the civil war and that it needed more time for implementation of
 democracy. Angola held its first free parliamentary elections last year, and
 will hold presidential elections in 2010.
 US to increase agricultural aid
 But if the US is serious about improving relations with Angola, says Mr.
 Cornwell, it will pay as much attention to helping Angola create jobs in the
 agricultural sector as it does on securing the 7 percent of its oil supplies
 that it buys from Angola.
 "Agriculture is the key," he says. "We're not talking the Green Revolution here,
 with genetically modified food and pesticides. We're just talking about getting
 the basics right. There is no reason that Africa needs to import 60 to 70
 percent of its food."
 Reducing the amount of food that Africa imports, and increasing the amount that
 it produces, will create the kind of productive, stable economy that America
 says it really wants to see in Angola, he adds. "Food makes all the difference."
 * Joaquim Pereira and Armando Gonzales of the Center of African Journalists
 contributed to this report from Luanda, Angola.
 (c) Copyright 2009. The Christian Science Monitor
 LOAD-DATE: August 10, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
             Copyright 2009 The Christian Science Publishing Society
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 366
 
                     San Gabriel Valley Tribune (California)
                              August 9, 2009 Sunday
 Letters to the editor: Hypocrisy everywhere
 LENGTH: 423 words
 I agree with those who are saying that the Obama administration is not being
 forceful enough in condemning attacks on people in Iran protesting the recent
 sham elections in that country. I am in complete solidarity with those in Iran
 who are calling for the end of the current regime and its replacement with a
 democratic system.
 What I cannot stomach is the bleating chorus consisting of those Republicans who
 are hoping to score points by pretending to be in favor of an extension of
 democracy to this part of the Middle East. Why are they silent about the
 situation in Saudi Arabia, where freedom of expression and human rights are more
 precarious than in Iran?
 Do they think that everyone has forgotten that the Dulles brothers, under
 President Eisenhower, mounted a secret coup that ousted a popularly elected
 government that was replaced by a Shah, whose father was such an admirer of
 Hitler that the CIA forced him to abdicate? And that this same Shah's regime was
 so hated that its overthrow led directly to the Mullahs taking over?
 Can we forget Reagan and his "arms for the Contras" scheme that was critical in
 supporting the regime in Iran? Maybe they hope that short memories will allow us
 to forget that none of these politicians (in many cases Republicans) gave a darn
 until now about freedom for Iranians, much less for all of the people in these
 countries who are ruled by despots, sheiks, emirs and presidents-for-life which
 has not been a problem for American leaders as long as the oil flowed.
 Americans should support self-rule and freedom of expression for all the people
 of the Middle East, whether the price of oil goes up or down, if only for our
 own safety. The young woman who was recently buried after bleeding to death on a
 street in Tehran deserves not to have lost her life in vain.
 David Gooler
 Pasadena
 Avoid engineered foods
 Monsanto's genetically engineered sugar beets are hitting the marketplace this
 year and major food companies, like Kellogg's, have chosen to not guarantee that
 their products are free of any GE ingredients.
 Genetically Engineered foods are untested, unlabeled and continue a toxic model
 of food production. GE sugar beets are designed to withstand massive doses of
 Monsanto's controversial Roundup herbicide. If given the chance, many Americans
 would avoid eating GE foods. Poll after poll have demonstrated that most people
 want mandatory labeling of all GE foods.
 Protecting the environment and providing safe food for my family is very
 important to me.
 Marykay Neyland
 La Caada Flintridge
 LOAD-DATE: August 12, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
    Copyright 2009 MediaNews Group, Inc. and Los Angeles Newspaper Group, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 367
 
                              The Salt Lake Tribune
                             August 8, 2009 Saturday
 Butters: Little kernels of truth
 BYLINE: By MaryJane Butters
 SECTION: LIFESTYLE; Home and Garden; Features
 LENGTH: 953 words
 Who among the farm-hearted doesn't love a good ear of corn? Anyone who ever has
 held a fresh ear in her hands knows what I'm talking about. Oh, the pearly
 kernels tightly nested in neat rows, still warm from the summer sun! Once I've
 snapped an ear from the stalk and peeked through the silky husk, it's almost
 impossible to wait for a pot of water to boil. My mouth waters at the thought of
 those lovely little juice-packed jewels. Few gifts from the garden are as sweet.
 Fortunately, my adoration of corn is still untainted by the veritable crisis
 that plagues our country today. Genetic engineering, overproduction, pesticides
 and processed corn-based products threaten our health, the environment and
 global food security on a daily basis. But, having harvested a bushel of
 information, I'm prepared to decipher the "good" corn from the "bad."
 And I still welcome "good" corn to my table with the same gratitude that the
 American Indians must have felt centuries ago, when corn was held sacred.
 Certain tribes actually revered corn as the first mother of their people. One
 story tells of a desperate mother who had nothing to feed her children and so
 sacrificed her body to the land, promising her family that she would return in
 seven months bearing food. When her family visited the place of her death seven
 months later, they found a crop of bountiful corn plants with tassels like their
 mother's own silken hair.
 It's hard to imagine that such a gorgeous and gracious crop could become so
 maligned. But human ingenuity has indeed created a monster. More than 76 million
 acres of corn are cultivated annually in the United States, meaning our nation's
 acres (not to mention its small farms) are being gobbled up by industrial,
 genetically modified corn. This mega-crop is used inexpensively for livestock,
 gasoline and low-quality processed foods.
 The repercussions range far and wide, including antibiotic-laden meat from
 animals with grain-induced illnesses, millions of pounds of pesticides and
 chemical fertilizers, and a food supply riddled with high-fructose corn syrup.
 Not to mention all of the petroleum required to fuel this screwy system.
 But you know what? Big problems can be pecked into bite-sized solutions. You and
 I can start nibbling away at the corn crisis today with these simple steps:
  Avoid high-fructose corn syrup. It's in practically everything, so you have to
 be diligent, but there are plenty of affordable alternatives. Watch out for
 products claiming "corn syrup" on their labels, because it can actually contain
 high-fructose content on the sly.
  Buy 100 percent organic corn, whether it's on the cob, in the can or included
 in another product's ingredients. Organic corn products are grown without
 pesticides, and they're not genetically modified (unlike 85 percent of the rest
 of the corn on the market). Check labels carefully to make sure all corn
 components are organic.
  Buy meat, dairy and eggs from animals that were raised on pasture grass, not
 corn. The organic label guarantees that livestock were not fed pesticides, but
 it doesn't guarantee they were grass-fed. Look for "organic, grass-fed," on the
 labels and you'll be getting the best possible product.
  Avoid buying gasoline that contains ethanol, a corn-based fuel additive.
  Don't waste your good, green intentions on buying corn-based "plastic"
 products, which most likely come from GMO (genetically modified organisms).
  If you feed wild birds or your own chicken flock, look for organic or
 corn-free feeds.
  Get informed. Learning about the dangers of genetic modification and other
 issues affecting our food supply can help us make better choices.
 MaryJane Butters is the editor of MaryJanesFarm magazine. E-mail her at everyday
 organic@maryjanesfarm. Fire-Roasted Sweet Corn
 Fresh fire-roasted sweet corn enjoyed on a cool summer night is a toothsome
 summertime treat. It takes only a couple of easy steps to make this
 great-tasting sweet corn, and it won't distract you from enjoying the company of
 friends and family who have gathered by the fire.
 First, place unhusked ears in a large pan of water to soak for about 1 hour.
 Meanwhile, light a fire. After about an hour (or whenever you get to it, there's
 really no hurry), remove the corn from the water. Stack the ears on a grill
 balanced on rocks at one end of the fire ring. Sweep some of the coals from the
 fire beneath the grill. Don't set the corn directly above the flames, or it will
 cook too quickly and the husks will burn. The idea is to slow-steam them over
 smoke-flavored coals.
 Set a pan of butter by the fire and place a bouquet of rosemary stalks tied with
 twine with one end steeping in the butter and the other resting against the edge
 of the pan. Let the heat of the fire melt and flavor the butter as the corn
 cooks. Just be sure it doesn't get too hot and burn the butter. Rotate the stack
 of corn every 5 or 10 minutes, depending on the strength of the coals, so
 they'll cook evenly. Don't worry if some of the corn becomes a little blackened
 or browned. After about 30 minutes, check for doneness by pulling back the husk
 a bit on one of the ears. If it's done, the kernels will be bright yellow and
 steaming. Brush on the butter with the rosemary bouquet.
 Source  MaryJane Butters
  Good sources of information
 In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto  by Michael Pollan (Penguin, $15)
 Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year of Food Life  by Barbara Kingsolver (Harper
 Perennial, $14.95)
 Eatwild.com  Grass-fed food and facts
 Organicconsumers.org  which includes Kingsolver's essay on genetic engineering
 titled "A Fist in the Eye of God," from her book Small Wonder (HarperCollins,
 $13.95) ( www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/SmallWonders.cfm )
 LOAD-DATE: August 13, 2009
 GRAPHIC: Courtesy MaryJane ButtersFire-roasted sweet corn is a perfect way to
 enjoy the in-season vegetable.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2009 The Salt Lake Tribune
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 368
 
                                 The Denver Post
                             August 5, 2009 Wednesday
 Common sense gone to seed?
 BYLINE: Vincent Carroll The Denver Post
 SECTION: Pg. B-13
 LENGTH: 687 words
 When all was said and done last week, a majority on Boulder County's Food and
 Agriculture Policy Council cared more about making a statement than the
 livelihood of six farmers. They cared more about sending a message about
 genetically modified crops and big, bad Monsanto Corp. than the economic welfare
 of actual human beings.
 The food policy council - a relatively new addition to the county's tangled
 organizational chart - will not enjoy the final word on whether those farmers
 are allowed to grow genetically modified sugar beets on public open space they
 rent. County commissioners will make that call later this month. But the
 council's 10-3 recommendation against the farmers' request highlights the
 single-minded self-absorption of some who crusade for organic foods.
 After all, those who opposed the farmers' request knew perfectly well that more
 than 90 percent of sugar beets in this country are genetically modified -
 meaning, to quote from a parks and open space staff report, Boulder policy will
 "not make a difference in the overall use of GMO technology or the use of
 pesticides." Council members understood, in addition, that farmers soon will
 have difficulty even obtaining traditional sugar beet seed.
 They also knew - thanks to background materials compiled by county staff - that
 the farmers have no obvious marketable replacement for sugar beets in their crop
 rotation, and are required collectively to raise 960 acres of sugar beets under
 a contract with the Western Sugar Cooperative.
 Finally, council members were aware that Boulder County has allowed genetically
 modified corn on its open space since 2003. So the farmers aren't even asking
 for the reversal of a comprehensive, principled stand.
 Indeed, the only practical effect of turning down the farmers' request, county
 staff warned, would be to "put our tenants at a competitive disadvantage in the
 market place, and harm their ability to continue farming profitably."
 Tough luck, declared the food council's majority and their supporters. Boulder's
 image as a "hotbed for organic farming and leading organic businesses," to cite
 a letter in opposition from the managing director of Boulder's Organic Center,
 must be burnished at all costs.
 The sugar beets in question, known as Roundup Ready, have been genetically
 altered to make them immune to the herbicide glyphosate, which kills surrounding
 weeds. Proponents of the method insist that it saves labor costs (less manual
 weeding), reduces the amount of tillage (an environmental plus), increases
 yields and actually decreases the total amount of pesticides applied compared
 with conventional sugar beets.
 Are legitimate scientific issues at play with genetically modified crops? Sure.
 The main ones here involve cross pollination with other plants - so-called "gene
 flow" - and the possible development of highly resistant super weeds.
 However, "the probability of gene flow for sugar beets is close to zero in our
 area," open space staff concluded. "In our cool climate, sugar beets do not
 produce seed or pollen until the second season, but since they are harvested in
 the first season this concern is all but eliminated."
 As for super weeds, farmers limit the risk through crop and herbicide rotation
 and dosage management - which would be required.
 There's another side to the debate over genetically modified crops, admittedly.
 If you'd like to sample it in its most lurid, technophobic, anti-corporate form,
 by all means check out "The World According to Monsanto." This documentary will
 satisfy anyone who appreciates a dark conspiratorial tone spiced with such
 portentous comments as "In the United States, the Secretary of Agriculture
 doesn't stand a chance against the multinationals."
 In Boulder County, the equivalent question is whether commissioners stand a
 chance against environmental hysterics. My bet is they do. After all, one week
 before the food council's vote, yet another citizen body, the Parks and Open
 Space Advisory Committee, voted 7 to 1 in favor of the farmers. So don't count
 out common sense - and compassion - just yet.
 E-mail Vincent Carroll at vcarroll@denverpost.com
 LOAD-DATE: August 5, 2009
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Column
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2009 The Denver Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 369
 
                          Portland Press Herald (Maine)
                              August 4, 2009 Tuesday
                                  FINAL Edition
 Filmmakers ask tough questions in 'Food Inc.';
 Where does our food come from and what's in it? It's shocking how little we
 know.
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; OUR VIEWS; Pg. A6
 LENGTH: 516 words
 Forget about fad diets or extreme exercise programs. Anyone who wants to lose
 weight this summer should head to a movie theater and watch ''Food Inc.'',
 Robert Kenner's documentary that asks hard questions about where our food comes
 from, what's in it and what it is doing to us.
 The answers are troubling. Food in America is manufactured by an increasingly
 small number of processors and manufacturers, far removed from the family farms
 that live mostly in our imaginations. It is engineered to be able to travel long
 distances, have a long shelf life, and most importantly, sell for the lowest
 possible price.
 As a result, it contains harmful chemicals, such as ammonia and antibiotics,
 which are used to kill bacteria in meat. Production is tailored for the
 fast-food industry, which has created low-cost products that taste great, but
 are largely responsible for an epidemic of obesity and such related conditions
 as diabetes.
 Overeating is commonly viewed as a failure of personal discipline, but a segment
 of the film that follows a low-income family shows that there are other forces
 at work. Because of the perverse effects of government subsidies, a dollar goes
 much further at a fast-food restaurant than in a supermarket's produce section.
 As a result, the family is forced to make choices that they know are unhealthy.
 The film also documents the legal battles between the chemical giant Monsanto,
 which sells a patented genetically modified soybean, and the farmers who chose
 not to use the company's seed. Maine residents will recall that this is the same
 company that sued local Oakhurst Dairy for making the absolutely true claim that
 its products did not contain growth hormones, which are manufactured by
 Monsanto.
 The weight-loss effect of the movie does not come from the stomach-turning,
 hidden-camera views of the insides of industrial meat plants. Most people
 already have low expectations for what goes on in a slaughterhouse or chicken
 barn, as callous and unsanitary as they are shown to be.
 It comes from the question the film leaves you with - if this is true, what can
 I eat? The answers are not easy.
 Consumers have to use their power to demand that the market produce safe,
 healthy food. That means being willing to pay more for produce, dairy and meat
 that does not come from the factory-farm system. It also means rejecting
 fast-food and reintroducing ourselves to home cooking.
 It will require changes in federal agricultural policy and a willingness by
 lawmakers to take on a handful of the most powerful international corporations
 that control the food industry. Farm subsidy dollars should not be used to make
 the most dangerous foods the only ones that people can afford. Low-cost food is
 not desirable if it makes people sick.
 ''Food Inc.'' is based on solid, muckraking journalism, like Upton Sinclair's
 ''The Jungle,'' which opened people's eyes to the excesses of meatpacking plants
 a century ago. The filmmakers point out that in many ways, the situation is
 worse today.
 Watching it may not be a feel-good way to spend a summer evening, but it's worth
 the unease.
 LOAD-DATE: August 4, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2009 Blethen Maine Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 370
 
                     San Gabriel Valley Tribune (California)
                              August 2, 2009 Sunday
 Letters to the editor: Food over building
 LENGTH: 345 words
 I've heard that the food at Seta is wonderful so I suppose I shall have to
 overcome my aversion to the building and have a meal there.
 I am affronted again every time I pass that ponderous mass, squatting like a
 warty, malevolent toad on the corner of our otherwise charming Uptown Whittier
 area.
 I am also reminded each time of the three City Council members who voted to
 override the recommendation of our Planning Commission, which has the job of
 protecting us from such inappropriate architecture.
 Gwen V. Woirhaye
 Whittier
 Public education model
 I am fortunate to have health insurance but I am extremely concerned because the
 status quo is not sustainable. It's a matter of time for my employer to say he
 can no longer afford my insurance or my services.
 Health care is a human necessity - as basic as education. I don't understand how
 the concept of mandatory education is well engraved into everybody's mind, but
 the concept of universal care is not received equally well. Why can't we have
 public health care the same way we have public education?
 In the field of education public and private sectors coexist. The educational
 model can be extended to health care. Public education is far from perfection,
 but without it we couldn't exist as a society.
 Similarly public health care is a necessity not just for individuals but for the
 entire American society.
 Thanos Trezos
 San Gabriel
 Genetically engineered
 Monsanto's genetically engineered sugar beets are hitting the marketplace this
 year and major food companies, like Kelloggs, have chosen to not guarantee that
 their products are free of any GE ingredients.
 Genetically Engineered foods are untested, unlabeled and continue a toxic model
 of food production. GE sugar beets are designed to withstand massive doses of
 Monsanto's controversial Roundup herbicide. If given the chance, many Americans
 would avoid eating GE foods. Poll after poll have demonstrated that most people
 want mandatory labeling of all GE foods.
 Protecting the environment and providing safe food for my family is very
 important to me.
 Bryan Wells
 Cypress
 LOAD-DATE: August 3, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
    Copyright 2009 MediaNews Group, Inc. and Los Angeles Newspaper Group, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 371
 
                             August 1, 2009 Saturday
 SECTION: METRO; Pg. 7B
 LENGTH: 497 words
 Texas Faith is a weekly discussion that poses questions about religion, politics
 and culture to a panel of religious leaders. This week's question is:
 Is health care a moral issue? If so, doesn't that mean we must do whatever is
 necessary so that everybody has health care?
 Here are excerpts from some of this week's answers:
 Deal Hudson, president, Morley Publishing Group, and director,
 InsideCatholic.com: Health care is not a moral issue per se. No one is obliged
 to pay for the sum total of all medical care either needed or desired by his
 "neighbor."
 The problem with talking about "rights" to things like health care is that it
 completely skirts the issue of individual responsibility.
 Why am I responsible for paying for another person's medical care when that
 person has squandered their resources and/or abused their physical well-being?
 Is one citizen obligated to save another citizen from the consequences of his
 actions? I don't think so.
 William Lawrence, dean and professor of American Church History, Perkins School
 of Theology, Southern Methodist University: Providing access to adequate health
 care is a moral obligation of every society.
 The mechanism that a society chooses to fulfill this moral obligation - from a
 single-payer, tax-based system with coverage for all, to some private-payer
 market-based system that finds a way to cover all - can vary.
 It is a moral obligation to provide health care, not on the basis of social or
 economic class, but on the basis of human dignity.
 Nityananda Chandra Das, minister, ISKCON Kalachandji's Hare Krishna Temple,
 Dallas: ...Minimal health care should be provided universally, but it would not
 be conducive to health of society to pay out large amounts of money on
 preventable diseases.
 Rather than funds being used to cater for bad habits, money should be used to
 educate the public how to live healthy. Yoga, vegetarianism, organic foods, non-
 genetically modified foods, healthy family life and so on should be promoted and
 taught in school and other facilities.
 Similarly cigarettes, alcohol, loose sexual relations, meat eating, gambling and
 other destructive elements should be discouraged. This will drastically reduce
 health care cost and will provide a better quality of life for American
 citizens.
 Brian Schmisek, dean, School of Ministry, University of Dallas: According to
 Catholic Social Teaching, and perhaps even a fundamental understanding of human
 dignity, health care is a right rather than a privilege.
 Health care has often been understood as a basic commodity to be purchased, such
 as food. As we guarantee a minimal level of sustenance to those who cannot
 afford it, we should provide a basic level of health care to those who cannot
 afford it.
 Rather than a benefit or privilege, a basic level of health care is a right. We
 subsidize health care now. We should do so more intelligently and more cost
 effectively in the future.
 To read more responses and to post your own comments, go to
 dallasnews.com/texasfaith.
 LOAD-DATE: August 3, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2009 THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS









Document Number: 372
 
                                The New York Times
                               July 26, 2009 Sunday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Ay Robot! Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man
 BYLINE: By JOHN MARKOFF
 SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 1194 words
 A robot that can open doors and find electrical outlets to recharge itself.
 Computer viruses that no one can stop. Predator drones, which, though still
 controlled remotely by humans, come close to a machine that can kill
 autonomously.
 Impressed and alarmed by advances in artificial intelligence, a group of
 computer scientists is debating whether there should be limits on research that
 might lead to loss of human control over computer-based systems that carry a
 growing share of society's workload, from waging war to chatting with customers
 on the phone.
 Their concern is that further advances could create profound social disruptions
 and even have dangerous consequences.
 As examples, the scientists pointed to a number of technologies as diverse as
 experimental medical systems that interact with patients to simulate empathy,
 and computer worms and viruses that defy extermination and could thus be said to
 have reached a ''cockroach'' stage of machine intelligence.
 While the computer scientists agreed that we are a long way from Hal, the
 computer that took over the spaceship in ''2001: A Space Odyssey,'' they said
 there was legitimate concern that technological progress would transform the
 work force by destroying a widening range of jobs, as well as force humans to
 learn to live with machines that increasingly copy human behaviors.
 The researchers -- leading computer scientists, artificial intelligence
 researchers and roboticists who met at the Asilomar Conference Grounds on
 Monterey Bay in California -- generally discounted the possibility of highly
 centralized superintelligences and the idea that intelligence might spring
 spontaneously from the Internet. But they agreed that robots that can kill
 autonomously are either already here or will be soon.
 They focused particular attention on the specter that criminals could exploit
 artificial intelligence systems as soon as they were developed. What could a
 criminal do with a speech synthesis system that could masquerade as a human
 being? What happens if artificial intelligence technology is used to mine
 personal information from smart phones?
 The researchers also discussed possible threats to human jobs, like self-driving
 cars, software-based personal assistants and service robots in the home. Just
 last month, a service robot developed by Willow Garage in Silicon Valley proved
 it could navigate the real world.
 A report from the conference, which took place in private on Feb. 25, is to be
 issued later this year. Some attendees discussed the meeting for the first time
 with other scientists this month and in interviews.
 The conference was organized by the Association for the Advancement of
 Artificial Intelligence, and in choosing Asilomar for the discussions, the group
 purposefully evoked a landmark event in the history of science. In 1975, the
 world's leading biologists also met at Asilomar to discuss the new ability to
 reshape life by swapping genetic material among organisms. Concerned about
 possible biohazards and ethical questions, scientists had halted certain
 experiments. The conference led to guidelines for recombinant DNA research,
 enabling experimentation to continue.
 The meeting on the future of artificial intelligence was organized by Eric
 Horvitz, a Microsoft researcher who is now president of the association.
 Dr. Horvitz said he believed computer scientists must respond to the notions of
 superintelligent machines and artificial intelligence systems run amok.
 The idea of an ''intelligence explosion'' in which smart machines would design
 even more intelligent machines was proposed by the mathematician I. J. Good in
 1965. Later, in lectures and science fiction novels, the computer scientist
 Vernor Vinge popularized the notion of a moment when humans will create
 smarter-than-human machines, causing such rapid change that the ''human era will
 be ended.'' He called this shift the Singularity.
 This vision, embraced in movies and literature, is seen as plausible and
 unnerving by some scientists like William Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems.
 Other technologists, notably Raymond Kurzweil, have extolled the coming of
 ultrasmart machines, saying they will offer huge advances in life extension and
 wealth creation.
 ''Something new has taken place in the past five to eight years,'' Dr. Horvitz
 said. ''Technologists are providing almost religious visions, and their ideas
 are resonating in some ways with the same idea of the Rapture.''
 The Kurzweil version of technological utopia has captured imaginations in
 Silicon Valley. This summer an organization called the Singularity University
 began offering courses to prepare a ''cadre'' to shape the advances and help
 society cope with the ramifications.
 ''My sense was that sooner or later we would have to make some sort of statement
 or assessment, given the rising voice of the technorati and people very
 concerned about the rise of intelligent machines,'' Dr. Horvitz said.
 The A.A.A.I. report will try to assess the possibility of ''the loss of human
 control of computer-based intelligences.'' It will also grapple, Dr. Horvitz
 said, with socioeconomic, legal and ethical issues, as well as probable changes
 in human-computer relationships. How would it be, for example, to relate to a
 machine that is as intelligent as your spouse?
 Dr. Horvitz said the panel was looking for ways to guide research so that
 technology improved society rather than moved it toward a technological
 catastrophe. Some research might, for instance, be conducted in a high-security
 laboratory.
 The meeting on artificial intelligence could be pivotal to the future of the
 field. Paul Berg, who was the organizer of the 1975 Asilomar meeting and
 received a Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1980, said it was important for
 scientific communities to engage the public before alarm and opposition becomes
 unshakable.
 ''If you wait too long and the sides become entrenched like with G.M.O.,'' he
 said, referring to genetically modified foods, ''then it is very difficult. It's
 too complex, and people talk right past each other.''
 Tom Mitchell, a professor of artificial intelligence and machine learning at
 Carnegie Mellon University, said the February meeting had changed his thinking.
 ''I went in very optimistic about the future of A.I. and thinking that Bill Joy
 and Ray Kurzweil were far off in their predictions,'' he said. But, he added,
 ''The meeting made me want to be more outspoken about these issues and in
 particular be outspoken about the vast amounts of data collected about our
 personal lives.''
 Despite his concerns, Dr. Horvitz said he was hopeful that artificial
 intelligence research would benefit humans, and perhaps even compensate for
 human failings. He recently demonstrated a voice-based system that he designed
 to ask patients about their symptoms and to respond with empathy. When a mother
 said her child was having diarrhea, the face on the screen said, ''Oh no, sorry
 to hear that.''
 A physician told him afterward that it was wonderful that the system responded
 to human emotion. ''That's a great idea,'' Dr. Horvitz said he was told. ''I
 have no time for that.''
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: July 31, 2009
 GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: This robot can plug itself in when it needs a charge. Servant
 now, master later?(PHOTOGRAPH BY KEN CONLEY/WILLOW GARAGE)(A1)
  Predator drones, like this one in Afghanistan, still need a human hand to work,
 at least for now.(PHOTOGRAPH BY GENERAL ATOMICS AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS)(A4)
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 373
 
            Environmental Protection Agency Documents and Publications
                                  July 23, 2009
 EPA Grant to University of Chicago for Research on Food Allergy Triggers
 LENGTH: 358  words
 WASHINGTON-- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has awarded a $433,100
 grant to the University of Chicago to investigate how allergic reactions to food
 are initiated. The research is expected to lead to improved methods to assess
 whether pesticides produced in genetically engineered plants can trigger food
 allergies. The study is funded through EPA's Science to Achieve Results program
 'There is a shortage of information on how food allergies develop, what causes
 the allergic reaction, and how to prevent them,' said Lek Kadeli, acting
 assistant administrator for the Office of Research and Development. 'This study
 will bring us closer to identifying key immune factors that lead to food
 allergies, which affect approximately 3 million children in the United States.'
 The University of Chicago, in conjunction with Northwestern University, will
 work to determine why specific antibodies start reacting to foods and allergens
 when they are eaten. Understanding this process will help determine how food can
 trigger an allergic response and could help predict the potential for people to
 develop allergies to new genetically engineered foods. With better understanding
 of how foods trigger allergic responses, scientists will be equipped to develop
 new tests for adverse effects from these foods and interpret data from toxicity
 tests required by regulation.
 Each year, food allergies impact more than 11 million Americans each year,
 instigate more than 30,000 emergency room visits, and in rare cases can lead to
 death. The number of allergy-related incidences in the United States doubled
 between 1997 and 2002.
 EPA regulates the use of all pesticides in the United States, establishes
 acceptable levels for pesticide residues in food, and evaluates human health and
 ecological risks under authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
 Rodenticide Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
 More information on the study: http://www.epa.gov/ncer/uchicago/foodallergy/
 More information on EPA's STAR program: http://www.epa.gov/ncer/grants/
 Contact Information: Skip Anderson, anderson.skip@epa.gov, 202-564-9551,
 LOAD-DATE: July 23, 2009
            Copyright 2009 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 374
 
                                      Agweek
                  Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News
                              July 21, 2009 Tuesday
 Monsanto buys WestBred as biotech wheat platform
 BYLINE: Mikkel Pates, Agweek Magazine
 LENGTH: 804 words
 Jul. 21--FARGO, N.D. -- Calling it a "sea change" in wheat genetics development,
 Monsanto on July 14 announced it has acquired WestBred L.L.C., a regional wheat
 genetics company based in Bozeman, Mont.
 Carl Casale, Monsanto's executive vice president, says the company will use
 techniques it has developed for other core crops -- especially monocots such as
 corn -- to develop conventional and marker-assisted varieties on perhaps a five-
 or six-year timetable.
 Those varieties, in turn, will serve as a platform for developing biotech traits
 in wheat on perhaps a 10-year timetable.
 Casale says Monsanto won't start with herbicide tolerance as it did with a
 Roundup Ready spring wheat effort that was shelved in 2004 because of industry
 and market concerns about GMO traits. North Dakota, one of the major producers
 of spring wheat, usually a high-protein wheat used for blending to make better
 quality breads, was one of the battleground states, as some producers and
 marketers feared rejection in foreign markets.
 "Monsanto will explore herbicide-tolerant and disease-resistant biotech traits,
 but the company does not plan to include further development of the
 first-generation Roundup Ready trait in wheat," the company says.
 The company will include a Wheat Development Advisory Group to help it develop
 the new technology, made up of representatives up and down the wheat value
 chain. Casale says that group will be gathered in the next several months.
 This time around, Casale says Monsanto will begin with building varieties that
 have drought tolerance and improved nitrogen uptake -- both concerns in the more
 westerly areas where wheat has migrated as it has been displaced by row crops.
 He says the traits will be applicable across a broad spectrum for wheat, for
 which spring wheat is only a small part.
 Casale used the oft-quoted example that Cass County, N.D., has seen a 212
 percent increase in soybeans while it has seen a 59 percent decline in wheat
 acres in the past several years. This is partly a result of the advent of
 shorter-season soybean varieties, but also to the Roundup Ready technology.
 Nationally, U.S. wheat production declined from a peak of 88.3 million acres in
 1981 to '82. After government policy changes, the acreage dropped to 77 million
 acres in 1990 to '91. It now is 58.6 million acres in 2009.
 At the same time, global demand is increasing and is expected to be up 35
 percent from current levels by 2030, Casale says.
 He says some of the opposition to biotech wheat has been whipped away by wild
 grain price fluctuations and the resulting short supplies.
 In response to a question from a Manitoba journalist, Casale says there is no
 immediate plan to expand its efforts into Canada. He says WestBred has focused
 on the U.S. market where increasing acceptance of biotech wheat was signaled by
 a joint committee between U.S. Wheat Associates and the National Association of
 Wheat Growers, which both are focused on U.S. interests.
 Casale says Monsanto is "open to ongoing conversations with any country that
 wants the benefit of technology," but has no immediate plans to expand into
 Canada.
 Casale declines to say just what herbicides or diseases any new transgenic wheat
 might target, saying it is secondary to the drought-resistance and nutrient
 uptake traits. He says many of the geographies where wheat is grown are
 "challenged by water availability."
 Casale says a set of land grant universities recently moved to protect their
 intellectual properties through enforcement of the Plant Variety Protection Act.
 He says WestBred sells certified seed and that business model works well for
 them.
 Casale acknowledges that the vast majority of wheat germ plasm has evolved from
 the public sector. He says they've "done a nice job with the limited resources
 they have," but now need to assert their property rights to continue innovation.
 "We would be following that trend that the public sector has initiated, not the
 other way around," he says.
 With relatively small research investments from private companies, and shrinking
 federal and state funding, public wheat research has fallen behind.
 On July 13, the day before the acquisition announcement, the South Dakota Board
 of Regents, the governing body for South Dakota State University in Brookings,
 says it instituted five lawsuits against producers who they say illegally
 offered wheat seed for sale that was protected by the Plant Variety Protection
 Act.
 To see more of Agweek, or to subscribe to the magazine, go to
 http://www.agweek.com. Copyright (c) 2009, Agweek Magazine Distributed by
 McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. For reprints, email
 tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax
 to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave.,
 Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.
 AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS (90%) Biotechnology
 LOAD-DATE: July 21, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                              Copyright 2009 Agweek









Document Number: 375
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                              July 21, 2009 Tuesday
 Monsanto, Dow get OK for new biotech corn
 BYLINE: By Jeffrey Tomich jtomich@post-dispatch.com 314-340-8320 Bloomberg News
 contributed to this report.
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. A7
 LENGTH: 315 words
 Monsanto Co. and Dow AgroSciences said it won approval from U.S. and Canadian
 regulators to begin selling a new biotech corn to help farmers ward off weeds
 and bugs.
 So-called SmartStax corn was jointly developed by Monsanto and Dow under a 2007
 agreement. The companies plan to begin commercial sales of 3 million to 4
 million acres next year.
 Creve Coeur-based Monsanto, the world's largest seller of biotech seeds, sees
 SmartStax as a blockbuster that could eventually be planted on 50 million to 65
 million acres in the U.S., Chief Technology Officer Robb Fraley said Monday on a
 conference call with analysts. This year, 87 million corn acres were planted.
 It represents Monsanto's second major product in as many years and the platform
 for future genetic improvements in corn, the company said. Earlier this year,
 Monsanto began selling higher-yielding Roundup Ready2Yield soybeans.
 Monsanto shares rose $4.20, or 5.5 percent, to $80.76 at 5 p.m. Monday in
 after-hours trading.
 SmartStax is the first genetically modified corn that combines eight
 herbicide-tolerance and insect-protection genes.
 Because the companies are integrating already-developed traits, the companies
 will be able to "put SmartStax on a fast-track," said Jerome Peribere, CEO of
 Indianapolis-based DowAgroSciences, a unit of Dow Chemical Co.
 The approval by the Environmental Protection Agency and Canadian Food Inspection
 Agency is especially noteworthy because regulators agreed to reduce the "refuge
 area" for SmartStax.
 The EPA currently prohibits farmers in the U.S. Corn Belt from planting
 insect-resistant corn on 20 percent of their acres (50 percent in the Cotton
 Belt) to guard against developing pesticide tolerance in bugs.
 Shrinking the refuge area for SmartStax allows farmers to cut pesticide use and
 grow higher-yielding corn on more land, improving "whole-farm yield" by 5
 percent to 10 percent, Fraley said.
 LOAD-DATE: July 22, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2009 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 376
 
                      The Santa Fe New Mexican (New Mexico)
                               July 17, 2009 Friday
 SECTION: PASATIEMPO; Pg. PA-12
 LENGTH: 937 words
 Are you feeling well?
 How you define "sustainability" will forever be tied your personal choices,
 worldview, and lifestyle. Does it mean driving a Toyota Prius to the airport?
 Eating locally? Preserving the cultivation of traditional crops? Shunning meat
 or genetically modified foods? All of the above? And are your choices in these
 matters driven by moral certainty, a guilty conscience, poor health -- or just
 an overwhelming desire to be part of a sustainable community?
 On Saturday and Sunday, July 18 and 19, you can seek out answers to these
 questions by attending Sustainable Santa Fe: A People, Planet, & Prosperity
 Phestival (sic) at the Santa Fe Community Convention Center (201 W. Marcy St.).
 The event includes a Wellness and Sustainability Expo of products and services;
 classes and workshops on a variety of topics like grass-fed beef, permaculture,
 socially responsible investing, and solar energy; a KidSpace and Teen Action
 Center; and organic, free-trade food and beverages. You can also enjoy
 performances by Big Head Todd & the Monsters, the Tosh Meets Marley Band, local
 R & D singer Paul Rivers Bailey, and others. Presentation highlights include
 appearances by John Robbins, food activist and author of Healthy at 100, Diet
 for a New America, and The Food Revolution; architect Paolo Soleri; author,
 columnist, and liberal radio commentator Jim Hightower; and Rocky Mountain
 Institute co-founder and chairman Amory B. Lovins. And yes -- you can even
 test-drive a Prius. A day pass to the expo is $15; a full day pass, including
 one day of concerts, is $29; a weekend pass that includes all day and evening
 events on both days is $44. A VIP weekend pass -- which includes special
 reserved seating for concerts, food and drink tickets, a VIP lounge, and a meet
 'n' greet with speakers -- is $150. Tickets are available at the Lensic
 Performing Arts Center, 211 W. San Francisco St., 988-1234, and online at
 ticketssantafe.org and worldwellness.org/sftix.
 Somewhere over the Railyard
 If you have not yet marked Thursday, July 23, through Sunday, July 26, on your
 arts calendar, by all means do so. ART Santa Fe, the annual arts extravaganza
 directed by gallerist Charlotte Jackson, makes its ninth appearance. Again held
 at El Museo Cultural de Santa Fe (1615-B Paseo de Peralta, in the Railyard), the
 art fair presents a host of local, national, and international galleries
 showcasing artwork in various media by established and up-and-coming
 contemporary artists and photographers.
 Gallery representatives from Romania, the Dominican Republic, Germany, Japan,
 Hong Kong, and Puerto Rico will join their American counterparts in displaying
 some of the most cutting-edge work to be shown in the fair. Not only are dealers
 from eleven states participating -- including from New York, Chicago, and Miami
 -- six galleries from Santa Fe and one from Albuquerque will be in the
 spotlight.
 A new component to ART Santa Fe is How Things Are Made, a daily event from noon
 to 5 p.m. that takes viewers step-by-step through a particular art process. This
 year, Landfall Press of Santa Fe will demonstrate the art of lithography.
 ART Santa Fe's opening-night gala takes place from 5 to 8 p.m. on Thursday, July
 23; tickets are $75. Daily admission Friday, July 24, through Sunday, July 26,
 is $8; the fair is open from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. each day. Advance tickets are
 available at the Lensic Performing Arts Center, 211 W. San Francisco St.,
 988-1234. For information, call 988-8883 or visit artsantafe.com.
 Correspondence course in murder
 A married tomato who feels erotically stifled in a tropical jungle fills her
 on-the-side lover full of hot lead. She claims the guy -- who worked for her
 husband -- tried to assault her, and since he's dead, he's not sayin' nuthin'.
 The chippy's loving husband and faithful attorney accept her explanation, but
 then an incriminating letter suggests that she and the dead guy were definitely
 an item, so now she's facing scandal and a prison sentence, but like all noir
 dames, she's got a plan, see?
 That's the plot to W. Somerset Maugham's 1924 story The Letter, which has been
 adapted into a musical work that will soon have its premiere at Santa Fe Opera.
 It opens on July 25, but if you want to learn more about the making of the music
 for the production, composer Paul Moravec and librettist Terry Teachout will
 discuss the process in a casual talk at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, July 22, at the
 La Terraza Meeting Room on the terrace at La Fonda, 100 E. San Francisco St.,
 982-5511. It's free, unless you order a tropical punch or something to quench
 your thirst. Call the opera at 986-5900 for information.
 You must be this tall to make jewelry
 The Native American artists who sell their products under the Palace of the
 Governors portal are part of the living web of Santa Fe cultural history.
 Visitors are enchanted by the opportunity to talk with the artists, and even
 jaded locals have been known to stop, look, chat, and buy. There's assurance and
 pride in knowing that the artists are there come rain, shine, snow, or fog --
 and that if you want to find authentic Indian works, that's one of the best
 places to go.
 The children and grandchildren of portal participants have a chance to display,
 discuss, and sell their own work in the annual Young Natives show in the Palace
 courtyard on the north side of the Plaza. The show is set for 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
 on Saturday and Sunday, July 18 and 19. Admission is free and families are
 welcome; enter through the blue gate on Lincoln Avenue, just south of the main
 entrance to the New Mexico History Museum. For information, call 476-5200.
 LOAD-DATE: July 17, 2009
 GRAPHIC: See pdf's for exact rendition, caption, graphics and photographer info.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2009 The New Mexican









Document Number: 377
 
                                The New York Times
                              July 16, 2009 Thursday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Inside The Times
 SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Metropolitan Desk; Pg. 2
 LENGTH: 915 words
 International
 As Evidence of Rearming
 Israel said that a two-story building that held a Hezbollah arms cache exploded
 in a village in southern Lebanon on Tuesday, and that the arsenal was a
 violation of the United Nations resolution that brought an end to the 2006
 Israel-Hezbollah war.  PAGE a8
 A South Korean court has for the first time accepted a lawsuit brought by North
 Korean citizens trying to establish their rights to property in the South. Legal
 experts say it is a harbinger of what reunification might bring and are urging a
 study of what policies and legislation should govern North-South civil disputes.
 At least 11 people were killed and 61 wounded in bombings in Baghdad and the
 western city of Ramadi, according to witnesses and Iraqi security and hospital
 officials. PAGE A12
 Britain Debates Afghan Effort A12
 168 Killed in Plane Crash A14
 National
 At Center of Judge's Hearing
 Republicans turned to the politically fraught issues of abortion and gun rights
 in an attempt to knock Judge Sonia Sotomayor off stride, but her composure
 remained intact and her confirmation as the nation's first Latina Supreme Court
 justice seemed on track.  PAGE A18
 Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who as governor of Arizona opposed
 tough new federal requirements for driver's licenses, endorsed legislation to
 replace the 2005 law with a more flexible and less costly version.  PAGE A20
 A hospital that serves thousands of indigent Massachusetts residents sued the
 state, charging that its universal health care law is forcing the hospital to
 cover too much of the cost of caring for the poor.  PAGE A14
 Police Kill Man Near Capitol a20
 New York
 In Starbucks Bombing
 Kyle Shaw, a 17-year-old from Manhattan, was arrested on charges that he
 detonated a homemade bomb outside a Starbucks on the Upper East Side in May. The
 police said he was inspired by the attacks on corporate America seen in the
 movie ''Fight Club.''  PAGE A24
 School Control Bill Stalled A22
 A Perfect Day in Central Park A21
 Business
 Of Products on Environment
 Wal-Mart is expected to announce the creation of an electronic indexing system
 meant to help it and other retailers determine the social and environmental
 impact of every product they place on their shelves. PAGE B1
 The survival of the CIT Group of New York, one of the nation's largest
 small-business lenders, was thrown into doubt after federal officials rebuffed
 pleas to rescue the desperate company for a second time.  PAGE B1
 As brands look to India as one of the few opportunities for growth in an anemic
 global market, foreign companies and governments alike are protesting the
 country's lack of intellectual property protections.  PAGE B1
 Congressional Democrats announced that Phil Angelides, a former California
 treasurer, would lead a commission to examine the causes of the financial
 crisis.  PAGE B1
 Canada settled a trade dispute with Europe that will lead to the country
 dropping its six-year-old complaint at the World Trade Organization over
 European restrictions on imports of genetically modified food. PAGE B2
 Gasoline Raises Consumer Prices B3
 Sports
 Bradley Wiggins, a British rider known for his dry wit, has returned to the Tour
 de France -- and near the top of the race's standings -- after being held for
 questioning in 2007 when a teammate tested positive for performance-enhancing
 drugs.  PAGE B17
 The Pedro Martinez Era in Philadelphia began on a less-than-certain note, as the
 Phillies signed him and, before the ink was dry, placed him on the 15-day
 disabled list with a strained right shoulder. PAGE B13
 Arts
 By Internet Consensus
 A five-minute animated short called ''Live Music'' was created using the
 Wikipedia model, with animators from around the world contributing shots and
 Facebook users voting on their favorites. Sony Pictures Entertainment deemed it
 to be of high enough quality to warrant a theatrical release.  PAGE C1
 The ABC documentary, ''J. K. Rowling: A Year In the Life,'' follows the Harry
 Potter author as she promotes the franchise, and she comes across as
 simultaneously funny, smart and insecure. Review by Mike Hale.  PAGE C4
 The jazz pianist Bill Carrothers, a New York expatriate who left the city's jazz
 scene just as he was beginning to make an impression, is performing in a
 weeklong engagement at the Village Vanguard. Review by Nate Chinen. PAGE C4
 The Israeli choreographer Emanuel Gat, is fast becoming a household name in
 dance circles, and performing at the Rose Theater for the Lincoln Center
 Festival with ''Winter Variations'' and ''Silent Ballet.'' Review by Gia
 Kourlas.  PAGE C5
 Tonys Trim List of Voters C2
 Jackson Music Selling Strong C2
 Thursday Styles
 And Embracing the Fat
 A growing movement -- a loose alliance of therapists, scientists and others --
 holds that all people can eat whatever they want and, in the process, improve
 their physical and mental health and stabilize their weight. Mandy Katz, Skin
 Deep.  PAGE E3
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: July 16, 2009
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Summary
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 378
 
                                The New York Times
                              July 16, 2009 Thursday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Canada Settles a Crop Trade Complaint Against Europe
 BYLINE: By IAN AUSTEN and JAMES KANTER
 SECTION: Section B; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 2
 LENGTH: 622 words
 Canada settled a trade dispute with Europe on Wednesday that will lead to the
 country dropping its six-year-old complaint  at the World Trade Organization
 over European restrictions on imports of genetically modified food.
 The European Union trade commissioner, Catherine Ashton, said she hoped to reach
 similar agreements with Argentina and the United States, bringing an end to one
 of the most contentious recent cases in trans-Atlantic trade policy.
 ''The mutually agreed solution with Canada is a clear sign that this type of
 dialogue works,'' Ms. Ashton said.
 Although Canadian farm groups welcomed the settlement, they also cautioned that
 not all issues related to genetically modified crops have been resolved with
 Europe.
 The European Union  and the United States last discussed the biotech case in
 October. The Americans have allowed time for further talks this year although
 American officials have said they retained the right to retaliate.
 Nefeterius Akeli McPherson, a spokeswoman for the office of the United States
 Trade Representative, said the settlement with Canada ''has limited relevance to
 the U.S. approach to this issue.'' She added that the American government does
 not ''share the government of Canada's assessment of the effectiveness with
 which the E.U. is implementing the W.T.O. panel's rulings.''
 In 2003, Argentina, Canada and the United States separately challenged the way
 the European Union handles genetically modified food imports. Three years later,
 the trade body ruled that Europe's methods from 1984 to 2004 were effectively a
 ban on genetically modified products and illegal under the trade agreement.
 Canada's complaint with Europe was focused on exports of canola, an oil seed.
 But that problem was actually resolved some months ago.
 Trish Jordan, a spokeswoman for Monsanto Canada, which produced genetically
 modified canola seed, said Europe approved the last modified seed used by
 Canadian farmers in March.
 ''All issues for Canadian biotech farmers have essentially been approved,'' she
 said. ''That should allow the marketing of Canadian canola to Europe. ''
 Stockwell Day, the minister of international trade in Canada, said in a
 statement, ''the European Community has committed to an ongoing dialogue with
 Canada on biotechnology that will continue to help improve market access.'' He
 added the result is ''positive news for Canadian producers.''
 After the final European clearances in March, the Canadian government consulted
 seed producers and farmers about the future of the trade complaint.
 JoAnne Buth, the president of the Canola Council of Canada, said that some
 European Union members, particularly Austria, have ignored the union's import
 decisions and continue to ban imports of genetically modified foods. She added
 that the Canadian industry does not like the European process for reviewing the
 safety of genetically modified food.
 ''It's what happens after the science review in Europe that's the real
 problem,'' she said. ''It then goes to a political review where member states
 vote. That political process is not predictable at all.''
 In exchange for Canada's dropping its trade complaint, Europe agreed to meet
 twice a year with Canadian officials to review the European Union restrictions
 on genetically modified food. Those sessions will also try to ensure they
 approve new biotech products at the same time.
 Despite the canola settlement, significant issues remain related to exports of
 other crops, including corn and soybeans, from the United States to Europe.
 European officials insist the bloc has changed its policies by allowing imports
 of genetically modified products since July 2004, when it approved imports of
 modified corn by Monsanto.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: July 16, 2009
 GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: Catherine Ashton, European Union trade commissioner, reached a
 deal with Stockwell Day, the minister of international trade in Canada. She
 hopes to reach pacts with other nations. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY JOCK FISTOCK/BLOOMBERG
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 379
 
                              The Salt Lake Tribune
                              July 16, 2009 Thursday
 Movie review: 'Food, Inc.' exposes the factory behind the farm
 BYLINE: By Sean P. Means The Salt Lake Tribune
 LENGTH: 494 words
 If you are what you eat, then the thoughtful documentary "Food, Inc." reports
 that we are unhealthy, prone to disease, and supporting companies that guard
 their secrecy as they do horrible things to their employees and their products,
 as well as the planet.
 Director Robert Kenner, a veteran of PBS' "The American Experience" series,
 takes us on a survey of the American food-production industry, from the farm to
 the plate, and finds trouble at every step.
 For starters, saying "farm" is a misnomer these days, because so much of our
 commodity crops -- corn, wheat, soybeans, beef, pigs and chicken -- are
 mass-produced with assembly-line techniques that more resemble factories than
 the bucolic farms on the product labels. Kenner finds animal-processing
 facilities where genetically overbred livestock are fed antibiotic-filled corn
 feed and trotted through their own fecal material on the way to the
 slaughterhouse.
 Meanwhile, federal subsidies have made corn so cheap to grow that it shows up
 everywhere, from Coca-Cola to batteries. The artificially low cost of such crops
 also means it's cheaper to buy a greasy drive-thru cheeseburger than a head of
 broccoli -- thus fueling the nation's obesity epidemic, particularly in
 lower-income communities.
 But heaven help you if you run afoul of the conglomerates that make your food.
 Many meatpacking companies, the movie claims, treat their employees -- some of
 whom are undocumented migrants from Mexico -- as poorly as their animals. Firms
 like Monsanto sell genetically modified soybean seed, then ruthlessly patrol and
 prosecute farmers (even ones who never bought or wanted Monsanto products) who
 save seed for next year's crop. "Veggie libel" laws in 13 states take away your
 free-speech rights if you disparage a food product, and only Oprah can afford
 the lawyers to fight back in court.
 It's all good information to have on hand, and Kenner puts it together in a
 bright and breezy narrative. He interviews food advocates who warn of the
 problems posed, as well as a few mavericks -- such as natural farmer Joel
 Salatin, or Gary Hirshberg, the founder of the organic yogurt makers Stonyfield
 Farms -- trying to make a difference. And it's not a complete anti-corporate
 screed, as evidenced by the fact that it finds something nice to say about, of
 all companies, WalMart.
 For anyone who's been paying attention in the past few years, there's not a lot
 here you didn't know already -- especially if you've read Eric Schlosser's Fast
 Food Nation or Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma (Schlosser and Pollan are
 interviewed here). But as a primer for those just encountering the issue, "Food,
 Inc." is definitely food for thought.
 movies@sltrib.com
  Food, Inc.
 A thorough documentary about the corporate food industry, much of it familiar to
 anyone who's been paying attention.
 Where  Broadway Centre Cinemas.
 When  Opens Friday.
 Rating  PG for some thematic material and disturbing images.
 Running time  93 minutes.
 LOAD-DATE: July 16, 2009
 GRAPHIC: Food advocate and author Eric Schlosser, at right, visiting the
 California State Legislature, in "Food, Inc."
 Natural farmer Joel Salatin, one of the interview subjects in "Food, Inc."
 Soybeans being harvested in "Food, Inc."
 The Orozcos deal with the health costs of inexpensive fast food in "Food, Inc."
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2009 The Salt Lake Tribune
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 380
 
                          Spokesman Review (Spokane, WA)
                             July 15, 2009 Wednesday
                                   Main Edition
 SECTION: C; Pg. 5
 LENGTH: 213 words
 The West Central Market Place is open 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. each Tuesday and
 Thursday at 1414 W. Broadway.
 The market features food grown at Riverfront Farm in West Central Spokane. The
 farm is a program of Project Hope, which provides alternatives to gang violence
 and helps young people find ways out of poverty through "green collar" jobs and
 urban agriculture.
 For more information about Project Hope, go to www.projecthopeSpokane.org.
 Pilgrim's Market will host a free lecture on genetically modified foods 6 to
 7:30 p.m. July 23 at the store's education center, 1316 N. Fourth Street, Coeur
 d'Alene.
 Ken Roseboro, editor of the Organic and Non-GMO Report, will talk about the
 threat genetically modified foods can pose to human health, the environment and
 the integrity of organic foods. In his lecture, he'll give an overview of
 genetically modified foods and discuss research on its effects. He'll also talk
 about steps consumers can take to lobby for the labeling of such foods, avoid
 them and increase support for locally produced, organic foods.
 Roseboro will sign copies of his book, "Food at Risk: Genetically Altered Foods
 and Your Health and The Organic Food Handbook."
 There is room for 90 people in the education center.
 LOAD-DATE: July 17, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                     Copyright 2009 Spokane Spokesman-Review









Document Number: 381
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                             July 15, 2009 Wednesday
 Monsanto is back in wheat with latest deal
 BYLINE: BY Jeffrey Tomich jtomich@post-dispatch.com > 314-340-8320
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. A8
 LENGTH: 592 words
 Five years after shelving plans for biotech wheat, Monsanto is re-entering the
 wheat business with the purchase of a Montana seed company.
 Creve Coeur-based Monsanto, the biggest seller of genetically modified seed,
 agreed to pay $45 million for WestBred LLC and could introduce new wheat
 varieties within a few years. WestBred specializes in wheat germplasm, the
 seed's genetic material.
 The size of the deal isn't significant for a company such as Monsanto, whose
 annual sales exceed $10 billion. But the company's return to a market it
 abruptly exited in 2004 is noteworthy, especially at a time when demand for
 wheat to make breads and pasta is growing.
 "Wheat is an important crop and has suffered from a lack of technology
 investment," said Carl Casale, Monsanto's executive vice president of global
 strategy of and operations. "Over the last several years, its productivity has
 fallen behind other row crops like corn and soybeans."
 The announcement also comes as Monsanto is looking to its seed business as sales
 of Roundup herbicide are declining at a faster-than-expected pace because of
 increased global competition.
 Monsanto abandoned the wheat business after years of research and development
 that led to plans to introduce a spring wheat that is resistant to herbicides.
 The company had begun obtaining regulatory approval when it called off the
 venture, citing a declining market for the variety it was developing.
 Critics contend the decision was less about economics than stiff opposition. The
 Canadian Wheat Board in March 2004 said the 10 largest customers for Canadian
 Western Red Spring wheat, including the U.K., Japan and Mexico, had rejected the
 possibility of genetically modified wheat.
 Zelig Golden, a staff attorney for the Center for Food Safety, a group opposed
 to genetically modified foods, predicts Monsanto will run into more resistance
 if it seeks approval for biotech wheat.
 "American consumers and American farmers don't want wheat to be genetically
 modified," Golden said. "And foreign markets will reject it."
 Monsanto's development efforts will initially focus on breeding techniques to
 enhance yield, Casale said. Longer term, those seeds will serve as a platform
 for biotech traits, especially those that help wheat grow with less water and
 fertilizer.
 The company said it might take a decade for biotech wheat seeds to reach the
 market. And although there are no plans to re-introduce the original Roundup
 Ready variety that was scuttled five years ago, Monsanto will consider the
 possibility of combining, or stacking, biotech traits for herbicide and insect
 resistance.
 Monsanto also has established an advisory group of representatives from the
 wheat industry who will provide feedback on proposed traits and attributes. "The
 industry recognizes that there has to be alignment from the producer all the way
 to the customer," Casale said in an interview.
 Monsanto's return to wheat follows a similar move by Dow AgroSciences, which
 last month announced plans to develop genetically modified wheat in
 collaboration with World Wide Wheat LLC.
 The National Association of Wheat Growers hopes Monsanto's return to wheat means
 an infusion of research dollars into a business that remains mostly the domain
 of public land-grant universities. "We're excited to see Monsanto stepping up,"
 said Joe Kejr, who chairs a joint biotech committee of the National Association
 of Wheat Growers and U.S. Wheat Associates, a group trying to develop export
 markets. "We have got to have that investment for the industry to be
 sustainable."
 LOAD-DATE: July 16, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2009 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 382
 
                     San Gabriel Valley Tribune (California)
                              July 14, 2009 Tuesday
 Letters to the editor: Leave farmers alone
 LENGTH: 283 words
 I urge all of you to oppose HR 2749. We the people want our inalienable human
 rights to live, to grow and to prosper. And we do not want to eat genetically
 modified organisms. We, the people, do not want Monsanto's fertilizers nor
 Monsanto's seeds and other Monsanto products shoved down our throats.
 I believe that the real threat to the safety of our food and the danger to all
 species on this planet is the existence and distribution of products made by
 Monsanto.
 From my own life experience, my baby boy was getting eczema from eating
 genetically modified foods, which ended after I stopped feeding him genetically
 modified foods and started to give him organic foods.
 I urge all the senators and members of Congress to oppose and vote no on HR2749.
 The federal government has no right to go onto farms and dictate farmers how to
 grow food.
 Mary Grace Castruita
 Glendora
 Pensions core issue
 Our annual fiscal crisis will never be resolved until the issue of public
 employee compensation is dealt with permanently. The pensions and benefits these
 workers receive is far beyond what any private worker will ever earn.
 I was pleased when I saw a headline that the governor suggested changes to
 compensation for public employees, but disappointed that he lacked courage to
 completely overhaul the way they are compensated.
 The days of staying with a single employer for one's entire working life and
 earning a private company pension are gone. People change not only jobs but
 residences with a regularity that would shock our grandparents.
 It is time to enroll the public employees in 401(k) programs and change their
 benefit packages to what insurance companies offer to the private sector.
 Henry Careaga
 La Puente
 LOAD-DATE: July 15, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
    Copyright 2009 MediaNews Group, Inc. and Los Angeles Newspaper Group, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 383
 
                            Star-News (Wilmington, NC)
                               July 10, 2009 Friday
                                   1ST Edition
 Get your fill of films about food industry
 BYLINE: Christopher Borrelli; Chicago Tribune
 SECTION: LIVE; Pg. 5D
 LENGTH: 748 words
 It's at roughly the midway point of Robert Kenner's documentary "Food, Inc."
 when the creeping sensation begins. You think, this is not an argument for
 eating organic, and it's not a provocative portrait of independent farming in
 the age of Big Agriculture (though, to an extent, it is both of those things).
 No, mainly, you begin to wonder if this was intended to be a horror movie, a
 frightening portrait of food production in America, one in which the threat has
 too many tentacles to count and an incredibly long reach.
 "It is a horror movie, in every sense," Kenner said in a phone interview. "I
 didn't know the world I was entering when I began. There are shocking moments I
 wasn't expecting. And there are things that exist in this world that I didn't
 know existed, like cloned meat that we can eat, and that companies lobby the
 government not to require 'cloned' on packaging because they say it would
 confuse consumers, and that I would ask to speak with about 40 companies
 involved in food production and about 40 would say no. It's because they don't
 want you thinking about this stuff. Yes, this is a horror movie."
 And as with any horror movie, your stomach turns, you cringe, then you think,
 "Wait, I've seen this."
 Indeed, "Food, Inc." is the latest example of what might have seemed like a
 narrow niche a decade ago, the activist food documentary.
 But that was before Michael Pollan's farm-to-fork manifesto "The Omnivore's
 Dilemma" became a best seller and Walmart began carrying organic produce.
 "Food, Inc.," however (produced by Participant Media, the indie behind "An
 Inconvenient Truth"), has unprecedented marketing weight behind it and is
 looking like a sleeper summer hit. And so, before this sub-genre gets too
 crowded, we decided to compare oranges to oranges.
 'Food, Inc.'
 The Villain: The Food Industrial Complex (Monsanto, Smithfield, Tyson, etc.)
 The Primary Charge: A handful of large multinational corporations have managed,
 in less than 40 years, to completely mechanize and artificially juice the
 10,000-year-old process through which food is farmed, produced and sold to
 consumers.
 The Money Shot: A nearly dead cow being pushed back into its pen by a forklift.
 Convincing? Yes - and no. When he sticks to the coldly efficient details of
 production, Kenner brings the same outrage and urgency that's palpable on the
 scariest pages of Upton Sinclair's  "The Jungle." But his most dramatic argument
 - that Monsanto viciously goes after any farm, large or small, that doesn't use
 its genetically modified seeds - feels muddled and confusing.
 'Super Size Me'
 The Villain: McDonald's.
 The Primary Charge: A combination of inactivity and readily available, heavily
 processed fast foods has made Americans dangerously unhealthy, which filmmaker
 Morgan Spurlock tries to prove by eating nothing but McDonald's for 30 straight
 days.
 The Money Shot: Spurlock's doctor, reading back the results of his blood work.
 Convincing? Not entirely. His compelling point - that millions of people who
 can't afford better gorge on very similar, very lousy diets - never erases the
 feeling that this is about the glib stunt at its core, however entertaining it
 may be.
 'King Corn'
 The Villain: Commercial Corn.
 The Primary Charge: That insidious Nixon-era farm policies and subsidies
 contribute to obesity and diabetes, and to the inability of a pair of fledgling
 farmers (the filmmakers) to grow even a single acre of corn without becoming
 part of the problem.
 The Money Shot: Directors Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis, in Red Sox caps, arriving
 in Iowa and realizing they don't know what an acre of corn looks like.
 Convincing? It's a stunt, and the material is not startling, but the details are
 handled so cleanly and patiently that it's an illuminating, ultimately sad ode
 to the small-family farm.
 'Our Daily Bread'
 The Villain: The Food Industrial Complex in Europe.
 The Primary Charge: Same as "Food, Inc.," but arrived at purely through
 observation, without interviews or narration.
 The Money Shot: Eerie, silent, symmetrical shots of chicken coops stretching
 into the distance, rows of slaughtered pigs and robot arms, brightly lit
 greenhouses that grow hydroponic cucumbers. Each scene is nearly devoid of human
 activity.
 Convincing?: Extremely. Its sterile, fastidious look may betray the film's
 German roots, but the point is clearly the opposite: There is something
 uncomfortable and cruel about a society that raises animals to be eaten without
 ever getting its hands bloody.
 LOAD-DATE: February 5, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2009 Star-News, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 384
 
                           Times-Picayune (New Orleans)
                              July 9, 2009 Thursday
 Students get leg up in health care;
 Program lets them learn valuable skills
 BYLINE: By Kari Dequine, Contributing writer
 SECTION: KENNER PICAYUNE; Pg. 5
 LENGTH: 733 words
 While many of her friends were spending their sweltering summer days at Blue
 Bayou water park in Baton Rouge, Rachel Mudge has spent the past six weeks doing
 things such as measuring her bone density, debating human cloning, attending an
 organ transplant luncheon and studying hypertension in mice.
 Mudge, from Belle Chasse, along with Crystal Rathore, of Marrero, were selected
 along with 10 other area high school students as part of Ochsner Medical
 Center's Science, Technology, Academics and Research, or STAR, class of 2009.
 "I get out of bed so excited," said Rathore of her commitment to the program,
 which runs Mondays through Fridays, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. "And then when I get home I
 run to my parents and tell them about everything we did that day."
 For young people interested in a career in health care, the STAR program offers
 a free opportunity to learn about the many facets of a hospital and gain
 valuable skills that will prepare them for higher education, as well as what it
 takes to get from a medical education to a career.
 Both Mudge, who will be a senior at Mount Carmel, and Rathore, who will attend
 Tulane University as a first-year student this fall, plan to pursue careers in
 the medical field. Inspired by her mother, who is a nurse, Mudge said that when
 she first took biology in middle school, she loved it. "I could see myself doing
 that day to day," she recalled.
 "To me, it's not a regular job," said Rathore, who has wanted to be a doctor for
 as long as she can remember. "It's more like a lifestyle. It's something I'm
 very passionate about. You're in it to help people  --  not like a lot of other
 jobs."
 In its fourth year, described Ochsner outreach scientific director Dr. Jawed
 Alam, the program has grown and developed significantly. In its first year, the
 program was open to students from only one high school. This year, the 12 "STAR
 kids" came from 12 different schools. Last year, 16 students applied.
 This year, the selection was made from 60. Alam describes his 2009 class as "the
 cream of the crop," saying that many 4.0 students were turned away. And the most
 significant development, said Alam, is the new "iLab" at Ochsner, devoted
 specifically as a training laboratory for area schools, part of the medical
 center's community outreach program.
 Over the course of the six weeks, the students typically spend mornings taking
 classes and touring the hospital, visiting the pharmacy, the labor and delivery
 department, the morgue, blood bank and cardiology department, among the many
 other sectors of the hospital. Afternoons are mostly spent in the iLab.
 While working with and talking to college interns in the labs, described Mudge,
 "They said that we're doing things now that they're doing in class. We are very
 privileged to do these kinds of experiments and use these kinds of
 technologies."
 The students also take a weekly yoga class, learn about stress management and
 how to use the medical library for research. In addition, controversial topics
 in the medical field are explored, including genetically modified food and the
 ethics behind animal research.
 A few highlights, agreed Mudge and Rathore, were using robotic machines in the
 cutting edge DaVinci lab, and watching, via video feed, a live prostatectomy.
 "The ultimate objective," Alam said, "is to show them the potential health-care
 careers that exist." And, noted Alam, this includes the numerous other
 lesser-known professions beyond doctors and nurses.
 Alam described watching the students grow over the course of the program,
 apprehensive at first, and then by the end, confidently speaking in medical
 jargon and maturely interacting with professionals.
 "Personally," said Alam, "I enjoy teaching, and I enjoy this level. The younger
 students are more receptive to attaining knowledge. Their brains are like
 sponges. They have no preconceived notions about what things are. Everything is
 so new  --  they absorb in completely."
 Both Mudge and Rathore agree that their time at Ochsner has only strengthened
 their desire to pursue careers in health care. They also noted the people skills
 gained and bonds formed by working so closely with a new group of people. On the
 hospital's Fourth of July holiday, described Mudge, the group planned to spend
 the day together, beginning with beignets. The program will end with a ceremony
 on July 15.
 "I feel more prepared for college," Rathore said. "A lot more."
 LOAD-DATE: July 9, 2009
 GRAPHIC: Rachel Mudge and Crystal Rathore spend an afternoon in a laboratory at
 Ochsner Medical Center looking for viruses.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
               Copyright 2009 The Times-Picayune Publishing Company









Document Number: 385
 
                           The Times-Union (Albany, NY)
                               July 5, 2009 Sunday
                              Final Edition EDITION
 SECTION: PERSPECTIVE; Pg. B2
 LENGTH: 669 words
 The words Fourth of July bring to the minds of many Americans images of
 fireworks, parades, hotdogs and burgers on the barbecue and a cold glass of
 beer. The real reason for the holiday -- to commemorate the signing in 1776 of
 the Declaration of Independence -- gets scant recognition.
 When the country's founders signed the parchment, they were declaring that the
 13 American colonies were no longer a part of the British Empire. The cry for
 independence, "no taxation without representation," had grown louder as
 Britain's control over trade, collection of taxes, combined with a lack of any
 meaningful role in governance, became intolerable.
 Funny how history repeats.
 We are now at a similar point with respect to most of the food eaten in this
 country. As a nation, we are heavily taxed by an epidemic of obesity and related
 chronic diseases, by paying tens of billions of dollars in subsidies that assure
 a very short list of commodities will continue to be over-produced and will keep
 unhealthy food products cheap, and by agriculture-related environmental
 pollution.
 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that annually 76 million
 Americans get sick, 325,000 are hospitalized and 5,000 die from food-borne
 illnesses.
 Most of the meat, eggs and milk consumed in the United States, including that
 burger you may grill this weekend, came from animals raised on factory farms.
 Industrial animal facilities, which produce nearly 10 billion animals annually,
 are dangerous for workers, pollute ground and surface water, and hurt rural
 community well-being.
 Americans are bearing the burden of these taxes, but this time the power over us
 is not only political, but very much corporate. Most of us have little say in
 how our food is produced, how much it costs and who benefits the most as food
 moves from farm to table.
 If ever there was a need for independence, it is from the control a handful of
 corporations have over what farmers grow, which animals they raise and what we
 eat.
 Don't want to eat meat or drink milk from cloned livestock? You may not have a
 choice. Bowing to corporate lobbying, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in
 January 2008 approved their sale, despite earlier congressional votes to delay a
 decision until safety and economic studies were completed.
 Don't want genetically modified foods? Sorry. Some of the most pervasive staples
 in our food supply, such as soybeans, are most likely genetically modified,
 making it nearly impossible to avoid.
 Swearing off high fructose corn syrup? You'll need magnifying reading glasses to
 read the small type of ingredient lists.
 Opening soon in a theater near you, the documentary "Food, Inc." sheds much
 needed light on these and many other food-related taxes we pay. "Food, Inc."
 exposes America's industrialized food system and its effect on our environment,
 health and economy.
 Perhaps these truths should be self-evident, that all foods are not created
 equal, that they are often endowed by their creators with numerous alienable
 traits. Unfortunately, the food industry invests heavily in keeping the
 realities of the industrial food system hidden. It profits from consumer
 ignorance.
 Chief among the rights so hard won in 1776 was liberty. To express that through
 food in celebration of the nation's birth this weekend, health and
 sustainability advocates are urging Americans to use locally and sustainably
 produced ingredients for the holiday's meals. On the Food Independence Day Web
 site (http://www.foodindependence.tumblr.com), food citizens can pledge to
 celebrate "edible independence by eating healthy and delicious foods from our
 own local farms, gardens, and communities."
 Local foods, the campaign claims, are patriotic. "They're good for our local
 farmers, our economies, our health, and that of the planet."
 Want independence from a corporately controlled food system? Stop eating it.
 Jennifer Wilkins studies the food system in the Division of Nutritional Sciences
 at Cornell University. Her e-mail address is jlw15@cornell.edu
 LOAD-DATE: July 7, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2009 The Hearst Corporation
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 386
 
                              July 1, 2009 Wednesday
 corporate watch: monsanto
 SECTION: Section B; Column 5; Pg. 4
 LENGTH: 41 words
 European Food Safety Authority paves way for European Union to renew
 authorization for genetically modified corn made by Monsanto Co; finds that
 Monsanto's insect-resistant MON 810 corn is unlikely to have adverse
 environmental effects; photo (M)
 GENETIC ENGINEERING (87%); FOOD SAFETY REGULATION (86%); FOOD SAFETY (86%) Corn;
 Genetics and Heredity
 Monsanto Co; European Union
 LOAD-DATE: July 2, 2009
 GRAPHIC: Photograph
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Abstract
                    Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
                               All Rights Reserved
                            Information Bank Abstracts









Document Number: 387
 
                               The Bismarck Tribune
                              June 27, 2009 Saturday
 Experimental crops gone wild
 BYLINE: BETTE STIEGLITZ Fargo
 SECTION: OPINION; Pg. 10A
 LENGTH: 228 words
 Experimental crops gone wild
 Consumers who prefer organic foods, or food free of genetic modification, should
 know that the U.S. Department of Agriculture is considering rules that could
 affect their choices.
 GM experimentation has been plagued by unauthorized releases of experimental
 crops, which have then entered the food supply. If this continues, it will be
 harder and harder for consumers to obtain the foods they want.
 One recent example is a variety of GM rice that got into the 2006 Arkansas rice
 harvest. This particular rice variety was never grown outside USDA-supervised
 test plots, yet USDA is unable to explain how it got into the commercial
 harvest.
 Going back to 2005, federal inspectors have issued a series of warnings to USDA
 that it needs to improve oversight of GM experiment crops. They have gone
 unheeded.
 The 2008 farm bill required USDA to write rules taking into account the federal
 inspectors' criticisms. But USDA's draft rules not only fail to do so, they
 actually weaken oversight of GM experiment crops.
 Consumers who want to retain a wide range of choices in the food they buy should
 urge USDA to set a goal of 100 percent containment of experimental crops.
 To express support for farmers who grow crops for organic and non-GM markets,
 consumers should also urge USDA to study the economic impact of unauthorized
 releases of experiment crops.
 LOAD-DATE: June 29, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
        Copyright 2009 The Bismarck Tribune, a division of Lee Enterprises
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 388
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                               June 26, 2009 Friday
 Panel keeps GM alfalfa on the shelf
 BYLINE: By Jeffrey Tomich o jtomich@post-dispatch.com > 314-340-8320
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. B1
 LENGTH: 465 words
 A federal appeals court upheld a 2-year-old ban on Monsanto Co.'s genetically
 modified alfalfa in a case a biotech food opponent calls a "turning point" in
 the regulation of such crops.
 The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday leaves Creve
 Coeur-based Monsanto with two options. It can appeal the case to the U.S.
 Supreme Court or hope for regulatory approval after the Agriculture Department
 completes a comprehensive environmental review.
 "The ruling is disappointing, both to our company and the growers," said Garrett
 Kasper, a Monsanto spokesman.
 However, Monsanto said a dissenting opinion by one of the three judges provides
 a "sound argument" if the case is appealed to the Supreme Court.
 Monsanto got regulatory approval for biotech alfalfa in 2005. A year later, two
 alfalfa-seed farms and a coalition of environmental groups sued the government,
 challenging the decision to approve the crop without
 requiring an environmental impact statement.
 The groups cited concerns that conventional and organic alfalfa could be
 contaminated through cross-pollination, preventing crops from being sold. They
 also claimed biotech crops have led to overuse of herbicides and given rise to
 "super weeds" resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup.
 A U.S. District Judge in San Francisco issued an injunction that banned the
 planting of biotech alfalfa after March 30, 2007. By then, more than 260,000
 acres of the Roundup Ready alfalfa had been planted.
 Monsanto intervened on the government's behalf after the injunction, joined by
 Forage Genetics Inc., an alfalfa breeder that licensed the technology.
 Nationwide, 23 million acres are devoted to growing alfalfa, most of which is
 used as animal feed.
 But biotech opponents say the case is much broader because it marks the first
 time a thorough environmental review has been required for regulatory approval
 of a genetically modified crop.
 Such a study will help regulators and the public understand any risks associated
 with crops that are genetically engineered to help farmers ward off weeds and
 pests, they say.
 "This is a major victory for the public, for farmers and for the environment,"
 said George Kimbrell, staff attorney for the Washington-based Center for Food
 Safety, a plaintiff in the case.
 A draft copy of the environmental study on genetically modified alfalfa is
 expected later this year, according to the Agriculture Department. That will be
 followed by a public comment period and a final report.
 Monsanto is still hopeful for government approval of Roundup Ready alfalfa and
 believes the results of the environmental impact statement could help with
 future reviews of new biotech crops.
 Meanwhile, a lawsuit challenging the government's approval of Monsanto's Roundup
 Ready sugar beets is pending.
 LOAD-DATE: June 26, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2009 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 389
 
                               The Washington Post
                              June 25, 2009 Thursday
                                 Suburban Edition
 Prince Charles's Spat With Architect Stokes Debate Over Monarchy
 BYLINE: Karla Adam; Special to The Washington Post
 SECTION: FOREIGN; Pg. A11
 LENGTH: 764 words
 In modern Britain, where the monarchy's role has been trimmed and hacked back to
 largely ceremonial duties, the job of prince is not supposed to come with power.
 But in a recent public spat with an eminent architect, Prince Charles proved
 that royal opinion can still carry startling -- and controversial -- weight.
 The battle between the outspoken heir to the British throne and Richard Rogers,
 the Pritzker Prize-winning architect of such iconic buildings as the Pompidou
 Center in Paris and the Millennium Dome in London, centered on an
 ultra-modernist design by Rogers's firm for the redevelopment of a former army
 barracks in West London.
 Qatari Diar, the investment arm of Qatar's royal family, which owns the site,
 had plans for a multibillion-dollar housing project and favored Rogers as the
 architect. But at some point, according to British news reports, Prince Charles
 sent the Qatari ruler a letter suggesting -- royal to royal -- that the family
 consider a more traditional design.
 On June 12, Rogers was dropped. A statement issued on behalf of Qatari Diar
 said, "There are differing views from various other quarters." In a possible
 hint as to the source of those views, it added, "We are already in discussion
 with The Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment."
 The scuttling of the project led Rogers to call for an official inquiry into the
 powers of the prince, whose behavior he has called "unacceptable" and "totally
 unconstitutional." It has also sparked a broader public debate between royalists
 and republicans on the role of the monarchy, and of the prince of Wales in
 particular, in the 21st century.
 Prince Charles is different from his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, whose quiet,
 stoic manner ensures that if she has opinions, it is not clear what they are.
 The prince has well-known, frequently expressed views on many issues -- not just
 architecture, but also genetically modified foods, the teaching of Shakespeare
 in schools, organic gardening, long-term unemployment, deforestation, salmon
 fishing and homeopathic medicine.
 In the months since he is thought to have written to the Qatari emir, the prince
 has rallied to the defense of Britain's dwindling red squirrel population,
 launched a video denouncing deforestation alongside an array of celebrities and
 an animated frog, and hosted a summit in London for Nobel laureates and climate
 change experts.
 But this latest intervention has sparked more outrage than most.
 Ten prominent architects, including Norman Foster and Frank Gehry, signed a
 public letter in April accusing Prince Charles of abusing his royal position in
 the matter.
 "Private comments and behind the scenes lobbying by the prince should not be
 used to skew the course of an open and democratic planning process," they wrote.
 In an editorial last week, the Times likened the prince to "Charles Bronson in
 'Death Wish,' a self-appointed vigilante wreaking revenge on any proposal to
 build a column of glass and steel." The paper lamented the loss for London --
 where Rogers is known for landmark structures such as the Lloyd's building, with
 its exterior pipes and fittings -- and questioned the unelected prince's
 authority: "It takes courage for an architect to stand up to the
 monarch-in-waiting. But in an enlightened modern democracy, should one be put
 into a position to have to do so?"
 Not everyone thinks Prince Charles was out of line. "As so often, it is the
 Prince who is articulating the concerns of the general public, so he should feel
 free to carry on speaking his mind," opined the Daily Express, a populist
 tabloid.
 In an editorial Friday, the Financial Times said that although Prince Charles
 should have voiced his objections sooner, "instead of using the royal pigeon
 post," he "should certainly not be asked to shut up."
 The BBC News Web site jumped into the fray with the question, "Should the power
 of the Royals be re-examined?" Within two days, 1,605 people had responded. Some
 argued that Prince Charles's role should be essentially that of a mannequin,
 wheeled in and out for official events only. Others said that the prince has the
 same rights to free speech as anyone else.
 As the debate rumbles on, it seems unlikely that anyone, even exasperated
 architects, will muzzle the prince anytime soon.
 Last month, Prince Charles told a group of architects, "In another 25 years, I
 shall very likely have shuffled off this mortal coil, and so those of you who do
 worry about my inconvenient interferences won't have to do so anymore."
 Then, with a little smile, he added: "Unless, of course, they prove to be
 hereditary."
 LOAD-DATE: June 25, 2009
 DISTRIBUTION: Maryland
 GRAPHIC: IMAGE; Prince Charles has objected to an ultra-modernist design for a
 redevelopment project in London.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2009 The Washington Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 390
 
                                The Boston Herald
                               June 19, 2009 Friday
  `Food, Inc.' offers up much food for thought
 BYLINE: By STEPHEN SCHAEFER
 SECTION: THE EDGE; Pg. web
 LENGTH: 304 words
 http://www.bostonherald.com
 Not rated. At Kendall Square Cinema, Coolidge Corner Theatre and suburban
 theaters.
 Grade: A
 Many restaurants cook in full view of diners - a great chance to see the
 preparation process in action.
 But ``Food, Inc.'' asserts that America's grocery consumers are increasingly
 separated from the way their food is grown and prepared.
 Secrecy and intimidation are the key words when it comes to finding out how
 chicken, beef or pork get to the table.
 Director-producer Robert Kenner's expansive, disturbing documentary follows such
 exposes as Eric Schlosser's best-selling ``Fast Food Nation'' and Morgan
 Spurlock's hit documentary ``Super Size Me.''
 ``Food, Inc.'' begins with a tragedy - the death of a toddler named Kevin, who
 died 12 days after contracting E. coli from a hamburger.
 His mother and grandmother are now activists and have worked for seven
 frustrating years for Kevin's Law, a bill that would shut down meat processing
 plants with a history of contamination and inspection failures.
 The fact that Congress dithers as subsequent E. coli outbreaks occur with
 alarming regularity is no accident, says ``Food, Inc.''
 ``Food, Inc.'' links the nation's soaring diabetes and obesity rates with
 government subsidies for corn; high-fructose corn syrup is in 90 percent of
 grocery store products.
 Kenner covers not just the disturbing control of agribusinesses, where companies
 such as Monsanto own genetically modified soybeans and sue farmers who use any
 other, but the stomach-churning raising and killing of chickens, pigs and cows.
 Surreptitiously shot footage of doomed, feces-covered cows and chemically
 treated chickens whose bones cannot support them is enough to make anyone a
 vegetarian or an organics-only devotee.
 - cinesteve@hotmail.com
 (``Food Inc.'' has stomach-churning moments.)
 LOAD-DATE: June 19, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2009 Boston Herald Inc.









Document Number: 391
 
                            Investor's Business Daily
                               June 19, 2009 Friday
 He Has Monsanto Bulking Up Dig Deep: CEO Hugh Grant makes sure the company
 generates food and profit
 SECTION: Leaders & Success; Pg. A03
 LENGTH: 1235 words
 Grant's Keys
 What: Sowed seeds for Monsanto's biotech growth.
 How: Aimed R&D at commodity crops, focused company on increasing yields on land,
 and communicated the benefits of genetically modified crops.
 Not many chief executives show up on a YouTube video, squaring off with a feisty
 critic.
 Yet there you will find Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant, dishing out straight talk on
 global agriculture.
 On the video site, Grant tangles with agribusiness foe Michael Pollan at a
 Google-sponsored forum on world food production.
 When he's not debating on the Web, Grant is flying around the world to meet with
 government leaders and industry groups as well as farmers in developing
 countries.
 Whatever the venue, Grant's message is the same: Biotech can help fill bellies
 around the world.
 "If you don't step up, people are going to do the talking for you," he told IBD.
 "It's my job to get engaged in the debate."
 Grant, 51, has transformed Monsanto into a biotech food giant from a stodgy
 chemical company. Boosted by the growing acceptance of planting genetically
 modified seeds, Monsanto's profit jumped 84% in fiscal 2008 to $3.64 per share.
 Sales climbed 36% to $11.4 billion.
 Critics fret over the safety of genetically modified crops, which are resistant
 to insects and weeds and will some day be drought-tolerant. Grant has aimed to
 soften opposition by focusing on farming's challenges and how biotech can help.
 To ease the developing world's food crunch, crop yields must be doubled by 2030
 even as farmers use less water and energy, says Grant, Monsanto's CEO since
 The Message
 At some meetings, Grant cuts an apple into pieces. His aim is to show how land
 is a finite resource.
 Grant's punch line: Only one-32 nd of the Earth feeds the planet's population,
 because three-fourths of the planet is covered by water and much land isn't
 usable.
 Grant plucked the apple idea from a dinner table talk with his oldest son about
 a high school project.
 The down-to-earth Grant owes his pragmatic side to his Scottish roots. Born in
 1958 in Larkhall, a coal and steel town near Glasgow, he focuses on how to get
 things done. "I try to frame the conversation around the macro view, around what
 is likely to happen," he said. "You can argue over some of the numbers. You can
 get into denial about how much more crowded the planet is going to become. But
 there's a much more practical, maybe Scottish, way of looking at it, which is
 "So what are you going to do?'
 "The business case that we've committed to is: How do you produce twice as much
 stuff on the same footprint of land with a third less water and fertilizer?"
 Monsanto has staked its claim. In agricultural biotech, it's the leader in
 research and development.
 The firm steers 10% of sales to R&D. "A big part of my job is the definition of
 what we need to get done, how we're going to double yields over the next 20
 years," he said.
 Grant's father was a tailor; his mother worked in retail stores.
 The first child in his family to finish high school or go to college, Grant
 earned a bachelor of science degree in agricultural zoology at Glasgow
 University and a post-graduate degree in agriculture from Edinburgh University.
 Late in college, Grant caught agriculture's bug side, or entomology. His dream
 was to find a job that would take him around the world.
 Amid the U.K.'s recession of 1979-81, Grant felt lucky to land a job at
 Monsanto.
 "I was 50% of Monsanto Scotland," Grant said, referring to its small operations.
 He would drive his Land Rover truck through farming areas all over Scotland.
 For many farmers, the main crop was barley, used for malt whiskey and animal
 feed.
 Grant set up small trials with Monsanto's Roundup weed killer.
 He made sure not to sound like a know-it-all. He listened to farmers, and that
 helped him make sales. "As my career progressed, I tried really hard to stay in
 touch with farmers, whether it was in India, southeast Asia or the Midwest," he
 said.
 Grant rose to marketing manager for all of the U.K.
 Promoted to global head of the Roundup business in 1991, Grant moved to
 headquarters in St. Louis. In 1995, Monsanto named him managing director for the
 Asia-Pacific region, based in Singapore.
 One of Grant's heroes is Norman Borlaug, whom he met at Monsanto in the mid-1990
 s. Borlaug landed the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his effort to beat famine in
 Pakistan, India and Mexico. He developed better-yielding plants, particularly
 new strains of wheat.
 Borlaug had run-ins with environmental groups that questioned some of his
 farming methods in developing countries. Like Borlaug, Grant sticks to his
 strong beliefs, not worrying about detractors.
 "Norm (now 95 years old) has the ability to say "Here's what needs to be done.
 Now let's talk about how we're going to do it,' " said Grant. "There's a
 difference between the rhetoric, the flowery speeches and the realities of
 farming."
 Monsanto introduced genetically modified seeds in 1996. Other companies
 followed. Green groups soon branded genetically modified crops as Frankenfood.
 In 2001, PBS released a documentary, "Harvest of Fear," depicting the furor over
 genetically engineered food. Monsanto tapped the plain-speaking Grant, then its
 chief operating officer, as its spokesman to fire back at critics in the
 documentary.
 With a series of buys, Monsanto moved away from the weed-killing and chemical
 business and into biotech, the future of agriculture.
 Drug firm Pharmacia, which had bought Monsanto in 2000, spun out its agriculture
 arm two years later.
 The reborn Monsanto struggled with consumer unease and protests in Europe over
 altered crops. In disarray after management shake-ups, Monsanto named Grant CEO
 in May 2003. The stock then sprouted 1,200% through mid-2008.
 "The company was facing significant challenges in trying to take all their
 scientific research, convert it to reality and expand the bottom line," said
 Benjamin Akande, dean of the business and tech school at Webster University in
 St. Louis.
 Grant steered Monsanto's marketing to commodity crops such as corn, soybeans,
 cotton and canola. The crops are harvested for industrial food products and
 animal feed.
 In 2004, Grant shelved plans for genetically modified wheat. Monsanto's
 genetically modified crops enter the human food supply only indirectly, such as
 in cooking oil. They don't show up on store shelves.
 Grant's strategy has worked, says Dennis Avery, senior fellow at the Hudson
 Institute. "The best thing Grant did was to persist," Avery said. "The greens
 tried to run Monsanto out of the biotech business."
 Time To Act
 Grant remolded Monsanto as an outfit. Executives meet each Monday morning for an
 operational review. To speed up day-to-day decision making, only five or six
 execs attend to zero in on targets.
 Monsanto reviews strategy every six weeks, not annually like before.
 At meetings, "hierarchy is dissolved," Grant said. "You're only as good as the
 intellectual capacity that you bring to the table."
 He said Monsanto's endpoint, doubling crop yields, must be clear so "everybody
 in the company understands that they have a role to play on a daily basis."
 Grant has learned much from farmers he has cultivated over the years.
 Farming, he says, usually allows for one chance each year to get things right:
 in the spring when seeds are planted. Execution is vital.
 Those rules also apply to running the operations of a multinational.
 "Your strategy is only as good as your last season," Grant said.
 LOAD-DATE: June 18, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2009 Investor's Business Daily, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 392
 
                               The Washington Times
                               June 14, 2009 Sunday
 How can we ease world hunger?
 BYLINE: By Keith McHenry, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES
 LENGTH: 825 words
 We won't ease world hunger until the majority of the people believe that food is
 a right and not a privilege.
 I have been sharing food with the hungry for nearly 30 years, and the crisis has
 never been more dire. Nearly 25,000 people lose their lives each day to hunger.
 The problem is not that the world is unable to produce enough food but that
 there is lack of access to democracy.
 An informed public, empowered enough to influence their representatives, would
 insist on policies that made sure everyone had enough to eat. Strong democracies
 in the world's hungriest countries implement policies that encourage the
 cultivation of food for their communities, instead of cash crops exported to the
 overfed.
 A strong democracy in the United States would insist on policies that stop the
 dumping of cheap, subsidized food in foreign markets - policies that would
 redirect a billion dollars, or $2 billion, from military budgets to spend on
 irrigation, seeds and education in sustainable farming.
 Change the assumption that food is a commodity to a belief that food is a basic
 human right, and we will ease world hunger.
 The people of the United States could have a dramatic impact on world hunger if
 they exercised influence over the political system and united around a strategy
 to confront corporate domination of our society. The power of global
 corporations to manipulate policies must come to an end.
 First, we must end U.S. farm subsidies for agribusiness and make it possible for
 farmers in hungry countries to make a living selling their crops to their
 communities at a reasonable price.
 An informed public would not let genetically modified products be forced on the
 world through trade agreements to save thousands of farmers from going bankrupt
 when they are unable to afford the high cost of genetically modified seeds and
 the chemicals required for cultivation. Growing seed crops is a basic right.
 Ending trade agreements that increase the distance food travels and encourages
 export crops that mainly profit global corporations would also ease world
 hunger.
 The cost of operating farm equipment, the cost of transporting seeds to a farm
 where they were previously grown on site, the cost of chemicals required to grow
 corporate-controlled seeds and the cost of transporting the harvest to market
 are contributing to farm foreclosures.
 The deregulation of the financial industry in the United States contributed to
 the collapse of the housing market, and speculators rushed to invest in
 agricultural commodities, driving up the cost of rice and other staples for
 consumers while driving down the income for producers.
 The World Food Organization reported that more than 800 million people were
 forced into crisis as the cost of food doubled in April 2008. Another wave of
 farmers was priced off their fields as speculators in financial capitals reaped
 the profits.
 As long as we let corporate money dominate government policy, world hunger will
 increase. Easing world hunger requires a well-planned, nonviolent campaign of
 mass action to install policies that make food a right and limit corporate
 power.
 The Food Not Bombs movement has been teaching a grass-roots form of democracy
 called consensus for nearly three decades, involving the hungry in our
 decision-making process.
 Experiencing democracy at the most basic grass-roots level amplifies the failure
 of the current political system. People of every background are involved
 collecting food, cooking and sharing meals. There are Food Not Bombs groups in
 nearly a thousand cities around the world, busy each week reaching out to their
 communities about issues of hunger, war, poverty, the environment and human and
 animal rights.
 Food Not Bombs has been providing logistics and food at protests to stop the
 devastation of the nondemocratic trade agreements since the 1994 North American
 Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle in
 1999, to the Group of 20 conference in Pittsburgh in September.
 Volunteers provided meals during a 600-day farmer's vigil in Sarajevo, the
 100-day Orange Revolution in the Ukraine and for striking autoworkers in Korea.
 When the biotech industry holds a conference, you will often find Food Not Bombs
 outside feeding the protesters. Food Not Bombs volunteers mobilized the nation
 and provided much of the food for the survivors of Hurricane Katrina.
 Food Not Bombs isn't a charity. I plan to sit in front of the White House
 starting July 4th and bake bread in a solar oven, while asking the public to
 sign a petition to President Obama that outlines six changes that would have a
 huge impact on world hunger.
 It will take thousands of earnest people sitting outside the White House to end
 the domination of corporate leaders over our democracy, and it will take an
 informed public that sees the value of food as a right and not a privilege, to
 make policies that ease world hunger.
 * Keith McHenry is co-founder of Food Not Bombs Movement.
 (52%) How-can-we-ease-world-hunger?
 LOAD-DATE: June 15, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                     Copyright 2009 The Washington Times LLC
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 393
 
                       Monterey County Herald (California)
                               June 7, 2009 Sunday
 Joy Colangelo: Wrong path from farm to pharm
 BYLINE: Joy Colangelo As It Turns Out
 LENGTH: 547 words
 Make some room in your brain because you're going to want to remember this. It
 seems we've been allowing windfall profits to food corporations instead of
 insisting on windmills for our farms, and we've paid a lot for health care
 without getting much health for all the care. And yet, we just keep throwing
 money at the two systems.
 We have zombie farms, dead systems made to look alive with subsidized tax money.
 And who pays for health care that exists only to repair the damage done by our
 farming and eating practices? Well there's employer benefits (that's really
 you), and Medicare (you again). There's Medicaid (you one more time) and the
 uninsured, self-insured and co-pay (that's you, you and you).
 We just don't get that our health is only as good as our ecosystem. When a
 country like Denmark has a 300 percent increase in testicular cancer since the
 1930s and Finland's rate is unchanged, maybe we should recognize that one
 country has a population regularly exposed to pesticides and the other is
 non-agricultural.
 When Vietnam has stronger regulations on genetically engineered (GE) food than
 the United States, do you think we might want to rethink what a democracy might
 offer eaters? Twenty-eight countries offer consumers a democratic choice in what
 they buy, labeling GE food. But here? Nah. Some 60 percent of packaged food is
 GE and we don't even know which 60 percent it is. We can get reliable street
 drugs easier than we can get honestly labeled food.
 Would you imagine that one of the most reliable predictors of war has to do with
 fast food? The Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention assumes that no two
 countries that have a McDonald's will ever declare war on the other. There are a
 couple of exceptions, but only a couple (we were a menace to Panama and Russia
 had a little conflict with Georgia). Of course, there's no need for a full-blown
 war when you have McDonald's. Fast food is its own version of bioterrorism.
 Luckily, we have great health care to cure all our ills. What?
 After 60 years and $95billion spent every year on medical research, we've got a
 handle on infectious diseases except if you live in an undeveloped country where
 there's a bunch of infectious diseases. But any other disease like cancer and
 heart disease? Get in line because you're more likely to get one today as you
 ever were (except in an undeveloped country). Oh, wait. If you have erectile
 dysfunction, we've got stuff for that. Don't even think of discontinuing your
 heart medications that cause erectile dysfunction because then you'd have to
 have a proper diet. Just take the medications that eliminate the side effects of
 the other medications. Besides, Medicare pays for Viagra.
 Medications have you coming and going because there's a sexy new diet pill from
 GlaxoSmithKline called Alli. It blocks the absorption of a quarter of the fat
 eaten but produces "gas with oily spotting." If you don't want such a side
 effect, they tell you to limit your fat intake to 15 grams per meal. Well,
 people, what kind of sense does that make? If you ate like that, you wouldn't
 need the pill, now would you?
 Joy Colangelo of Pacific Grove is an occupational therapist. Her column appears
 in Opinion the first and third Sundays of each month. She can be reached at
 bellpg@AOL.com
 LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2009 The Monterey County Herald
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 394
 
                Agriculture Department Documents and Publications
                                   June 4, 2009
 Syngenta Seeds, Inc.; Availability of Petition and Environmental Assessment for
 Determination of Nonregulated Status for Corn Genetically Engineered To Produce
 an Enzyme That Facilitates Ethanol Production;
 Federal Register Extracts
 LENGTH: 1715  words
 SUMMARY: We are reopening the comment period for a petition submitted by
 Syngenta Seeds, Inc., seeking a determination of nonregulated status for corn
 designated as transformation event 3272 and its associated environmental
 assessment prepared by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service under our
 regulations found at 7 CFR part 340. This action will allow interested persons
 additional time to prepare and submit comments on the petition, environmental
 assessment, and the revised plant pest risk assessment.
 DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 6, 2009.
 ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
 * Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
 http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetailandd=APHIS
 -2007-0016 to submit or view comments and to view supporting and related
 materials available electronically.
 * Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send two copies of your comment to
 Docket No. APHIS-2007-0016, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,
 Station 3A03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state
 that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0016.
 Reading Room: You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our
 reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South
 Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal
 reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
 holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817
 before coming.
 Other Information: Additional information about APHIS and its programs is
 available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Andrea Huberty, Biotechnology Regulatory
 Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 146, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301)
 734-0485, e-mail: andrea.f.huberty@aphis.usda.gov To obtain copies of the
 petition, the draft environmental assessment, or the plant pest risk assessment,
 contact Ms. Cindy Eck at (301) 734-0667, e-mail: cynthia.a.eck@aphis.usda.gov
 The petition, draft environmental assessment, and plant pest risk assessment are
 also available on the Internet at
 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/05_28001p.pdf,
 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/05_28001p_ea.pdf, and
 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/05_28001p_ra.pdf.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, "Introduction of
 Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are
 Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests," regulate,
 among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or
 release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced
 through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to
 believe may be plant pests. Such genetically engineered (GE) organisms and
 products are considered "regulated articles."
 On October 7, 2005, APHIS received a petition seeking a determination of
 nonregulated status (APHIS Petition No. 05-280-01p) from Syngenta Seeds, Inc.,
 of Research Triangle Park, NC (Syngenta), for corn (Zea mays L.) designated as
 transformation event 3272, which has been genetically engineered to produce a
 microbial enzyme that facilitates ethanol production. The petition stated that
 Event 3272 corn is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and, therefore, should not
 be a regulated article under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340.
 In a notice /1/ published in the Federal Register on November 19, 2008 (73 FR
 69602-69604, Docket No. APHIS-2007-0016), APHIS announced the availability of
 the Syngenta petition and a draft environmental assessment (EA) for public
 comment. APHIS solicited comments on the petition, whether the subject corn is
 likely to pose a plant pest risk, and on the draft EA. APHIS received over
 13,000 comments on the petition, the draft EA, and the plant pest risk
 assessment by the close of the 60-day comment period, which ended on January 20,
 FOOTNOTE 1 To view the notice, petition, draft EA, the plant pest risk
 assessment and the comments we received, go to
 http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetailandd=APHIS
 There were 40 comments from organizations or individuals that supported the
 deregulation of the Event 3272 corn. Over 13,000 comments opposed to the
 deregulation were submitted. The vast majority of the approximately 13,000
 comments opposing the deregulation were from letters conveying essentially
 identical points compiled by organizations generally opposed to any genetic
 engineering of plants. Several individuals and organizations also submitted
 documents, many popular press articles or documents published by those opposed
 to genetic engineering of plants in general, which they assert are relevant to
 this regulatory decision for Event 3272 corn.
 Most of the comments supporting nonregulated status for Event 3272 corn came
 from organizations representing corn farmers and ethanol production interests.
 These comments include state-wide corn growers' and agribusiness associations
 from at least 12 different States where most of the nation's corn is grown.
 Several national organizations also voiced their support for the deregulation.
 The principal reasons given by these groups are the benefits anticipated for
 farmers and the ethanol production industry, as well as the ability to meet
 biofuel production mandates and to promote international trading interests.
 While APHIS does not determine nonregulated status for GE organisms pursuant to
 its biotech regulations (Part 340) based on economic or marketing factors, the
 support from farmers of corn does suggest that individuals with a substantial
 interest in the health of the national corn crop do not perceive that either
 plant pest risks or economic/marketing risks will arise if Event 3272 corn is
 granted nonregulated status.
 Several of the comments provided scientific support for the deregulation of
 Event 3272 corn. Many of these supportive statements were based on scientific
 studies included in the petition (such as evidence of decreased water use in
 ethanol production, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, other reduced inputs in
 ethanol production). There were several comments that also provided additional
 studies that would support deregulation of Event 3272 corn on the basis of
 diminished environmental impacts compared to current ethanol production
 practices. These studies supported the findings of lowered greenhouse gas
 emissions and reduced inputs, and also suggest that there will be no impacts on
 wet distilled grains and improved dried distilled grains, and that the Event
 3272 corn is equivalent to currently grown corn lines in other agronomic and
 nutritional qualities, demonstrated through field and feed studies.
 Many of the comments that opposed deregulation were based on general opposition
 to the development and use of GE plants, without citing or addressing any
 specific environmental issues in the EA or the pest risk assessment for the
 petition for Event 3272 corn. Many of these comments simply assert that APHIS
 should prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to fully address all the
 potential issues associated with a decision to grant nonregulated status to
 Event 3272 corn without specifically explaining what they perceive to be the
 inadequacies of the draft EA's environmental analysis. There were many general
 comments expressing generic, nonspecific concerns over possible gene flow,
 disruption to organic farming practices, and concerns of food and environmental
 safety.
 Another common comment that APHIS received regarding the determination of
 nonregulated status for Event 3272 corn is the general "energy" concern related
 to the effectiveness and value of producing ethanol from corn. Many comments
 suggested that producing ethanol from corn is not an efficient method for
 achieving energy needs or meeting any alternative energy mandates for the United
 States. However, in determining the nonregulated status for a genetically
 engineered plant pursuant to its Part 340 biotechnology regulations, APHIS does
 not have authority to consider the economic, marketing, or commercial usefulness
 of the plant, or issues such as the feasibility of meeting energy needs through
 any particular crop and its related harvesting and processing aspects.
 APHIS did receive some comments that raised specific issues of concern if Event
 3272 corn was granted nonregulated status. These issues included specific food
 safety concerns such as the potential for Event 3272 corn to be allergenic, as
 well as concerns surrounding the potential economic and manufacturing issues if
 Event 3272 corn were to become present in corn wet-milling processes.
 APHIS does believe it is appropriate to address in this notice certain comments
 submitted that questioned the conclusion that Event 3272 corn is not a plant
 pest, and that there is no basis for regulatory control of this GE plant under
 our statutory authorities and Part 340 biotechnology regulations. These comments
 argue that the alpha-amylase enzyme engineered into Event 3272 corn may cause
 damage (degradation of corn starch products) to manufactured or processed plant
 products if Event 3272 corn is included in the manufacturing and processing of
 corn starch products. The comments claim that this type of damage comes within
 the definition of a plant pest. One of these comments /2/ claims that "a plant
 pest consists of any living stage of an article similar to or allied with a
 bacterium or any article similar to or allied with a bacterium that can cause
 direct damage to a processed plant product. The `article' in this application
 [petition] is the thermo-stable alpha-amylase enzyme expressed in Event 3272,
 which has the potential for injury to plant products if misdirected to corn wet
 milling facilities.
 FOOTNOTE 2 See
 http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetailandd=APH
 --This is a summary of a Federal Register article originally published on the
 page number listed below--
 Notice; reopening of comment period.
 Citation: "74 FR 26832"
 Federal Register Page Number: "26832"
 "Notices"
 LOAD-DATE: June 4, 2009
            Copyright 2009 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 395
 
                       Monterey County Herald (California)
                               May 29, 2009 Friday
 Letters: Time is right for gay marriage
 BYLINE: The Monterey County Herald
 LENGTH: 931 words
 Time is right for gay marriage
 Is it time for church and state to get divorced over marriage? If marriage is a
 religious affair, why should the government treat it as a partnership? If it's a
 legal issue, how can Bible babble be considered a legitimate argument against
 the civil rights of a minority group?
 In the old days, a compelling reason for marriage was to protect dependent
 mothers and children from hit-and-run fathers, though neither church nor state
 has been completely successful at that. Now love and commitment, which occur
 between same- and opposite-sex couples, are the main reasons for marriage.
 What's so difficult about legitimizing love and commitment between same-sex
 couples?
 Though religions and government all cherish (opposite-sex) marriage, because it
 leads to increased membership for the former and more future taxpayers for the
 latter, attitudes are changing. Overpopulation and environmental issues are of
 concern to many. Because both church and state are beholden to the people, we
 can and should take this opportunity to right past wrongs, bringing justice to
 those who have been discriminated against and oppressed for too long.
 Peggy Johnson
 Marina
 Mailed MPC catalog a waste of money
 Are times not tough? Are schools and libraries not in need of funding? Tell me
 why, then, did I just receive (unsolicited) a 136-page Schedule of Classes for
 Monterey Peninsula College for the fall '09 season, none of which I have the
 slightest interest in at this time.
 I assume it was a bulk mailing since it was addressed to "Postal Customer."
 Given the demographics of this Peninsula, I must also assume that it reached a
 multitude of people who just tossed it as I did. Why, if people want to know
 what's available, can they not call and have one sent or go pick it up at the
 school? Seems like a flagrant, utterly ridiculous waste of money, not to mention
 pulp. If it's not, I'd really be interested in somebody telling me why it's not.
 Lois Shedlowski
 Pacific Grove
 Republicans' claim about Sotomayor off base
 So some Republicans want Sonia Sotomayor to remove herself from consideration
 for the Supreme Court because they claim she is a racist based on one comment
 she made years ago. Hmm. Perhaps we should call Anita Hill and ask her where the
 Republicans got all this self-righteous indignation all of a sudden.
 Frank Rivera
 Carmel
 Corporate abuses flow from legal fiction
 Wow! A 28th amendment to the Constitution. It would strip corporations of their
 "personhood" and subject them to the same oversight that existed for the first
 100 years of U.S. history. It had been for the common good, not the bottom line.
 Personhood is the term fraudulently slipped into the 14th Amendment in 1864,
 thus leading to the vast corporate abuses we live with today.
 Think of Monsanto and genetically modified food, think of taking local water and
 putting it into plastic bottles Nestle, Coke, etc. Think of controls insurance
 companies have to keep us from single-payer health. Remember, "slavery is the
 legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal
 fiction that property is a person."
 Darby Worth
 Carmel
 Constitution bars national sales tax
 In Congress this week, we've heard renewed noise about imposing a national sales
 tax. Since revenue from the income tax this year has dropped drastically,
 legislators are naturally seeking other sources of revenue. A national sales tax
 hyped as the "Fair Tax"  is looking very juicy and appetizing to them. The
 underlying problem they face is that such a tax is expressly prohibited by the
 Constitution.
 Check out Section 9, Paragraph 5 in that document, the basic law of the land:
 "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." Couldn't be
 more plain than that. And, of course, Congress has no Constitutional power to
 reach into any state to tax intra-state commerce. So, the feds will need first
 to try to amend the Constitution. What are the chances of that happening?
 On the other hand, Congress has not found the Constitution to be much of a
 barrier to achieving its social goals. Social Security and Medicare were made
 voluntary (still are!), but then Congress arranged matters so that everyone is
 made to volunteer. That's how the rule of law is regarded in these latter days
 of the republic.
 Tom Bottaro
 Monterey
 Pelosi shines after disaster of Bush years
 A recent writer worries that Nancy Pelosi has damaged our world image? After
 having a one-sided brawl with this person, I felt contrite. Perhaps she'd just
 awakened from a eight-year coma. It is only right that I should try to alleviate
 her fear. Our world image has never been as damaged as it was during the Bush
 years. President Obama is trying very hard to clean up the toxic atmosphere that
 the old president and his evil sycophants unleashed upon the world. Whether or
 not Pelosi's accusations prove true or false is of little consequence because,
 you see, at the very worst, she is as bad as the very best of the Republicans.
 There, do you feel safer now? I sure do.
 Vicki Dwyer
 Pacific Grove
 Thanks to NASCAR for Memorial Day tribute
 A "rave" to NASCAR. At 3 p.m., the Coca-Cola 600 came to a halt, observing one
 minute of silence. The cars lined up on the front straightaway, engines off.
 Crew members stood with those in attendance, heads bowed, hands on their hearts
 for the full minute. The silence was deafening in its symbolism, reminding us
 all that Memorial Day is a day of mourning for those who gave the ultimate
 sacrifice, oh that they could be at a loved one's barbecue one last time.
 The public thanks you.
 Joe Merritt
 Carmel
 LOAD-DATE: May 31, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2009 The Monterey County Herald
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 396
 
                 The Berkshire Eagle (Pittsfield, Massachusetts)
                               May 24, 2009 Sunday
 Slipping from fear to panic
 BYLINE: Health
 LENGTH: 720 words
 Could a reason for the panicky reaction to the swine flu outbreak be that it
 diverted our attention, however briefly, from the devastating effects of the
 global financial crisis, not to mention the myriad chronic health issues that
 threaten millions of lives?
 Or is it simply human nature to overreact to threats over which we have little
 control?
 "The fact is that we love to be scared," argue two British statisticians, Simon
 Briscoe and Hugh Aldersey-Williams, in "Panicology," published in the United
 States this year by Skyhorse Publishing. Witness the immense popularity of
 disaster movies and thrillers.
 "But there are serious emotional, social and economic costs to panic," Briscoe,
 a London-based economist for The Financial Times, said in an interview. "We'd be
 a lot happier if we insisted that people prove their case before making dire
 pronouncements. We shouldn't be wasting time worrying about a lot of stupid
 things," and should focus instead on hazards we can do something about.
 In the reaction to the current swine flu alarm, millions of lives have been
 disrupted and dollars lost. Schools have been closed, people quarantined,
 vacations and events canceled, exports and sales of pork derailed, and money
 wasted on face masks and antibacterial cleansers (the flu agent is a virus,
 untouched by anything antibacterial).
 Paradoxically, the authors noted, "modern life had greatly reduced many of the
 risks that humankind has to face, and yet it is modern life that seems to spawn
 most of our fears -- fears of chemical, biological, and nuclear war, pollution,
 terrorism, climate change, and, less directly, fears associated with
 immigration, aging, loss of cultural diversity, and much else besides."
 In their analysis, "It is almost as if we have to be afraid of something, as if
 we carry about in our heads a bucket of worry that we are compelled to fill with
 whatever's available."
 In addition to the obvious toll from exaggerated disasters that never come to
 pass, there are more subtle and far more costly consequences. Most important,
 perhaps, is people's tendency to overlook well-established risks over which they
 have lots of control -- when taking action may actually save, not cost, money.
 Perhaps public health messages would have a greater effect if they truly scared
 people, Briscoe said, noting that millions of people continue to smoke even
 though it will contribute to the deaths of half of them.
 Likewise with foods and drinks that can undermine health. Most people are
 unwilling to forgo immediate pleasures for the sake of future gains. In response
 to a recent column on the mortality risks of eating red meat, a reader asked:
 "How many weeks of life might I lose by eating a lot of meat? If it's only a
 few, that's a small price to pay for years of enjoyment."
 Unfortunately, this isn't the kind of question that can be answered on an
 individual basis. If genetics or lifestyle render people susceptible to heart
 disease or cancer, adding excessive red meat to the mix might cut them down
 decades sooner than if they limited meat consumption.
 On the other hand, like the occasional smoker who puffs away well into his 90s,
 some people can go scot-free eating all the meat they want. Like public health
 agencies that conduct briefings about swine flu, it's my job to spell out the
 risks so people can make informed decisions about their behavior.
 The "Panicology" authors put obesity into the category of risks that most people
 could avoid if they chose, describing it as a "public health time-bomb."
 One-third of American adults are obese and at much greater risk of developing
 and dying early from diabetes, heart disease and cancer, among other disorders,
 than if they were of normal weight.
 "Panicology" considers the evidence on both sides of a large number of worries
 that have beset the industrialized world in modern times, from the "population
 crisis" to genetically modified foods.
 For each topic considered, the authors assign a quasi-numerical score of the
 degree of panic, risk and a person's ability to reduce the risk. All too often,
 the panic level far exceeds the actual risk. In other cases, the risk could be
 reduced or eliminated by exercising personal control. It is worth remembering
 that worry itself is a risk, a stress that can undermine health and happiness.
 The New York Times
 LOAD-DATE: May 25, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
    Copyright 2009 MediaNews Group, Inc. and New England Newspaper Group Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 397
 
                                The New York Times
                               May 19, 2009 Tuesday
                               Late Edition - Final
 The Slippery Slope From Fear to Panic
 BYLINE: By JANE E. BRODY
 SECTION: Section D; Column 0; Science Desk; PERSONAL HEALTH; Pg. 7
 LENGTH: 1158 words
 Could a reason for the panicky reaction to the  swine flu outbreak be that it
 diverted our attention, however briefly, from the  devastating effects of the
 global financial crisis, not to mention the myriad chronic health issues that
 threaten millions of lives?
 Or is it simply  human nature to overreact to threats over which we have little
 control?
 ''The fact is that we love to be scared,'' argue  two British statisticians,
 Simon Briscoe and Hugh Aldersey-Williams, in  ''Panicology,'' published in the
 United States this year by Skyhorse Publishing.    Witness the immense
 popularity of disaster movies and thrillers.
 ''But there are serious emotional, social and economic  costs to panic,'' Mr.
 Briscoe, a London-based economist for The Financial Times, said in an interview.
 ''We'd be a lot happier if we insisted that people prove their case before
 making dire pronouncements. We shouldn't be wasting time worrying about a lot of
 stupid things,'' and should focus instead on hazards we can do something about.
 It's the wisdom to know the difference  -- swine flu was new, potentially fatal
 and spreading -- that is hard to come by.  We are  bombarded by government and
 media reports of real or potential dangers, magnified to panic mode by ''24-hour
 rolling news from around the world,'' the authors wrote.
 They point in particular to the panic in 2005 and 2006 over bird flu, ''billed
 as an impending human pandemic that would wipe out a large proportion of the
 Earth's population.'' Yet in the end, this flu virus has killed fewer than 300
 people worldwide, most of whom were in direct contact with infected birds.
 Hardly worth the worry when ''ordinary'' seasonal flu claims more than 30,000
 American lives each winter.
 In the reaction  to the current swine flu alarm,  millions of lives have been
 disrupted and dollars lost. Schools have been  closed, people quarantined,
 vacations and events canceled, exports and sales of pork derailed, and money
 wasted on face masks and antibacterial cleansers (the flu agent is a virus,
 untouched by anything antibacterial).
 The Fears of Modern Times
 Paradoxically, the authors noted, ''modern life had greatly reduced many of the
 risks that humankind has to face, and yet it is modern life that seems to spawn
 most of our fears -- fears of chemical, biological, and nuclear war, pollution,
 terrorism, climate change, and, less directly, fears associated with
 immigration, aging, loss of cultural diversity, and much else besides.''
 In their analysis, ''It is almost as if we have to be afraid of something, as if
 we carry about in our heads a bucket of worry that we are compelled to fill with
 whatever's available.''
 In addition to the obvious toll from exaggerated disasters that never come to
 pass, there are more subtle and far more costly consequences. Most important,
 perhaps, is people's tendency to overlook well-established risks over which they
 have lots of control  -- when taking action  may actually save, not cost, money.
 'What, Me Worry?'
 Perhaps public health messages would have a greater effect if they truly scared
 people, Mr. Briscoe said, noting that millions of people continue to smoke even
 though it will contribute to the deaths of half of them.
 Likewise with foods and drinks that can undermine health. Most people are
 unwilling to forgo immediate pleasures for the sake of future gains. In response
 to a recent column on the mortality risks of eating red meat, a reader asked:
 ''How many weeks of life might I lose by eating a lot of meat? If it's only a
 few, that's a small price to pay for years of enjoyment.''
 Unfortunately, this isn't the kind of question that can be answered on an
 individual basis. If genetics or lifestyle render people susceptible to heart
 disease or cancer, adding excessive red meat to the mix might cut them down
 decades sooner than if they limited meat consumption.
 On the other hand, like the occasional smoker who puffs away well into his 90s,
 some people  can  go scot-free eating all the meat they want.  Like public
 health agencies that conduct briefings about swine flu,  it's my job to spell
 out the risks so people  can make  informed decisions about their  behavior.
 The ''Panicology'' authors put obesity into the category of risks that most
 people could avoid if they chose,  describing it  as a ''public health
 time-bomb.'' One-third of American adults are  obese and at much greater risk of
 developing and dying early from diabetes, heart disease and cancer, among other
 disorders, than if they were of normal weight.
 Acceptable Risks
 Many of the risks we take or avoid are based on false perceptions, rather than
 solid information. A classic example is the risk inherent in various modes of
 travel.
 ''Transport accidents are the leading cause of accidental deaths after falls,''
 the authors wrote. Yet while people are often most fearful of flying, they said,
 ''we face the greatest risks when we ourselves are at the controls. Per mile
 traveled, motorcycle, foot, bicycle and car are the most dangerous forms of
 transport, with rail and air the safest.''
 The level of risk we consider acceptable  seems to be directly related to
 whether it's a risk we can choose ourselves.  Scientists who have studied risk
 and risk perception have determined that the public seems willing to accept
 voluntary risks roughly 1,000 times greater than involuntary risks.
 Statistically, to prevent avoidable loss of life, instead of driving or walking,
 we should go everywhere by train or plane. The ''Panicology'' authors suggest
 further, ''If we want to cut road accidents, perhaps we should ban pedestrians
 from crossing the road while using their cellphones.''
 ''Panicology''  considers the evidence on both sides of a large number of
 worries that have beset the industrialized world in modern times, including the
 ''population crisis'' (now one of underpopulation that threatens the wealth and
 health of aging populations in countries like Italy and Russia); the effect of
 the mumps-measles-rubella vaccine on autism (none, it turns out); the effect of
 climate change on extreme weather like hurricanes and other life-changing events
 (real and a far greater threat than terrorism); earthquakes (''hundreds of
 millions of people live with the daily risk of extermination by the Earth's
 geophysical might,'' including an estimated 75 million Americans in 39 states),
 and genetically modified foods (foods have been genetically modified for
 thousands of years through hybridization with far less predictable results).
 For each topic considered, the authors assign a quasi-numerical score of the
 degree of panic, risk  and a person's ability to reduce the risk. All too often,
 the panic level far exceeds the actual risk. In other cases, the risk could be
 reduced or eliminated by exercising personal control. It is worth remembering
 that worry itself is a risk, a stress that can undermine health and happiness.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: May 19, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 398
 
                                Chicago Sun Times
                               May 17, 2009 Sunday
                                  Final Edition
 Raw Milk; Those who drink the unpasteurized product swear by it, saying they
 receive 'great benefits.' Health experts, on the other hand, warn consumers that
 it's like 'playing Russian roulette.'
 BYLINE: Kara Spak, The Chicago Sun-Times
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A4
 LENGTH: 663  words
 Does raw milk do a body good? Despite health warnings, some people think so --
 and they're going to great lengths to get it.
 The unpasteurized, straight-from-the-udder product is illegal to sell in
 Illinois stores. But it's not illegal to drink. And city slickers are
 increasingly seeking out the $6-a-gallon, farm-fresh product they say is key to
 their healthy lifestyles.
 Local restrictions on milk sales have spawned an underground network to link
 consumers with the hard-to-get dairy product, which can be sold on farms if the
 buyer brings a container.
 Raw-milk drinkers are buying memberships in farming cooperatives, getting their
 own dairy cattle or purchasing raw milk that's purposely mislabeled "pet food."
 "I've received great health benefits from it," says Kevin Kosiek of Wheaton, who
 owns dairy cows on a Springfield-area farm. "It healed my gut."
 Twice a month, Kosiek drives to Springfield to bring gallons of unpasteurized
 cow's, sheep's and goat's milk to paying local members of his MooGrass Farms
 Inc. cooperative, along with heritage vegetables, grass-fed beef and free-range
 chicken.
 "This is bringing the farm back into the city and into the local communities so
 people can get the best foods available," Kosiek says.
 He and other raw-milk advocates claim drinking unpasteurized milk from grass-fed
 cattle helps with their digestive problems, allergies and diabetes and can help
 with some children's behavioral issues.
 Public health advocates are dubious. They say there's no science to back these
 claims and that the creamy raw milk doesn't contain more nutrients.
 The federal Food and Drug Administration likens drinking raw milk or eating raw
 dairy products to "playing Russian roulette with your health." According to the
 federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, two people died, 104 were
 hospitalized and more than 1,000 were sickened from drinking unpasteurized milk
 or eating unpasteurized cheeses between 1998 and 2005.
 Raw milk is a fast conduit for salmonella, listeria and other sickness-causing
 pathogens, according to the CDC, the Illinois Public Health Ddepartment and the
 American Academy of Pediatrics.
 Federal law requires that all dairy products except for a few aged cheeses be
 pasteurized before being allowed to cross state lines to be sold.
 State laws vary widely. In California, for instance, raw milk can legally be
 sold in grocery stores.
 Despite the health warnings, there's a growing market of consumers thirsty for
 milk the way they believe nature intended it, says Steve Holesinger, who owns a
 small dairy farm an hour west of Rockford that has Chicago-area customers.
 "I just got into the raw-milk thing because there was a big demand for it,"
 Holesinger says.
 He keeps three cows that dine on grass or organic hay and are not given any
 hormones, grain or genetically modified foods.
 Sheri Giachetto of Lemont says interest in raw milk through her Fresh From the
 Farm Cooperative has steadily grown over the last five years.
 "People are sick, and they are starting to question the current system and
 current way of thinking," she says.
 Members spend $45 a year to join and pick up their raw milk and other farm
 products at a suburban church Giachetto won't identify.
 "We should make our own decisions about what to eat," Giachetto says. "A lot of
 people are fed up with the government trying to control us."
 One reason the raw-food movement is gaining in popularity is the belief that
 vegetables lose their wonderful antioxidant-building nutrients during the
 cooking process. But a recent study published in the Journal of Food Science
 disputes that contention.
 Other findings include:
 - Microwave cooking of vegetables does not destroy key nutrients.
 - Celery increased its antioxidant capacity in every form of cooking except
 boiling.
 - Cooking green beans actually increases their antioxidant content.
 - Cauliflower registered the highest losses of antioxidants after either boiling
 or microwaving.
 Scripps Howard News Service
 LOAD-DATE: May 26, 2009
 Photo: (See microfilm for photo description). ;
 Photo: Southtownstar; "We should make our own decisions about what to eat," says
 Sheri Giachetto, who sells raw milk through her Fresh From the Farm Cooperative.
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Business
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2009 Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 399
 
                            The Taos News (New Mexico)
                              May 14, 2009 Thursday
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A-4
 LENGTH: 1025 words
 By Tara Somerville
 For The Taos News
 Large pots of rice and vegetables simmered on the stove of the Taos Peace House
 kitchen on Saturday (May 9) as Food Not Bombs volunteers loaded the truck with
 tables, dishes and literature. They were bound for Taos Plaza to serve their
 weekly free community meal.
 In the house's front room, hemp Frisbees, hacky-sacks and shoulder bags sit
 beneath a poster of young napalm victims in Vietnam village that reads "War is
 murder for profit." Piles of literature from local peace groups cover every
 shelf.
 Founded about two years ago primarily to address Taos' susceptibility to a food
 shortage, the nonprofit Taos Peace House now serves as Taos' Food Not Bombs
 office, the Food Not Bombs global coordinating office, and a hub for various
 peace groups and activists. The Taos Peace House is located at 801 Paseo Del
 Pueblo Norte.
 The house had its grand opening winter solstice/gift sale event "Who would Jesus
 Bomb?" on Dec. 22, 2007.
 "There are a lot of these peace houses and info shops around the world," said
 cofounder Keith McHenry. (Taos Peace House and Info shop is its official name.)
 "But they are run mostly by young anarchists and a couple of other radical
 groups. We are unique because we bring together all the peace groups so we can
 organize as a coalition on all these issues. And now info shops in other towns
 are beginning to invite more groups in -- because they see that it makes sense
 to work in harmony."
 Educational films are regularly screened at the house by various community
 members, such as "The Future of Food," which investigates the health and
 environmental impacts of genetically modified foods.
 Other events held at the house have included "Hemp Weekend," where Taos Hemp
 artisans sold various handmade items and "State of the Union Bingo," where Code
 Pink women (wearing pink) watched George Bush's last state of the union address,
 placing their chips whenever he would say certain buzzwords.
 "There were a lot of bingos that night," said McHenry.
 World Peace Week is being organized through the house. The event will take place
 at the Taos Convention Center and other venues in town May 26-31 and includes
 workshops, films, presentations, children's camp, art shows and music.
 They plan on making this an annual event so participants can implement their
 strategies for peace, social justice and a sustainable future for 12 months and
 then report back on their successes and shortfalls.
 "One of the house's goals is to make Taos a peace destination for people all
 over the world interested in peace and social justice," said McHenry. Taos Peace
 House initially got on its feet with a grant from Ben & Jerry's 1 Percent for
 Peace Foundation. "We knew the money would run out though, so the concept of
 membership was started," said McHenry.
 Currently sharing the space with Food Not Bombs are: Code Pink (a women's
 anti-war group); Veterans for Peace; Food Not Lawns (community garden
 advocates); Taos Hemp; The Friends (Quakers); Mankind Project (men's empowerment
 organization); and Taos Can (Cannabis Action Network, organizing around the
 legalization of medical marijuana). Each group contributes what they can toward
 the monthly rent.
 McHenry and cofounders were inspired to start the house when they glimpsed the
 potential for a local crisis. "Following the March 2007 blizzard that blocked
 I-25 north of Santa Fe for a couple of days, there was a temporary shortage of
 gas and not as much food in town," said McHenry. "A few of us -- Bob and Vicki
 Pederson from Tierra Lucero, Daniela DiPiero from Movimiento, and Chris Piper --
 (were concerned) and held a meeting. Taos only has three days worth of food.
 Supermarkets don't really store food beyond what's on the shelves. If food
 couldn't be delivered here for three days, we'd be down to pickles and ketchup.
 It's the same in every town."
 The house not only provides space to cook the weekly free meal, but also stores
 non-perishables, donated by local eateries, grocery stores and community
 members, for use in case of emergency.
 McHenry is also the co-founder of Food Not Bombs, an international grass-roots
 movement that serves free food and also organizes creative actions for peace and
 social justice. Local chapters collect food from the community that can no
 longer be sold and use appropriate items to cook hot vegan meals, which they
 serve in public spaces, to anyone without restriction.
 A meal is served every Saturday, 2-4 p.m. in Taos Plaza, and the number of
 eaters ranges from 15-55, according to McHenry.
 Food Not Bombs started in Cambridge, Mass. in 1980 and there are now 1,000
 autonomous chapters serving meals at least once a week, throughout the Americas,
 Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Australia and New Zealand.
 "We provided food to the rescue workers at 9/11 and meals throughout Asia after
 the tsunami. I was the coordinator for food distribution after Hurricane Katrina
 and organized 20 kitchens in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama. The Red Cross
 gave out my home phone number as the official number for food," he said.
 McHenry said the Taos Peace House underwent a vital shift after members attended
 weekend workshops on the formal consensus decision-making process, led by C.T.
 Butler in January and April 2009.
 "We had talked about consensus and tried to use it at our meetings but the group
 would often just defer decisions to me," said McHenry. After the workshop, he
 said, people began taking a lot more initiative in sharing ideas and planning
 events. Attendance at their weekly meetings climbed from five or six to about
 20. Butler will return to teach the workshop as part of World Peace week.
 "For the peace house to work, the community has to keep it going -- not only one
 or two people. And that's what's happening. It's becoming its own independent
 thing," said McHenry. "I think the tri-cultural aspect of this community and its
 ancientness and modern-ness support the goals we are working towards. At this
 time of crisis and military conflict, I think people are ready to resolve the
 global problems we are faced with."
 For more information, visit www.taospeacehouse.org and www.worldpeaceweek.net.
 LOAD-DATE: January 14, 2010
 GRAPHIC: See pdf's for exact rendition, caption, graphics and photographer info.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                           Copyright 2009 The Taos News
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 400
 
                             Buffalo News (New York)
                               May 12, 2009 Tuesday
 Japanese farm writer finds similarities
 BYLINE: By Nancy A. Fischer - NEWS NIAGARA REPORTER
 SECTION: LOCAL; Pg. B3
 LENGTH: 496 words
 Family farms in Niagara County are continents away from growers in Japan, but a
 Japanese senior writer from one of the world's largest agricultural daily
 newspapers said the two countries have much in common.
 Masaru Yamada stopped for a whirlwind tour of Niagara County on Monday, visiting
 with members of the Cornell Cooperative Extension and area farmers. He met with
 fruit farmer Jim Singer in Appleton, Lockport apple farmer Julie Blackman and
 Appleton dairy farmer John Sweeney, visited the Youngstown farm market to meet
 with Tom Tower and lunched with Margo Bittner at the Winery at Marjim Manor in
 Barker.
 He had just come from farms in Lancaster, Pa., and New Jersey, and said his next
 stop would be Detroit and then Chicago.
 "These days our [Japanese] farmers are facing many difficulties, the same as you
 are facing. In some ways we have some similarities in our ways of thinking. But
 we do have some big differences. Believe it or not our farmers farm less than
 three acres."
 He said that even though Japanese farms are smaller, they would appreciate the
 Niagara County farms because they grow similar foods and have similar "family
 farms."
 He spoke to Tom Tower, who told Yamada that his family has been farming in this
 area since the Civil War era and called himself a "seventh-generation farmer."
 Blackman of the Lockport apple farm is a sixth-generation farmer.
 Yamada said farmers in his country trace their farming roots back thousands of
 years.
 He also said that in Japan, they believe that Americans produce acres and acres
 of only corn and soybeans, but this article in Japan Agricultural News will show
 them that there is more to America than corn.
 Marketing directly to the consumer is also gaining in popularity in both America
 and Japan.
 Tower, whose farm market is now in its 25th year, gave Yamada a tour. He said he
 now farms a variety of fruits and vegetables on 95 acres, but at one time was
 farming 240 acres and selling his fruit to a middleman for baby food. He said
 now, with his market, he has a lot of community support.
 He said he is opposed to pesticides, saying, "There's not anything more personal
 than what you ingest."
 Tower said a lot of farm markets have failed. "I say if you say you are better,
 you gotta be better. It's not about buzzwords, fads or fashions. It's what
 really tastes good. I baby-sit my heirloom tomatoes.
 "Fortunately we are near an area where people appreciate fresh fruits and
 vegetables," he said.
 Bittner, of the Barker winery, shared with Yamada some of the technology used to
 prune the orchards.
 Yamada said Japan imports a lot of soybeans, and he and Appleton dairy farmer
 Sweeney talked about genetically modified soybeans that dairy farmers may use
 for feed.
 "I think it will be helpful for our readers to see that even though we are very
 far away and the foods we are eating are totally different, I can find lots of
 similarities. I can change the image of the American farmer," Yamada said.
 e-mail: nfischer@buffnews.com
 LOAD-DATE: May 12, 2009
 GRAPHIC: Charles Lewis/Buffalo News Masaru Yamada, right, a writer with the
 Japan Agricultural News, talks with Youngstown farmer Tom Tower for an article
 he is writing about U.S. farming.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                         Copyright 2009 The Buffalo News
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 401
 
                   Wisconsin State Journal (Madison, Wisconsin)
                               May 10, 2009 Sunday
 BYLINE: By Jeanne Kolker jkolker@madison.com
 SECTION: 77 SQUARE SUNDAY; Pg. G3
 LENGTH: 530 words
 The Golden Willow by Harry Bernstein (Ballantine, $25)
 Bernstein has penned the third book of his ninth decade, this one dedicated to
 the story of his 67-year marriage to his love, Ruby. Written after he turned 94,
 his first book, "The Invisible Wall," was a recollection of his childhood in
 WWI-era England. Then he wrote "The Dream," the story of his family's immigrant
 experience in Depression-era Chicago and New York. The trilogy of his life is
 complete with this installment, a moving ode to the woman he spent nearly 70
 years with, and the horror of losing her to leukemia when she was 91. The book
 is written nearly seven years after her death, and his grief is still fresh.
 "Thoughts about her constantly have intruded, and the longing for her is as deep
 as it ever was. Counselors and authorities on the subject of grief say that time
 is the best healer, but time has done nothing for me. I do not feel any
 lessening of the grief now than I felt on that September morning when Ruby
 died." His exceptional love story is a tear-jerker, yet it only serves to affirm
 that enduring marriages do exist.
 The Unhealthy Truth by Robyn O'Brien (Broadway Books, $25)
 In this scathing indictment of the food industry, mother of four O'Brien
 documents her findings after her youngest child nearly dies from an allergic
 reaction to eggs. The subtitle "How Our Food is Making Us Sick and What We Can
 Do About It" pretty much sums it up: The book is a manifesto calling out Big
 Food and Big Money, and even the alleged "watchdogs" such as groups that profess
 to serve allergy-sufferers. She does a lot of comparison shopping with what
 other nations are doing in terms of regulating genetically modified food. Some
 of her strongest inspiration comes from a British study that demonstrated a
 correlation between behavior problems in kids who consumed foods containing
 additives, dyes, and benzoate preservative, prompting corporations in the U.K.
 to voluntarily stop using these ingredients or risk bad publicity. So what do we
 Americans do? O'Brien offers lists for creating a chemical-free pantry and
 parent-friendly recipes that will go a long way toward de-junking a family's
 diet.
 Dust and Shadow by Lyndsay Faye (Simon & Schuster, $25)
 Elementary? Definitely not. First-time author Faye keeps readers guessing
 through this Sherlock Holmes rendition narrated by Dr. Watson. Set in 1888, a
 killer calling himself Jack the Ripper is stalking and murdering women on
 London's East End, and Holmes brings his superior investigative prowess to the
 case. He and his sidekick Watson make their way through the streets in disguises
 to dig up information at the area's notorious gin mills and opium dens. Holmes
 has his hands full with a young woman he enlists to help track down the killer.
 At one point the detective is stabbed by an unidentified culprit; while
 recovering, he is publicly accused by an unscrupulous tabloid reporter of being
 Jack the Ripper and stripped of his credibility. And the twists and turns keep
 coming. Faye faithfully captures the voice of the period in this fun update of
 an iconic character that will appeal to mystery and historical fiction fans.
 LOAD-DATE: May 12, 2009
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Review
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                     Copyright 2009 Madison Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 402
 
                          The Christian Science Monitor
                                May 8, 2009 Friday
 A victory for cheese eaters? US-EU trade spat defused.;
 Roquefort prices won't triple for Americans, and Europeans can block
 hormone-treated US beef.
 BYLINE: James Hagengruber - Staff writer , Anna Momigliano - Correspondent
 LENGTH: 682 words
 Penny-pinching foodies can relax a bit. A trade war that pitted hormone-treated
 beef from the United States against gourmet food items from the European Union
 (EU) appears to have been averted. In the US, this means wedges of Roquefort
 cheese won't be tripling in price. Proposed punitive duties against 34 other
 "luxury" food products from the EU - from Irish oatmeal to Italian mineral water
 - also will not take effect.
 In Europe, the tentative trade dispute settlement means consumers won't have to
 worry about hormones lurking in the beefsteaks and burgers that come from the
 US. The US dropped the tariff increases after the EU agreed to quadruple the
 allowed quotas of duty-free beef from the US. The beef, however, must be free
 from hormone treatments. Hormone-treated beef was at the center of the dispute.
 The EU banned US beef in 1998 out of concerns that growth hormones widely used
 in US cattle posed health risks for humans. Although the deal could boost
 exports of US beef, there was little celebration in cow country. "It's
 disappointing that US beef from cattle treated with growth-promoting hormones
 remains locked out of the EU market," Sen. Charles Grassley (R) of Iowa said in
 a statement. "This beef is safe and consumed by millions of people in the United
 States and other countries every day. The European Union should reopen its
 market to all US beef, which is entirely safe." Europe isn't convinced. Stefano
 Masini, spokesman for Coldiretti, Italy's major farmers' union, says European
 consumers are cautious about hormones and genetically modified food - Germany,
 for example, recently banned genetically modified corn. "I'm glad the European
 institutions were firm on the issue of not importing beef treated with high
 amounts of growth hormones," Mr. Masini says. "It's important to safeguard free
 markets.... But one must also safeguard the rights of the consumer." The
 proposed duties against so-called luxury food items from the EU were announced
 by the Bush administration days before the president left office. They were
 meant to target EU agriculture without hurting the average consumer in the US.
 Thus, Roquefort cheese from France was hit with a proposed 300 percent tariff
 while products like dried macaroni noodles from Italy were left untouched. But
 the measures were decried as unfair and unwise, particularly as the global
 economy slowed. "If you want to sell hormone beef to Europe, you have to educate
 the public," says an Italian diplomat posted in Washington, who asked to remain
 unnamed because he was not authorized to speak. "Everybody is comparing this to
 what happened in 1930s - one ingredient of that crisis was protectionism. You go
 for this kind of dispute, you take a risk that is not wise." Although the
 dispute was far from the top concern facing President Obama, diplomats said it
 had become a significant source of friction between the US and EU. The agreement
 doesn't end the dispute over hormone beef, but it does offer a bit of breathing
 room for both sides to come up with a lasting solution. The disagreement over
 hormone-treated beef illustrates a key difference between US and EU food safety
 regulation, says Emmanuel Lenain, a spokesman at the French embassy in
 Washington. After numerous food contamination scandals in Europe - notably the
 "mad cow" scare - regulators there adopted a more precautionary approach, which
 Mr. Lenain describes as "when you don't know something, you just don't do it."
 The National Cattlemen's Beef Association, of the US, says Europe is wrong to
 ban hormone-treated beef. "These growth promotants have all been scientifically
 proven safe through rigorous Food and Drug Administration testing," according to
 a statement issued by the group Wednesday. The issue might go deeper than
 scientific evidence. Genetically modified foods have also been scientifically
 tested as safe for human consumption - although major concerns remain about
 their impact on the environment - but a survey released in April in Italy shows
 72 percent of Italians believe genetically modified foods are less healthy.
 LOAD-DATE: February 19, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
               Copyright 2009 Christian Science Publishing Society
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 403
 
                Agriculture Department Documents and Publications
                                   May 7, 2009
 Use of Genetically Engineered Fruit Fly and Pink Bollworm in APHIS Plant Pest
 Control Programs; Record of Decision;
 Federal Register Extracts
 LENGTH: 1659  words
 SUMMARY: This notice advises the public of the Animal and Plant Health
 Inspection Service's record of decision for the Use of Genetically Engineered
 Fruit Fly and Pink Bollworm in APHIS Plant Pest Control Programs Final
 Environmental Impact Statement.
 Copies of the record of decision and the final environmental impact statement on
 which the record of decision is based are available for public inspection at
 USDA, room 1141, South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW.,
 Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
 holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817
 before coming.
 The record of decision may also be viewed on the APHIS Web site at
 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/ea/geneng.shtml. Supporting and related
 materials, including the final environmental impact statement, may also be
 viewed on the Internet at
 http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetailandd=APHIS
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David A. Bergsten, APHIS Interagency NEPA
 Contact, Environmental Services, PPD, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 149,
 Riverdale, MD 20737-1238; (301) 734-6103.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice advises the public that the Animal and
 Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has prepared a record of decision based
 on its final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the Use of Genetically
 Engineered Fruit Fly and Pink Bollworm in APHIS Plant Pest Control Programs,
 October 2008.
 The FEIS was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
 of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and its implementing
 regulations.
 On December 19, 2006, APHIS published in the Federal Register (71 FR
 75933-75934, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0166) a notice of its intent to prepare the
 environmental impact statement (EIS) for the purpose of analyzing the use of and
 alternatives to genetic engineering technology applied to sterile insect
 releases in agency pest control programs. On May 30, 2008, the Environmental
 Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register (73 FR 31115) a notice
 of the availability of the draft EIS. The official comment period on the draft
 EIS ended on July 14, 2008. APHIS accepted late comments on that document until
 August 6, 2008.
 In October 2008, APHIS published and distributed the FEIS, which included
 discussion of the seven public comments received on the draft EIS. On November
 14, 2008, EPA published in the Federal Register (73 FR 67511) a notice of the
 availability of the FEIS. The NEPA implementing regulations in 40 CFR 1506.10
 require a 30-day waiting period between the time a final EIS is published and
 the time an agency makes a decision on an action covered by the EIS. APHIS did
 not receive any comments on the FEIS by the time this waiting period ended on
 December 15, 2008.
 APHIS has reviewed the FEIS and has concluded that it has fully analyzed the
 issues covered by the draft EIS and those comments and suggestions submitted by
 commenters. APHIS has now prepared a record of decision on the FEIS and is
 making that record available to the public.
 The Record of Decision for the Use of Genetically Engineered Fruit Fly and Pink
 Bollworm in APHIS Plant Pest Control Programs Final Environmental Impact
 Statement, as prepared pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA
 implementing regulations at 40 CFR 1505.2, is set out below in its entirety.
 Record of Decision for the Use of Genetically Engineered Fruit Fly and Pink
 Bollworm in APHIS Plant Pest Control Programs Final Environmental Impact
 Statement
 This Record of Decision (ROD) has been developed in compliance with the agency
 decision-making requirements of NEPA. The purpose of this ROD is to document
 APHIS' decision to adopt the preferred alternative of the Final Environmental
 Impact Statement (FEIS), that is, the alternative to permit integration of
 genetically engineered insects into its plant pest control and eradication
 programs. The alternatives have been fully described and evaluated in the FEIS.
 This ROD is intended to: (a) State the APHIS decision, present the rationale for
 its selection, and describe its implementation; (b) identify the alternatives
 considered in reaching the decision; and (c) state whether all means to avoid or
 minimize environmental harm from implementation of the selected alternative have
 been adopted (40 CFR 1505.2).
 National Environmental Policy Act
 On November 14, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published
 in the Federal Register [73 FR 67511] a notice of availability of the final
 environmental impact statement titled "Use of Genetically Engineered Fruit Fly
 and Pink Bollworm in APHIS Plant Pest Control Programs." The FEIS considered the
 environmental impacts from integration of genetically engineered insects into
 sterile insect technique components of APHIS plant pest control programs that
 could result from our adoption of the proposed new technologies.
 Pursuant to the implementing regulations for NEPA in cases requiring an EIS,
 APHIS must prepare a record of decision to express the agency determination from
 review of the EIS documentation. The NEPA implementing regulations require that
 a record of decision state what decision is being made; identify alternatives
 considered in the environmental impact statement process; specify the
 environmentally preferred alternative; discuss preferences based on relevant
 factors, including economic and technical considerations, as well as national
 policy considerations, where applicable; and state how all of the factors
 discussed entered into the decision. In addition, the record of decision must
 indicate whether the ultimate decision has been designed to avoid or minimize
 environmental harm and, if not, why not.
 The Decision
 This decision described in the ROD addresses impacts from the preferred
 alternative of the FEIS whose availability was published in the Federal Register
 on November 14, 2008 (73 FR 67511, Docket No. ER-FRL-8587-5). After a thorough
 evaluation of the potential impacts of the alternatives considered in the FEIS,
 APHIS has decided to integrate the use of genetically engineered insects into
 the sterile insect technique used in agency plant pest control programs. This
 includes the adherence to specific agency requirements for mass-rearing and
 release of these new strains of plant pests. It also involves adherence to
 certain procedures for program-specific evaluations of these strains prior to
 release in any pest control or pest eradication applications. As with any new
 sterile insect technique, there are some containment, handling,
 species/strain-specific, and associated release issues that will need to be
 addressed as part of the NEPA documentation for future advances in the
 application-specific technologies.
 Alternatives Considered in the Impact Statement Process
 The FEIS considers the alternatives of (1) No action, essentially maintaining
 sterile insect technique through irradiation of mass-reared insects in plant
 pest control programs as is currently practiced, (2) expansion of existing
 programs in overall size, capacity, and diversity of plant pest species, and (3)
 integration of genetically engineered insects into APHIS' plant pest control
 programs.
 Environmentally Preferable Alternative
 The environmentally preferable alternative for the use of sterile insect
 technique in plant pest control programs is the alternative that minimizes
 potential impacts to human health, nontarget species, and environmental quality.
 Among the alternatives considered in this EIS, the preferred alternative, which
 involves integration of genetically engineered insects into programs, is also
 the environmentally preferable alternative. This alternative is environmentally
 preferable because the potential environmental impacts of this alternative are
 minimized by program use of genetically engineered strains of sterile and
 marker-gene insects maintained in biologically secure containment facilities, by
 the reduced use of irradiation with its associated hazards, by the reduced need
 for large numbers of insects due to the release of males that are more
 competitive in mating, and by the reduced need to apply pesticides from a more
 effective genetic sterile insect technique and improved monitoring of pest
 populations through the use of genetic markers.
 Preferences Among Alternatives
 The preference among the alternatives for the final EIS is to integrate
 genetically engineered insects into the sterile insect technique of APHIS' plant
 pest control programs. In review of the alternatives considered, APHIS could use
 the present methods without further development (no action), APHIS could expand
 on the present methods without genetic engineering technology, or APHIS could
 integrate genetic technology into the sterile insect technique components of the
 plant pest programs. Each alternative involves potential impacts, but the
 context and intensity of those impacts relate largely to the methods and their
 respective relative effectiveness of sterile insect production. The potential
 environmental impacts from methods under alternatives other than the preferred
 alternative are reduced under the preferred alternative to the extent that
 genetically engineered insects are incorporated. For example, the use of
 genetically engineered insects has the potential to decrease the need for
 insecticide applications, to decrease the need to produce both male and female
 insects for use in sterile insect releases, to increase production of males that
 are more competitive in mating than radiation-sterilized males, and to eliminate
 the need to use, operate, and maintain strong gamma radiation sources.
 --This is a summary of a Federal Register article originally published on the
 page number listed below--
 Notice.
 Citation: "74 FR 21314"
 Federal Register Page Number: "21314"
 "Notices"
 LOAD-DATE: May 7, 2009
            Copyright 2009 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 404
 
                            Christian Science Monitor
                              May 7, 2009, Thursday
 A victory for cheese eaters? US-EU trade spat defused.
 BYLINE: James Hagengruber - Staff writer and Anna Momigliano - Correspondent
 SECTION: WORLD; Pg. 7
 LENGTH: 687 words
 DATELINE: Boston; and Milan, Italy
 Penny-pinching foodies can relax a bit.
 A trade war that pitted hormone-treated beef from the United States against
 gourmet food items from the European Union (EU) appears to have been averted.
 In the US, this means wedges of Roquefort cheese won't be tripling in price.
 Proposed punitive duties against 34 other "luxury" food products from the EU -
 from Irish oatmeal to Italian mineral water - also will not take effect.
 In Europe, the tentative trade dispute settlement means consumers won't have to
 worry about hormones lurking in the beefsteaks and burgers that come from the
 The US dropped the tariff increases after the EU agreed to quadruple the allowed
 quotas of duty-free beef from the US. The beef, however, must be free from
 hormone treatments.
 Hormone-treated beef was at the center of the dispute. The EU banned US beef in
 1998 out of concerns that growth hormones widely used in US cattle posed health
 risks for humans.
 Although the deal could boost exports of US beef, there was little celebration
 in cow country.
 "It's disappointing that US beef from cattle treated with growth-promoting
 hormones remains locked out of the EU market," Sen. Charles Grassley (R) of Iowa
 said in a statement. "This beef is safe and consumed by millions of people in
 the United States and other countries every day. The European Union should
 reopen its market to all US beef, which is entirely safe."
 Europe isn't convinced. Stefano Masini, spokesman for Coldiretti, Italy's major
 farmers' union, says European consumers are cautious about hormones and
 genetically modified food - Germany, for example, recently banned genetically
 modified corn.
 "I'm glad the European institutions were firm on the issue of not importing beef
 treated with high amounts of growth hormones," Mr. Masini says. "It's important
 to safeguard free markets.... But one must also safeguard the rights of the
 consumer."
 The proposed duties against so-called luxury food items from the EU were
 announced by the Bush administration days before the president left office. They
 were meant to target EU agriculture without hurting the average consumer in the
 US. Thus, Roquefort cheese from France was hit with a proposed 300 percent
 tariff while products like dried macaroni noodles from Italy were left
 untouched.
 But the measures were decried as unfair and unwise, particularly as the global
 economy slowed.
 "If you want to sell hormone beef to Europe, you have to educate the public,"
 says an Italian diplomat posted in Washington, who asked to remain unnamed
 because he was not authorized to speak. "Everybody is comparing this to what
 happened in 1930s - one ingredient of that crisis was protectionism. You go for
 this kind of dispute, you take a risk that is not wise."
 Although the dispute was far from the top concern facing President Obama,
 diplomats said it had become a significant source of friction between the US and
 EU. The agreement doesn't end the dispute over hormone beef, but it does offer a
 bit of breathing room for both sides to come up with a lasting solution.
 The disagreement over hormone-treated beef illustrates a key difference between
 US and EU food safety regulation, says Emmanuel Lenain, a spokesman at the
 French embassy in Washington. After numerous food contamination scandals in
 Europe - notably the "mad cow" scare - regulators there adopted a more
 precautionary approach, which Mr. Lenain describes as "when you don't know
 something, you just don't do it."
 The National Cattlemen's Beef Association, of the US, says Europe is wrong to
 ban hormone-treated beef. "These growth promotants have all been scientifically
 proven safe through rigorous Food and Drug Administration testing," according to
 a statement issued by the group Wednesday.
 The issue might go deeper than scientific evidence. Genetically modified foods
 have also been scientifically tested as safe for human consumption - although
 major concerns remain about their impact on the environment - but a survey
 released in April in Italy shows 72 percent of Italians believe genetically
 modified foods are less healthy.
 (c) Copyright 2009. The Christian Science Monitor
 LOAD-DATE: May 8, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
             Copyright 2009 The Christian Science Publishing Society
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 405
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                              May 6, 2009 Wednesday
 Monsanto, DuPont square off in seed spat At issue are seeds that have been
 engineered to resist weed killers.
 BYLINE: By Jeffrey Tomich jtomich@post-dispatch.com 314-340-8320 Bloomberg News
 contributed to this report
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. A8
 LENGTH: 525 words
 The world's two largest seed companies are locked in a dispute over the use of a
 genetic trait in corn and soybean plants that make them resistant to weed
 killer.
 Creve Coeur-based Monsanto Co. filed a federal lawsuit in St. Louis on Monday
 claiming DuPont and its agricultural unit, Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc.,
 violated an agreement between the companies by combining Monsanto's Roundup
 Ready herbicide-resistance gene with a similar genetic trait.
 The lawsuit says DuPont's actions are driven by its failure to develop a
 herbicide-resistance gene that works by itself.
 "A true technology company respects patents and its contractual agreements and
 delivers new products through its own innovation and honest collaboration,"
 Monsanto Chief Executive Hugh Grant said in a statement. "DuPont has failed on
 all counts."
 DuPont fired back Tuesday, claiming that nothing in its agreements with Monsanto
 prohibit the company from combining the Roundup Ready gene with its own
 herbicide-resistance trait, Optimum GAT.
 In fact, soybeans that combine both traits are superior to beans with just the
 Roundup Ready gene, and Monsanto's lawsuit is anti-competitive behavior that
 will ultimately deny benefits to farmers, DuPont said.
 "Monsanto has a long history of using litigation and aggressive tactics to
 preserve their monopoly and attempt to intimidate customers, seed partners and
 competitors," said James C. Borel, DuPont group vice president.
 The seed dispute pits bitter rivals as they battle for a larger share of the
 multibillion-dollar market for genetically engineered corn and soybeans.
 The lawsuit may be a tactic to pressure DuPont to boost royalty payments for
 Roundup Ready genetics, said Laurence Alexander, a Jefferies & Co. analyst in
 New York. DuPont, one of hundreds of seed producers that license Roundup Ready
 traits, pays Monsanto more than $200 million a year to use the technology, he
 said.
 Creve Coeur-based Monsanto, the world's largest seed company, was the first
 company to develop a gene for herbicide resistance with its 1996 launch of
 Roundup Ready soybeans. It followed with a similar line of corn that resists
 Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides.
 Hundreds of seed companies pay Monsanto for the right to sell seeds with the
 herbicide-tolerance trait, including Pioneer.
 In 2006, DuPont announced the development of its own herbicide-resistance gene
 and later said it planned to gradually phase out Monsanto's Roundup Ready
 genetic trait and replace it with Optimum GAT.
 Monsanto's lawsuit claims DuPont backed off plans to replace the Roundup Ready
 trait with Optimum GAT in soybeans because it presented "unacceptable risks" to
 farmers. DuPont spokesman Pat Arthur said the claim was taken out of context
 from an informational video sent to customers and sales representatives.
 DuPont plans to stack both herbicide-tolerance genes in soybeans, but the
 company will use only the Optimum GAT trait in corn because combining, or
 stacking, genes hasn't produced the same weed-control and yield benefits as with
 soybeans.
 "There's no data to suggest that would be favorable," said Dan Cosgrove,
 corporate counsel for Pioneer.
 LOAD-DATE: May 7, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2009 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 406
 
                              April 26, 2009 Sunday
 Contrarian agrarian Hiett Prize winner James McWilliams loves the land, but he
 also believes in biotechnology and isn't afraid to point out locavores' failings
 BYLINE: JAMES McWILLIAMS and ROD DREHER
 SECTION: POINTS; JAMES McWILLIAMS and ROD DREHER; Pg. 6P
 LENGTH: 1721 words
 James McWilliams is an emerging voice for agricultural reform whose skepticism
 of the increasingly important food movement and its goals makes him a decidedly
 contrarian agrarian. This summer, he'll offer what he considers a more realistic
 vision in his forthcoming book Just Food. The Texas State University historian,
 40, is considered a young scholar of such promise that he won the Dallas
 Institute's 2009 Hiett Prize in the Humanities - the first Texan to do so. He
 recently chatted with Rod Dreher from his San Marcos office. Here is an excerpt:
 You consider yourself an agrarian. What does it mean to be an agrarian in the
 21st century, when very few Americans live on a farm?
 To be an agrarian is not necessarily to grow food, but to be informed, or at
 least curious, about how food goes from farm to fork. Honest curiosity leads to
 honest explorations into how we might become more socially and environmentally
 conscious consumers. Trust me, there are no easy answers to the conundrum of
 pioneering sustainable agriculture for a globalizing world, much less consuming
 according to these goals. Even suggesting answers lands one in a crucible of
 controversial hellfire.
 But the more agrarian-minded we become, the more sophisticated - and
 ecologically sensitive - our answers will be. Everything I've ever written in my
 career has aimed in one way or another to make my readers more eager to explore
 the food systems that sustain us, or don't. I'd never claim to offer all the
 answers, but I do aim to inspire individuals to seek their own peace with the
 food they eat. And to place environmental considerations at the forefront of
 their investigations.
 How has the current model of food production gone wrong?
 Industrialized agriculture, as it has evolved since the 1920s, has proven to be
 an environmental catastrophe. Not necessarily because it's big, and not
 necessarily because it relies on modern technology, but because it has developed
 without the slightest hint of environmental consciousness or restraint.
 The history of industrial food has been a history in which productivity increase
 and financial profit have obscured the detrimental ecological consequences. When
 you achieve greater rates of output, people think, "Wow, you're feeding the
 world!" But because the environmental consequences do not appear until much
 later, concerned consumers generally do not have the chance to contemplate the
 real costs of their food-related choices in terms of resource depletion and
 global warming.
 We live in age in which - thanks to activists like Rachel Carson and Al Gore -
 environmental impacts matter. We're starting to become more aware of the fact
 that the consequences of our eating choices might not be immediately evident.
 What I'd therefore like to see reformed, generally speaking, is the way
 consumers evaluate the true costs of the grub they buy and the restaurants they
 frequent - and I'd like to see our evaluations take into consideration the full
 environmental impacts of our food choices. Which only brings us back to my
 previous answer: We must investigate our food decisions with the utmost
 eagerness and curiosity.
 You forcefully attack some of the core beliefs of your fellow travelers in the
 movement. For example, many organic farming devotees are strongly against
 mucking around with the genetic code of fruits and vegetables. You think
 genetically modified food could actually be a boon to the environment. Explain.
 We've been "mucking around" with vegetables for 10,000 years. If we didn't
 selectively alter the genetic makeup of wild plants we'd have no such thing as
 agriculture. That said, there is certainly a difference between crossing genes
 within species and, as is the case with GM crops, crossing genes between
 species, in order to achieve a desirable trait. Over 2 billion acres of land
 have been planted worldwide with GM crops since 1997. While there are, as with
 any technology, a number of potential problems that could occur, we've yet to
 see any of them systematically appear.
 Given this cautious endorsement, I should note that the major problem with GM
 technology is that it's monopolized by a handful of corporations who use it to
 grow three monocultural crops: corn, soy and cotton. What I'd like to see is the
 technology broadly dispersed, made more affordable and adopted to foster the
 goal of environmental sustainability. It's currently possible to produce
 blight-resistant rice, drought-resistant cassava, high-yielding sorghum and
 grass that, when fed to cows, eliminates the emission of methane, a potent
 greenhouse gas. None of these products are on the market, however, because the
 corporate players don't see a big enough market to justify production and the
 NGOs and nonprofits are ideologically opposed to plant biotechnology. All I can
 say is that it's a good thing we don't treat GM pharmaceuticals the same way, as
 a lot of insulin and vaccines are produced through GM technology.
 You are also skeptical of the growing vogue for free-range meat. What's wrong
 getting one's meat raised the old-fashioned way, instead of in a factory farm?
 The dichotomy between factory and free range is not as stark as one might think.
 Both systems have problems, and we should face them without blinders. The
 factory farm is, quite frankly, an environmental nightmare. Its problems are
 well known. We should not support it. But the commonly proposed alternative -
 the free-range option - comes with significant problems that the media, which is
 overly enamored with these operations, tend to ignore.
 "Free range" as a label means very little. Chicken can qualify as free-range
 even if it's packed into a 100-yard shed with no maneuverability. A free-range
 pig can be raised as a conventional pig for nine months, purchased by a
 free-range farm, pastured for three months and sold as free-range. The consumer
 is led to think it was always free-range. More alarmingly, a wealth of evidence
 suggests that free-range pigs come into frequent contact with harmful pathogens
 and worms.
 As for cows, grass-fed cows require up to 10 acres of land per cow. And the cows
 emit four times the methane of conventional cows. It's not sustainable. Methane
 is 21 times more powerful than carbon as greenhouse gas. In the end, it's hard,
 if not impossible, to be a meat-eating environmentalist. It is for that reason
 that the most effective thing a socially conscious eater can do is reduce, if
 not eliminate, meat consumption altogether. Not a very popular thing to say in
 Texas, but there you have it.
 In your upcoming book, you talk about how the locavore movement - that is, the
 push to encourage people to eat food grown locally - is potentially harmful.
 How?
 Locavores are up to some fantastic things. They've done more than any movement I
 can think of to encourage Americans to think more critically about where our
 food comes from and under what conditions it's produced. But the movement has
 flaws.
 For one, it highlights the distance food travels as the main arbiter of food's
 carbon footprint. This is misleading. Study after study has shown that
 transportation is a minor energy input in the overall "life cycle" of a food
 product. The vast majority of energy expenditure - and energy waste - takes
 place not in the distance traveled but in the methods of production. It makes
 much more environmental sense, for example, to buy naturally produced tomatoes
 shipped from overseas than hothouse tomatoes grown locally. Likewise, it's less
 energy-intensive for Londoners to buy pastured lamb from New Zealand than to buy
 conventionally raised lamb grown in the English countryside.
 There's also the factor of water. Much of the United States is water-stressed.
 Should we be working to create local foodsheds in areas that have to import
 water in order to be fertile?
 What's the food future likely to bring?
 There's an instinctive and quite understandable tendency to look at the problems
 of industrialized food and seek solutions in the agricultural past. The
 assumption, however, that our forebears hold all the answers is a bit romantic.
 We have to keep in mind that the world's population has more than quadrupled
 since 1900, so the pre-industrial food systems that we often mythologize were
 nowhere near as burdened to achieve high yields. Beyond that, I've never been
 terribly convinced that pre-industrial food was so safe or ecologically correct.
 The future of food production must achieve a balance between high yields and
 high sustainability. The only way I see this happening is if we stop polarizing
 our discussions of food into big industrial and small organic, and start seeking
 common ground over compromises that split differences. We'll have to eat much
 less meat, many more whole grains, fruits, vegetables and legumes; tolerate the
 judicious use of chemicals in the production of our food; keep an open mind to
 the potential benefits of biotechnology; and worry less about the distance our
 food traveled than the overall energy it took to produce it.
 James McWilliams is an associate professor of history at Texas State University
 and an associate fellow in agrarian studies at Yale University. His e-mail
 address is jm71@txstate.edu Rod Dreher is a Dallas Morning News editorial
 columnist. His e-mail address is rdreher@dallasnews.com
 What is the Hiett Prize?
 The Hiett Prize, among the nation's most prestigious honors in the humanities,
 was created by the Dallas Institute for the Humanities and Culture in 2004 to
 recognize a person in the early stages of a career "whose work in the humanities
 shows extraordinary promise and has a significant public component related to
 contemporary culture."
 It was endowed in collaboration with philanthropist Kim Hiett Jordan and comes
 with a cash award of $50,000. The first award was presented in 2005.
 Past winners
 2008 - David Greenberg, assistant professor of journalism and media studies and
 of history at Rutgers University
 2007 - Tiya Alicia Miles, assistant professor at the University of Michigan in
 the American Culture Program, the Native American Studies Program and the Center
 for Afroamerican and African Studies
 2006 - Hilaire Kallendorf, assistant professor of Hispanic studies, Texas A&M
 University
 2005 - Brad Stephan Gregory, associate professor of history at the University of
 Notre Dame
 LOAD-DATE: April 26, 2009
 GRAPHIC: ILLUSTRATION(S): (MICHAEL HOGUE/Staff illustration) James McWilliams.
 CHART(S): What is the Hiett Prize?
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2009 THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS









Document Number: 407
 
                 Sentinel & Enterprise (Fitchburg, Massachusetts)
                              April 21, 2009 Tuesday
 Asking society to rethink its hypothesis on HIV/AIDS
 BYLINE: PETER G. TOCCI, Leominster
 SECTION: LETTERS; Opinion
 LENGTH: 390 words
 On Jan. 30, the Sentinel & Enterprise ran a story about AIDS activist John
 Chittick's return from his awareness campaign in Africa.
 On March 11, a Fitchburg march for National Women and Girls HIV/AIDS Awareness
 Day was reported.
 Dedicated people like Mr Chittick, as well as Dorine Russo, who courageously
 told her story at the march, convey official AIDS information in good faith.
 However, many qualified, even distinguished, scientists such as Nobel laureates
 Walter Gilbert and Kary Mullis, question HIV/AIDS. HIV was never isolated, and
 no study proves it causes AIDS.
 No one denies people are sick. Cause(s), definitions, and approaches are what's
 being challenged.
 Ralph Moss, Ph.D., author of The Cancer Industry, said, "The paradigm that was
 laid down for how to milk the cancer problem is basically the same paradigm
 which is being followed in milking the AIDS problem."
 Many people are taking highly toxic "anti-retroviral" (ARV) drugs. The DNA-chain
 terminator AZT was originally a cancer drug so toxic it was shelved. But the
 deadlier the disease definition, the deadlier the drug allowed, so AZT was
 revived.
 The lone AZT study used to manufacture FDA approval was a shambles. But
 treatment cost $18,000 a year at the time.
 Certain ARVs, such as Nevirapine/Lamivudine/Zidovudine, also contain the
 politically approved neurotoxin-carcinogen aspartame.
 Officially, HIV antibodies (revealed by unreliable tests) are a death sentence.
 But you can "live with HIV" if you take toxic drugs whose effects, if they kill
 you, will be blamed on the virus.
 Authority recommends mandatory HIV testing and flu vaccinations (mercury-laced)
 for pregnant women: Pregnancy, flu vaccines and flu itself (among numerous other
 things) give false-positive HIV tests.
 My contact in South Africa doggedly researches HIV/AIDS. She says the millions
 of HIV-positives there may be false. This, and widespread depletion of CD4
 cells, she says, are likely attributable to genetically modified (GM) corn.
 GM organisms were introduced to Africa in 1985 as "food aid," coinciding with
 the onset of AIDS. There was also epidemiological correlation early on with the
 World Health Organization Smallpox Eradication Program.
 Society must thoroughly rethink the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Please look carefully
 into this before acting on official pronouncements.
 Leominster
 LOAD-DATE: April 21, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
       Copyright 2009 MediaNews Group, Inc. and Mid-States Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 408
 
                            Ann Arbor News (Michigan)
                              April 20, 2009 Monday
 LENGTH: 1020 words
 Monsanto's genetically altered food a danger
 We as Americans should have a choice as to what kind of food we put in our
 bodies.
 Monsanto is a vile company that not only has no respect for organic farmers, but
 absolutely no respect for the human race. Genetically modified organism foods
 are causing new diseases. Sixteen thousand children were diagnosed last year
 with Morganelles disease. GMO seeds grow foods, including the grain that our
 livestock is fed, to grow plastic fibers out of our bodies. Monsanto is so
 greedy and hostile, to think it is OK to poison our bodies with GMO seeds and
 food.
 Diana K Ferrell, Ann Arbor
 South U doesn't belong as part of downtown
 Maggie Ladd (Other Voices, April 2) is completely wrong in thinking that South U
 is "downtown."
 Longtime Ann Arbor residents will tell you that there are really three distinct
 retail districts: downtown, which is the Main Street area; State Street; and
 South U.
 South U got stuck into the first Calthorpe workshop because somehow the DDA was
 granted that territory. HIgh-rises were recommended for South U only because
 when we attendees at the workshop were playing the place-the-high-rise game we
 had little high-rise tokens left over and no place to put them except on South
 This must have given some planners the idea that high-rises were good, when in
 fact we were only following the rules of Calthorpe's game.
 By the way, looking at Calthorpe's plan for urban-renewing its home territory in
 Berkeley, Ca., four stories is the maximum height it wants there.
 And no self-respecting adult over the age of 22 is going to live on South U 12
 months out of the year, no matter what degree of luxury or size of buildings are
 built there, until the South U Area Association cleans the chewing gum and
 grease spots off the sidewalks, gets rid of the sports bars and their disruptive
 late night crowds, and gets rid of the Art Fair.
 Frances A. Wright, Ann Arbor
 Neither Christianity nor science explains life
 Recently, there has been a debate raging through the opinion section. A debate
 about evolution, creationism, intelligent design and every other euphemism we
 can find. What my opinionated friends fail to comprehend is the fact that both
 sides are dead wrong.
 Science can explain nothing; it is foolish and unstable.
 The gospel of the white Christ is just as flawed, far too new and ethnocentric.
 It is the whim of the gods that changes lifeforms; each pantheon to their own
 cultural location. Why are the puffins off the coast of Ireland different from
 those off the coast of Iceland? Simply because Odin and Cernnunnos had differing
 views about the smaller details of puffin life. This is the only explanation and
 seems very simple; why is it so hard for people to understand?
 Scientists and white Christ fanatics simply complicate the world, while claiming
 to explain it. If you want to explain it, ask the bard, skald, or shaman.
 Hugh B. Cochran, Ann Arbor
 Backing Bush shows News doesn't lean left
 The Ann Arbor News has had its critics for years - too far left, too far right.
 However, Joseph Star's assertion that The News has been "kowtowing to the left,"
 leading to its demise, seems to be refuted by the fact that The Ann Arbor News
 endorsed George W. Bush for president not once, but twice.
 I don't think that anyone in their wildest imagination could call this a
 left-leaning endorsement. I certainly won't miss the letters to the editor by
 writers who ascribe to the "never let the facts get in the way of an opinion"
 motto.
 Linda R. Sacks, Manchester
 Obama, Biden bring to mind ancient proverb
 Barack Hussein Obama as president of this nation, and Joe Biden as vice
 president, altogether corroborate an ancient Vietnamese proverb: "When small men
 cast long shadows, sundown is near."
 Joseph N. Konwinski, Ann Arbor
 Loss of wetlands needs to be addressed
 As a duck hunter and a concerned citizen, I am distraught by my country's
 failure to adequately protect our wetlands and waterways.
 Wetlands such as our own Saginaw Bay serve as crucial habitat for more than 900
 species, including migrating waterfowl; however, every year we lose more than
 80,000 acres of American wetlands habitat.
 That number is only going to get worse unless Congress improves the Clean Water
 Act, which has been weakened over the past few years. These regulatory changes
 have removed protections from an estimated 20 million acres of wetlands. This
 loss accounts for about 20 percent of all remaining wetlands in the lower 48
 states.
 I encourage all sportsmen and individuals who value wildlife to learn about this
 problem and to demand action from our representatives. How is Congress going to
 make sure our wetlands are protected?
 Heather L. Shaw, Brighton
 Comparing Nazism to zoning ridiculous
 Edward A. Shaffran's April 5 "Other Voices" column employs extremist language to
 oppose the proposed Ann Arbor zoning rules aimed at promoting higher downtown
 pedestrian traffic.
 Mr. Shaffran writes that, "On a theoretical level, to say a bank is not an
 active use and should be located to a secondary street borders on National
 Socialism." He wants us to believe that regulating where banks may be built in
 downtown Ann Arbor is not quite as bad as Hitler's dictatorship, but "borders
 on" being that bad.
 Nazi deeds include murdering many of millions of people, bringing about the
 second World War, and suppressing democratic rights in all the lands the Nazis
 came to control. All these crimes were justified by Nazi ideology.
 How can one put a proposed city rule that might affect where new banks may be
 built on the same plane as the Nazis' record? Did Nazis promote high-volume
 pedestrian shopping districts? No, of course not. The merits of the high-use
 pedestrian goal should be debated, but nothing about Nazism is relevant to this
 debate, except as a dishonorable rhetorical device to inflame emotions and
 demonize advocates of the proposed zoning rule.
 Mr. Shaffran owes all readers of The Ann Arbor News who value reasoned public
 debate an apology for comparing Nazism to zoning regulations. He hysterically
 clouds the issue, instead of providing relevant commentary.
 Mark D. Higbee, Ypsilanti
 LOAD-DATE: April 23, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: aar
                          Copyright 2009 Ann Arbor Time
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 409
 
                               The Bismarck Tribune
                              April 19, 2009 Sunday
 Promote real 'sustainability'
 BYLINE: LINDSEY AULL Bismarck
 SECTION: OPINION; Pg. 6C
 LENGTH: 242 words
 Promote real 'sustainability'
 As ever more products circulate the world in our global economy, we rely heavily
 on labeling to find out exactly what we are buying. Many if not most consumers
 have some degree of trust in those labels.
 Senate Bill 2438, already passed by the state Senate and soon to come to a vote
 in the House, creates a commission through the Department of Agriculture that
 will determine and label if a product is "sustainably grown" in North Dakota.
 Sustainability within North Dakota agriculture is certainly a worthy topic, one
 that does deserve attention.
 However, "sustainably grown" is quite a subjective and broad term, one that has
 much potential to be misused and misrepresented. For example, there is
 disagreement in our country and around the world about the role of genetic
 engineering in our food supply. Would genetically engineered soybeans sprayed
 with Roundup now be considered "sustainably grown in N.D." because they came
 from a no-till field?
 North Dakota has a strong contingent of farmers and ranchers who use organic
 practices and other ecological approaches to their work. There are also groups
 like the 30-year-old Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society working to
 promote sustainable agriculture within the region.
 It's alarming that this bill appears to be more a product of agri-business than
 one coming from the groups and individuals who have kept sustainable agriculture
 alive in this state for so long.
 LOAD-DATE: April 19, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
        Copyright 2009 The Bismarck Tribune, a division of Lee Enterprises
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 410
 
                            Bangor Daily News (Maine)
                             April 18, 2009 Saturday
                                   All Editions
 Fear feeds engineered crop debate
 SECTION: Pg. B1
 LENGTH: 837 words
 Legislators on the Agriculture, Forestry and Conservation Committee learned
 Friday that 12 years after they first began hearing bills on genetically
 engineered crops, it wasn't any easier.
 Testimony on five genetically engineered crop bills revealed a high level of
 passion and fear.
 "This isn't about science," Rep. Benjamin Marriner Pratt, D-Bangor, who
 sponsored three of the five bills presented Friday, told his colleagues. "These
 issues go beyond biology. They go beyond science and the scientific method. To
 pretend otherwise is to do a disservice to the people of Maine."
 Many people do not believe there is a difference between genetically engineered
 crops and conventional crops; others think the technology is too new and has not
 been tested sufficiently.
 Crops are genetically engineered when the DNA of one gene from one crop is
 inserted into the DNA of a gene of a separate crop. Most of the current
 genetically engineered crops are created to contain their own pesticides and
 herbicides. Some crops, however, are being grown to contain medicines and
 pharmaceuticals.
 Scientists have consistently said that this technology will allow for less
 pesticide use and greater crop yields, as well as a renewable source for
 medicines such as insulin.
 Others, however, have an attitude similar to Chris Miller of Gray.
 "I do not believe in the rules protecting us," Miller testified Friday.
 "Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong. This is the ultimate science-fiction
 story."
 Maine is far from alone in this debate. Across the country, 48 bills about
 genetically engineered crops are now being heard by state legislatures,
 according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
 Currently only genetically engineered corn, canola and soybeans are being grown
 in Maine.
 In the past, the organic community has been solidly behind every bill proposed
 that would control, regulate or prohibit genetically engineered crops. But even
 they were divided Friday.
 Four organic dairy farmers said regulations that pit conventional growers
 against organic growers are unnecessary.
 "I have nothing against my conventional neighbors," Franklin County organic
 dairy farmer Martin Lane said. "We are all just trying to feed the country."
 Only one bill seemed to be unilaterally supported.
 LD 557 directs the University of Maine to study a potato developed by a Chelsea
 backyard gardener that appears to be toxic to the Colorado Potato Beetle.
 The beetle can decimate potato crops, tomatoes and eggplants. Proponents said
 that if the potato study shows it can replace pesticides, it could save $200 an
 acre for potato farmers.
 The committee unanimously passed LD 557.
 No date has been set for work sessions on the remaining four bills, which are:
 .  LD 708: This bill would enact a 10-year moratorium on the open-air production
 of genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops. Pratt said the bill was aimed at
 protecting Maine's food supply. "Our goal is to make sure pharmaceutical drugs
 do not make it into our food stream." Jon Olson of the Maine Farm Bureau opposed
 the bill, testifying that any bill that limits Maine farmers' ability to compete
 with the rest of the country should not be passed.
 .  LD 804: This bill would refine the state's existing genetic engineering
 regulations and includes references to the state's best management practices for
 genetically engineered crops that have not yet been finalized. It also provides
 a framework for inspections, requires buffer zones between organic and
 conventional crops and spells out a violation process that kicks in when an
 organic farmer's crops become contaminated by neighboring genetically engineered
 crops.
 "The onus falls on the organic farmer, which flies in the face of what I learned
 in kindergarten about cleaning up your own mess," Rep. Peter Kent said. Logan
 Perkins, representing the Maine Organic Farming and Gardeners Association
 testified that "unless you include every backyard gardener, you will accomplish
 nothing with this bill." The Maine Department of Agriculture also opposed it,
 saying it would have to hire three seasonal 26-week inspectors to fulfill the
 bill's requirements.
 .  LD 965: This bill would establish an annual reporting system for genetically
 engineered crops. The measure, which supporters said would provide information
 vital to state policy decisions and allow the state to track growing trends, may
 not be necessary since the National Agriculture Statistics Service has said it
 will begin surveying and collecting data in 2008 on GE growers.
 .  LD 1202: This bill would set out a process for investigating any farmer
 accused of intellectual property theft of genetically engineered material. The
 largest developer and seller of patented genetically engineered seed, Monsanto,
 has filed more than 112 lawsuits against farmers in 29 states, Perkins
 testified. Basically, she explained, the bill would protect Maine farmers from
 unreasonable search and seizure, and provide third-party verification to all
 test results.
 bdnpittsfield@myfairpoint.net
 LOAD-DATE: April 20, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                         Copyright 2009 Bangor Daily News









Document Number: 411
 
                          St. Petersburg Times (Florida)
                              April 17, 2009 Friday
 BYLINE: JESSICA VANDER VELDE, Columnist
 SECTION: SOUTH SHORE & BRANDON TIMES; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 556 words
 It's that time of year again, when strawberry farmers open their fields to
 locals who love to pick ripe berries for jam, pies and strawberry daiquiris.
 I've been going to U-picks with my dad ever since I was about as tall as the
 low-lying bushes. But years later, I still love the hunt for the biggest,
 juiciest, sweetest berry.
 There are several U-picks in Plant City and Dover, even though many farmers
 stopped this annual tradition decades ago. This year my husband and I decided to
 do something different: organic U-pick.
 Make no mistake, we're not health purists. I'll eat my organic produce right
 after I finish my Cheetos and Coke, thank you very much. But the thought of
 eating pesticides, even in small quantities, kind of freaks me out. I can't
 afford to buy organic produce each time I go to the grocery store, but I
 consider it when it's cheap.
 For you logical types, here's the price breakdown per quart:
 - Nonorganic strawberries from Publix: $6.98
 - Organic berries picked at Jordan Farms: $1.50
 - Nonorganic berries picked at most traditional U-picks: 50 cents
 It may be three times more expensive for organic U-picking, but it's still less
 than a quarter of the prices of store-bought berries. And nutritionists say that
 conscientious shoppers should buy organic strawberries. Studies show that
 strawberries retain more pesticides than other fruit.
 When Jordan Farms opened for U-pick recently, 2-year-old Lily Mothershed popped
 strawberry after strawberry into her red-stained mouth.
 "If you're going to eat them, you'll have to pick them," her grandma, Debbie
 Deane, said, smiling.
 Deane and her daughter, Jessica Mothershed, have eaten organic fruits and
 vegetables ever since Deane became worried about genetically modified foods
 years ago.
 They both feel better about Lily's eating organic, and, anyway, going to U-pick
 is fun, they said. Jordan Farms also has cabbage, lettuce and squash, and owners
 Ron and Cherri Clark will soon have green beans and cucumbers.
 Big Bear Farms in Plant City will most likely open this weekend for organic
 blueberry U-pick, said owner Ken Dur. His blueberries are $11 a pound - pricey,
 but much cheaper than store-bought berries, even nonorganic.
 If you want cheap organic produce, go soon. Most farms are only open for U-pick
 for a few weeks. So grab a shallow box and some sunscreen, pull out the blender
 and clear out the freezer. This is one of those benefits of living in eastern
 Hillsborough County. Even if you choose the nonorganic route, cheap,
 fresh-off-the-bush berries are too good to pass up.
 Organic farms
 Jordan Farms, 3243 Mott Road, Dover; e-mail owner Ron Clark at ronclark@ij.net
 to get on his e-mail list for updates; (813) 478-0844
 Big Bear Farms, 7606 Kinard Road, Plant City, bigbearfarms.mysite.com; e-mail
 owner Ken Der at bigbearfarms@netzero.com to get on his e-mail list; (813)
 Strawberry Passion Farms, 938 Sydney Washer Road, Dover; (813) 315-8867
 Hydroponic farms
 They may not be certified organic, but they use fewer pesticides than
 traditional farms and are eco-friendly because they use less water.
 Hydro Harvest, 1101 E Shell Point Road, Ruskin, $3.99 a pound, (813) 645-6574 or
 hydroharvestfarms.com.
 Parke Family HydroFarms, 3715 Tanner Road, Dover, $3.50 to $1 a pound, depending
 on how many pounds you buy, (813) 719-2904 or parkehydro.com.
 LOAD-DATE: April 17, 2009
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO, SKIP O'ROURKE, Times: Jordan Farms in Dover offers organic
 berries you pick for $1.50 a quart. Nutritionists say organic strawberries are
 best.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                     Copyright  2009 Times Publishing Company
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 412
 
                         The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon)
                             April 16, 2009 Thursday
                                 Sunrise Edition
 Farm expert touts tradition to halt migrants
 BYLINE: GOSIA WOZNIACKA, The Oregonian
 SECTION: Business
 LENGTH: 1053 words
 Farm expert
 touts tradition
 to halt migrants Growing own
 food healthier
 than buying
 Oaxaca, Mexico-based agriculture expert Baldemar Mendoza Jimenez works with
 rural communities that abide by a traditional form of self-organization,
 including a system of community service.
 But this system, Jimenez says, was nearly destroyed by the North American Free
 Trade Agreement, leading to massive migration of Mexican farmers to the United
 States and our current crisis with illegal immigration.
 NAFTA was implemented in 1994 to remove barriers to trade and investment among
 the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
 Jimenez works for the Union of Organizations of the Sierra Juarez of Oaxaca,
 which teaches farmers how to restore traditional farming methods, including
 organic, sustainable agriculture and crop diversity. He's touring communities
 throughout the Northwest this month. He speaks at several venues in the Portland
 area today and Friday.
 His organization's goal is to reverse adverse effects of NAFTA: save and share
 traditional farming methods, restore food independence and halt the migration of
 Mexican farmers to the United States.
 Jimenez answered questions during a recent interview, which has been edited for
 length and clarity.
 Q: 15 years after the implementation of NAFTA, what are the results on the
 ground in Mexico?
 A: In general, the free trade agreement has led to a breakdown of the community
 in Mexico.
 In indigenous communities, every person performs volunteer work for the good of
 the community, such as working on constructing a school, clearing a road, or
 digging a water well.
 NAFTA weakened the system of community duties, because there are fewer community
 citizens to do the work. They have abandoned the fields and migrated to the
 United States.
 Those who come back have a hard time re-adapting and often don't want to perform
 communal labor. Many community obligations are left to women. But when a family
 stops performing communal work, they lose their rights in the community, for
 example the right to cultivate the land. It generates many conflicts, and the
 fabric that binds our community is lost.
 Q: Why did so many Mexican farmers migrate to the U.S.?
 A: NAFTA undermined traditional agriculture methods and created a dependence on
 pesticides. It took away government price guarantees for corn and other
 products. It left the free market to regulate prices.
 To keep up, Mexican farmers sowed more corn. Diversified crops were substituted
 with monocrops. The government and agribusinesses encouraged farmers to use
 pesticides to increase yield from the fields.
 The Mexican government also approved the experimental planting of GMO corn. Our
 native corn was contaminated with genetically modified corn and farmers stopped
 using native seeds.
 As a result, farmers abandoned traditional, sustainable farming practices. Their
 soil was contaminated by the use of agrochemicals. It became dependent on the
 pesticides, so farmers had to pay more to buy them. Many could not make ends
 meet. They abandoned their lands, left to work in maquiladoras, and emigrated to
 the United States.
 Because farmers were no longer cultivating diverse crops and they couldn't
 compete with market prices, Mexico started to import food from the U.S.
 Now, Mexico is completely dependent on U.S. foods. In 2003, out of every 100
 agricultural products that Mexicans ate, 93 were bought from the United States
 --even corn, beans, and rice, the staples of Mexican diets. Despite the free
 trade agreement, the U.S. continues to subsidize its farmers, allowing them to
 dump huge amounts of corn into Mexico and driving Mexican farmers to abandon
 their crops.
 Q: Do you see any positive effects of NAFTA in Mexico, especially in Oaxaca?
 A: From the point of view of our reality, none. There may be some positive
 effects in other parts of Mexico, but usually it benefits people who are close
 to the government, people who have money, and not farmers. We are told Mexico
 has reduced the amount of corn it buys from the U.S. But those who sell corn in
 Mexico these days are not farmers, and often they're not even Mexican. They are
 business people who are making money in this new reality.
 Q: What does this mean for the United States today?
 A: Here in the United States, you criminalize the migrants. You talk about
 protecting your borders, being more vigilant because immigrants are dangerous.
 But there is no clear public policy to find real solutions to real problems.
 Migration will continue as long as Mexican farmers are losing their way of life.
 Even if some are now returning from the U.S. to Mexico because of the economy,
 there are others in Mexico getting ready to cross the border.
 The loss of food sovereignty is growing, and the people who are coming back from
 the U.S. are not used to working in the fields. What we really need is to urge
 the government to renegotiate NAFTA.
 Q: Organic, sustainable agriculture is hot in the United States. What can
 Americans do to help farmers in Mexico?
 A: Here in the U.S. and elsewhere, only those who have money have access to good
 food. At one point in time, it was the poor farmers who had access to it. We
 should go back to that.
 First, farmers should not sow to sell. They should think about growing healthy
 food. Second, we need to understand that we're part of a system, a globalized
 food market, and we can harm the farmers that grow our food.
 In the United States, most people don't have food sovereignty. They buy it. But
 if you really want to eat healthy, every family should try to grow some of their
 food.
 This would reduce dependence on large corporations that produce food at the cost
 of the small farmer. And it would give people options to decide what to eat.
 Many already grow their own gardens. It's better to grow your own. Just because
 you see organic produce at the supermarket doesn't mean that the farmer gets a
 fair price from the sale of that product.
 And those who can't grow their food can also do something. The idea of fair
 trade doesn't mean you have to sow your own food. It can mean choosing to eat
 local foods and thinking about how your food gets to your kitchen table. We know
 there are many people who want to change their way of life. If every time there
 is more of us, change will come.
 Gosia Wozniacka: 503-294-5960; gosiawozniacka@
 news.oregonian.com
 LOAD-DATE: April 20, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                           Copyright 2009 The Oregonian
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 413
 
                          Portland Press Herald (Maine)
                             April 16, 2009 Thursday
                                  Final Edition
 Maine a hotbed of crop legislation;
 Only two states have more bills in their legislatures this year dealing with
 genetically altered crops.
 BYLINE: BETH QUIMBY Staff Writer
 SECTION: FRONT; Pg. A1
 LENGTH: 671 words
 Nobody knows just how many acres of genetically altered crops are grown every
 year in Maine.
 A bill being proposed by Rep. Benjamin Pratt, D-Eddington, would change that.
 ''We need to know what we are dealing with,'' Pratt said.
 Pratt is sponsoring three of four bills aimed at regulating genetically modified
 crops. They are scheduled for a series of public hearings Friday before the
 Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee.
 The hearings are expected to draw crowds from both sides of what has become a
 perennial hot-button issue in Maine, pitting organic farmers and people worried
 about the safety of genetically engineered crops against the biotechnology
 industry and conventional farmers, who say such crops are perfectly safe and
 allow Maine farms to be competitive.
 ''We have been growing genetically engineered crops for 10 years without any
 complaints,'' said Robert Tardy, a Maine lobbyist who represents the
 Biotechnology Industry Organization in Washington, D.C.
 Advocates of regulating genetically engineered crops say the bills serve as
 precautionary measures.
 ''Let's take some time to look at this closely,'' said Bob St. Peter, executive
 director of Food for Maine's Future.
 Maine is a hotbed of legislation involving genetically modified crops. Only
 Hawaii, with 13 proposed bills, and New York, with 10, have more.
 There are 48 bills about genetically engineered crops in state legislatures
 nationwide this year, according to the National Conference of State
 Legislatures. Last year, the Waldo County town of Montville became the first
 community in the nation to pass an ordinance banning the cultivation of
 genetically engineered crops.
 These crops were first introduced in Maine about a decade ago, but moves to
 restrict them have been around since the early 1990s. Farmers in Maine are
 growing genetically engineered corn, canola and soybeans.
 The state's Pesticide Board regulates the use of all crops genetically altered
 for pesticide and herbicide purposes. Crops altered for other purposes must be
 approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection
 Agency and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 John Jemison, a University of Maine Cooperative Extension Service specialist who
 has done research on the impact of genetically altered crops in Maine, said
 there are pros and cons.
 He has found that there have been low levels of cross-pollination between
 genetically engineered and conventional crops. He has found production benefits
 in canola genetically altered for weed control. The jury is still out on
 benefits of corn altered to resist insect pests, Jemison said.
 Both sides in the debate are deeply entrenched in their positions. Proponents of
 genetically altered crops accuse opponents of being fuzzy on science, unwilling
 to compromise and not representative of the state's farming community, which
 would be at a competitive disadvantage without genetically altered crops.
 ''For some reason, a small number of people in Maine have chosen this as the
 place in the world to plant their flag and stop genetic engineering,'' said Doug
 Johnson, executive director of the Maine Biotechnology Information Bureau.
 Opponents say they are protecting Maine farmers from big corporations and
 ensuring the safety of locally grown food.
 ''It is an issue that hits home with a lot of people who are concerned about our
 food and what we are eating,'' said Logan Perkins, a lobbyist for the Maine
 Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association.
 Some farmers say that the whole issue is being overblown and that Maine organic
 and conventional farmers can peacefully coexist without new laws.
 Bill Spiller, president of the York County Farm Bureau and owner of Spiller Farm
 in Wells, said he sometimes uses genetically grown crops to control weeds in his
 corn, but he also uses organic growing methods. So far, Spiller has had no
 problems with his organic farming neighbors.
 ''We get along pretty well,'' he said.
 Staff Writer Beth Quimby can be contacted at 791-6363 or at:
 bquimby@pressherald.com
 RESOURCES (71%); BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS (74%) Legislature
 LOAD-DATE: April 16, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2009 Blethen Maine Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 414
 
                            Bangor Daily News (Maine)
                             April 15, 2009 Wednesday
                                   All Editions
 Legislative backbone
 SECTION: Pg. A6
 LENGTH: 211 words
 I read with interest Diane Georgia Chapin's April 16 OpEd regarding labeling of
 genetically engineered, or GE, foods. Reading it reminded me of how often I had
 signed petitions to state legislators asking for their support in mandating
 labels on GD foods. If these petitions had good outcomes, I wouldn't be writing
 this.
 About a dozen years ago when I was attending meetings of the Maine Board of
 Pesticides Control, a biotech company was petitioning the board for approval to
 sell Bt sweet corn  seed in Maine. The seed, as mentioned in Chapin's piece, is
 marketed as "insect protected" to kill the European corn borer. During the
 petitioning process a board member asked the biotech representative whether the
 European corn borer had been found in Maine. The answer was  no. The board
 turned them down, as it should. Now that the board has approved Bt sweet corn
 seed in Maine, can we assume the European corn borer has arrived?
 Companies that sell GE seeds are all too eager to bring their products to market
 with a less than perfect track record of good science and data behind them.
 Europeans have demanded and succeeded in getting GE foods labeled. We deserve
 the same, however, our legislators don't have the backbone to do the right
 thing.
 Monique Gautreau
 Bangor
 LOAD-DATE: April 15, 2009
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Letter
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                         Copyright 2009 Bangor Daily News









Document Number: 415
 
                             April 15, 2009 Wednesday
 germany bans a strain of genetically modified corn
 SECTION: Section B; Column 4; Pg. 4
 LENGTH: 34 words
 Germany bans genetically modified strain of corn that European Union has deemed
 safe for planting; Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner says Monsanto Co's MON819
 corn product presents environmental danger (S)
 GENETIC ENGINEERING (90%); AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENTS (87%) Corn; Agriculture;
 Genetics and Heredity
 ORGANIZATION: EUROPEAN UNION (84%) Monsanto Co
 PERSON: ilse (min) aigner
 MEMBER STATES (74%) Germany
 LOAD-DATE: April 16, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Abstract
                    Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
                               All Rights Reserved
                            Information Bank Abstracts









Document Number: 416
 
            Environmental Protection Agency Documents and Publications
                                  April 14, 2009
 EPA and Mount Sinai Investigate Food Allergy Triggers
 LENGTH: 472  words
 (New York, N.Y.) Reacting to a growing public health problem, the U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced a $466,125 research grant
 to the Mount Sinai School of Medicine to investigate the mechanisms that make
 food allergies occur and pinpoint what triggers them. Within the biotechnology
 sector, EPA regulates the proteins used as pesticides that are introduced to our
 food supply and aims to ensure that these do not have adverse health impacts.
 The innovative microbiology study will examine the genetic factors that
 contribute to the spread of food allergy by closely examining its pathogenesis
 or step-by-step development.
 'Food allergies affect six to eight percent of children in the U.S., but there
 is a shortage of information on how food allergies develop and how to prevent
 them,' said George Pavlou, Acting EPA Regional Administrator. 'An important
 component of EPA's biotechnology research is to improve our understanding of the
 health effects from genetically engineering proteins. This study will bring us
 closer to identifying environmental or dietary triggers that lead to food
 allergy.'
 To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetically engineered foods
 have been documented in the human population. However, the majority of soybeans,
 as well as large proportions of corn, canola, and cotton crops produced
 worldwide are genetically engineered with custom made proteins for resistance to
 pests. The results of the EPA funded research will be used to better predict if
 the development of dietary allergens is connected with genetic engineering of
 foods.
 Mount Sinai researchers will test the mechanism by which thymic stromal
 lymphopoietin (TSLP), a human gene that has a central role in the development of
 allergic inflammation in the skin and lung, could also promote food allergy.
 They will investigate how the gene reacts in the body's gastrointestinal tract
 under different conditions and thereby better comprehend its role in allergic
 reactions. They will closely examine how TSLP regulates or affects other
 biological changes within the stomach and intestines. The project also aims to
 develop a genetically modified mouse especially designed for food protein
 research.
 EPA regulates the use of all pesticides in the U.S., including pesticide
 proteins introduced into food through genetic engineering. EPA has a regulatory
 power to establish acceptable levels for pesticide residues and evaluate human
 health and ecological risks under authority of the Federal Insecticide,
 Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
 For more details about the project, visit:
 http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/
 abstract/8939/report/0
 Contact Information: Elias Rodriguez, (212) 637-3664, rodriguez.elias@epa.gov
 LOAD-DATE: April 14, 2009
            Copyright 2009 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 417
 
                          Portland Press Herald (Maine)
                              April 4, 2009 Saturday
                                  FINAL Edition
 Military, defense issues top the people's list of concerns;
 Dozens line up to speak for three minutes each at a forum organized by 50
 advocacy groups at USM.
 BYLINE: DIETER BRADBURY Political Correspondent
 SECTION: FRONT; Pg. A4
 LENGTH: 509 words
 Peter Woodruff stood in front of a microphone Friday night at the University of
 Southern Maine and told of building one Navy warship after another as an
 employee at Bath Iron Works for 28 years.
 Woodruff said he and some co-workers have seen enough, and are circulating a
 petition in the shipyard calling for it to build wind turbines that would
 produce renewable energy.
 ''Our military - mine, yours - is spending over half its money securing energy
 for this country,'' he said. ''We're tired of wars for resources.''
 Woodruff and dozens of other speakers lined up to voice their concerns about
 U.S. military spending, defense policy, the environment, health care and other
 issues at a ''Town Hall Meeting'' at USM's Hannaford Hall organized by about 50
 advocacy groups.
 The meeting attracted more than 150 people, as well as a number of federal,
 state and local elected officials or their representatives. They were invited to
 hear speakers' opinions, which were rendered in three-minute segments under the
 direction of several moderators.
 U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree, a Democrat, was the only member of Maine's
 congressional delegation to attend. Democratic Rep. Mike Michaud and Sens. Susan
 Collins and Olympia Snowe, both Republicans, were represented by staff members.
 Other public officials on hand included Maine Economic and Community Development
 Commissioner John Richardson, state Sen. Phil Bartlett, D-Gorham, and state Rep.
 Seth Berry, D-Bowdoinham.
 Several of the officials listened from the auditorium stage, under a large red
 and black banner lettered with the phrase, ''Listen to the People.''
 Like Woodruff, the BIW employee, many of the speakers focused on military and
 defense issues. They believe that public spending in those areas diverts money
 that could be used for health care or other needs.
 ''I am weary of political rhetoric,'' Rosalie Paul of Georgetown said to the
 officials on the stage. ''I am weary of your pretense that you are really aware
 of what is going on.''
 Lisa Savage, a teacher from Solon, strode to the microphone wearing a large pink
 wig, signifying her support for Code Pink, the national women's peace group that
 formed to stop the war in Iraq.
 Savage decried the presence of military recruiters in public schools. She said
 tax dollars are being used to ''deliver an audience'' of students to recruiters.
 ''I would really like to see recruiters turned out to the mall with the others
 who use hard sales tactics, where they belong,'' she said.
 Other speakers touched on environmental and public-health issues.
 Louisa Hart of Brunswick voiced her concerns about genetically engineered and
 modified foods. She noted that the state Board of Pesticide Control has approved
 the use of corn that contains a genetically engineered protein designed to kill
 corn borers, a common pest.
 ''Literally every bite of corn we eat will contain pesticide,'' she said,
 arguing that not enough is known about the potential impacts of such food.
 Political Correspondent Dieter Bradbury can be contacted at 791-6329 or at:
 dbradbury@pressherald.com
 LOAD-DATE: April 6, 2009
 GRAPHIC: John Ewing/Staff Photographer
 Lisa Savage, a teacher from Solon, decries military recruiters in schools during
 a ''Town Hall Meeting'' on Friday at USM. She wore a big pink wig to signify her
 support for Code Pink, a women's peace group that formed to stop the Iraq war.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2009 Blethen Maine Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 418
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                               April 3, 2009 Friday
 Monsanto profit tops estimates on seed sales
 BYLINE: By Jeffrey Tomich jtomich@post-dispatch.com 314-340-8000
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. B1
 LENGTH: 408 words
 Monsanto Co.'s second-quarter profit topped Wall Street estimates as demand for
 the company's genetically modified corn and soybean seeds more than compensated
 for a drop in Roundup herbicide sales.
 Sales for the quarter ended Feb. 28 rose 8 percent and topped $4 billion, led by
 a 20 percent improvement in the company's seeds and genomics business.
 Despite the recession and a steep decline in commodity prices from last summer,
 Monsanto is holding firm on price increases because it believes customers will
 pay a premium for seeds that deliver higher yielding crops.
 "Its a very simple equation," Chief Executive Hugh Grant said in an interview.
 "As long as we continue to deliver more yield, then the farmer places a value on
 that."
 Evidence of that is demand for Monsanto's premium corn seed, which combines
 genes for herbicide tolerance and protection against above- and below-ground
 insects. The company expects planted acres of so-called triple stack corn to
 rise 10 percent to 33 million acres despite a decline in overall U.S. corn
 acres.
 The strategy seems to be working so far.
 "It seems to us that Monsanto is still gaining share in seeds despite price
 competition by competitors," Citigroup analyst P.J. Juvekare said Thursday in a
 research note.
 Meanwhile, sales of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide and similar weed killers fell
 21 percent to $776 million as U.S. farmers made purchases early last year ahead
 of announced price increases. Sales are following a more typical seasonal
 pattern this year, so most Roundup purchases will occur in later months, the
 company said.
 Monsanto expects Roundup profit to peak this year and become the "hum in the
 background" while new and improved seed technologies drive earnings growth.
 Grant said the company remains on track to more than double gross profit between
 2007 and 2012.
 Overall, Monsanto's fiscal second-quarter profit fell 3 percent to $1.09
 billion, or $1.97 a share, following a $162 million charge related to last
 year's acquisition of Brazilian sugarcane breeding and biotech companies.
 Results also included a $42 million pre-tax charge, 5 cents a share, to
 compensate some South African farmers who saw poor yields with three white corn
 hybrids.
 Excluding the acquisition-related charge, net income rose 22 percent to $2.16 a
 share. On that basis, analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters expected the company
 to earn $2.07.
 Monsanto shares fell 33 cents to $81.41 on the New York Stock Exchange.
 LOAD-DATE: August 28, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2009 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 419
 
                    Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (Ontario, CA)
                              March 29, 2009 Sunday
 Dean aims to plug public into science
 BYLINE: Wesley G. Hughes, Staff Writer
 LENGTH: 438 words
 RIVERSIDE - Thomas Baldwin wants you to get as excited about science as, say,
 the dean of a major college at a top research university.
 Baldwin - surprise - dean of the College of Natural and Agricultural Sciences at
 UC Riverside, gets as excited about science as one of his enrolling freshman and
 he wants to share that thrill with everyone he can reach.
 That's why he has established a series of ongoing lectures on gee-whiz subjects
 in various fields of science to be presented free at the university and
 guaranteed to knock the socks off the audience.
 The first series is five lectures about that still controversial subject: the
 theory of evolution first propounded by Charles Darwin in his book "The Origin
 of the Species." The sesquicentennial of its publication is being celebrated
 this year.
 Lecture No. 1, "The Dance of the Genes: How Biological evolution Works," will be
 presented by Norman Ellstrand at 7 p.m. Thursday in the University Theatre.
 Doors will open at 6:45 p.m.
 Each of the lectures is expected to last about an hour. Parking at the
 university costs $5.
 Ellstand is a professor of genetics in the department of botany and plant
 sciences. According to UCR, he will explain "how mutation, selection migration
 and chance affect genetic change in populations.
 His current research is into the "consequences of gene flow from domesticated
 plants to their wild relatives, including the escape of engineered genes.
 The development and potential escape of genetically engineered plants has
 aroused public fears around the world, particularly in Europe, but the science
 has the potential of feeding the world's billions as the population continues to
 grow.
 The remaining four lectures in this year's series will follow on Thursdays at
 two-week intervals. On April 16 it will be "Evolution and Medicine: Why Doctors
 Need Darwin;" April 30, "The Evolution of Evolution: Darwin Then and Now;" May
 14, "Life's Rocky Road: The History of Life on Earth;" and May 28, "Let There Be
 Light: The First Billion Years."
 Among subjects being considered for future series are climate change and
 genetically modified food.
 Barton said he wants to reach teachers with the lectures. Teachers, he said,
 burn out in five years. "We in the university touch very few lives. If we don't,
 who's going to?"
 He said that with the fairy-tale lives scientists lead, there comes some
 responsibility.
 "We are not always accessible to the public. That is irresponsible," he said.
 "We are hoping to engage the teachers," Barton said.
 By contacting UCR Extension in advance, teachers can earn professional
 development credit for attending the lecture series.
 LOAD-DATE: March 30, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2009 MediaNews Group, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 420
 
                           The Roanoke Times (Virginia)
                             March 26, 2009 Thursday
                                New River Edition
 BYLINE: By Greg Esposito greg.esposito@roanoke.com 381-1675
 SECTION: CURRENT; Pg. NRV3
 LENGTH: 620 words
 Big agriculture is at Virginia Tech this week, but its representatives aren't
 peddling fertilizer or showing people how to milk cows.
 The Monsanto Co., a large producer of genetically engineered seed, has a
 53-foot-long, 1,000-square-foot "Mobile Technology Unit" on campus to show off
 the company's latest advances in biotechnology and genetic engineering.
 Researchers use MRI machines, infrared sensors and robotic sorting equipment to
 find and organize seeds with the perfect genetic traits related to qualities
 such as yield, oil or fermentation.
 The unit, consisting of two trailers with displays and interactive video
 presentations, opened Tuesday and will remain available to visitors through
 today. Monsanto staff started touring the country with the unit in July 2007.
 This is their first visit to Blacksburg.
 Gary Barton, an ag educator with Monsanto, said he usually gives tours to
 farmers, but the unit makes trips to universities during the planting season.
 After it leaves Tech it's headed to Virginia State University.
 The unit was a bit out of the way, parked in a lot near Tech's Duck Pond, and
 there weren't many visitors Wednesday morning. But a class came Tuesday and more
 were scheduled for Wednesday afternoon.
 "On our end, as educators, we're trying to recruit students and get students
 interested in what we do," said Katy Rainey, a Tech professor of crop and soil
 environmental sciences who does research on soybean breeding.
 She added that exposure to this type of science is not typical for
 undergraduates, so the Monsanto visit was a good opportunity for students.
 "It's just not something you get on the sophomore level," she said.
 Barton said his favorite audiences are non-farmers because there's so much they
 don't know about genetic modification and biotechnology as it relates to crops.
 Bartons said it also was an opportunity to ease the fears of some who may be
 wary of genetically modified crops.
 Monsanto has been in the middle of several controversies and lawsuits ranging
 from chemical contamination to patent infringement controversies with farmers
 over its seeds. Consumer advocacy and food activist groups have raised issues
 with food produced through Monsanto products such as milk from cows that receive
 its bovine growth hormone.
 As the billionaire face of big agriculture, the company has been involved more
 generally in the argument against genetically modified food, the negative
 environmental effects of industrial farming and the backlash against biofuels.
 But Barton said much of the work Monsanto does to modify crops has been going on
 for generations in one form or another. Corn, he said, is a man-made crop. And
 the tomato isn't native to Italy.
 Even the new methods of using biotechnology to implant genes into embryos to
 produce crops that will kill pests such as caterpillar should not alarm people,
 he said. There's an 8- to 10-year development period for its products and
 multiple regulating organizations that inspect the products.
 "It's like adding a radio to your car," he said of the modifications. "It's the
 same old Chevrolet."
 Rainey said much of the work done by Tech researchers like her and postdoctoral
 researcher Marla Hall, who also visited the unit, is similar to Monsanto's
 research. It's just more focused on regional issues. Tech works on wheat,
 barley, soybean and tobacco breeding, as well as ethanol production research.
 Researchers also develop crops to solve problems such as pollution caused by
 chicken waste. And modifying crops to grown in different regions cuts down on
 transportation costs and pollution.
 "My job is to help increase the productivity and efficiency of American
 farmers," Hall said. "That happens at Monsanto and that happens at Tech."
 LOAD-DATE: March 27, 2009
 GRAPHIC: photo 1. MATT GENTRY | The Roanoke Times From left: Monsanto Co.
 biotechnician Gary Barton pours out a jar of corn seed in front of Virginia Tech
 students Derrick Spangler and Amber Hale in the "Mobile Technology Unit" parked
 in a lot near Tech's Duck Pond. Barton described a seed crop analysis screening
 process that allows technicians to determine the best use for the seeds. An MRI
 machine (center) is also used by Monsanto researchers to look at characteristics
 of individual seeds. 2. MATT GENTRY | The Roanoke Times These corn seeds in a
 plastic carriage have been examined through an MRI machine, used by Monsanto Co.
 researchers to look at the characteristics of individual seeds.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                         Copyright 2009 The Roanoke Times
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 421
 
                      The Post-Standard (Syracuse, New York)
                              March 24, 2009 Tuesday
 BYLINE: By Sapna Kollali Staff writer
 SECTION: GREEN CENTRAL NEW YORK; Pg. 14
 LENGTH: 665 words
 The future scientists who save an endangered species, decontaminate a polluted
 water body or reverse the effects of acid rain could be sitting in a Central New
 York classroom. Eighteen local high schools are working with the state College
 of Environmental Science and Forestry this year to run a Global Environment
 course through the "ESF in the High School" program.
 The three-credit college course focuses on ecosystems, sustainability of natural
 resources, population growth and relationships between organisms and the
 environment.
 "This course really sits at the nexus of the natural and social sciences," said
 Rick Beal, an educational outreach associate for ESF in the High School. "The
 corps of schools is growing fast. The environment is a hot topic."
 The core component of the course is a year-long, inquiry-based study on an
 environmental topic of the student's choosing - the results of which they have
 to orally or visually present on the ESF campus this spring.
 At Corcoran High School, in Syracuse, students are studying the effects of road
 salt on local plants, testing the air quality inside their school and looking at
 acid rain's effects on soil in different parts of the county, science teacher
 Joe Boronczyk said.
 "It's interesting for the kids because they're doing real science. They're going
 out and getting field samples instead of just reading about it in a textbook,"
 he said. "We hope to inspire some kids to be scientists and work in the field."
 Beal also has a $1.6 million, three-year National Science Foundation grant that
 pays nine graduate students to work with participating high schools. The grant
 covers their tuition and a stipend, said Beal.
 Just one of the nine Global Environment students at Chittenango High School
 wants to work in the environmental science field, but all are excitedly working
 on their research projects. They include studying the captive breeding programs
 of the red pandas in zoos across the country, assessing the health of fish
 living in water bodies near nuclear power plants and treating invasive plant
 species near Green Lakes State Park.
 "It's just cool to be learning things that are going on right now," Chittenango
 senior Greg Infantine said. "I think a lot more now about where my food comes
 from and if it's local and how much energy I use."
 Beal, who also teaches the course to ESF undergraduates, said just three schools
 signed on a decade ago when the Global Environment high school course debuted.
 This school year, 25 high schools in 11 counties - including the High School of
 Environmental Studies in Manhattan - are offering it. Next year, that number is
 expected to jump to 34 schools in 15 counties.
 Among next year's newcomers is West Genesee, and Karen Kotlar will likely teach
 the course.
 "It's an interesting approach for all students, not just the science-oriented,
 to think about world they live in and issues they will certainly have to deal
 with," she said. Contact Sapna Kollali at skollali@syracuse.com or 470-3257.
 try this Learn more about ESF in the High School: www.esf.edu/outreach/esfhs
 Participating schools By September, 31 school districts across the state expect
 to offer the ESF in the High School Global Environment course. In Central New
 York, that includes: Central Square Chittenango Cicero-North Syracuse DeRuyter
 East Syracuse-Minoa Fabius-Pompey Faith Heritage Fayetteville-Manlius Fulton
 LaFayette Liverpool Marcellus Onondaga-Cortland-Madison BOCES New Vision Program
 Oswego Rome Syracuse (Corcoran, Fowler, Henninger, Nottingham) Solvay Tully West
 Genesee Westhill Whitesboro *Cayuga-Onondaga BOCES currently offers the course
 through its New Vision Environmental Science Program, but since it is
 discontinuing that New Vision strand, it will drop the Global Environment course
 next year.
 "It's interesting for the kids because they're doing real science. They're going
 out and getting field samples instead of just reading about it in a textbook." -
 Joe Boronczyk, Corcoran High science teacher
 LOAD-DATE: March 26, 2009
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO MICHELLE GABEL / THE POST-STANDARD Chittenango High School
 seniors (left to right) Adam Wayne, 17, Alex Kraus, 18, and Emily Murray, 17,
 participate in a debate about genetically modified foods during Global
 Environment, , a course being offered in high schools around New York by the
 state College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Their team argued against
 genetically modified foods.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                           Copyright 2009 Post-Standard
                               All Rights Reserved
                               All Rights Reserved.
 This document could not be formatted for delivery. If your delivery request
 included other documents, they completed successfully.









Document Number: 422
 
                         Lewiston Morning Tribune (Idaho)
                              March 23, 2009 Monday
 Will genetically modified wheat find consumers?
 LENGTH: 822 words
 As the new Washington State University Extension Economist for crop marketing,
 it is important that I have a feel for the current issues and trends in the
 wheat industry. So I have been spending some time looking over regional ag
 publications trying to become familiar with the challenges and opportunities
 wheat growers in the Pacific Northwest face.
 While perusing the February issue of "Wheat Life," a publication of the
 Washington Association of Wheat Growers, I came across a notice that wheat
 growers should be checking their mailboxes for a petition from the National
 Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG). The article explained that the intent of
 the petition was to determine the extent of U.S. wheat growers' support for
 development and commercialization of genetically modified (GM) wheat varieties.
 Furthermore, it explained the impetus for the petition was to ensure that
 grassroots support is pervasive, because the companies capable of creating these
 varieties realize that NAWG leadership will turn over several times before the
 GM varieties are marketable.
 The first set of results from the survey, according to World-Grain.com, showed
 that of the 32 percent of growers responding to the survey, 76 percent agreed
 with a petition "to support the discovery and development of new technologies
 for wheat - including but not limited to: breeding, biotechnology and other
 agronomic practices."
 Why wouldn't growers be excited and supportive of a wheat variety with higher
 yields, because of increased pest and/or drought resistance? Why wouldn't they
 be interested in a variety that would reduce input costs for herbicides? It
 seems like a good opportunity and one that farmers have already employed for
 crops like corn, soybeans, canola, alfalfa, and most recently, sugar beets.
 One concern that growers have voiced is the ability to control volunteer wheat
 in their crop rotation. If you start planting herbicide-resistant wheat, how do
 you get it out of the field during the next year of your crop rotation in a
 cost-effective manner? Resolving this producer concern will stimulate grower
 adoption of GM wheat, but what do consumers think about this issue? While the
 NAWG survey is useful for gauging producer interest, it doesn't help us
 understand demand for GM wheat.
 The reason usually given for why development of GM wheat was shelved a few years
 back, is the hesitancy of consumers both here and abroad to consume biotech
 wheat. The EU and Japan continue to block imports of GM crops for human food
 use, so it doesn't seem much has changed for those consumers. The current
 argument tends to focus on evidence of a softening of domestic consumer
 resistance to GM crops because, in part, of our current consumption levels of GM
 foods.
 According to the Grocery Manufacturers of America, 70 percent to 75 percent of
 all processed foods available in the U.S. may contain biotech ingredients.
 However, unless food products are explicitly labeled, such as U.S. Department of
 Agriculture certified organic which excludes GM ingredients, consumers have no
 knowledge of the GM content of their food.
 The behavior of consumers in a market with a lack of information isn't really a
 confirmation of acceptance of GM food products. Interpreting it as such could
 end up exposing wheat growers to a backlash that would have dramatically
 negative effects on wheat demand. Wheat, unlike the previously mentioned crops,
 is primarily used for human consumption. Therefore, if consumers aren't willing
 to eat GM wheat, it is hard to see how it would be profitable to grow it for
 other uses.
 As far as our foreign customers are concerned, we might be able to convince some
 of them that GM wheat is a good choice and for those we cannot convince, we can
 offer segregation of non-GM wheat. Segregation can be costly to achieve unless a
 tolerance level is negotiated that allows for some cross-contamination. This
 tolerance level will be a crucial component in the ability of wheat exporters to
 meet our customers' needs. If you don't think this is a big deal, think back to
 the contamination of taco shells in September 2000, with the GM corn variety
 Starlink by Aventis. When first introduced, the EPA approved it for use only in
 animal feed and set a zero-tolerance level for human food. The results of this
 event caused a public relations nightmare for Aventis and the biotech industry
 as a whole.
 There are clear advantages to be gained by commercialization of GM wheat,
 including higher yields for farmers and lower prices for consumers. However, the
 extent of consumer acceptance of GM wheat (both in the U.S. and abroad) is not
 as clear as the industry might like, given the costs required to develop these
 new varieties.
 Only time will allow us to answer the question, "If we grow it, will they come?"
 Taylor is an assistant professor and Extension economist at Washington State
 University in Pullman. She may be contacted m_taylor@wsu.edu
 LOAD-DATE: March 24, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2009 Tribune Publishing Co.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 423
 
                      The Press Enterprise (Riverside, CA.)
                              March 23, 2009, Monday
 Lectures Focus On Genetics
 SECTION: LOCAL PLUS; Pg. D01
 LENGTH: 553  words
 Evolution will be the topic of five free lectures at UC Riverside in April and
 May.
 The lecture series kicks off April 2 at University Theatre with "The Dance of
 the Genes: How Biological Evolution Works," a talk from Norman Ellstrand, a
 professor of botany and plant sciences.
 Thomas Baldwin, who was named dean of the College of Natural and Agricultural
 Sciences in June, created the series to bring science to a non-scientist
 audience.
 He helped create a similar lecture series about five years ago at the University
 of Arizona, where he led the biochemistry and molecular biophysics department.
 The University of Arizona lecture series was launched in response to former
 President George W. Bush and his administration "using policy to drive science
 rather than science driving policy," Baldwin said.
 The UCR lecture series will focus on evolution because the topic transcends
 scientific disciplines and this is 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth,
 Baldwin said. He also said it's important to discuss evolution from a
 scientific, not just philosophical, basis.
 In the coming years, Baldwin hopes to coordinate a lecture series in the fall
 and spring. Possible future themes include genetically modified foods and
 climate change.
 Lectures this spring from UCR faculty are planned every other Thursday through
 the end of May:
 April 16, "Evolution and Medicine: Why Doctors Need Darwin," Marlene Zuk,
 Department of Biology.
 April 30, "The Evolution of Evolution: Darwin Then and Now," David Reznick,
 Department of Biology.
 May 14, "Life's Rocky Road: The History of Life on Earth," Nigel Hughes,
 Department of Earth Sciences.
 May 28, "Let There Be Light: The First Billion Years," Bahram Mobasher,
 Department of Physics and Astronomy.
 All lectures will start at 7 p.m. Doors will open at 6:45 p.m. There will be a
 question-and-answer period following the lectures.
 All lectures, with the exception of the May 28 talk, will be held on campus at
 University Theatre. The May 28 lecture will be held at the Physics 2000
 building.
 It costs $5 to park on campus.
 Information: 951-827-6555 or e-mail carol.lerner@ucr.edu
 University of California President Mark G. Yudof said last week that he remains
 optimistic that the planned UC Riverside medical school will get start-up funds
 from the state.
 UC Riverside requested $15 million from the UC Board of Regents, who in turn
 requested $10 million from the state.
 "Even in a tight budget year, I'm hoping this will be possible," Yudof said
 during an editorial board meeting at The Press-Enterprise on Feb. 16.
 However, he also said "this is a terrible time to be starting up two medical
 enterprises," referring to the planned medical schools at UCR and UC Merced.
 When asked about delaying the planned 2012 opening of the UCR medical school,
 Yudof said: "It would hurt. I don't think it will kill it."
 Yudof said he has met with the governor and legislative leaders about the UCR
 medical school. The medical school is a ticket to the upper echelon of American
 higher education, he said.
 Meanwhile, UCR officials are hopeful the $10 million will be included in the May
 state budget revision. If it is included, the Kaiser Foundation Hospitals has
 agreed to match the $10 million, said Kathy Barton, a UCR spokeswoman.
 Reach Sean Nealon at 951-368-9458 or snealon@PE.com
 LOAD-DATE: March 25, 2009
                    Copyright 2009 The Press Enterprise, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 424
 
                       OC Weekly(Orange County, California)
                             March 19, 2009 Thursday
 Letters From OC Weekly Readers
 BYLINE: Staff
 LENGTH: 850  words
 'Not Only Is This Story Poorly Balanced and Unprofessional, But It Is Also a
 Disservice to the Readers and to the Community'
 Letters may be edited for clarity and length. E-mail to letters@ocweekly.com, or
 mail to Letters to the Editor, c/o OC Weekly, 2975 Red Hill Ave., Ste. 150,
 Costa Mesa, CA 92626. Or fax to (714) 550-5908.
 Boring story [Daffodil J. Altan's "Body of Work," March 13]. Why does this
 newspaper constantly glorify gangbangers?
 Frank Sanchez, Cypress, via ocweekly.com
 In your answer to Cuban Pete [Gustavo Arellano's Ask a Mexican! March 13], you
 mention Chinese, African-Americans and Mexicans and . . . Polacks? Why not
 Chinks, Niggers and Spics? FYI: The correct reference is Poles. Thank you.
 MaryEllen Vondrak, Chicago, via ocweekly.com
 There are a number of problems with this story [Gustavo Arellano's "Hive &
 Seek," Feb. 27], beginning with an obvious bias not in keeping with the
 traditionally accepted standards of journalistic objectivity. Throughout the
 piece, Arellano's use of dismissive language and misleading use of quotes have
 portrayed my business in a negative light. In fact, the language choices
 Arellano has made throughout this story would make the casual reader think I had
 personally insulted him.
 For example, he quotes me as "dismiss[ing] the idea of Colony Collapse Disorder
 (CCD) as 'nonsense,'" when in actuality I had explained to him some facts in
 detail, such as that due to CCD, beekeepers nationally have had an average
 winter loss of 36 percent as opposed to 16 percent prior to CCD. I may have used
 the word "nonsense" to characterize some people s sensationalist
 misinterpretation that bees are endangered, but it would have been clear to
 Arellano that "nonsense" would not be an accurate characterization of what I
 believe about CCD. However, comments to the article online clearly show that
 that specific quote caused people to conclude I was grossly uninformed and
 arbitrarily opinionated. This is only one example among many of unprofessional
 bias in the article.
 This approach was hardly necessary in a story about the bee savers. It is
 certainly possible to write a profile without introducing an element of
 antagonism into the piece-or, in the case where there is some conflict between
 the parties, without throwing the whole-hearted support of a publication behind
 one party.
 Without getting into too much detail, I would like to point out that I know for
 an absolute fact that if Arellano had called Orange County Agricultural
 Commissioner Rick Le Feuvre (or his Riverside or San Diego equivalents), he
 would have gotten the same take on the issue that he ridicules me for having.
 Additionally, despite Arellano's careful framing of the quotes, the two
 entomologists quoted in the article do say what I have been saying: It is unsafe
 to put feral bees in back yards.
 It is discouraging to see a reporter so clearly biased in his writing. Not only
 is this story poorly balanced and unprofessional, but it is also a disservice to
 the readers and to the community. We need to know that the information in this
 paper is reliable and true-not twisted to suit the needs of a sensationalist
 "journalist." Stories like this do real damage to small businesses like
 mine-businesses that contribute to the financial well-being of our community.
 David Marder,Bee Busters Inc./Sundance Honey Farms, Laguna Beach
 I think I may have found the reason for Colony Collapse Disorder among bees that
 you mentioned in your article. There was an article on the Internet by a Russian
 named Sorcha Faal, who stated that the Boyer Bio Weapon facility in the U.S.
 makes the pesticide Larvin, "which many Russian scientists state is responsible
 for the catastrophic loss of bees and other plant pollinators, in the United
 States' attempt to cripple our world's food supply in order to foist upon
 humanity their genetically modified foods to cause mass deaths and pacify humans
 through the direct changing of our DNA."
 Also, according to the article, there was a massive explosion there in August
 2008, so I assume this place is no longer there. It was located in West Virginia
 and "was owned (since 1925) by the Nazi German chemical-and-weapons firm IG
 Farben, but was also controlled by the Bush family's war-profiteering company,
 the Carlyle Group."
 Brenda Bradac, Costa Mesa, via mail
 The New Limb are seriously amazing live [Albert Ching's Locals Only, "Out On a
 Limb," Feb. 20]. A true gem of a band. I can't stop listening to their EP,
 especially the track called "Breathe Tenderly." This article is serious proof
 that good songwriting is not dead.
 Matt, Whittier, via ocweekly.com
 Thank you for writing a great article about Everest in OC Weekly [Vickie Chang's
 "Everest See the Mountaintop," Feb. 20] . Our son, Joel, is a member of the
 band, and he grew up in Fountain Valley.
 Mr. & Mrs. Graves, Fountain Valley, via e-mail
 A calendar pick about David Archuleta (Calendar, March 13) stated that Carrie
 Underwood had won two Grammys. She actually has won four. The Weekly regrets the
 error.
 LOAD-DATE: March 19, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: ocw
                           Copyright 2009 OC Weekly LP
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 425
 
                         The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon)
                              March 7, 2009 Saturday
                                 Sunrise Edition
 Mexico OKs experiments MEXICO CITY --Mexico is changing its laws to allow the
 planting of genetically modified corn for experimental reasons. Growers will now
 be able to apply for government permission for experimental plots. The law
 published Fri
 BYLINE: The Associated Press
 SECTION: Wire News
 LENGTH: 144 words
 Modified corn Mexico OKs experiments
 MEXICO CITY --Mexico is changing its laws to allow the planting of genetically
 modified corn for experimental reasons.
 Growers will now be able to apply for government permission for experimental
 plots. The law published Friday in the official registry does not specify limits
 on how much genetically modified corn can be planted or where.
 Mexico is the birthplace of corn and had banned genetically modified varieties
 completely until now.
 Environmental groups oppose the measure, calling it the first step toward
 widespread cultivation of genetically modified corn.
 Opponents warn that modified corn could contaminate fields and threaten the
 crop's genetic diversity. Mexico has more than 200 varieties of corn.
 The government has not said whether it plans a general legalization of
 genetically modified corn.
 -- The Associated Press
 LOAD-DATE: March 15, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                           Copyright 2009 The Oregonian
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 426
 
                            Investor's Business Daily
                             March 4, 2009 Wednesday
 SECTION: TO THE POINT; TRENDS & INNOVATIONS; Pg. A02
 LENGTH: 189 words
 ** Swimming lessons don't raise the risk of drowning for children ages 1-4 and
 likely have a protective effect, says an NIH study. Some health professionals
 have worried that lessons early in childhood could lower a child's fear of water
 and make his or her parents less vigilant, ultimately increasing a child's risk
 of drowning.
 ** Cuba is developing genetically modified corn that can be used with strong
 herbicides and are resistant to the fall armyworm. The crops need watering, but
 little other care if herbicides are used. Recently, three hurricanes destroyed
 30% of the country's crops, and Cuba, which imports about 60% of its food
 supply, is trying to reduce its dependence on costly imports.
 ** A new Web site provides real-time data of Internet censorship around the
 world as a map. Researchers from Harvard and other universities formed a joint
 team to detect Net filtering. The map at Herdict.org reports Web accessibility
 in various nations, and shows which sites are blocked in specific countries. At
 this point, it cannot say whether the problem is due to government censorship or
 Internet providers' filtering policies.
 LOAD-DATE: March 3, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2009 Investor's Business Daily, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 427
 
                                The New York Times
                              March 3, 2009 Tuesday
                          The New York Times on the Web
 Europe to Allow Two Bans on Genetically Altered Crops
 BYLINE: By JAMES KANTER
 SECTION: Section ; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Pg.
 LENGTH: 307 words
 European Union governments delivered a blow Monday to the biotechnology
 industry, allowing Austria and Hungary to maintain national bans on growing
 genetically modified crops from Monsanto.
 The vote, taken by European environment ministers, could irritate Washington,
 which has complained to the World Trade Organization about obstacles to planting
 bioengineered crops.
 The vote was also a setback for the European Commission, the union's executive
 arm. The commission has sought to ease the restrictions in Europe on
 gene-altered crops, in part to keep down the cost of animal feed.
 Member countries were ''firm'' and the ''commission should take a close reading
 of the result,'' the French environment minister, Jean-Louis Borloo, said after
 the announcement in Brussels, according to Bloomberg News.
 The market for genetically engineered crops is worth several billion dollars
 worldwide. Only one genetically altered crop is currently grown in Europe: a
 form of corn, called MON 810, produced by Monsanto and other companies.
 In 2003,  Argentina, Canada and the United States brought complaints about
 Europe's biotechnology policies to the W.T.O., which ruled in 2006 that a de
 facto ban on imports of genetically modified foods from 1984 to 2004 violated
 trade rules.
 Since that ruling, the commission has required Austria to drop its ban on
 imports of genetically modified foods. But some other countries have maintained
 bans on imports and cultivation of such crops.
 ''The risk has increased this morning that attention now will be thrown back to
 the W.T.O.,''  said Willy De Greef, the secretary general of Europabio, a
 biotechnology industry organization in Brussels.
 The United States Mission to the European Union had no immediate comment.
 Officials at offices of the United States trade representative could not be
 reached.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: March 3, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 428
 
                               Chicago Daily Herald
                           February 25, 2009 Wednesday
                                    C1 Edition
 Her specialty: 'American comfort food with a little twist'
 BYLINE: By Lisa Ackleson, Daily Herald Correspondent
 SECTION: FOOD; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 600 words
 Lisa Westergaard, chef at Honey Caf in Glen Ellyn, embraces her change-of-life
 career.
 Westergaard's undergraduate degree in social work and psychology from the
 University of Iowa led to a satisfying career in geriatric social work; but her
 life as a stay-at-home mom for 20 years revealed her real passion: cooking.
 "I made a strong effort to get everyone around the table for dinner every
 night," Westergaard said. With two children in college and one in junior high,
 she went back to school, this time to the Cooking and Hospitality Institute of
 Chicago, and graduated in 2007.
 A 16-year resident of Glen Ellyn, Westergaard loves being able to both live and
 work in her community.
 What are your responsibilities at Honey Caf? I work as part of a team in the
 daily food preparation. I also develop tasty, fresh seasonal items for our
 market platter and front deli case.
 Do you have a cooking style? My cooking style matches the philosophy of the
 restaurant: American comfort food with a little twist. The menu meshes with food
 that I like to cook like our sausage, pear and brie omelet with port wine
 reduction. We are committed to preparing fresh food using top-quality organic
 ingredients from local sources.
 You have some unique items on your menu like pan-seared oatmeal, eggs on a
 motorcycle, and truffled mac and cheese. Where does your culinary inspiration
 come from? The inspiration is to do food that is comforting with ingredients
 that everyone knows and twist it up. We take time to find the ingredients that
 are going to make a difference like wild-caught salmon, which we smoke in-house
 and free-range chicken that is raised and processed locally. We then bring out
 the flavor of the food with fresh herbs. Ingredients make the difference. Tofu,
 for example, is one of the most genetically modified foods around. We use
 organic tofu.
 As a chef who oversees three meal services, what is your favorite meal of the
 day? Breakfast, it's a comforting way to start the day. There's nothing better
 than fabulous buttermilk pancakes.
 What culinary tip would you offer home cooks? "Mise en place" (French for
 "everything in place"), which means organize yourself before you actually begin
 cooking. When you've clearly read the recipe and prepared the ingredients, the
 cooking tends to go better and the experience is more enjoyable. You will have
 created something nourishing and delicious with your own hands.
 What kitchen tool is a must-have? A lovely chef's knife that fits your hand and
 has the right weight and feel to it. It's different for everyone. Sharpen the
 knife daily; people can be intimidated by sharpening, but it really makes a
 difference.
 What was the last meal you prepared for your family? Beef stew, Caesar salad
 with homemade dressing and cornbread. You can make this, eat it for a couple of
 meals and stretch your food dollar.
 Where do you like to eat when you dine out? I love to go downtown Chicago to
 almost any restaurant. In Glen Ellyn, I enjoy Santa Fe, a Mexican restaurant,
 and the Tap House Grill.
 What do you enjoy most about being a chef? Feeding and nourishing people. I
 write a terrible sympathy card, but I make a great tetrazzini casserole. Giving
 people time to sit down and enjoy a meal together is the greatest feeling you
 can have in the kitchen.
 Tell us about this recipe. Brown rice salad is a straightforward dish that is
 delicious and healthy. It's perfect for people who are trying to eat healthier
 this year.
 Enjoy this at home or Honey Caf, 499 N. Main St., Glen Ellyn, (630) 469-0000,
 honeycafe.net.
 * To recommend a chef to profiled, write food@dailyherald.com
 LOAD-DATE: February 25, 2009
 GRAPHIC: Scott Sanders/ssanders@dailyherald.com After cooking nightly meals for
 her family, Lisa Westergaard realized she actually liked it. She went to
 culinary school and now runs the kitchen at Honey Cafe in Glen Ellyn.Photos by
 Scott Sanders/ssanders@dailyherald.com Chef Lisa Westergaard assembles a brown
 rice and cranberry salad at Honey Cafe in Glen Ellyn. The side dish is packed
 with healthful ingredients.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2009 Paddock Publications, Inc.









Document Number: 429
 
                      Winston-Salem Journal (North Carolina)
                           February 25, 2009 Wednesday
 Best Columbian coffee? Answer may be surprising
 SECTION: D; LIVING; Pg. 3
 LENGTH: 421 words
 - The March issue of Consumer Reports rates 19 brands of Columbian coffee
 available for brewing at home.
 The winner among caffeinated coffees was Eight O'Clock, which also was rated a
 Best Buy. Second and third among regular coffees were Caribou and Kickapoo.
 Dunkin' Donuts took top honors among decaffeinated coffees, followed by
 Millstone and Folgers Gourmet Selections. The magazine added that none of the
 decaffeinated coffees could match the best regular coffees for taste.
 Other advice from Consumer Reports:
 - Get a good coffeemaker that heats water to between 195 and 205 degrees. It
 suggests the Michael Graves coffeemaker, about $40 at Target.
 - Grind your own beans for the freshest coffee. The magazine's top grinder in a
 recent test was the Mr. Coffee IDS77, about $20 and available at many housewares
 stores.
 BestHealth sets lineup for March food programs
 - BestHealth Community Health Resource Center plans these food-related programs
 in March:
 - Daring to Go Dairy, noon, next Wednesday. Recipes and samples.
 - Great Grains, 1 p.m., March 9. Recipes and samples.
 - Pleasing the Picky Eater, 11 a.m., March 21. Tasting and tips for parents and
 children ages 4 and under. At Children's Museum of Winston-Salem, 390 S. Liberty
 St.
 - Produce 101, 10 a.m., March 23. Tips on selecting fruits and vegetables. At
 Whole Foods Market, 41 Miller St.
 - Vegetable Variety, 2 p.m., March 28. Recipes and samples.
 Programs are at BestHealth in Hanes Mall unless otherwise indicated. The
 programs are free, but registration is required.
 To register, call 716-2255 or visit www.besthealth.com.
 Documentary explores food, genetic modification
 - The Golden Flower Tai Chi Center, 612 N. Trade St. in the Downtown Arts
 District, will have a free screening of The Future of Food at 7 p.m. Friday.
 The Future of Food is a 2004 documentary that examines the controversial use of
 genetic modification in foods. The film discusses the government policies,
 global economics and health implications of genetically modified foods, as well
 as sustainable agriculture as an alternative to industrial agriculture.
 For more information, call the center at 727-1131.
 Tired of crumbling tacos? Eat neat with this tip
 - Eating tacos with crispy corn shells usually ends up being a messy job. But it
 doesn't have to be that way.
 Typically, those crispy shells break into pieces at some point and out comes the
 filling. To keep things neat, the editors of Cook's Illustrated recommend lining
 crisp shells with a lettuce leaf before loading on the fillings and toppings.
 LOAD-DATE: March 26, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2009 Winston-Salem Journal
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 430
 
                         Lewiston Morning Tribune (Idaho)
                            February 24, 2009 Tuesday
 LENGTH: 380 words
 The Edge
 Today is Tuesday, the 55th day of 2009. There are 310 days left in the year.
 Today is Pancake Day. Now there's a good reason to read the Edge first thing
 every morning. If you waited until after dinner in the evening, it would be too
 late to celebrate with a short stack slathered in butter and maple syrup.
 Top 10 things overheard at Kim Jong Il's campaign headquarters
 10. "How do we improve perfection?"
 9. "Maybe it would help your likability if you stopped killing people."
 8. "Remind voters there have been no Godzilla attacks on my watch."
 7. "After promising nuclear Armegeddon, throw in a folksy, 'You betcha!' "
 6. "Remind people you come from Pyongyang just like Kim Jong-Lincoln."
 5. "Korean food again?"
 4. "Maybe we should hire a new chairman and move Kim to 10 p.m."
 3. "Get a load of that bodacious booty!" (Sorry, that was overheard at Kim
 Kardashian's house.)
 2. "With 0 percent of the precincts reporting, you've won in a landslide."
 1. "Hillary's running against me?"
 - "Late Night with David Letterman"
 Top 10 signs you're eating genetically modified food
 10. Your green beans are attempting a split flanking maneuver on your clearly
 surprised mashed potatoes.
 9. Whenever Gallagher appears on TV, your watermelon leaps up, grabs the remote
 and shuts off the set.
 8. It tastes the same, but now the asparagus leaves your bathroom smelling April
 fresh.
 7. You use the leftover chicken as a nightlight for your kid's room.
 6. The label says your buffalo chicken wings are made from real flying bison.
 5. An apple a day ... cures leukemia.
 4. Family of seven, one turkey - yet everyone gets a drumstick.
 3. Your Ginsu knives are suddenly afraid of the tomatoes.
 2. Chocchini: Looks like zucchini, tastes like a Ding-Dong.
 1. A SWAT team is ordering the Chalupa to drop "you."
 Wordits
 Ohw moce ouy evner hrae oatbu tegnlrud emoyspeel?
 DRAW - Bend over backwards.
 I eusd ot nkith ttha eth wlohe wdlor asw astgnia em. Btu V'ei fnoud atht a efw
 mesalrl inetcsoru rae aulrnte. - I used to think that the whole world was
 against me. But I've found that a few smaller countries are neutral.
 Susan Engle, Edge editor, may be contacted at edge@lmtribune.com; The Edge, 505
 Capital St., Lewiston, ID 83501; (208) 848-2228; or by fax, attn: Edge, (208)
 LOAD-DATE: February 24, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2009 Tribune Publishing Co.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 431
 
                      Winston-Salem Journal (North Carolina)
                             February 22, 2009 Sunday
 WWII drama to end Faith in Film series
 SECTION: E; LIVING; Pg. 2
 LENGTH: 411 words
 Centenary United Methodist Church will present Hope and Glory at 2:30 p.m. today
 in room 112 at Centenary United Methodist Church, 646 W. Fifth St. The film, by
 English film director John Boorman, is the fourth and last installment in the
 Faith in Film series concerning children and war, and is the story of World War
 II London as seen through the eyes of a 10-year-old boy.
 Admission is free and open to the public, but seating is limited. Reservations
 are suggested.
 For more information, or to make reservations, call 336-397-1343 or visit
 www.centenary-ws.org.
 Premiere at WSSU to be followed by a discussion
 Winston-Salem State University will present the film premiere of The Life I
 Meant to Live at 6:30 p.m. Friday in Dillard Auditorium of the Albert H.
 Anderson Conference Center on campus.
 Filmmaker Leander Sales, a Winston-Salem native, tells the story of a woman who
 is terminally ill and strives to live her life to the fullest, hoping to make
 lasting impressions with her husband and young son. A discussion will follow
 with Sales and the film's director, Belinda Tate.
 Admission is free and open to the public.
 For more information call 336-750-2458, or e-mail diggsinfo@wssu.edu, or visit
 www.wssu.edu/diggs.
 The Future of Food to be shown, discussed
 The Golden Flower Tai Chi School will present the film The Future of Food 7 p.m.
 Friday at its center at 612 N. Trade St.
 The film, part of a series to discuss ecological concerns, is an in-depth look
 into the controversy over genetically modified foods. A discussion will follow
 the film.
 Admission is free, but reservations are required. Refreshments will be provided.
 For more information, or to make a reservation, call 727-1131 or e-mail
 goldenflowercenter@triad.rr.com
 Film about radio music to be shown at Salem
 The Revolve Film and Music Festival, in conjunction with the Salem College
 School of Music, will present the musical documentary The Wrecking Crew at 7
 p.m. Saturday at the Salem Fine Arts Center. Director and producer Denny Tedesco
 profiles the lives of the Los Angeles studio musicians who played on most of the
 major radio hits of the '60s and '70s, along with interviews with musical
 figures of the time including Cher, Brian Wilson and others. A reception will
 follow at the Meridian Restaurant, 411 S. Marshall St.
 Admission is $10 at the door, $8 in advance and free to Salem College community
 with identification.
 For more information, or to buy tickets, visit www.revolve festival.com.
 LOAD-DATE: March 26, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2009 Winston-Salem Journal
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 432
 
                       Eastern Express Times (Pennsylvania)
                            February 12, 2009 Thursday
 When watching what you eat takes on new meaning
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A6
 LENGTH: 289 words
 With the advent of genetically engineered crops, &keeping the doctor away& may
 be impossible. Although that round, red fruit resembles an apple, it could
 contain genes from virtually any species. Tomatoes have been produced with fish
 genes, and broccoli with rat genes.
 Severe allergic reactions from genetically engineered foods have already
 occurred. Rent &The Future of Food.&
 How to protect oneself? Buying local helps. The farmer can explain whether seeds
 were genetically altered and how crops were grown.
 Community Supported Gardens frequently offer organically raised crops. Organic
 produce is not treated with chemical pesticides. Families purchase shares based
 on the amount they will use. CSGs are under way in Cherry Valley (Josie Porter
 Farm); Lower Mount Bethel (Hidden Splendor Farm and Clear Spring Farm); Forks
 Township (Heritage Farm at Klein's Dairy); Tannersville (Trailhead) and
 Blairstown (Genesis Farm). Buying directly from an organic farmer helps preserve
 the cellular integrity of food.
 It has more far-reaching advantages, too. For every 1 calorie of food ingested,
 10 calories of energy are expended through fossil fuels in agricultural
 production. Mechanization, fertilization, pesticide application and
 transportation require oil and gas.
 Enter PASA's &Ten Dollar Solution&: If every household in Pennsylvania spent $10
 weekly on regionally produced food, $48 million would stay in the local economy
 each week.
 Genetic manipulation of food depends on a lack of consumer awareness. Choosing
 that local apple takes a big bite toward saving health, farms, economy and the
 planet. When control is shifted from agribusiness to a trustworthy farmer, the
 apples you see are the apples you get!
 Bangor
 FRUITS & VEGETABLES (90%) Library
 LOAD-DATE: February 15, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: ete
                       Copyright 2009 Eastern Express Times
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 433
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                            February 12, 2009 Thursday
 Biotech produces bumper crop, report states Use of genetically modified seeds
 has grown, but critics remain wary.
 BYLINE: By Georgina Gustin ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. C2
 LENGTH: 537 words
 Three new countries and more than a million new farmers grew genetically
 modified crops last year, and more are likely to join them in coming years as
 global demand for food climbs, according to a report issued Wednesday.
 The annual report, released by the International Service for the Acquisition of
 Agri-Biotech Applications, said the number of acres planted with genetically
 modified crops hit record highs, and that biotechnology is "poised for a second
 wave" over the next several years. The study found that, in total, 13.3 million
 farmers in 25 countries planted more than 300 million acres of biotech crops
 last year - representing "the sixth largest growth spurt" in the 13 years since
 the study began.
 The report came as the Center for Food Safety and Friends of the Earth
 International released a report blaming the biotech industry for exploiting poor
 farmers in developing countries by raising prices on genetically modified seed
 amid deepening food shortages. Creve Coeur-based Monsanto Co., the most dominant
 player in the biotech industry, took many of the shots.
 "U.S. farmers are facing dramatic increases in the price of GM seeds and the
 chemicals used with them," said Bill Freese, an analyst with the
 Washington-based Center for Food Safety, in a statement.
 "Farmers in any developing countries that welcome Monsanto and other biotech
 companies can expect the same fate, sharply rising seed and pesticide costs and
 a radical decline in the availability of conventional seeds."
 Monsanto shot back, noting that farming costs have gone up across the board,
 while pointing to research suggesting that genetically modified seed increases
 yield, bringing economic benefits to small-scale farmers.
 "It's frustrating and sometimes disappointing to hear groups ... attack
 genetically modified crops when they're providing significant benefit to the
 farmer," said Eric Sachs, a head of global scientific affairs for Monsanto.
 "Some of these organizations are anti-technology."
 On the African continent, where until 2008 only South African farmers grew
 biotech crops, two new countries joined the biotech fold - Burkina Faso and
 Egypt, where farmers planted biotech corn. Bolivia planted roughly 1.5 million
 acres in genetically modified soybeans, joining seven other Latin American
 countries already growing biotech crops.
 Of the 13.3 million farmers growing biotech crops globally, more than 90 percent
 are small farmers with "less than a couple of acres," Sachs said, pointing to
 research suggesting that biotech crops brought roughly $33 billion dollar to all
 farmers from 1996, the year they were first planted, until 2006.
 "The majority of the value almost always is returned to the farmer," he said.
 "Frankly, it's the reason why you have 13 million farmers planting genetically
 modified crops."
 The report from the Center for Food Safety and Friends of the Earth challenges
 the biotech industry's claim that it is helping global food security.
 Roughly 90 percent of biotech crops, the report notes, are planted in highly
 industrialized counties that use genetically modified crops for animal feed and
 biofuels. The United States plants more than 50 percent of the world's
 genetically modified crops, the report noted.
 LOAD-DATE: February 12, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2009 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 434
 
                               The Bismarck Tribune
                            February 7, 2009 Saturday
 FDA OKs 1st drug from GM animals
 SECTION: WIRE; Pg. 2A-6A
 LENGTH: 361 words
 WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg plans to be back at
 work for the court's next public session, less than three weeks after surgery
 for pancreatic cancer.
 Ginsburg intends to be in court when the justices hear arguments on Feb. 23,
 Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said Friday.
 The 75-year-old justice is currently recuperating at a New York hospital after
 undergoing surgery on Thursday. Arberg had no other information on Ginsburg's
 condition.
 Ginsburg has been on the court more than 15 years and is its only woman.
 Her illness raises the possibility that one of the ideologically divided court's
 leading liberals might have to curtail her work or even step down before she had
 planned. Pancreatic cancer is often deadly.
 SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) - Holy hornet's nest, Batman! The New Mexico governor's
 mansion?
 Fresh from the inauguration, actor Val Kilmer is pondering running for governor
 in 2010, when two-term Democrat Bill Richardson will be forced from office by
 term limits.
 "I'm just looking for ways to be contributive," Kilmer told The Associated Press
 on Thursday. "And if that ends up being where I can make a substantial
 contribution, then I'll run."
 But there's no decision yet.
 "It's really day to day," he said over tea at a local restaurant.
 Kilmer, 49, grew up in Los Angeles but has called New Mexico home for more than
 two decades. He's currently registered as a Democrat and said he cast a ballot
 for Barack Obama from Bulgaria, where he was filming.
 WASHINGTON (AP) - The Food and Drug Administration made history Friday as it
 approved the first drug made with materials from genetically engineered animals,
 clearing the way for a new class of medical therapies.
 GTC Biotherapeutics said regulators cleared its drug ATryn, which is
 manufactured using milk from goats that have been scientifically altered to
 produce extra antithrombin, a protein that acts as a natural blood thinner.
 The drug's approval may be the first step toward new kinds of medications made
 not from chemicals, but from animals altered by scientists. Similar drugs could
 be available in the next few years for a range of human ailments, including
 hemophilia.
 LOAD-DATE: February 9, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
        Copyright 2009 The Bismarck Tribune, a division of Lee Enterprises
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 435
 
                                The New York Times
                            February 7, 2009 Saturday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Drug From a Goat With a Human Gene
 BYLINE: By ANDREW POLLACK
 SECTION: Section B; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 1191 words
 Opening the barn door to a new era in farming and pharmaceuticals, the Food and
 Drug Administration on Friday approved the first drug produced by livestock that
 have been given a human gene.
 The drug, meant to prevent fatal blood clots in people with a rare condition, is
 a human protein extracted from the milk of genetically engineered goats.
 At the same time, the F.D.A. also approved the goats used to make the drug, the
 first such animals cleared under guidelines the agency adopted only last month
 to regulate the use of transgenic animals in the nation's drug and food supply.
 Made by a company called GTC Biotherapeutics, the human anticlotting protein is
 produced by a herd of 200 bioengineered goats living under carefully controlled
 conditions on a farm in central Massachusetts.
 Proponents say such ''pharm animals''  could become a means of producing
 biotechnology drugs at lower cost or in greater quantities than the existing
 methods  -- which include  extracting proteins from donated human blood or
 growing them in large steel vats of genetically engineered cells.
 The protein in the goat milk, antithrombin, is sometimes in short supply or
 unavailable for pharmaceutical use because of a shortage of human plasma
 donations. GTC Biotherapeutics said one of its goats can produce as much
 antithrombin in a year as can be derived from 90,000 blood donations. And if
 more drug is needed, the herd can be expanded.
 ''If you need more, you breed more,'' said Thomas Newberry, a spokesman for GTC,
 which is based in Framingham, Mass.
 Drugs have been derived from animals before, of course. Most insulin used by
 people with diabetes formerly came from pigs or cows. Genetically engineered
 mice are now used to develop some drug ingredients. But this is the first drug
 from a herd of genetically engineered animals created specifically to serve as
 living pharmaceutical factories.
 Turning animals into walking drug producers does not sit well with some
 environmental advocates and animal rights activists.
 ''It is a mechanistic use of animals that seems to perpetuate the notion of
 their being merely tools for human use rather than sentient creatures,'' the
 Humane Society of the United States says in its position paper on the practice.
 There are other  concerns: that the animals could be harmed, that animal germs
 might contaminate the drug, that the milk or meat from genetically engineered
 drug-producing animals might enter the food supply or that the animals might
 escape and breed with others, spreading the gene, with unpredictable
 consequences.
 But the F.D.A. approval could now encourage drug makers to consider this type of
 production.
 The F.D.A.'s move ''really takes away one of the biggest issues that have always
 been on the table, which is how do regulatory agencies view this kind of
 technology,'' said Samir Singh, president of the American operations of
 Pharming, another company using such technology.
 Pharming, which is based in the Netherlands, plans to  apply this year for
 approval of a drug, produced in the milk of transgenic rabbits, to treat
 hereditary angioedema, a protein deficiency that can lead to dangerous swelling
 of tissues.
 Another company, PharmAthene, is developing a treatment for nerve gas poisoning
 in the milk of transgenic goats.
 Still, it could be difficult to persuade established manufacturers to depart
 from their existing methods, which have improved markedly since GTC first began
 its work.
 ''I think we have very good ways of making therapeutic proteins today,'' said
 Norbert Riedel, chief scientific officer at Baxter International, which makes
 proteins both from human plasma and in cell cultures grown in huge steel tanks.
 Sales of the GTC drug, called ATryn, are expected to be modest, judging from the
 small sales so far in Europe, where the drug was approved in 2006.
 ATryn will be sold in the United States by Ovation Pharmaceuticals, which said
 it had not yet set the price.
 GTC's stock, which was below 11 cents in mid-December, had risen recently on
 expectation of the F.D.A. approval. It traded above 90 cents a share earlier
 this week. On Friday, as investors evidently sold on the news, it fell more than
 14 percent, closing at 70 cents.
 The drug was approved to prevent blood clots in people born with a rare
 hereditary deficiency of antithrombin while they undergo surgery or childbirth.
 At other times such people can reduce their clotting risks by taking blood
 thinners like warfarin, but during surgery or childbirth blood thinners are
 typically avoided because of the risk of excessive bleeding.
 To make its protein, GTC took the human gene for antithrombin and linked it to
 goat DNA that normally controls production of a protein found in milk. That
 ensured that the antithrombin would be produced only in the milk.
 The gene was injected into a one-celled goat embryo, which was then implanted
 into the womb of a surrogate mother. After a goat was born that produced the
 protein in its milk, the herd was expanded by conventional breeding.
 Many of the newer protein-based drugs, like the cancer drug Avastin and the
 arthritis drug Enbrel,  are produced in genetically engineered Chinese hamster
 ovary cells that are grown in big stainless steel vats. But a cell culture
 factory can cost hundreds of millions of dollars to build. Using livestock
 shrinks the investment to tens of millions of dollars, said Geoffrey Cox, GTC's
 chief executive.
 GTC executives say the animal technology might be best suited to making proteins
 that cannot be produced well in cell cultures.  Antithrombin, the protein in
 ATryn, is one such drug. Some other drugs require huge volumes that are
 impractical to achieve with cells.
 Production in animal milk might also appeal to new companies hoping to make
 lower-priced copycat versions of biotechnology drugs, if the regulatory
 procedures are eventually adopted for approving generic versions of such drugs.
 GTC itself is planning to make a copycat version of Rituxan, a cancer and
 arthritis drug sold by Biogen Idec and Genentech. It is also planning to make
 clotting factors for hemophilia treatment.
 One risk of using animals is that drug production can be lost if a disease wipes
 out the herd. Mr. Newberry, the GTC spokesman, said the goats were fully
 vaccinated. Access to them by people is controlled and there is a double fence
 around the farm to keep out wildlife.
 Mr. Newberry said that none of the goats in the herd, including nontransgenic
 ones used as surrogate mothers, would be allowed in the food supply. Nor will
 any of the milk.
 The F.D.A. said it was confident that products from the goats would not enter
 the food supply or harm the environment. ''There were no novel or controversial
 issues'' with the goats, Bernadette Dunham, director of the agency's Center for
 Veterinary Medicine, said Friday.
 But Gregory Jaffe of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington
 consumer group, called for  assurances that the milk or meat would be safe if it
 did inadvertently enter the food supply.
 ''Humans are fallible; accidents happen,'' he said.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: February 7, 2009
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Born with a human gene, producing a valuable drug.(PHOTOGRAPH BY
 GTC BIOTHERAPEUTICS, VIA BUSINESS WIRE) CHART: Bioengineering on the Farm:  The
 Food and Drug Administration has approved the first drug produced in the milk of
 genetically engineered animals.(Sources: GTC Biotherapeutics) (pg. B3)
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 436
 
                            Star-News (Wilmington, NC)
                            February 7, 2009 Saturday
                                   1ST Edition
 Drug from a goat with human gene
 BYLINE: Andrew Pollack; New York Times News Service
 SECTION: JUMP; Pg. 3A
 LENGTH: 357 words
 Opening the barn door to a new era in farming and pharmaceuticals, the Food and
 Drug Administration on Friday approved the first drug produced by livestock that
 have been given a human gene.
 The drug, meant to prevent fatal blood clots in people with a rare condition, is
 a human protein extracted from the milk of genetically engineered goats.
 At the same time, the FDA also approved the goats used to make the drug, the
 first such animals cleared under guidelines the agency adopted only last month
 to regulate the use of transgenic animals in the nation's drug and food supply.
 Made by a company called GTC Biotherapeutics, the human anti-clotting protein is
 produced by a herd of 200 bioengineered goats living under carefully controlled
 conditions on a farm in central Massachusetts.
 Proponents say such "pharm animals" could become a means of producing
 biotechnology drugs at lower cost or in greater quantities than the existing
 methods - which include extracting proteins from donated human blood or growing
 them in large steel vats of genetically engineered cells.
 The protein in the goat milk, antithrombin, is sometimes in short supply or
 unavailable for pharmaceutical use because of a shortage of human plasma
 donations.
 Drugs have been derived from animals before.
 Most insulin used by people with diabetes formerly came from pigs or cows.
 Genetically engineered mice are now used to develop some drug ingredients. But
 this is the first drug from a herd of genetically engineered animals created
 specifically to serve as living pharmaceutical factories.
 There are concerns that the animals could be harmed, that animal germs might
 contaminate the drug, that the milk or meat from genetically engineered
 drug-producing animals might enter the food supply or that the animals might
 escape and breed with others, spreading the gene, with unpredictable
 consequences.
 But the FDA's move "really takes away one of the biggest issues that have always
 been on the table, which is how do regulatory agencies view this kind of
 technology," said Samir Singh, president of the American operations of Pharming,
 another company using such technology.
 LOAD-DATE: February 5, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2009 Star-News, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 437
 
                                Chicago Sun Times
                             February 6, 2009 Friday
                                  Final Edition
 Obama's right to hold off on foodies' organic agenda
 BYLINE: David Martosko, Special to The Chicago Sun-Times
 SECTION: EDITORIALS; Pg. 21
 LENGTH: 703  words
 Newspaper readers who linger in the Food section should be familiar by now with
 a movement urging our new president to jump-start a "food revolution." The
 enlightened eaters driving it have become very vocal about their shared
 preference for all-organic, locally grown foods. But the foodie trend is
 starting to have some troubling side effects.
 The boundary between personal food choices and government policymaking is
 gradually disappearing. Once-serious debates about the future of American food
 and farm policy have been replaced by a bizarre mix of misguided activism, food
 snobbery, and celebrity gossip.
 The rumor mill that emerged over President Obama's pick for White House
 executive chef is a perfect example. Over the holidays, activist chef Alice
 Waters published an open letter asking him to choose someone who would "set the
 tone for how our nation should feed itself."
 Even after it was announced that White House chef Cristeta Comerford would be
 staying, the New York Times printed a re-hashing of a "behind-the-scenes" feud
 over the letter between Waters and another high-profile chef. And presidential
 chef fever returned when the Obamas announced the hiring of Sam Kass, their
 private chef from Chicago, to assist Comerford.
 This last decision has given new hope to a movement that is begging the Obamas
 to turn their new backyard into an organic community garden.
 According to Waters and her sprouting acolytes, growing heirloom radishes on the
 White House lawn will help address issues as diverse as obesity, teen diabetes,
 and global warming. But experience and common sense suggest that solving these
 problems will require far more than a presidential seal on a Berkeley ideology.
 Waters is not the only activist urging Obama to adopt these gestures. Food
 journalist Michael Pollan has been so influential in this regard that 9,000
 people signed a petition urging Obama to appoint him secretary of agriculture.
 While Pollan's efforts to educate the public are usually well-intended, his
 policy platform points to the problem with the entire foodie movement: It favors
 ideology over science.
 In Pollan's own public letter to the president, he has urged the new
 administration to make an organically-grown, completely plant-based diet the
 basis for a "reform of the entire food system."
 Pollan could barely make it through one page before equating the consumption of
 conventional (non-organic) food with "eating oil and spewing greenhouse gases."
 This "yuck factor" approach has already proven to be a regulatory disaster. (The
 outdated, backfiring government warnings about mercury in fish, and the
 prevention of vital research on genetically modified foods, are two notable
 examples.) And Pollan's statistics, such as the ridiculous claim that meat
 production accounts for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, are out of date.
 (It's less than 3 percent in the United States, according to Environmental
 Protection Agency data.)
 The upshot is that Pollan's food philosophy may be an apt guide for elitist
 shopping and meal-planning, but not for governing.
 Pollan, Waters, and others may be happy to pay $7 for organic milk. That's their
 right. But asking the White House to lead a revolution against "cheap food" is a
 dangerous strategy when so many Americans are already struggling to feed their
 families.
 A knee-jerk rejection of conventionally grown -- and affordable -- food also
 fails to acknowledge the growing body of evidence showing that organics are no
 healthier than what our parents fed us.
 Obama's hesitation to appease foodie activists suggests that he realizes
 something many Americans still don't: Organic is a wishful agricultural
 philosophy, not a health issue. (You'll even find organic snack bars on the
 current peanut-recall list.)
 Our food system isn't perfect, but neither is it "broken." America's food supply
 has never been safer or more efficient.
 Obama is right to draw a line between public policy and his own personal food
 preferences. And it's time for all of us to recognize the "food revolution"
 movement for what it really is: a gourmet coup d'etat.
 David Martosko is the director of research for the Center for Consumer Freedom,
 which is supported by restaurants and food companies.
 LOAD-DATE: March 23, 2009
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Opinion
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2009 Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 438
 
                      Riverfront Times(St. Louis, Missouri)
                            February 4, 2009 Wednesday
 St. Louis Serenade: Seven years in the making, Kyle Beachy's debut novel is a
 love letter to the Gateway City
 BYLINE: Ben Westhoff
 LENGTH: 3038  words
 On a snowy January afternoon in Manhattan, Kyle Beachy is on the prowl for rare
 books. In New York to visit his girlfriend, the St. Louis-bred novelist stops
 into Left Bank Books, a cluttered West Village hole in the wall. Unlike the
 unaffiliated St. Louis shop of the same name, this store is piled to the ceiling
 with hard-to-find tomes. Beachy makes a beeline for an enclosed case and emerges
 with a pair of Don DeLillo hardbacks.
 "This is a really stupid hobby to get into, collecting first editions," he says,
 showing off a blue-jacketed copy of Ratner's Star that sells for $45. Pointing
 to the back cover of the 1982 novel The Names, Beachy marvels at the photo of
 the bearded, sage-looking author, whose work Beachy is teaching this semester at
 the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. "I have no money," he adds, "but I'm
 such a sucker for DeLillo."
 He plunks down his credit card and walks out, feeling satisfied though a little
 guilty. "I guess I just won't eat for a few days," he later writes on his blog.
 When we meet again the following week for a beer in Brooklyn, he sheepishly
 takes a phone call from his house cleaner and then practically apologizes for
 enlisting one. "I don't have cable," he notes, referring to his two-bedroom
 condo in Chicago's Logan Square neighborhood.
 The 30-year-old Beachy, who grew up in Ladue and Olivette, wears the boyish good
 looks of ER's Noah Wyle. On this winter day, he's dressed stylishly in a
 cowboy-style snap shirt rolled up to his elbows and brown skate shoes. He wears
 a thin layer of stubble with his glasses perched on his forehead. Though
 eloquent and quick with a joke, Beachy is often distinctly self-conscious,
 especially when it comes to the subject of his childhood privilege. "I don't
 think people have given me a fraction of the shit I've given myself for it," he
 notes.
 The burden of wealth is a central theme in Beachy's debut novel, The Slide,
 published last month as a paperback original by Random House - and to critical
 acclaim. From Entertainment Weekly to Publishers Weekly, the book has drawn
 raves, with Booklist asserting that Beachy "perfectly captures the brain-fogging
 mugginess of summer in the Midwest and the quarry-deep reticence of
 midwesterners in a funny and endearing novel...."
 Best-selling author James McManus called the novel's protagonist, Potter Mays,
 "the most ethical sexual deviant this side of Portnoy - or Hamlet." ("I think to
 put Potter's name anywhere within twenty miles of those characters is
 outrageously complimentary," responds Beachy.)
 Something of a love letter to St. Louis, The Slide features nostalgic scenes set
 around town. At Fair Saint Louis, men wear "Blues hockey jerseys and jean
 shorts" and smoke menthols, while at the erstwhile Creve Coeur disco Baja Beach
 Club, Jgermeister shots are "passed from adults to children." Beachy's
 characters visit Mike Shannon's Steaks & Seafood, the Gateway Arch and Busch
 Stadium.
 In one particularly memorable scene, Potter journeys to Maplewood's Deer Creek
 Park with his jailbait-next-door neighbor Zoe Hoyne, where they ride the rocket
 slide. At the top of the slide's highest ramp, he says to her:
 "I'm embarrassed to say how long it took me to get the nerve to go down this
 thing. I had no problem with the medium one, which is actually steeper and
 faster than this one. I think it was the darkness that scared me. The tunnel
 curves around the pole so you have no idea where you're going once you're in.
 Jesus, it used to scare me."
 "There's definitely a metaphor there. Scared of the dark future." She patted my
 elbow.
 "You're not allowed to patronize me."
 "Oh no. I'm with you on the scariness thing. If the hot older neighbor is
 scared, I'm petrified."
 The book is a coming-of-age saga that shares thematic elements with The Graduate
 and the writings of Nick Hornby. More than seven years in the making, it is
 loosely based on Beachy's 2001 post-college summer. The 22-year-old Potter moves
 back to his parents' house, drives a water truck and roots hard for the
 Cardinals. (Although, unlike Beachy, Potter also befriends a fifth-grader,
 infiltrates a religious cult and talks to his dead younger brother.)
 It's a spirited, oft-hilarious piece of fiction, and an unlikely achievement
 from a literary newcomer whose work was rejected precisely 117 times before he
 found an agent.
 Beachy admits he "bawled like a little girl" when he finally found
 representation, but says he never lost hope. "I always had faith in it," he
 says. "If you shake something long enough, it eventually falls into place."
 Kyle Beachy had a charmed upbringing in west St. Louis county. His father,
 Roger, was a Washington University biology professor whose work opened the doors
 for the first genetically modified food crop - a virus-resistant tomato - and
 who now heads the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center. His mother, Terry, is a
 retired speech pathologist. Together they raised Kyle and his sister K.C. in a
 three-bedroom house on Godwin Lane in Ladue.
 Beachy later moved to Olivette with his mother after his parents split up and
 graduated from Ladue Horton Watkins High School near the top of his class.
 Though he occasionally caused trouble by clowning around in history class or
 skateboarding recklessly, his teachers and parents adored him. "Kyle very
 seldom, if ever, disappointed us," says his father.
 As a short, scrappy centerfielder, he hit .533 for the school baseball team his
 senior year, a record that stood until last season. "I didn't know he was going
 to be that good," recollects his old coach Jim Wolfe. "And then, boom, all of
 the sudden he was that good."
 Beachy was a popular kid, frequenting posh parties at places like the Schnucks'
 Ladue home. Yes, those Schnucks. "Their pool house was two stories and Italian
 decorated, with archways and a statue in the pool," Beachy recalls. "I remember
 there were all these seventeen- and eighteen-year-olds taking beer bongs."
 He graduated from Pomona College in Claremont, California, in 2001, with degrees
 in philosophy and English, and returned to St. Louis to figure out what he
 wanted to do with his life. Though he had the transcript and test scores to
 pursue law or finance, those subjects aroused no passion in him.
 Instead, he took a job delivering jugs of water for the Pine Valley Water
 Company and enrolled in a creative-writing class at Wash. U. That August he
 departed for Vail, Colorado, where he snowboarded, worked at a bookstore and
 devoured Don DeLillo and David Foster Wallace novels. He also read Jonathan
 Franzen's new literary sensation, The Corrections.
 "I admired the writing," he says of the Webster Groves native's 2001 opus, "but
 he wrote about my hometown in a way I didn't particularly like."
 The Corrections' dysfunctional Lambert family hails from a fictional Midwestern
 city called St. Jude, a thinly veiled version of St. Louis that has been renamed
 for the patron saint of lost causes. The East Coast-transplanted Lambert
 children view it with varying degrees of contempt. Describing eldest son Gary's
 visit to the town's Museum of Transport, Franzen writes:
 Oh, the sadness of the place! The earnest St. Judean rubes all around him seemed
 curious and undepressed. Happily filling their misshapen heads with facts. As if
 facts were going to save them! Not one other man with a decent haircut or an
 abdomen as flat as Gary's.[...]
 [T]hey were all extremely deferential. They didn't jostle Gary or cut in front
 of him but waited until he'd drifted to the next exhibit. Then they gathered
 round and read and learned. God, he hated the Midwest!
 Beachy says, "Because my experiences of returning to St. Louis were always
 meaningful - if not wonderful - it was frustrating that these characters didn't
 want to return there. St. Louis for me has always meant home. I had this feeling
 of, I want to undo this. I want to write the other side of this."
 It was The Corrections that helped inspire Beachy to begin writing The Slide.
 Now more than seven years later, he teaches essay writing and literature at the
 Art Institute. But unlike the New York-residing Franzen, his hometown pride
 shines through in his writing. "He really likes the fact that he can call
 himself a New Yorker," Beachy says. "But I absolutely consider myself a St.
 Louisan."
 Electing not to spend his days lounging by his friend Stuart's pool or in his
 parents' luxurious, oft-remodeled Ladue home, Potter Mays forces himself out of
 his comfort zone by taking a job as a water-delivery man.
 Borrowing from Beachy's brief employment with Pine Valley, Potter pilots a
 rickety truck from north-city neighborhoods (full of children "clenching bright
 Popsicles that melted over their hands") to the distant south-county burg of
 Oakville, where houses are "low and wide and brick, with cramped yards and
 garages full of hardware and bed frames and garden hoses."
 Here he encounters precocious eleven-year-old Ian Worpley, who lives in squalor
 without parental supervision for the summer. The pair strike up a friendship and
 journey to such spots as the Tower Tee batting cages and the Spirit of St. Louis
 Airport.
 On a sojurn to Ted Drewes, Ian orders "an elaborate mixture of cinnamon custard
 and apple chunks and pie crust, cinnamon powder and a viscous brown topping" and
 announces that his mother has mysteriously moved out.
 We drove back to Waldwich Drive listening to one of St. Louis' four classic-rock
 stations, songs filling what would otherwise have been a nauseating silence.
 Time was running out. I racked my brain for a fact, some niblet of wisdom to
 share with this kid whose mother had disappeared. One hundred twenty thousand
 dollars spent on my education - I should have facts to spare, wheelbarrows full
 of excess knowledge.
 "I never met a problem frozen custard couldn't fix."
 I heard the kid's laughter like a bag of popcorn, lighter than you expect. He
 laughed through the better part of the instrumental intro to Boston's
 "Foreplay/Longtime," then stopped abruptly and told me I was crazy.
 Feeling a wave of empathy, Potter sets off in search of Ian's mother, planning
 to return her to him. The mission takes him to a religious cult in wine country.
 Things don't go as planned, but Potter hopes to atone for his privilege.
 Beachy hoped to do the same thing - by dedicating himself to his writing. "The
 thing that frustrates me," he imparts, "is when people don't do something with
 their talent, their time and their financial opportunities."
 Having decided that writing was a noble path, Beachy devoted his full energies
 to his novel after returning to St. Louis from Vail. Though The Slide's final
 version employs a straightforward first-person narrative, early incarnations of
 the book were messy and experimental, featuring multiple voices and borrowing
 heavily from author Thomas Pynchon.
 "It had a very Pynchonesque manner, which at the time I thought important books
 did," Beachy recounts. "I wanted to write a very philosophically relevant
 post-modern novel about maturity and entertainment and 21st-century America," he
 goes on. "I was reluctant for a long time to accept that it was a love story."
 Like Potter, Beachy spent many days contemplating what had gone wrong with a
 college girlfriend. "I think everyone at some point questions if monogamy is
 sustainable," he asserts, adding that he eventually realized the book's central
 question was: What is this word, "love"?
 In the novel, Potter's girlfriend Audrey is summering in Europe with an
 attractive bisexual friend. She regularly sends him inscrutable packages, such
 as a starfish with its legs broken off.
 Unable to determine if he's in love with her, he hires his friend Stuart Hurst -
 a wealthy and unemployed pothead who dubs himself an "Independent Thought
 Contractor" - to decide for him. Further muddying the waters, Potter becomes
 dangerously close with Zoe Hoyne, the Lolita-like sixteen-year-old next-door
 neighbor he's tutoring for the SATs.
 Meanwhile, over beers and the Cardinals game at the Ladue restaurant Sportsman's
 Park, Potter's father awkwardly announces that he and Potter's mother are
 divorcing. (In yet another real-life parallel, Beachy's parents also broke up,
 though they remarried five years later.)
 I felt two overwhelming desires. The first was to pay for this meal with money I
 had earned delivering water. The second was to get myself immediately and
 carelessly laid.
 "This is going to sound horrible," I said when the waitress brought the bill. "I
 don't say this sort of thing ever."
 "Right." She stuck both hands into her apron.
 "Do I know you? You went to my high school."
 "Don't think so."[...]
 "My parents are getting a divorce," I said.
 "Oh. Sorry. Do you need change?"
 "Romantically, I was trying to figure out what I was doing," Beachy says. "I was
 at a place where I had just seen a relationship that was very important to me
 come to an end. I had watched my own parents get divorced.
 "I wanted to write about a character in a time of turmoil - both in terms of
 love, and professionally. Periods of transition are periods of human drama. The
 book came from my own transition."
 Beachy showed his manuscript to peers and teachers while earning his master's
 degree in creative writing at the Arts Institute. He didn't always appreciate
 their feedback. "There were times I felt like the book was done," Beachy says,
 "but they would say, 'You have a lot of work to do.' I would say, No, fuck it, I
 don't want to."
 Still, he relentlessly pursued his book throughout grad school. "Ever since I've
 met him, he's always been working on this damn book," says his Chicago-based
 friend Dave Cohn, a rapper known as Serengeti. "He's real focused. There's no
 stirring him. You'll ask him to go out, and he's like, 'No, I gotta stay home
 and write.'"
 Despite his best efforts, however, literary agents wouldn't bite, and without a
 literary agent it's extremely difficult to win a major publisher's interest. It
 didn't help that with only one short piece of fiction and a handful of articles
 to his credit, he was virtually unpublished. "They would say, 'I don't know how
 to sell it,' or, 'I don't think I'm the person to sell this,'" Beachy remembers.
 Still, Beachy held out hope. "I had this idea that published authors attend
 either Iowa or Columbia and amass this collection of stories, and then suddenly
 have an agent and a book deal. I saw it as a world I was outside of, so that
 when I was facing rejection I had something to fight against."
 In the fall of 2006, agent number 118, Jennifer de la Fuente, picked the book
 off of her slush pile. The San Diego-based agent fell in love with it and
 immediately called to offer representation. "I just felt this sense of relief.
 It felt completely real and wonderful," Beachy recalls, adding that he started
 crying on the subway. An old woman sitting nearby offered him a Kleenex.
 "I thought his voice was so unique, so fresh and funny," effuses de la Fuente.
 "I love the Midwestern-ness of the novel, the salami sandwiches, the frozen
 custard. You can tell how much he loves his hometown."
 After working with Beachy on an edit, she quickly sold the book to Random House
 imprint the Dial Press for a five-figure advance in January 2007. Remembers
 editor Noah Eaker: "I was laughing aloud from page one, which set the book apart
 immediately from most manuscripts that cross my desk."
 As for the book's moniker: "We toyed with several titles, but in the end I
 wanted something compact with a meaning that could unfold as a reader became
 more familiar," writes Beachy in an e-mail. "A simple title. So many books
 recently have crammed all the hugeness they can into their titles, all the
 'Heartbreak' and 'Beauty' and 'Wonder' and 'Glory' and 'Splendor' and so on."
 Though thrilled about having the book published, Beachy doesn't see his struggle
 as an especially valiant one. "Yeah, I had my share of rejections," he admits,
 "but I haven't had a particularly hard existence. I didn't grow up as a child
 soldier and make it to America and share my story."
 His words are eerily similar to Stuart Hurst's in The Slide, who explains to
 Potter that folks of their station shouldn't complain. "You and I don't live in
 Cambodia," Stuart says. "There aren't land mines in our backyards that could
 blow our limbs off every time we go out for a jog."
 The Slide arrives at a perilous moment for the publishing industry. Reflecting
 widespread economic woes, book sales are down, and in November Houghton Mifflin
 Harcourt announced a buying freeze on new manuscripts. Layoffs and corporate
 restructuring at companies, including Random House, followed.
 Even in strong markets, quiet novels are often overshadowed by celebrity
 tell-alls, diet cookbooks and legal thrillers. So while Beachy is optimistic
 about his book's success, "whether it explodes in popularity or makes an impact
 on the circus of our culture, that's no longer up to me," he cautions.
 He says economic realities and other factors played into the publisher's
 decision to release the book in paperback, but insists he's not disappointed.
 "It's a lot easier to push a $13 book on people than a $25 book," he says,
 "especially if nobody has heard of me before."
 Beachy adds that his next book will involve "bones" and "skateboarding," though
 it's too early to say more than that. For now he's focused on his lit classes at
 the Art Institute, this semester teaching "Television, Trash, and Dread: Don
 DeLillo's America," and planning next year to add a course on David Foster
 Wallace's lengthy tome Infinite Jest.
 Otherwise, his future's wide open. He has no plans to join his long-distance
 girlfriend in New York, partly because he's attached to his Art Institute gig
 and partly because he loves Chicago's proximity to his hometown. "I get to St.
 Louis often," he says. "It's only a five-hour drive - I can take my dog." (Whose
 name, by the way, is Lolita.)
 "I can't think of anywhere I'd rather raise children," he continues. "I want to
 raise them where there's a value placed on being a good person - holding the
 door, saying 'hello' and 'thank you,' and blessing strangers when they sneeze. I
 just think that people who are raised in St. Louis are good people."
 Unlike Jonathan Franzen's characters, however, when Kyle Beachy says such
 things, he means them as compliments.
 LOAD-DATE: February 6, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: stl
                       Copyright 2009 Riverfront Times, LLC
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 439
 
                             January 23, 2009 Friday
 SECTION: WHAT'S HAPPENING; Pg. 28
 LENGTH: 130 words
 FOOD FRAY: Lisa H. Weasel, Amacom Books, 201 pages, $23. A Portland State
 University professor of biology provides an inclusive look at both sides in the
 rising and bitter controversy over the use of genetically modified food.
 REGENESIS: C.J. Cherryh, DAW Books, 585 pages, $25.95. The noted Spokane
 science-fiction writer crafts the long-anticipated sequel to her two classic
 works - "Downbelow Station" and "Cyteen," both winners of prestigious Hugo
 Awards for best novel.
 THE BEST PLACES TO KISS IN THE NORTHWEST: Teri Citterman, Sasquatch Books, 416
 pages, $21. A Seattle writer updates the popular guidebook to romantic getaways
 and attractions around the region; this 10th edition continues its remarkable
 evolution into a full-fledged volume with comprehensive, detailed listings.
 LOAD-DATE: January 28, 2009
 GRAPHIC: Photo<
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2009 Seattle Post-Intelligencer









Document Number: 440
 
                               American Health Line
                            January 21, 2009 Wednesday
 AHL Examines Recent Developments
 LENGTH: 398 words
 Summaries of recent developments related to FDA appear below.
          Genetically altered animals: FDA issued final guidelines Thursday for
           the use of genetically engineered animals for drugs, organs for
           transplants and food, Dow Jones reports.  According to Dow Jones, the
           guidelines "provide a road map for the agency to approve new
           applications," and FDA agreed to submit any product made from the
           animals to a public advisory committee for discussion, "a nod to
           consumer groups who had urged the FDA to establish a transparent
           process" for animal product approval (Corbett Dooren, Dow Jones,
           1/15).  Consumer groups are concerned that FDA is not requiring people
           to be informed that they are eating genetically engineered animals and
           that the agency has not done enough to look at the potential
           environmental impacts of such animals, particularly if they escape and
           procreate in nature (Alonso-Zaldivar, AP/Denver Post, 1/15). FDA as
           early as next month could approve Atryn, a drug by GTC Biotherapeutics
           made from the milk of genetically engineered goats that treats a rare
           blood disorder, which last week an agency panel found safe and
           effective (Dow Jones, 1/15).
          Drug safety: FDA last week launched a two-year voluntary pilot program
           encouraging the safety of drugs and active drug ingredients outside
           the U.S. to determine the usefulness of developing a secure supply
           chain program abroad, the Wall Street Journal reports. FDA in a
           release said that 100 applicants will be selected for the Secure
           Supply Chain program, all of whom must meet the agency's criteria,
           which includes a requirement that they control the drug from the time
           of manufacture to its entry into the U.S.  The program, which was
           developed in association with U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
           could speed the entry of certain products and "would assist the agency
           in its efforts to prevent the importation of drugs that don't comply
           with applicable FDA requirements," the Journal reports (Coyle, Wall
           Street Journal, 1/14).
          Von Eschenbach: Outgoing FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach
           recently said in a meeting that FDA is "a work in progress," Dow Jones
           reports. "There's still a great deal of work that needs to be done,"
           he said. Dow Jones also examined the pitfalls and accomplishments of
           FDA over the course of von Eschenbach's tenure at the agency (Corbett
           Dooren, Dow Jones, 1/14).
 -- compiled by Julia Moss
 LOAD-DATE: January 21, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Online Publication
                    Copyright 2009 The Advisory Board Company
                               All Rights Reserved.









Document Number: 441
 
                               The Washington Post
                            January 21, 2009 Wednesday
                                  Every Edition
 LENGTH: 556 words
 The 12 "Art. Food. Hope." dinners held Monday raised money for local food
 organizations D.C. Central Kitchen, Martha's Table and FreshFarm Markets. The
 events also intended to put food on the political agenda. Here's a look at the
 chefs, their dishes and the priorities they suggest for the Obama
 administration.
 José Andrés
 Washington
 Minibar
 Slow-roasted suckling pig from Polyface Farm with carrots and Brussels sprouts
 "A secretary of food is vital. If we take care of food, we take care of
 farmers."
 Dan Barber
 New York
 Blue Hill
 Lamb neck with a stew of Mokum carrots
 "If the president wants to deal with energy independence, the state of nutrition
 and the environmental crisis, he needs to see the connection between the way our
 food is raised and the land is used."
 Lidia Bastianich
 New York
 Felidia
 Risotto with duck guazzetto
 "We should support and encourage small farmers so that nutritious, sound and
 safe foods are accessible to all the people in America,  not just for the
 elite."
 Rick Bayless
 Chicago
 Frontera Grill
 Tortilla soup of roasted tomatoes, pasilla chili peppers, maitake mushrooms and
 local cheese
 The Obamas "eat good, fresh, healthy food all the time. And they're cool. They
 could set an example . . . that I think could make a bigger impact than trying
 to legislate" specific food policy.
 Daniel Boulud
 New York
 Daniel
 Maryland crab salad with green apple gelee and celery root remoulade
 "We need better traceability of ingredients. It's important we know where food
 comes from and how it's produced."
 Tom Colicchio
 New York
 Craft
 Nantucket Bay scallop with salsify and black trompettes
 "I would like mandatory disclosure on all genetically modified food."
 Floyd Cardoz
 New York
 Tabla
 Crab cake with papadum, Goan avocado salad and tamarind chutney
 "We need to improve the quality of meals served in schools, with an emphasis on
 healthy, minimally processed, locally sourced ingredients."
 Joan Nathan
 Washington cookbook author
 Ayrshire chicken with olives and preserved lemons
 "We need a policy that pushes sustainability. . . . Why not redirect some
 subsidies for soy, cotton and corn and create an incentive program to help
 farmers grow more healthy, sustainable and organic food?"
 Michel Nischan
 Westport, Conn.
 Dressing Room
 Pan-fried angel food cake with quince compote and vanilla fondue
 "We should offer incentives to our farmers in all states to supply healthy,
 affordable food directly to our most vulnerable citizens increasingly using food
 stamps, WIC and reduced-cost school lunch programs."
 Scott Peacock
 Decatur, Ga.
 Watershed Restaurant
 Roasted Cedar Creek pork with lemon-glazed sweet potatoes, braised greens and
 slow-simmered heirloom peas
 "Grow arugula on the lawn. As a matter of fact, I'll bet that the lawn and Rose
 Garden are heavily sprayed with nasty chemicals. If so, change it to
 pesticide-free flowers and fruits."
 Nancy Silverton
 Los Angeles
 Osteria Mozza
 Torta della nonna with honeycomb and pine nuts
 "I'd like to see [the White House chef] take the emphasis off of so-called
 'fancy' or 'gourmet' food and put it onto what's really important: that friends
 and family take the time to sit and eat together."
 Alice Waters
 Berkeley, Calif.
 Chez Panisse
 Brandade of local rockfish with rocket and herb salad
 "My hope is that the White House itself becomes a symbol of sustainability that
 includes both food and the growing of it."
 LOAD-DATE: January 23, 2009
 DISTRIBUTION: Montgomery County
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2009 The Washington Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 442
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                            January 15, 2009 Thursday
 No rain? No problem! Monsanto expects its drought-tolerant corn to be a 'game
 changer' among biotech seeds.
 BYLINE: By Jeffrey Tomich ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. C1
 LENGTH: 1048 words
 At last weekend's annual meeting of South Dakota corn growers in Sioux Falls,
 farmers were coming off a record crop - 133 bushels an acre.
 Even with ample rainfall, such productivity would have been unthinkable to
 farmers 20 years ago. But today, many are looking to even bigger crops with the
 help of science.
 At the meeting, "there were two main questions," said Lisa Richardson, the
 group's executive director. "They wanted to know what new (biotech) traits are
 coming and how soon?"
 In fact, those questions were at least partially answered Jan. 7 when seed giant
 Monsanto Co. gave its annual overview of research and development efforts. The
 news, coupled with an earnings report that surpassed Wall Street expectations,
 helped send the stock soaring that day.
 The headliner in Monsanto's annual R&D update: The first bioengineered
 drought-tolerant corn that promises to help farmers boost yield in areas where
 rain is scarcer and irrigation isn't feasible or too expensive.
 The first drought-tolerant corn, expected to be available by 2012, has moved
 into the last phase of testing before commercialization, and Creve Coeur-based
 Monsanto submitted the drought-tolerance trait to the U.S. Food and Drug
 Administration in December for approval.
 The normally mundane step of a regulatory submission is significant in this
 case, company officials say. Although researchers have been improving drought
 tolerance in crops for years via conventional plant breeding, the filing marked
 the first time that such a drought-tolerance trait for any crop has been
 submitted to a regulatory body worldwide.
 Monsanto executives describe drought-tolerant corn as a "game changer." It,
 along with the other new products flowing from its research labs, will help
 boost market share in more profitable biotech seeds. Monsanto established last
 year a goal of doubling yields in core crops by 2030 while reducing key inputs -
 water and fertilizer - by a third.
 "I really believe this shows we're widening the gap over the competition in
 drought tolerance, which we think will be a family of traits, not just for
 corn," Steve Padgette, Monsanto's Vice President of Biotechnology, told analysts
 and investors in a presentation last week in New York.
 Monsanto rival Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. will offer a transgenic, or
 genetically modified, drought-tolerant corn in as few as five years, spokesman
 Pat Arthur said. The company will also roll out a non-biotech corn in 2010 or
 2011 that has shown to boost yields 5 percent to 10 percent .
 "Transgenic is not the ultimate goal," said Pat Arthur, a Pioneer spokesman.
 "The ultimate goal is to improve yields for the farmer."
 BB&T Capital chemicals analyst Frank J. Mitsch said in a report Monday that
 Monsanto's drought-tolerant corn gave the company "first-mover advantage (and by
 a long mile!)"
 Field trials of Monsanto's drought-tolerant corn in the western Great Plains
 consistently showed a 6- to 10-percent yield boost in five years of testing, for
 an average gain of seven to 10 bushels on crops that average of 70 to 130
 bushels per acre, the company said.
 The initial drought-tolerant offering is expected to be available beginning in
 2012 and will be aimed at farmers in Kansas, Nebraska and South Dakota.
 Although genetically modified crops remain controversial, especially in Europe,
 farmers in South Dakota have widely embraced biotechnology to help bring
 additional yield increases on current acres and help push the Corn Belt further
 north and west.
 For more than a decade, scientists have made huge strides in genetically
 modified crops, improving yields in staples such as corn and soybeans by making
 them resistant to insects and herbicide. Conventional breeding has also helped
 growers produce bigger crops with less water.
 Still, drought costs farmers billions of dollars in lost productivity. And water
 use is becoming an ever bigger issue around the world, especially in areas where
 resources are scarce.
 "Over 60 percent of yield losses around the world are a result of drought, and
 any given place at any given time could see drought," Dusty Post, Monsanto's
 corn technology lead.
 Normally, photosynthesis and growth rates slow in plants that don't get enough
 water. Monsanto's drought-tolerance gene minimizes the effect of drier soil on
 its metabolism, enabling the plant to continue to grow more normally.
 Water is especially important to corn plants during pollen shed and silking, and
 during grain fill. "If you don't have water during that time, you're likely to
 not have a very good yield," she said.
 Monsanto also needs approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and
 regulators in countries where the corn that's grown in the United States will be
 shipped before drought-tolerant corn is marketed commercially.
 The drought-tolerance trait is a product of Monsanto's $1.5 billion
 collaboration with Germany's BASF AG, which began in March 2007, and one of
 several new offerings expected to come to market within a few years.
 A second generation of drought-tolerant corn will target other regions of the
 United States that see drought conditions less regularly, as well as Brazil,
 Argentina and parts of Europe.
 "We do anticipate multiple generations of drought products that become
 increasingly more valuable to the farmer," Padgette said.
 One area that could especially benefit from drought-tolerant crops is
 sub-Saharan Africa. There, Monsanto is simultaneously working on a
 drought-tolerant corn project - Water Efficient Maize for Africa - with a group
 of partners and says it would offer the trait royalty-free to subsistence
 farmers.
 Monsanto won't say how much has been spent to date on developing
 drought-tolerant corn. But there's a lot at stake. The company spends about $2.6
 million a day on research and development, and the average initial investment in
 a new product is about $100 million.
 Of all the various projects in the pipeline, a relative few, including
 drought-tolerant corn, are considered "High-Impact Technologies," ones in which
 Monsanto invests more money earlier in development because of the strategic
 value.
 Richardson, of the South Dakota corn growers, agrees with the emphasis Monsanto
 is putting on the project.
 "We believe this is a huge deal," she said. "It can change fundamentals of what
 your production is."
 LOAD-DATE: January 15, 2009
 GRAPHIC:  PHOTO - (Crops) Photo illustration | The Associated Press /
 Shutterstock
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2009 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 443
 
                         The Augusta Chronicle (Georgia)
                             January 11, 2009 Sunday
 Lab alters crops' genesto be hardy, productive
 BYLINE: By Sabine Vollmer < Raleigh News & Observer
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. D02
 LENGTH: 497 words
 Corn and soybean plants are plentiful in the BASF greenhouses in Research
 Triangle Park near Durham, N.C., where scientists generate and test crops whose
 genes have been altered to adapt to difficult climates or to pack more
 nutrients.
 Among the pots are also a few sprouting rice and wheat plants.
 That's unusual. Genetically altered crops have been around for more than 20
 years, but companies that tinker with plant genes tend to focus on crops that
 have been bred for desirable traits.
 Genetically modified corn, soybeans, canola and cotton seeds, including
 varieties that can tolerate herbicides or are resistant to pests, are widely
 used by U.S. farmers to produce more food, feed and fibers on the same-size
 fields.
 Rice and wheat are fairly new to gene modification because farmers and consumers
 have been less accepting of artificial changes to those food crops.
 BASF, a German chemical giant that came late to agricultural biotechnology, has
 begun to branch out, though. Its executives think that those preferences are
 changing and that the demand will increase as populations grow and acreage stays
 the same or shrinks.
 Much of the work is done at its U.S. plant science research hub in Research
 Triangle Park where its scientists have been working in food research longer.
 "With rice we are to the point where we're very heavily investing in field
 trials," said Jonathan Bryant, the managing director of BASF's plant science
 business in the U.S. "And we're seeing success."
 Research into genetically modified wheat is just beginning. BASF is considering
 plants such as switchgrass and trees for biofuel production, Mr. Bryant said.
 In the United States, Latin America and parts of Asia, farmers and consumers are
 becoming accustomed to genetically modified crops. As farmers seek to increase
 their yield per acre with limited acreage, sales of biotech seeds are expected
 to more than double to $15 billion in 2015.
 Competition for market share is fierce. Right now nobody sells more genetically
 modified seeds than St. Louis-based Monsanto, which has 95 percent of the
 market. Syngenta, DuPont's Pioneer, Bayer CropScience and Dow Agrosciences all
 are trying to claim a bigger piece of the pie.
 In an effort to retain its dominance, Monsanto two years ago turned to BASF. The
 companies plan to invest $1.5 billion over the next two decades to bring new
 genetically modified crops to market. The collaboration is supported by the Bill
 and Melinda Gates Foundation.
 The fruits of that collaboration are ripening at the Research Triangle Park
 facility that BASF opened in 1999. BASF and Monsanto are investigating hundreds
 of plant genes to come up with seeds that produce hardier, more productive corn,
 soybean, cotton and canola plants. The most advanced products are being tested
 in large field trials, said Stephen Evola, the director of BASF's plant science
 research.
 By 2012, Monsanto hopes to sell the first genetically modified corn seeds
 generated by its collaboration with BASF.
 LOAD-DATE: March 1, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                Copyright 2009 Southeastern Newspapers Corporation
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 444
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                            January 10, 2009 Saturday
 New rice may resist disease
 BYLINE: By Georgina Gustin St. Louis Post-Dispatch
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. A34
 LENGTH: 320 words
 Creve Coeur - Researchers at the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center say they
 have discovered how to genetically modify rice to make it more resistant to a
 disease that is ravaging Asian rice farms.
 A viral disease, known as rice tungro, destroys about $1.5 billion worth of rice
 every year in Southeast Asia. That's roughly five to 10 percent of the yield in
 major rice-growing areas in the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Bangladesh,
 India and Thailand.
 Scientists from the Danforth center have been looking for a solution for about
 20 years. Recently, they discovered that a transgenic, or genetically modified,
 rice produces certain proteins that are more tolerant to infection from the rice
 tungro virus. They announced their findings this week.
 "The breakthrough came when we understood how the virus made the plant sick,"
 said Roger N. Beachy, president of the center. "Then we used that information
 against the virus."
 The technology is viable in the greenhouse and in the laboratory, Beachy said.
 The next step is to test it in the field.
 "It's probably five to 10 years away," Beachy noted. "The next goal is to have
 seed breeders in the Philippines and Southeast Asia breed from our varieties."
 Currently, no country has approved commercial production of genetically modified
 rice, though there are advanced trials underway in China, Beachy said.
 Traditional rice growers in the United States and abroad have been resistant to
 genetically modified rice amid fears it could contaminate regular rice.
 When Colorado-based Ventria Bioscience attempted to start field trials of
 transgenic rice in the Missouri Bootheel, local farmers balked. Anheuser-Busch,
 the country's largest buyer of rice, said at the time that it would no longer
 buy Missouri rice. Ventria is now field testing rice in eastern Kansas. The rice
 contains a human enzyme, found in breast milk, that can be inexpensively
 extracted and used in medicines.
 LOAD-DATE: January 12, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2009 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 445
 
                      The Journal Record (Oklahoma City, OK)
                              January 9, 2009 Friday
 As acres dwindle, wheat farmers in Okla. consider options in biotechnology
 BYLINE: Brian Brus
 LENGTH: 562  words
 As acres planted in wheat continue to dwindle against more profitable crops in
 Oklahoma and across the country, farmers need to decide whether they're ready to
 fight back with biotechnology, the National Association of Wheat Growers is
 asking.
 "The average producer is in favor of GMOs," or genetically modified organisms,
 said Jeff Krehbiel, chairman of the Oklahoma Wheat Commission.
 "As a producer, you always look at cost of production first, and then ease of
 management and profit potential. When you add all of those together, there have
 been incidences in the last few years that other crops have been more profitable
 ... due to genetically modified crops. "
 But the industry's path isn't without risk - even though grain can be
 genetically tweaked to improve its vigor, make it easier to harvest or exhibit
 other traits leading to larger, more consistent yields, some countries may not
 allow a biotech-modified import, he said.
 "So I am also a firm believer that we have to look at all of the ramifications
 GMOs introduce," Krehbiel said.
 Oklahoma, like the rest of the country, has seen the number of wheat acres drop.
 In 1985, about 7.8 million acres were planted to wheat in Oklahoma; by 2007 that
 figure had dropped to 5.9 million, according to state Agriculture Department
 statistics.
 Several large companies are interested in adopting wheat strains modified with
 biotechnology to improve their market positions, the national wheat association
 reported. And the NAWG also plans to meet soon with Australian and Canadian
 wheat growers regarding the development of a time line for biotech wheat. But
 the commercialization of a newly engineered trait is expected to take 10 years
 and about $150 million for its development, deregulation and launch. So the
 sooner the survey is conducted, the better.
 "These companies rightfully want to know before they undertake such an endeavor
 that producers want the choice of biotech tools in the wheat variety toolbox and
 will do what is necessary to obtain that access," NAWG officials said.
 Several U.S. consumer groups have raised objections to GMO products across many
 ag industries, not just wheat. But the bigger problem lies overseas. South Korea
 and Japan, for example, have resisted biotech crops and require extensive
 labeling of such products. The Chinese Agriculture Ministry has already approved
 some modified crops, including corn and soybeans, but still requires safety
 reviews.
 "We export 50 percent of our wheat from the United States," Krehbiel said. "We
 cannot afford to jeopardize our current market share. "
 The U.S. wheat industry is currently incapable of segregating GMO crops from
 other wheat. If even a few hundred acres are planted, the entire export supply
 can be contaminated, he said.
 "So we have to be real careful on how we handle our customers. That's a
 priority we have to keep in the forefront of what we do. "
 Daren Coppock, NAWG's chief executive, said, "Anecdotally, we're convinced the
 support is there. This petition will either confirm or confront that belief. By
 reading the petition and responding with their support, growers can help our
 industry show biotech companies that they are smart to make the commitment of
 time and resources and bring this tool to growers. "
 Krehbiel added that if farmers don't move on the issue now, biotech research
 money dedicated to wheat will continue to shrink.
 LOAD-DATE: January 10, 2009
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: General news
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2009 Dolan Media Newswires









Document Number: 446
 
                             January 02, 2009 Friday
 BYLINE: SABINE VOLLMER The (Raleigh, N.C.) News & Observer
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A6
 LENGTH: 493 words
 Corn and soybean plants are plentiful in the BASF greenhouses in Research
 Triangle Park near Durham, N.C., where scientists generate and test crops whose
 genes have been altered to adapt to difficult climates or to pack more
 nutrients.
 Among the pots are also a few sprouting rice and wheat plants.
 That's unusual. Genetically modified crops have been around for more than two
 decades. But companies that tinker with plant genes tend to focus on crops that
 have long been bred for desirable traits. Genetically modified corn, soybeans,
 canola and cotton seeds, including varieties that can tolerate herbicides or are
 resistant to pests, are widely used by U.S. farmers to produce more food, feed
 and fibers on the same-size fields.
 Rice and wheat are fairly new to gene modification because farmers and consumers
 have been less accepting of artificial changes to those food crops. But BASF, a
 German chemical giant that came late to agricultural biotechnology, has begun to
 branch out. Its executives think that those preferences are changing and that
 the demand will increase as populations grow and acreage stays the same or
 shrinks.
 Much of the work is done at its U.S. plant science research hub in RTP where its
 scientists have been working in food research longer.
 "With rice, we are to the point where we're very heavily investing in field
 trials," said Jonathan Bryant, managing director of BASF's plant science
 business in the U.S. "And we're seeing success."
 Research into genetically modified wheat is just beginning. BASF is considering
 plants such as switchgrass and trees for biofuel production, Bryant said.
 In the United States, Latin America and parts of Asia, farmers and consumers are
 becoming accustomed to genetically modified crops. And as farmers seek to
 increase their yield per acre with limited acreage for crops, sales of biotech
 seeds are expected to more than double to $15 billion in 2015.
 Competition for market share is fierce. Right now nobody sells more genetically
 modified seeds than St. Louis-based Monsanto, which has 95 percent of the
 market. But Syngenta, DuPont's Pioneer, Bayer CropScience and Dow Agrosciences
 all are trying to claim a bigger piece of the pie.
 In an effort to retain its dominance, Monsanto two years ago turned to BASF. The
 companies plan to invest $1.5 billion over the next two decades to bring new
 genetically modified crops to market. The collaboration is supported by the Bill
 & Melinda Gates Foundation.
 The fruits of that collaboration are ripening at the RTP facility that BASF
 opened in 1999. BASF and Monsanto are investigating hundreds of plant genes to
 come up with seeds that produce hardier, more productive corn, soybean, cotton
 and canola plants. The most advanced products are being tested in large field
 trials, said Stephen Evola, director of BASF's plant science research. By 2012,
 Monsanto hopes to sell the first genetically modified corn seeds generated by
 its collaboration with BASF.
 LOAD-DATE: January 5, 2009
 GRAPHIC: Color Photo, SHAWN ROCCO /THE (RALEIGH, N.C.) NEWS & OBSERVER: Corn and
 soybean plants are plentiful in BASF greenhouses.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2009 Seattle Post-Intelligencer









Document Number: 447
 
                        TELEGRAM & GAZETTE (Massachusetts)
                             January 1, 2009 Thursday
 Sweet owner takes shot at competition
 BYLINE: Barbara M. Houle, FOOD EDITOR
 SECTION: LIVING; Pg. D1
 LENGTH: 1136 words
 Don't miss the Food Network's new reality competition, "Chopped," hosted by Ted
 Allen, which premieres Jan. 13.
 Worcester's own Alina Eisenhauer, pastry chef/owner of Sweet, 305 Shrewsbury
 St., Worcester, will be among chefs to turn a selection of everyday ingredients
 into an extraordinary dish in 30 minutes. After each round, a contestant gets
 "chopped" until the last man or woman left standing claims victory, Eisenhauer
 said.
 Each week, a rotating panel of culinary judges decides whose dishes "shine the
 brightest." The judges include Alex Guarnaschelli, executive chef of the
 restaurant Butter in New York City, chef Aaron Sanchez, co-host of Food
 Network's "Melting Pot," and executive chef/restaurateur Geoffrey Zakarian of
 New York City (he grew up in Worcester). The winner gets $10,000.
 Ted Allen, by the way, was a judge for Bravo's "Top Chef" and Food Network's
 "Iron Chef America" and hosts the PBS series "Uncorked: Wine Made Simple" and
 the Food Network's "Food Detectives" series. He also was food and wine
 specialist on the Bravo series "Queer Eye."
 The episode of "Chopped" Eisenhauer appears in was taped in October. The chef
 took an oath not to tell the outcome, so tune in.
 Here's how the show works: Four chefs are given a mystery basket with three
 ingredients. "We had 5 minutes before opening the basket to tour the pantry,"
 Eisenhauer said. The pantry housed equipment and ingredients the chefs could
 incorporate with the mystery stuff. Eisenhauer got shrimp, Granny Smith apples
 and peanut butter in her basket.
 Eisenhauer's dish was an appetizer, sauteed Thai Shrimp served with an
 apple-cabbage slaw and peanut dressing. It's good to know that pastry chefs do
 cook!
 The TV shoot took about 18 hours, according to Eisenhauer, who spent two days in
 Manhattan. She described the competition as amazing and fun. "It was like
 cooking with friends," she said. Since the competition, the "friends" keep in
 touch online.
 Eisenhauer said she looks at food shows, such as "Iron Chef," in a new way. "I
 have a finer appreciation of what chefs go through," she said. "Chefs have only
 minutes to think about what they're going to make, and they have to adapt
 quickly. During competition, I wanted to use fresh ginger, but I ended up with
 dried because that's all there was."
 The Food Network sent a crew and producer to Worcester to tape Eisenhauer at
 work. Each competing chef is introduced to the TV viewers, she said. You may see
 Sweet's pink floor mixer in Eisenhauer's intro because the TV crew fell in love
 with it. Eisenhauer explained the previously white commercial mixer was painted
 pink because there are only women in Sweet's kitchen. "We like pink," she said.
 Sweet is one sweet place.
 The business got its liquor license last month when the dessert bar officially
 opened. The bar in the back of the bakery seats 40. Eisenhauer is right up front
 preparing individual desserts right before your eyes. She also has a chef's
 table, which accommodates eight to 10. She will take reservations for smaller
 parties upon request.
 The dessert bar menu features items not found in Sweet's bakery. Desserts
 include fresh pears poached in champagne, whipped creme fraiche, raspberries and
 champagne caramel, chocolate fondue with fresh fruit and assorted goodies to
 dip, bananas foster, cheesecake, berries and cream, cheese plate, caramel apple
 bread pudding and an assortment of mini desserts.
 The bar features some interesting dessert wines, specialty martinis and ice
 wines. One of the popular ice wines is a pinot gris from Oregon, according to
 Eisenhauer. It can be ordered by the glass.
 The bakery at Sweet is open 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. Tuesday through Saturday. Hours
 for the dessert bar are 7 p.m. to 1 a.m. Wednesday through Saturday. Telephone:
 Eisenhauer will team with Christine Zecker of The Educated Grape for wine and
 pastry classes next month. Dates to be announced.
 Don't start dieting just yet!
 Mohegan Sun updates:
 Celebrity chef and restaurateur Bobby Flay will open two restaurants in the
 summer.
 Bobby's Burger Palace in Casino of the Earth will offer burgers inspired by
 Flay's extensive U.S. travels. Other Bobby's Burger Palaces are in New York and
 New Jersey.
 Flay will open Bar Americain in Casino of the Sky, just outside of the hotel
 lobby. The restaurant reportedly blends the intimacy of a brasserie, injected
 with authentic American flavors and styles. Flay opened Bar Americain in New
 York in 2005.
 Cookbook author and TV personality, Flay has appeared on the Food Network since
 1994. He also is a correspondent for the CBS Early Show and CBS Sunday Morning.
 James Klewin has been named restaurant chef at Todd English's Tuscany at Mohegan
 Sun. Klewin will oversee a culinary staff of 28 and design seasonal menu
 selections. Klewin has worked at Mohegan Sun in the Sunburst Buffet, The
 Longhouse and the Sachem and Feather VIP lounges. He also was sous chef at the
 Uncas American Indian Grill (now known as Birches Bar & Grill) and sous chef of
 the Sunburst Buffet.
 The Food Channel (www.foodchannel.com) released its top 10 food trends for 2009.
 Get ready!
 Trends 2009:
 Home on the range: Downsized economy breeds new generation of home chefs, more
 food-savvy than their predecessors. (Oh, boy, we're in trouble now.)
 Foodie 2.0: Growth of virtual and non-virtual food communities. (Need more info
 on this.)
 Going, Going Green: Kitchens go eco-conscious. (No surprise here.)
 Living La Vida Locavore: Eating locally and seasonally, both at home and in
 restaurants. (Whoopie. We're all for that )
 TMI?: Is seeing the calorie count on the menu Too Much Information, or will it
 lead to healthier choices? (Keep tabs on this one.)
 FrankenFood: The rise of bioengineering and genetically modified food; the next
 evolution of last year's Functional Food Trend. (No comment.)
 Food Philanthropy: Individuals and companies address world hunger. (Include
 support for local food banks and hunger-relief organizations)
 Food Insecurity: The call for tighter food controls, after tomato and jalapeno
 scares of 2008. (There are more scares, but we don't want to scare you.)
 Where in the world is the next flavor coming from? It's all about globalization
 and variety. (Can't wait to taste)
 Dick's Last Resort will host its annual Elvis Birthday Bash from 6 p.m. `til the
 wee hours next Thursday (Jan. 8) in Quincy Market at Faneuil Hall Marketplace in
 Boston. Call (617) 267-8080 for reservations.
 The event is presented by Dick's in partnership with Miller Lite.
 Elvis will be in the building!
 A $300 grand prize goes to the winner in the Elvis Look-a-Like/Sound-a-Like
 Contest. Lots of "Hunka Hunka Burnin' Love" for the king's 74th birthday.
 Happy New Year!
 I look forward to what 2009 will bring to the table.
 If you have a tidbit for this column, call (508) 793-9145. Send e-mail to
 bhoule@telegram.com
 LOAD-DATE: January 2, 2009
 (1) Alina Eisenhauer, owner of Sweet, will compete on the Food Network's
 "Chopped," which premieres Jan. 13. (2) Ted Allen is the host of "Chopped," as
 well as several other shows.
 (1) T&G Staff/DAN GOULD
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                Copyright 2009 Worcester Telegram & Gazette, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 448
 
                            Christian Science Monitor
                            December 26, 2008, Friday
 A food agenda for Obama
 BYLINE: Christopher D. Cook
 SECTION: OPINION; Pg. 9
 LENGTH: 716 words
 DATELINE: San Francisco
 Within hours of former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack's nomination last week as
 Agriculture secretary, websites were humming with well-documented critiques of
 his affinity for genetically engineered crops, agribusiness giant Monsanto,
 heavily polluting factory farms, and other Big Farm interests.
 Some critics expressed outrage, others surprise, especially since they had
 mounted a vigorous, 55,000-plus strong online petition to persuade
 President-elect Barack Obama to nominate someone more progressive who would
 promote sustainable food and farming.
 The need for sweeping change could not be clearer when it comes to our food: At
 taxpayer expense, current policy subsidizes large corporate farms and
 destructive industrial agriculture, which rob the countryside of economic
 diversity and precious environmental resources, such as water and topsoil.
 These same subsidies, and anemic regulatory enforcement, encourage an
 increasingly monopolized food system, and a "cheap food" policy that lards us
 with fatty, processed foods - the cost of which is ultimately dear, more than
 $100 billion annually for obesity and diet-related diseases. Today's food system
 also generates a sizable portion of America's greenhouse gases, and rests on
 fast-dwindling and volatile oil supplies.
 Now is the time for something different - change we can eat.
 As Mr. Obama weighs a massive stimulus package, he should include new funding
 streams that promote sustainable food - to build up alternatives such as
 farmer's markets, local "foodshed" programs that promote consumption of local
 produce, and farm-to-institution projects that encourage schools, hospitals, and
 other large buyers to purchase local organic foods when possible.
 The change we need in food is as urgent as any we face - changes that affect
 national health, energy security, global warming, and more. Here, then, is a
 not-so-modest nine-point platform for food reform, some of which could be
 included in Obama's stimulus package. Other elements may require a lengthier
 policy push:
 1. New public investments targeting sustainable agriculture, defined as organic,
 small- to mid-sized, diversified farming.
 2. New investments in local/regional food networks and foodsheds - to help build
 up the connections between farmers and consumers, to open up and expand new
 markets for organic farmers and those considering the transition; for more
 farmer's markets and food stores that feature local produce.
 3. A moratorium on agribusiness mergers, and strenuous antitrust provisions and
 enforcement to protect what little is left of diversity in the food economy.
 4. A moratorium on all new genetically modified (GMO) products, and an expansion
 of existing ones, and appointment of a blue-ribbon panel/commission to assess
 the impact of GMO foods on our environment and our health.
 5. A moratorium on - and gradual phasing out of - concentrated animal feeding
 operations, aka factory farms, which are among the nation's top polluters of
 water and air, and breeders of widespread and virulent bacterial strains.
 6. Dramatically expanded regulatory enforcement and staffing in the US
 Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration to protect food
 safety and meat industry labor and environmental practices.
 7. Slowing the hazardously fast meatpacking (and poultry) assembly line, to
 protect workers and consumers.
 8. Incentives for small-scale urban, suburban, and rural farming ventures
 oriented toward diversified local food systems.
 9. Bold public investment in a raft of public awareness campaigns that build
 support, and expand markets and demand, for sustainable alternatives such as
 urban agriculture and gardening, and reducing fast-food consumption.
 10. Fill in the blank, and send me your thoughts at www.christopherdcook.com.
 Food is a vital cornerstone of both individual life and civil society, and our
 current system is making us fatter, churning out greenhouse gases, and abusing
 workers and animals.
 With a new administration elected on a "change" agenda, it's a timely moment to
 press for the most basic change of all: change in the food that ends up on our
 plates and in our bodies.
 * Christopher D. Cook is a journalist and the author of "Diet for a Dead Planet:
 Big Business and the Coming Food Crisis."
 (c) Copyright 2008. The Christian Science Monitor
 LOAD-DATE: December 24, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
             Copyright 2008 The Christian Science Publishing Society
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 449
 
                 Intelligencer Journal (Lancaster, Pennsylvania)
                           December 24, 2008 Wednesday
 Food Bits
 BYLINE: Food Bits
 SECTION: A; Pg. 8
 LENGTH: 229  words
 DATELINE: Lancaster, PA
  Find out how to make entrees with preserved lemons online at
 www.sunkist.com/recipes.
 The Food Channel (www.foodchannel.com) has released its Top 10 Food Trends for
 2009. Based on research conducted by The Food Channel in conjunction with the
 World Thought Bank (www.neemee.com) and the International Food Futurists, the
 list identifies the significant food movements consumers, foodservice
 professionals and manufacturers should watch for in the coming year.
 1. Home on the Range - Downsized economy breeds new generation of home chefs,
 more food-savvy than their predecessors
 2. Foodie 2.0 - Growth of virtual and non-virtual food communities
 3. Going, Going Green - Kitchens go eco-conscious
 4. Living La Vida Locavore - Eating locally and seasonally, both at home and in
 restaurants
 5. TMI? - Is seeing the calorie count on the menu Too Much Information (TMI), or
 will it lead to healthier choices?
 6. FrankenFood - The rise of bioengineering and genetically modified food
 7. Food Philanthropy - Individuals and companies address world hunger
 8. Food Insecurity - The call for tighter food controls, after the tomato and
 jalapeo scares of 2008
 9. Brewing Business - Striking a balance when cost is an issue; the divide
 widens between the exotic and day-to-day food needs
 10. Where in the World... - is the next flavor trend coming from? It's all about
 globalization and variety.
 LOAD-DATE: December 24, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2008 Lancaster Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 450
 
                        San Jose Mercury News (California)
                            December 20, 2008 Saturday
 Readers' letters
 BYLINE: From Daily News Group readers
 SECTION: COMMUNITIES; Peninsula; News; Local
 LENGTH: 731 words
 Supes gave democracy a pass
 Dear Editor: I am disappointed in the decision of the San Mateo County Board of
 Supervisors to appoint a replacement to fill state Assemblyman Jerry Hill's
 seat. Many excellent and qualified candidates submitted applications to the
 board to be considered for the position. Each applicant was given 30 minutes to
 present his or her qualifications. Then the board made its choice and the winner
 was San Mateo City Council Member Carole Groom. The loser was representative
 democracy.
 Three board members decided they would usurp the rights of the 700,000 residents
 of San Mateo County to select one of the five people who govern the county on
 our behalf.
 A basic tenet of our representative democracy is that the power of our
 representatives to govern is derived from the fact that we elect them. I am a
 school board trustee who was elected to that position twice by my school
 district voters. The elections created a solemn duty for me to represent the
 voters' interests to the best of my abilities in every action I take on the
 school board.
 Additionally, I feel empowered by the voters to utilize my judgments on what is
 best for the district. Whose interests will the new supervisor represent, the
 residents of San Mateo County or the three supervisors who selected her. By all
 accounts Carole Groom is a highly qualified and dedicated public servant. It is
 a shame that she will have to serve on the board without having been empowered
 by the voters of the county to act on their behalf.
 Marc Friedman,
 Burlingame
 Irked by shoe-throwing incident
 Dear Editor: The recent press conference in Baghdad involving President Bush was
 an example of despicable behavior on the part of the Iraqi journalist who threw
 shoes at him. President Bush is not the issue. I am not one of his admirers,
 nevertheless, he is our president and in that capacity alone he deserves to be
 treated in a manner commensurate with his position as the elected leader of the
 United States.
 To deride him in a manner reserved for the least respected in Iraq is
 unacceptable and we should respond accordingly. A sincere apology is in order.
 David Negrin,
 Menlo Park
 Wary of Bush's pardons
 Dear Editor: As the clock runs out on the Bush presidency, it is important not
 to underestimate the damage that the lame-duck president can still inflict on
 our nation's human rights record. In a recent interview with ABC's Jonathan
 Karl, Vice President Dick Cheney proudly admitted that he and members of the
 Bush administration were the architects of the torture policy, including
 waterboarding. This dispels earlier claims that "a few low-level bad apples"
 were responsible for the grotesque torture practices.
 Tragically, Bush retains the power to pardon those responsible for these
 egregious acts of terror. This includes all those who might have engaged in
 torture, indefinite detention, kidnapping and the CIA's extraordinary rendition
 activities outsourcing torture. With a stroke of his lame-duck pen, the agents
 of terror would go unpunished. If these people are not held accountable for
 their actions we can no longer claim to be a nation of laws bound by the
 Constitution. The American people have a right and duty to know what abusive,
 unjust actions were taken in our name. An independent commission of inquiry must
 be established to expose the full details of this sad chapter of U.S. history.
 President Bush still has a chance to do the right thing. Nine human rights
 groups, including Amnesty International, have called on the president to reject
 impunity for these crimes.
 Tejinder Uberoi,
 Los Altos
 Vilsack is wrong choice
 Dear Editor: I vehemently oppose President-elect Barack Obama's appointment of
 Tom Vilsack to Secretary of Agriculture. Vilsack's ties to agribusiness and big
 bio-tech companies such as Monsanto is at best a conflict-of-interest. Not only
 is he unfit to represent small farmers, but also the public's desire for safe
 foods will be jeopardized.
 With no safety record for genetically modified foods, his appointment will
 further the proliferation of these untested foods with little or no oversight.
 Labeling of these GMO foods will most likely never take place and consumers will
 still be left in the dark. I urge Barack Obama to reconsider his choice for this
 very important position, since all American citizens have the right to safe and
 unaltered foods.
 Younga Shin-Chang,
 Antioch
 LOAD-DATE: December 20, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2008 San Jose Mercury News
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 451
 
                                Chicago Sun Times
                            December 18, 2008 Thursday
                                  Final Edition
 Vilsack will be big agriculture's man in the White House; Obama's Ag chief known
 as a big ethanol supporter.
 BYLINE: Andrew Leonard, Salon
 SECTION: EDITORIALS; How the World Works; Pg. 27
 LENGTH: 521  words
 Barack Obama's nomination of former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack for secretary of
 agriculture poses an interesting challenge to food policy progressives and
 environmentalists.
 It's likely that some of the same people who applauded the nomination of
 Nobel-winning prize physicist Steven Chu as secretary of energy because it
 signaled a return of respect for science in the White House, will be
 disappointed with Vilsack because of his own fondness for science --
 biotechnology.
 Make no mistake, the biotechnology industry and big agribusiness corporations
 are mighty pleased with the prospect of Vilsack as ag secretary. Tom Philpott of
 Grist, an environmental news Web site, notes that "in 2001, the Biotechnology
 Industry Organization named him 'governor of the year' for his 'support of the
 industry's economic growth and agricultural biotechnology research' " and that
 Vilsack has supported several measures reducing the power of local governments
 to regulate agribusiness operations.
 As the former governor of one of the nation's greatest corn-growing states, Tom
 Vilsack is well-known as a big supporter of ethanol as an answer to the United
 States' energy needs. So if you're a critic of biofuels -- for whatever reason
 -- you are not going to be happy with the Vilsack nomination. But that's only
 the most obvious point where environmentalists and Vilsack will part ways.
 There's also bound to be a major flare-up of disappointment from hard-core
 anti-biotech activists -- especially those who are opposed to genetic
 modification of natural organisms. And that's where it gets interesting. While
 progressives are very quick to lean on scientific consensus on such issues as
 global warming, there is also distrust of scientific assertions that biotech
 advances offer hope for greater agricultural productivity and increased
 renewable energy output.
 My column, "How the World Works," falls somewhere in the middle: I am always
 skeptical of assertions from profit-seeking corporations about the safety or
 sustainability of their products. But I also believe there is tremendous upside
 potential in agricultural biotechnology -- I don't think genetically modified
 crops are by definition unsafe or a crime against nature. "How the World Works"
 embraces the contradictions -- I like my organic vegetables from the farmer's
 market and have no problem potentially driving a car fueled by ethanol made from
 the latest triple-stack-hybrid GM corn designed for maximum energy crop
 potential.
 But the appointment of Vilsack doesn't offer much of an olive branch to my
 organic side. Vilsack's no Michael Pollan -- he's Big Ag's man, all the way.
 Biofuels and biotech are clearly going to be part of the Obama's
 administration's path forward, and we can expect to hear plenty of
 teeth-gnashing from green-thinking food activists. As Tom Philpott -- one of the
 best writers on these issues -- concluded Wednesday morning:
 "The decision comes after a wave of hope that Obama might choose a less
 agribusiness-oriented candidate."
 Consider that wave dashed.
 Andrew Leonard writes the "How the World Works" column for Salon, where this
 essay was posted.
 LOAD-DATE: March 19, 2009
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Column
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2008 Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 452
 
                               American Health Line
                           December 17, 2008 Wednesday
 Interest Groups Request Action on Health Care Reform
 LENGTH: 1591 words
 Most new presidential administrations "face a cacophony of competing demands"
 from interest groups, but "few presidents have been confronted with the sort of
 urgent and varied pleas" received by President-elect Barack Obama, USA Today
 reports.  For example, Divided We Fail -- a coalition led by AARP that includes
 the Business Roundtable, the National Federation of Independent Businesses and
 the Service Employees International Union -- has asked members to sign a
 petition that asks Obama "to follow through on your campaign promise and commit
 to making health care and financial security reform a priority in the first 100
 days of your administration."  In addition, the American Lung Association has
 asked Obama to ban smoking at all federal worksites, and the Sierra Club and the
 AFL-CIO have asked Obama to address health care reform as part of economic
 recovery efforts. Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager for Health Care for
 America Now, said that the Obama administration and Congress have the ability to
 address a number of large issues, such as health care reform, at the same time.
 He said, "There's no reason that Congress can only do health care, only do
 climate change."  Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, said the
 Obama administration will "do the political heavy lifting between February and
 August" to address health care reform and other large issues. According to USA
 Today, although "Obama has not discussed the timing of his agenda," he likely
 will first seek to enact a $600 billion economic stimulus package that includes
 additional federal Medicaid funds for states and funds for electronic health
 records, among other provisions (Dilanian, USA Today, 12/16).
 Many Departures Expected at Public Health Agencies
 FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach, who on Tuesday announced plans to resign
 on Jan. 20, 2009, is "part of a parade of expected departures at the nation's
 crucial public health agencies," the New York Times reports.  In addition to von
 Eschenbach, NIH Director Elias Zerhouni resigned at the end of October, and CDC
 Director Julie Gerberding in an internal e-mail sent in November wrote that she
 expects to leave "after the administration changes."  National Cancer Institute
 Director John Niederhuber also likely will resign from the position, although he
 might remain at NCI. In the past, the leaders of public agencies in some cases
 have continued their roles in new administrations, but the Obama administration
 "is expected to make a clean sweep in part because of repeated assertions that
 the Bush administration allowed politics to play an unusually forceful role in
 science policy, and because each of the current leaders has fierce critics on
 Capitol Hill and in the public health community," according to the Times.  The
 "Obama administration's choice for each slot will signal how it plans to deal
 with issues like stem cell policy and the safety of imported drugs and foods;
 how it might take advantage of advances in genomic research; its approach to
 pandemic flu planning; and whether huge investments in bioterrorism prevention
 will continue," the Times reports. Many observers consider Baltimore Health
 Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein the leading candidate for FDA commissioner.
 Other possible candidates for FDA commissioner include Cleveland Clinic
 cardiologist Steven Nissen, Robert Califf of Duke University, and Alan Garber,
 director of the Center for Health Policy at Stanford University.   According to
 the Times, several individuals familiar with the situation said that the leading
 candidates for NIH director include Francis Collins, former director of the
 National Human Genome Research Institute; Elizabeth Nabel of the National Heart,
 Lung and Blood Institute; Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and
 Infectious Diseases; and Griffin Rogers of the National Institute of Diabetes
 and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (Harris, New York Times, 12/17).
 Obama Likely To Nominate Vilsack as USDA Secretary
 Obama on Wednesday likely will announce the nomination of former Iowa Gov. Tom
 Vilsack (D) as the next USDA secretary, according to a senior Democratic
 official, the Washington Post reports (Rucker/Morgan, Washington Post, 12/17).
 Vilsack served as governor of Iowa from 1999 to 2007 (Goldman/Chipman,
 Bloomberg, 12/17).  Vilsack, an attorney in Des Moines, is a political fellow at
 the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University (Zeleny, "The Caucus,"
 New York Times, 12/16).  His nomination would require Senate confirmation
 (Bloomberg, 12/17).  According to the Post, both "environmentalists and food
 industry leaders reacted positively to the choice of Vilsack, a political
 centrist" (Washington Post, 12/17).  However, some "advocates of organic food
 ... have criticized Vilsack as being too supportive of biotechnology company
 efforts to market genetically modified foods," according to the Los Angeles
 Times (McCormick/Dorning, Los Angeles Times, 12/17).  CNN's "The Situation Room"
 on Tuesday reported on the likely Vilsack nomination (Yeller, "The Situation
 Room," CNN, 12/16).
 Editorial
 "Three factors argue against" early action by Obama on health care reform, a
 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial states.  "The first is that the field is a
 rat's nest of entrenched interests"; the second is the "disastrous experience"
 of the Clinton administration on health care reform in the 1990s; and the third
 is that Obama faces other "pressing priorities," such as the economy and the
 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the editorial.  "To take on health
 care reform in that context will require courage and confidence," but "Obama
 nonetheless has signaled his intention to tackle it," the editorial states.  The
 editorial concludes, "There is no question but that American health care needs
 work -- to increase access, to improve quality and to make it affordable.  Hats
 off to Mr. Obama for his willingness to pick up that bristling porcupine"
 (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 12/17).
 Opinion Piece
 Obama and the new Congress should "embrace both trade and the domestic policy
 reforms that are needed to make openness acceptable to the American public," and
 one "reform stands out above all others:  universal access to health care," Fred
 Bergsten, director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and
 Raymond Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America, write in a Miami Herald opinion
 piece.  According to the authors, the U.S. has a "system where health insurance
 is primarily employer-based, meaning that workers can lose their health care
 when they lose their jobs," and because the "fear of losing health insurance is
 terrifying," many "Americans have made it clear they will no longer support
 trade expansion even if they believe it may on balance be for the greater good
 of the economy."  The authors add, "Other countries have long realized that
 their citizens need assurance that they won't lose everything as a result of the
 adjustments required by trade agreements" and have implemented national health
 care systems.  The authors write that Obama should link the issues of health
 care and trade to "shore up support for universal health care and make trade
 more attractive" (Bergsten/Offenheiser, Miami Herald, 12/16).
 Letters to the Editor
          Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Des Moines Register:  The claim in a
           Dec. 6 Register letter to the editor that Grassley, ranking member of
           the Senate Finance Committee, has not sought to address problems with
           the U.S. health care system is unfounded, Grassley writes in a
           Register letter to the editor.  Grassley writes that he has worked
           "with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to develop reform
           initiatives for 2009."  In addition, he writes, "Congress and the new
           president need to work together to make sure the maximum value is
           provided for every health care dollar spent in order to drive down the
           cost of insurance and make coverage affordable and accessible for
           every American," adding, "These changes and others are needed to
           strengthen and sustain the health care system for people in Iowa and
           across the country" (Grassley, Des Moines Register, 12/16).
          Michael Ferguson, Wall Street Journal:  Ezekiel Emanuel and Sen. Ron
           Wyden (D-Ore.) in a recent Journal opinion piece "mislead readers
           about the modern business reasons that employer-sponsored health
           insurance makes sense today," as "employer-led practices have provided
           improved employee wellness (disease prevention), better management of
           chronic diseases, and tangible incentives for high performing health
           care providers" -- innovations that "would be lost to people were the
           employer-sponsored health system to be dismantled," Ferguson, chief
           operating officer of the Self-Insurance Institute of America, writes
           in a Journal letter to the editor.  He adds, "If the millions of
           people now covered by employer plans were dumped on the open market,
           they would also find that their benefits decline, costs escalate and
           their choices of coverage narrow," and "traditional commercial health
           insurance companies would be free of restraint on costs and coverage
           practices."  In addition, he writes, "Reform of the U.S. health care
           system should focus on ways to control the costs of medical care and
           drugs, extend health coverage to the uninsured and install a health
           care information technology system to improve service and efficiency,"
           adding, "All of that can be done while preserving employer-sponsored
           health care, which is the part of the system that really works"
           (Ferguson, Wall Street Journal, 12/16).
 LOAD-DATE: December 17, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Online Publication
                    Copyright 2008 The Advisory Board Company
                               All Rights Reserved.









Document Number: 453
 
                              The Houston Chronicle
                           December 17, 2008 Wednesday
 Seeds of doubt;
 Rules for bioengineered crops need close monitoring.
 SECTION: B; Pg. 8
 LENGTH: 506 words
 AS the Bush administration nears its final weeks, officials are hastily
 loosening key rules in workplace safety, environmental protection - and soon,
 perhaps, on American farmlands. This month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
 began finalizing its oversight rules for genetically modified crops: artificial
 plant strains with the potential for doing humans great good - and serious
 long-term harm.
 The USDA needs to resist any industry pressure to rush these new rules into
 effect.
 To create genetically modified crops, scientists swap the genes from one
 microorganism or plant to another plant, in combinations that could never occur
 naturally. The result might be corn immune to weedkillers; cotton that
 automatically fends off pests; even "pharma-plants" that are tiny, green
 laboratories for cultivating powerful medicines.
 It's easy to see how genetically modified crops might solve a range of ancient
 problems.
 Already, in limited situations, these engineered plants have been a boon for
 farmers and the environment. The right genetically modified plant could help
 impoverished farmers avoid costly pesticides, or spare delicate ecosystems from
 chemical runoffs.
 The problem is not that genetically modified crops are in some way "unnatural" -
 few plants are as unnatural as domesticated corn or wheat, which require
 intensive human effort to grow at all.
 But as crop engineering advances, the possible side effects from these new
 products become less and less clear.
 Genetically engineered corn, cotton and soy in the United States seem quite
 safe, according to Greg Jaffee, biotechnology director for The Center for
 Science in the Public Interest.
 But the next generation of genetically modified plants will focus on nutritional
 enhancements. What happens if a new variety is healthy for humans - but its
 genetic material, blown by the wind, creates plants fatal for birds or other
 animals?
 A newly created species might also inadvertently contain dangerous allergens, or
 cross-pollinate with wild plants into a super-invasive hybrid.
 The reasonable solution is not banning this promising technology, but applying
 thoughtful and ongoing oversight. Unfortunately, the USDA's new rules proposal
 falls short in several ways.
 The agency still lacks a regulation to extend its oversight on genetically
 modified crops after they've gone commercial. This is key: A licensing system
 for the new plant varieties would keep them under federal jurisdiction in case
 unforeseen side effects arise much later.
 The USDA's proposed rules are also dangerously vague about the so-called
 pharma-plants. These tiny drug factories ought to be singled out as high-risk
 organisms requiring the USDA's highest level of scrutiny to keep them out of our
 food supply.
 If the goal of industry is to create appealing consumer products, it's the
 government's job to ensure this innovation does no harm. Before they are
 implemented, the USDA's new rules for genetically engineered crops need careful
 review to keep this fast-growing technology as safe as it is desirable.
 PRODUCTS (65%); ANIMALS (77%) editorial
 LOAD-DATE: December 17, 2008
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Editorial Opinion
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
             Copyright 2008 The Houston Chronicle Publishing Company
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 454
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                             December 15, 2008 Monday
 Consumers may find new rules a sticky issue Food labeling
 BYLINE: By Georgina Gustin St. Louis Post-Dispatch
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A1
 LENGTH: 1396 words
 The chicken at the grocery store might be labeled "naturally raised." The
 crackers might say "no GMOs" were used. The tomato could have a little
 green-and-white sticker that says "USDA Organic." The salmon might say "Wild
 Caught. Product of China."
 The shelves and bins of our grocery stores are stocked with products labeled
 with such claims.
 And this year, labels got even more complicated. Or not - depending on how you
 look at it.
 The last 12 months have seen major changes in the way Americans will get
 information about their food. From the decision in January to allow meat and
 milk from cloned animals onto American tables to the more recent conversation
 about what constitutes an "organic" fish, it has been an active stretch.
 "There have been a lot of big decisions this year," said Chris Waldrop, director
 of the Food Policy Institute at the Consumer Federation of America. "But," he
 stressed, "not all of them resulted in actual labeling."
 The food and biotechnology industries have claimed labeling victories this year.
 Advocacy groups arguing for greater transparency and more information have, too.
 But as these parties hash out the issues at public hearings and in the media,
 the consumer is left holding the grocery bag, asking: What does it all mean?
 After years of debate, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in January
 announced that meat and milk from cloned cattle, swine and goats are as safe as
 products from conventional animals.
 At the time, regulators also said they would not require clones or their
 offspring to be labeled as such. The agency had determined there was no
 difference between cloned and non-cloned meat or dairy products, and cited a law
 that requires labeling only if food is significantly changed from conventional
 food.
 Consumer groups have argued that the long-term effects in humans haven't been
 studied, and point to surveys showing that consumers don't want food from
 clones. Several major food companies, wary of these concerns, have said they
 will not use cloned meat or milk.
 Without a label, consumers won't be able to know which products are cloned and
 which are not, the consumer federation's Waldrop said. "That's not open,
 acceptable or transparent," he added.
 There currently are only about 600 cloned animals in the country, and those
 animals are used for breeding, the industry says. Regulators have asked the
 cloning companies to refrain from selling the clones until a moratorium is
 lifted. And because the technology is so expensive, it's unlikely that the
 clones will end up on dinner plates anytime soon. But their offspring will.
 Some in the industry have said it's likely that the progeny - which are bred
 just as "regular" animals are - are already in the food system. Others claim it
 will be several years before that happens.
 Regardless, consumer groups are calling for mandatory labels, saying it would be
 possible to track the clones and their offspring through the food system.
 The cloning industry wants a voluntary program that would require retailers who
 want the labels to buy from producers who track animals with radio-frequency
 tags. "The bottom line is, we can provide consumers a choice," said Barb Glenn,
 of the Biotechnology Industry Organization.
 A big chunk of the food Americans eat comes from overseas - more than 70 percent
 of seafood, 90 percent of lamb and mutton, nearly 30 percent of fresh fruit
 overall and nearly all bananas.
 But until recently there was no law requiring labels to tell consumers where the
 food was grown or raised.
 In 2005, new rules kicked in requiring grocery stores to post signs or labels
 saying where seafood comes from. And on Sept. 30 of this year, similar rules
 took effect for meat, produce and nuts.
 Much of the produce we see in the market has long had stickers that say where
 it's from, but those were voluntary and for marketing purposes. The new rules,
 which apply to stores that sell more than $230,000 in food a year, require
 labels, placards or stickers.
 Although consumer groups say the new requirements are a good step, they point
 out several loopholes. Anything processed - such as roasted nuts, bacon and
 combined vegetables, such as peas and carrots - will not require a label. And
 fish processed with other ingredients, such as breaded shrimp or fish sticks, is
 exempt.
 Some say the labels also can be misleading.
 Although a "wild caught" fish probably was caught in the wild and a farmed fish
 probably was farmed, if the label says "Product of China," the fish could have
 been caught or farmed anywhere and simply processed in China.
 By some estimates, as much as 70 percent of what Americans buy in the grocery
 store contains genetically modified plant-based ingredients, but those don't
 require a label saying so. And this year, regulators said they would not require
 labels for genetically engineered meat or seafood, though none has yet been
 approved for the market.
 As with cloning, regulators said they would not require labels for genetically
 modified foods because the food was not "materially different" from its
 conventional counterpart.
 But, again, food safety groups say consumers should have the right to know what
 they're buying, regardless of whether regulators have deemed it safe. Regulators
 will require a safety review process for modified meat or seafood - something
 not required for plant-based genetically modified ingredients.
 Consumers eventually could see labels on fish or meat that say something like
 "Not Genetically Modified," but that would be a voluntary claim. When, however,
 an animal is genetically engineered to produce a certain characteristic - for
 example, milk that's high in vitamin C - the label would have to reflect that it
 has higher levels of vitamin C, though not that it was genetically engineered.
 Labels already can be found on some plant-based products in stores, but they are
 voluntary and not necessarily pre-reviewed by regulators.
 In 2002, the Department of Agriculture launched the National Organic Program,
 establishing strict standards for anything labeled "USDA Organic." Although it
 was conceived as a marketing program, some consumers view it as the gold
 standard for food purity and safety.
 But last month, an advisory group suggested that fish fed non-organic food could
 earn the organic label - a direct violation of the standards.
 In the interest of retaining the integrity of the label, some consumer advocates
 say the best solution may be for fish not to get the organic label at all.
 In an interview this week, a Department of Agriculture official could not say
 when a final rule would be issued.
 As consumer demand for organic products has shot up in recent years, some
 manufacturers have tried to cash in by using other terms that suggest organic
 methods, such as "free range," "pasture raised" and "cage free."
 Any meat label that makes such a "production" claim has to be approved if it's
 sold beyond the state where it was produced, according to the Department of
 Agriculture. But there are no regulatory definitions for these claims. The
 department requires documentation to support a production claim but doesn't do
 any on-site inspections.
 A company that wants to use the term "grass fed" for beef can use the
 department's imprimatur if it sticks to written standards, which were finalized
 in late 2007. But companies that made the claim "grass fed" before that point,
 according to consumer advocates, don't have to adhere to the standards because
 they're grandfathered in. The term "natural" currently is defined by the
 department for meats, but not by the Food and Drug Administration, which
 declined earlier this year to weigh in on what "natural" means.
 The Agriculture Department is finalizing standards for "naturally raised," too,
 though food safety experts say the drafts that have been made public so far are
 not stringent enough.
 A decision is expected on the "naturally raised" standards soon.
 With a new administration, 2009 could be another busy year for labeling.
 President-elect Barack Obama has said he would back labeling of genetically
 modified foods.
 "We're really planning to pressure him on this," said Ronnie Cummins, director
 of the Organic Consumers Association. "The important thing is that consumers are
 now emboldened by the changes in Washington and encouraged by the fact that
 they're having an impact."
 LOAD-DATE: December 15, 2008
 NOTES:  food labeling
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2008 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 455
 
                     Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock)
                           December 10, 2008 Wednesday
 State adds 3rd year of testing rice seed for genetic redesign
 LENGTH: 537 words
 The state Plant Board voted unanimously Tuesday to extend for a third year the
 requirement that all rice seed planted in Arkansas be tested for traces of
 genetically engineered varieties.
 The board also re-established a $14-per-acre boll-weevil-eradication fee in 2009
 for the Northeast Delta Zone and added the snakehead fish family and quagga
 mussel to the aquatic nuisance-species list of Arkansas' bait and ornamental
 fish certification program.
 Arkansas first mandated rice-seed testing in 2006 after an unapproved transgenic
 long-grain rice was discovered in U.S. rice supplies.
 The discovery disrupted about half of all U.S. rice exports, as many countries
 banned the product and others established testing programs.
 The regulation approved Tuesday requires that any rice seed used for planting in
 2009 be tested before April 1 for the presence of Bayer CropScience's
 LibertyLink traits. References to Cheniere and Clearfield 131 rice were removed
 from the regulation, along with a requirement for documented field histories of
 farmer-saved seeds.
 Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation submitted a written comment supporting the new
 rice-seed testing regulation as part of a broader effort to reestablish the
 marketability of U.S. rice.
 "The quick action by the rice industry and by the Arkansas State Plant Board
 showed our customers worldwide a goodfaith effort to rid the U.S. rice supply of
 the unapproved LibertyLink traits and were necessary to bring U.S. rice back
 into the global marketplace," the federation wrote.
 This year's U.S. rice crop tested "99.9 percent negative" for the presence of
 transgenic traits, said Brian King, a Marked Tree rice merchant and chairman of
 the USA Rice Merchants' Association.
 Stuttgart rice farmer Ray Vester said the state's rice-seed testing program was
 largely responsible for the success to date in eliminating transgenic traits
 from U.S. rice supplies.
 Arkansas produces about half the nation's rice crop.
 "When this began, the people who were dealing with StarLink, a genetically
 modified corn [that contaminated U.S. corn supplies in 2000], told us, `Don't
 worry. You can't solve the problem,'" Vester said.
 Nonetheless, the rice industry backed efforts to eliminate LibertyLink traits
 from U.S. rice supplies, he said.
 Testing protocols required by the European Union still are being addressed,
 Vester said.
 "We are approaching once again acceptance of U.S. rice back into Europe," he
 said.
 In other business, the board adopted a resolution calling for an increase in the
 current $50,000 bond required of termite-control companies and the establishment
 of a new requirement that all companies providing termite protection services in
 the state be covered by a damage-repair insurance policy. Legislation along
 these lines is expected to be introduced during the coming state legislative
 session.
 The board also approved the assessment of a $1,000 civil penalty on Benton
 Flying Service Inc. of Dyess in Mississippi County. During a formal hearing in
 October, the aerial applicator was found guilty of violating state law regarding
 a glyphosate application near Lepanto, which drifted off target to a nearby
 grain sorghum field and caused crop damage.
 This article was published 12/10/2008
 LOAD-DATE: December 10, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2008 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 456
 
                Agriculture Department Documents and Publications
                                 December 8, 2008
 Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.; Availability of Petition and Environmental
 Assessment for Determination of Nonregulated Status for Corn Genetically
 Engineered for Tolerance to Glyphosate and Acetolactate Synthase-Inhibiting
 Herbicides;
 Federal Register Extracts
 LENGTH: 1751  words
 SUMMARY: We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
 Service has received a petition from Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.,
 seeking a determination of nonregulated status for corn designated as
 transformation event 98140, which has been genetically engineered for tolerance
 to glyphosate and acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides. The petition has
 been submitted in accordance with our regulations concerning the introduction of
 certain genetically engineered organisms and products. In accordance with those
 regulations, we are soliciting comments on whether this genetically engineered
 corn is likely to pose a plant pest risk. We are also making available for
 public comment an environmental assessment for the proposed determination of
 nonregulated status.
 DATES: We will consider all comments we receive on or before February 6, 2009.
 ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
 * Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
 http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetailandd=APHIS
 -2008-0094 to submit or view comments and to view supporting and related
 materials available electronically.
 * Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send two copies of your comment to
 Docket No. APHIS-2008-0094, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,
 Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please
 state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2008-0094.
 Reading Room: You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our
 reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South
 Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal
 reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
 holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817
 before coming.
 Other Information: Additional information about APHIS and its programs is
 available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Natalia Weinsetel, Biotechnology Regulatory
 Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301)
 734-0809, e-mail: natalia.a.weinsetel@aphis.usda.gov To obtain copies of the
 petition or the draft environmental assessment, contact Ms. Cindy Eck at (301)
 734-0667, e-mail: cynthia.a.eck@aphis.usda.gov The petition and the draft
 environmental assessment are also available on the Internet at
 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/07_15201p.pdf and
 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/07_15201p_ea.pdf.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, "Introduction of
 Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are
 Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests," regulate,
 among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or
 release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced
 through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to
 believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are
 considered "regulated articles."
 The regulations in SEC 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to
 the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination
 that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and
 (c) of SEC 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of
 nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the
 petition.
 On June 1, 2007, APHIS received a petition seeking a determination of
 nonregulated status (APHIS Petition Number 07-152-01p) from Pioneer Hi-Bred
 International, Inc., of Johnston, IA (Pioneer), for corn (Zea mays L.)
 designated as transformation event 98140, which has been genetically engineered
 for tolerance to glyphosate and acetolactate synthase (ALS)-inhibiting
 herbicides, stating that corn line 98140 is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk
 and, therefore, should not be a regulated article under APHIS' regulations in 7
 CFR part 340.
 As described in the petition, the 98140 corn line has been genetically
 engineered to express modified glyphosate acetyltransferase (GAT4621) and
 modified maize acetolactate synthase (ZM-HRA) proteins. The GAT4621 protein,
 encoded by the gat4621 gene, confers tolerance to glyphosate-containing
 herbicides by acetylating glyphosate and thus rendering it non-phytotoxic. The
 ZM-HRA protein, encoded by the zm-hra gene, confers tolerance to the
 ALS-inhibiting class of herbicides (e.g., sulfonylureas and imidazolinones).
 Expression of the zm-hra gene is controlled by the maize ALS (acetolactate
 synthase) promoter. ALS is the enzyme required for the production of essential
 branched-chain amino acids such as valine, leucine, and isoleucine. The gat4621
 gene is based on the sequences of three gat genes from Bacillus licheniformis, a
 common soil bacterium. Expression of the gat4621 gene is driven by the corn
 ubiquitin promoter (ubi ZM1). The zm-hra gene was made by isolating the
 herbicide sensitive maize ALS gene and introducing two specific changes known to
 confer herbicide tolerance to tobacco ALS.
 The genetic insert also contains the terminator sequence from Solanum tuberosum
 (potato) and two sequences from two prevalent plant pests, cauliflower mosaic
 virus (enhancer) and Agrobacterium tumefaciens (border region). All of these
 sequences are well-characterized and are non-coding regulatory regions only.
 Therefore, these sequences will not cause the 98140 corn line to promote plant
 disease.
 A single copy of these genes and other DNA regulatory sequences were introduced
 into the corn genome with the transformation vector PHP24279 using disarmed
 (non-plant pest causing) A. tumefaciens transformation of immature embryos.
 Plant cells containing the introduced DNA were selected by culturing in the
 presence of glyphosate. After the initial transformation, the antibiotic
 carbenicillin was included in the culture medium to kill any remaining
 Agrobacterium. Therefore, no part of the plant pest A. tumefaciens remained in
 Pioneer HT corn due to the transformation method.
 Pioneer's 98140 corn line has been considered a regulated article under the
 regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because it contains gene sequences from plant
 pathogens. The 98140 corn line has been field tested in the United States since
 2005 as authorized by APHIS notifications and permits. In the process of
 reviewing the permits for field trials of the subject corn, APHIS determined
 that the vectors and other elements used to introduce the new genes were
 disarmed and that the trials, which were conducted under conditions of
 reproductive and physical confinement or isolation, would not present a risk of
 plant pest introduction or dissemination. Field tests conducted under APHIS
 regulatory oversight allowed for evaluation in a natural agricultural setting
 while imposing measures to minimize the risk of persistence in the environment
 after completion of the test. Data are gathered on multiple parameters and used
 by the applicant to evaluate agronomic characteristics and product performance.
 These field test data, in turn, are used by APHIS to determine if the regulated
 corn event poses a plant pest risk. Pioneer has petitioned APHIS to make a
 determination that the 98140 corn line and the progeny derived from its crosses
 with other nonregulated corn will no longer be considered regulated articles
 under 7 CFR part 340.
 APHIS has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) in which it presents two
 alternatives for the determination of nonregulated status based on its analyses
 of data submitted by Pioneer, a review of other scientific data, and field tests
 conducted under APHIS oversight. APHIS is considering the following
 alternatives: (1) Take no action, i.e., APHIS would not change the regulatory
 status of the 98140 corn line and it would continue to be a regulated article,
 or (2) grant nonregulated status to corn line 98140 in whole.
 In section 403 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), "plant pest"
 is defined as any living stage of any of the following that can directly or
 indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plant or plant
 product: A protozoan, a nonhuman animal, a parasitic plant, a bacterium, a
 fungus, a virus or viroid, an infectious agent or other pathogen, or any article
 similar to or allied with any of the foregoing. APHIS views this PPA definition
 to cover direct or indirect injury, disease, or damage not just to agricultural
 crops, but also to other plants, for example, native species, as well as to
 plant parts and plant products whether natural, manufactured, or processed.
 The 98140 corn line and any pesticides contained in or added to it are also
 subject to regulation by other Federal agencies. The U.S. Environmental
 Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for the regulation of pesticides under
 the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended (7
 U.S.C. 136 et seq.). FIFRA requires that all pesticides, including herbicides,
 be registered prior to distribution or sale, unless exempt from EPA regulation.
 In order to be registered as a pesticide under FIFRA, it must be demonstrated
 that when used with common practices, a pesticide will not cause unreasonable
 adverse effects in the environment. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
 Act (FFDCA), as amended (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), pesticides added to (or
 contained in) raw agricultural commodities generally are considered to be unsafe
 unless a tolerance or exemption from tolerance has been established. Residue
 tolerances for pesticides are established by EPA under the FFDCA, and the U.S.
 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enforces the tolerances set by EPA. Pioneer
 submitted the appropriate regulatory package to EPA in 2007 to amend the corn
 tolerance for glyphosate to include the degradation by-product of glyphosate,
 N-acetylglyphosate; the assessment is currently under review. Conditions for the
 safe use of glyphosate (EPA, 1993) and a number of ALS-inhibiting herbicides
 (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm) have been established
 by the EPA through their registration of those pesticides for use on corn and
 the setting of tolerances.
 --This is a summary of a Federal Register article originally published on the
 page number listed below--
 Notice.
 Citation: "73 FR 74453"
 Federal Register Page Number: "74453"
 "Notices"
 LOAD-DATE: December 8, 2008
            Copyright 2008 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 457
 
                  The News & Observer (Raleigh, North Carolina)
                            December 6, 2008 Saturday
                                  Final Edition
 More corn, rice per acre;
 RTP science lab searches for stronger, more efficient gene-altered food crops
 BYLINE: Sabine Vollmer, Staff Writer
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. B5
 LENGTH: 760 words
 RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK -- Corn and soybean plants are plentiful in the BASF
 greenhouses in Research Triangle Park, where scientists generate and test crops
 whose genes have been altered to adapt to difficult climates or to pack more
 nutrients.
 Among the pots are also a few sprouting rice and wheat plants.
 That's unusual. Genetically modified crops have been around for more than two
 decades. But companies that tinker with plant genes tend to focus on crops that
 have long been bred for desirable traits. Genetically modified corn, soybeans,
 canola and cotton seeds, including varieties that can tolerate herbicides or are
 resistant to pests, are widely used by U.S. farmers to produce more food, feed
 and fibers on the same-size fields.
 Rice and wheat are fairly new to gene modification because farmers and consumers
 have been less accepting of artificial changes to those food crops. But BASF, a
 German chemical giant that came late to agricultural biotechnology, has begun to
 branch out. Its executives think that those preferences are changing and that
 the demand will increase as populations grow and acreage stays the same or
 shrinks.
 Much of the work is done at its U.S. plant science research hub in RTP where its
 scientists have been working in food research longer.
 "With rice we are to the point where we're very heavily investing in field
 trials," said Jonathan Bryant, managing director of BASF's plant science
 business in the U.S. "And we're seeing success."
 Research into genetically modified wheat is just beginning. BASF is considering
 plants such as switchgrass and trees for biofuel production, Bryant said.
 In the United States, Latin America and parts of Asia, farmers and consumers are
 becoming accustomed to genetically modified crops. And as farmers seek to
 increase their yield per acre with limited acreage for crops, sales of biotech
 seeds are expected to more than double to $15 billion in 2015.
 Competition for market share is fierce. Right now nobody sells more genetically
 modified seeds than St. Louis-based Monsanto, which has 95 percent of the
 market. But Syngenta, DuPont's Pioneer, Bayer CropScience and Dow Agrosciences
 all are trying to claim a bigger piece of the pie.
 In an effort to retain its dominance, Monsanto two years ago turned to BASF. The
 companies plan to invest $1.5 billion over the next two decades to bring new
 genetically modified crops to market. The collaboration is supported by the Bill
 and Melinda Gates Foundation.
 The fruits of that collaboration are ripening at the RTP facility that BASF
 opened in 1999. For its 10th anniversary, the company provided a facility tour
 this week and a progress report on its research activities.
 - BASF and Monsanto are investigating hundreds of plant genes to come up with
 seeds that produce hardier, more productive corn, soybean, cotton and canola
 plants. The most advanced products are being tested in large field trials, said
 Stephen Evola, director of BASF's plant science research. By 2012, Monsanto
 hopes to sell the first genetically modified corn seeds generated by its
 collaboration with BASF.
 - BASF added rice to its research activities two years ago, when it bought Crop
 Design, a Belgian biotech company that used rice to discover yield-boosting
 plant genes. Last year, BASF started work on genetically modified rice as a
 commercial crop, Evola said. Farmers in the United States and Asia are
 increasingly buying hybrid rice seeds. Worldwide, rice is one of the top three
 crops planted by acreage. BASF is still looking for a partner to bring its
 modified rice to market.
 - BASF's work with canola plants isn't limited to higher yield. Outside of the
 company's collaboration with Monsanto, BASF researchers are also trying to
 engineer canola plants that produce oil rich in omega-3 fatty acids, an
 important health supplement found naturally in fish oil. As with research on
 genetically modified wheat, BASF has yet to start work on canola plants outside
 Europe.
 WHAT: BASF is one of three large European agricultural biotech companies with
 operations in Research Triangle Park. Syngenta and Bayer CropScience are the
 others.
 HISTORY: Opened in 1999, BASF's facility is home to the German company's U.S.
 agricultural chemicals and crop protection business and its U.S. plant sciences
 research.
 EMPLOYEES: About 700, including about 200 working in plant science.
 BUSINESS: Discover genetically modified crops that allow farmers to produce more
 food, animal feed and fibers on the same acreage.
 TOP EXECUTIVE: Jonathan Bryant, managing director of BASF Plant Science.
 LOAD-DATE: December 6, 2008
 GRAPHIC: Genetically altered corn plants, like these in BASF's RTP campus, are
 tested to see if they pack more nutrients. Staff Photos by Shawn Rocco
 Jonathan Bryant, director of BASF plant science
 Corn plants, on this conveyor belt in a BASF research greenhouse at RTP, are
 tested for resistance to difficult climates.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2008 The News and Observer









Document Number: 458
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                             December 5, 2008 Friday
 European Union OKs Monsanto soybeans
 BYLINE: By Jeffrey Tomich Bloomberg News contributed to this story. ST. LOUIS
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. B1
 LENGTH: 374 words
 Timing crucial o Farmers are picking seeds to buy for next year.
 Monsanto Co. cleared another regulatory hurdle Thursday as the European Union
 approved imports of the company's second-generation biotech soybeans.
 The decision means Monsanto Roundup Ready 2 Yield Soybeans can be made available
 across 27 EU countries for the next decade.
 Approval by the EU regulator wasn't unexpected. In September, the group approved
 imports of a genetically modified soybean from Monsanto rival Bayer CropScience
 Nonetheless, the EU's stamp of approval is an important milestone for Monsanto
 as it prepares to roll out its first new herbicide-resistant soybean variety
 since 1996, said Ben Kampelman, a company spokesman.
 For farmers, the timing of Thursday's decision was also key because they "are
 making their seed-buying decisions for next year," said Jim Callanan, a
 spokesman for the Creve Coeur-based American Soybean Association.
 Monsanto, also based in Creve Coeur, says its next-generation soybeans will
 boost yield 7 to 11 percent over existing Roundup Ready soybeans. And the new
 variety is genetically modified to withstand applications of glyphosate
 herbicide, making it easier for farmers to kill weeds.
 The new soybeans will be introduced on 1 million to 2 million acres for the
 spring planting season as part of a limited release. A larger-scale launch of 5
 million to 6 million acres is scheduled for 2010, the company said.
 While genetically modified food and crops are controversial across Europe, the
 EU is an important customer for U.S. soybean farmers. Member nations bought $1.8
 billion of soybeans and soybean meal during the past year, making it the
 second-largest buyer after China, according to the ASA.
 Kevin McCarthy, a Bank of America analyst in New York, said Thursday in a
 research note that the EU decision represents "an important milestone for
 Monsanto's biotech soybean platform."
 The European Commission, the Brussels-based EU regulator, said the approval
 followed "a favorable scientific assessment from the European Food Safety
 Authority," which decided there is no risk to human or animal health or to the
 environment.
 The decision follows similar decisions in recent months in China and other major
 U.S. soybeans importers.
 LOAD-DATE: December 5, 2008
 NOTES:  Biotech decision
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2008 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 459
 
                                 University Wire
                            December 3, 2008 Wednesday
 Committee, Iowa State professor to research genetically engineered crops
 BYLINE: By Whitney Sager, Iowa State Daily; SOURCE: Iowa State U.
 LENGTH: 545 words
 DATELINE: AMES, Iowa
 The National Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops and Sustainability will
 convene in Irvine, Calif., later this month. Several professors from around the
 country have been chosen to serve on this committee, including Iowa State
 University's Micheal Owen, professor of agronomy.
 The committee, which formed in September, will focus its studies on the impacts
 of biotechnology at the farm level, said Kara Laney, associate program officer
 for the Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources.
 The goal of the committee is to research and analyze the impacts of genetically
 engineered crops.
 Laney said the committee will work on answering questions regarding the effects
 of genetically engineered crops on farm management, soil and water management
 practices, the kinds of crops that are grown in the U.S., and the effects of
 pesticide use.
 "It is hoped that by analyzing these issues, the committee's report will inform
 stakeholders - government agencies, life sciences industry, farmers - as well as
 the public of the farm-level impacts of GE crop technology now that these
 products have been cultivated for more than 10 years," Laney said.
 All of the committee members have different areas they will specialize in. Their
 responsibilities will be based on what their area of study is.
 "My role will be to address topics about the herbicide resistance traits in the
 genetically engineered crops and the ecological and, to some degree, the
 economic implications of the grower adoption of the crops," Owen said.
 Another member of the committee, William Cox, professor of crop science at
 Cornell University, said he will bring "farmer perspectives to the committee."
 "My responsibility will be to provide the agronomic perspective - yield,
 lodging, grain moisture, etcetera," Cox said.
 When the committee has completed all of its research, members will write a
 report to be completed by the end of their time of service in summer 2009.
 "It will produce a consensus report, which will present the findings of its
 study and identify future applications of plant and animal biotechnology that
 are likely to affect agricultural producers' decision making in the future,"
 Laney said.
 The committee's Web site, Current Projects System, outlines the tasks the
 committee will have:
 -- Review and analyze the published literature on the impact of genetically
 engineered crops on the productivity and economics of farms in the United States
 -- Examine evidence for changes in agronomic practices and inputs, such as
 pesticide and herbicide use and soil and water management regimes
 -- Evaluate producer decision-making with regard to the adoption of genetically
 engineered crops
 - Information compiled from www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/default.aspx
 Why you care:
 Genetically engineered foods can be harmful to humans, wildlife and the
 environment, according to the Center for Food Safety.
 The human risks listed on the Web site include "higher risks of toxicity,
 allergenicity, antibiotic resistance, immune-suppression and cancer."
 Right now, nearly 40 percent of all corn and 80 percent of all soybeans produced
 in the United States are genetically engineered.
 Estimates show that 60 percent of supermarket foods contain some amounts of
 genetically engineered foods.
 (C) 2008 Iowa State Daily via UWIRE
 LOAD-DATE: December 5, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2008 Iowa State Daily via U-Wire









Document Number: 460
 
                  The News & Observer (Raleigh, North Carolina)
                             November 30, 2008 Sunday
                                  Final Edition
 Compromise needed to end world hunger
 SECTION: CHNEWS; Pg. A8
 LENGTH: 251 words
 In this age, new and amazing technologies have come into being. Change
 accompanies the invention of these technologies. In many cases, debate about
 whether the change is good or bad surrounds such change. One such technology
 with accompanying debate is the newly created science of biotechnology and its
 implications in the food market.
 Many people think that genetically modified foods are dangerous to our health
 and environment and should not be grown, marketed or consumed. Other people feel
 that there are no complications associated with genetically modified foods. I
 take both stances in that I believe that damage to human health and the
 environment have occurred, but not yet at an immense scale and that if
 precautions are taken and each new genetically modified food is thoroughly
 researched and tested then genetic modification is a safe alternative to
 pesticides (whether it replaces or reduces pesticide use to safe levels).
 The fact is, today's global population is far too immense to feed through
 organic farming alone. Man's ingenuity is needed if we want to have even a hope
 of feeding the world. I feel, however, that organic farming is an important
 staple in the economy and should never be abolished. If farmers could find a
 compromise between organic and non-organic farming, thereby limiting
 environmental damage while maximizing crop output, then we could save the people
 of Earth and save the Earth itself. We could "have our cake and eat it too."
 Kegan Tawney
 Chapel Hill High School
 LOAD-DATE: November 30, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2008 The News and Observer









Document Number: 461
 
                            Huntsville Times (Alabama)
                             November 21, 2008 Friday
 BYLINE: KAY CAMPBELL, Times Faith & Values Editor
 SECTION: RELIGION; Pg. 1C
 LENGTH: 1897 words
 Farmer links seed patents to the Antichrist
 Michael White says genetic manipulation eradicating God's gift
 DUTTON - Michael White, who farms near Scottsboro, keeps a Mason jar full of
 wheat grains next to his well-worn Bible.
 Capped with an antique zinc lid, the jar was filled by his grandfather decades
 before anyone dreamed of genetically altering plants or animals. The jar reminds
 him of what he considers God's first earthly gift to humanity: seeds.
 It's a gift that is in danger of being eradicated, White says, through increased
 genetic manipulation of plant genes, hybridization and the patenting of living
 genes by large corporations. God's gift of seeds, given the day after he
 separated dry land from water and the day before he hung the sun, moon and
 stars, according to Genesis, is not something that should be taken away from a
 farmer. To forbid a farmer or gardener from gathering his own seed to replant
 the next year is something White sees as one of the signs of the end of time.
 "The Antichrist will use seed to control nations and people," White writes in
 the book he published in May, "The 666's Are in the Seed," a title that refers
 to the traditional number of the Antichrist of Revelation. "He will also use
 seed to create food shortages. Patented seed will become the most prized
 possession of the Antichrist."
 Seedtime and harvest
 White, like many Christians, believes the years before Jesus returns to Earth
 will be a "time of trouble," filled with the chaos predicted in Matthew and
 Revelation: war, famine, pestilence, plagues and a world-wide totalitarian
 government. Many Christians believe a globally idolized figure, the Antichrist,
 will rule the world.
 White has been through his own "time of trouble" over seeds. A few years ago he
 and his father were sued by Monsanto for patent violation - it is illegal to
 save seed from patented plants for re-planting. White denies he ever saved the
 altered seed, or that he cleaned such seed for other farmers in his
 seed-cleaning business. At the time of the lawsuit, he said, his retired father
 hadn't farmed in years.
 The lawsuit against his 85-year-old father was dropped in the spring of 2006,
 shortly before White agreed to settle out of court with Monsanto. White cannot
 comment on the details of that settlement.
 But who won or lost in the legal tussles he had, White says, is immaterial. What
 matters is that people understand that seed patents, non-reproducing hybrids and
 plants engineered to produce seeds that terminate a germinating seedling are
 part of what he considers an immoral corporate and legal control of one of God's
 first gifts to humankind.
 Most seed scientists claim that genetically modified plants are the key to
 future bounty. Monsanto and other agri-corporations argue that protecting their
 patents through their Seed Stewardship programs enables their scientists to make
 more discoveries and ultimately to benefit all.
 In fact, patents "facilitate technology innovation which benefits all farmers,
 including the most resource-poor," says John Combest, an issues manager for
 Monsanto, who commented about criticism of seed patents and genetic engineering
 by e-mail Wednesday. Monsanto, he said, is helping to develop seeds to produce
 plants that tolerate drought and increase yields. Those seeds will be licensed
 to the African Agriculture Technology Foundation for distribution without
 royalties to farmers, Combest wrote.
 Hunger abroad
 Marie Hollinsworth of Madison says from what she has seen in Africa, poor
 farmers desperately need an affordable or free source of reproducible seeds.
 Hollinsworth, who returned to the U.S. last week, has worked alongside her
 husband, Winston, for 10 years in a rural part of Kenya near Lake Victoria.
 Winston, 71, has worked at a school in the area since 1985.
 There at present, Hollinsworth said, government representatives tell farmers
 that their own seed is no good, and that they must use modified seed - which is
 available for a price. The hybridized seed produces sterile plants that don't
 make usable seed and also require more water than indigenous plants,
 Hollinsworth said.
 Combine government control of seed with escalating international fights over the
 use of the polluted water of Lake Victoria for irrigation, factor in the AIDS
 epidemic's decimation of healthy workers, and what you get is a perfect storm of
 hunger, Hollinsworth said.
 "We know in the end times there will be famine," Hollinsworth said. "Whether
 this is the end-time harvest, I don't know, but this world is shaping up for the
 last end time."
 Hollinsworth and her husband have read White's book and agree with his basic
 theology.
 "Michael is writing out of a lot of hurt from what happened to him,"
 Hollinsworth said. "But deep down, it has to do with all the government
 takeovers."
 Useful 'weeds'
 Part of the problem may stem from the ill-conceived transfer of agricultural
 assumptions from one culture to another. In India, for instance, the "weeds"
 that grow between rows are hand-pulled by people who then use those for greens
 to feed their families or livestock. American-style cultivation, in which
 herbicide-resistant crops are sprayed with weed-killers, increases farmers'
 costs and decreases food supplies for impoverished field hands.
 Many farmers worry that plants engineered to produce their own pesticides could
 also be contributing to the worldwide decline in insect pollinators like
 honeybees.
 Many religious thinkers have warned against the practical and long-term effects
 of tinkering with a system God put into place at creation. Statements of concern
 over genetic engineering and patenting of seeds have been issued by Methodists,
 Presbyterians, Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, the National Council of Churches
 and others.
 One of the most recent was circulated by the International Catholic Rural
 Association, signed by some 250 religious leaders and faith groups, and
 presented to a United Nations' meeting on food security in June. The goal of
 these groups, says Jaydee Hanson, who worked on bioethics issues for the United
 Methodist Church and now works at the Center for Food Safety, is to make sure
 farmers are not restricted from saving or exchanging seeds. That saving or
 exchanging is currently prohibited by Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
 Property Rights.
 "TRIPS ... hinder farmers' innovations," Hanson wrote in a recent e-mail.
 "Plants, seeds and genes (should be) part of creation which cannot be claimed by
 intellectual property rights."
 Navdanya is one organization that uses a religious philosophy, in this case
 Hinduism, to resist the imposition of altered seed. Most altered seed is geared
 toward export business, not the diverse, organic, sustainable, self-sufficient
 farming of small landowners in India, says Dr. Vandana Shiva, a physicist and
 ecologist who helped found Navdanya.
 According to Navdanya and to a report in the German newspaper Deutsche Welle,
 the shifting control of seeds and resulting increase in poverty has contributed
 to the suicides of some 140,000 small farmers in India over the last 10 years.
 'Altar call' in the garden
 Michael White sees a blessing in his own troubles, although, he says, the
 three-year legal fight over seed patents cost him his business, his first
 marriage, his health and nearly killed his father. The shed at White's
 seed-cleaning business, was shuttered for four years when his customers quit
 coming after they received query letters from Monsanto's lawyers, he said. The
 shed is now stacked with bags of the foundation seed he bought from Auburn
 University.
 These seeds, he says, are like his grandfather's wheat. They will germinate
 plants that produce seeds that anyone can save and replant for the next year's
 harvest. His own yields this summer were 35 to 45 bushels an acre, a yield that
 surpassed that of several nearby farmers who were using genetically modified
 seed, he said.
 White is now getting orders for the heritage seed from farmers who haven't
 planted conventional seeds in eight or nine years.
 "I hope there's some good news in this picture," White said this week. "It's a
 monster, but people are waking up. The trend is finally turning around and going
 back to conventional. I hope I can wake some people up and get back to growing
 their own food."
 Even more important, White says, he hopes his book points out one of the ways
 people can see that the end of earthly time is at hand.
 "Unsaved reader, it's altar call again," White writes in his book's conclusion.
 "Give your life to Christ before you die or the rapture takes place ... The food
 shortages have begun. The honey bees are almost gone. The Terminator Gene with
 its altered fertility is being approved and planted ... In the fall of 2007,
 many farmers could not find wheat seed to plant. It is now spring of 2008 and
 farmers are begging for soybean seed and having little or no success in finding
 them ... The 666's are in the seed."
 Sowing seeds
 Michael White is available to speak to groups. Contact him at
 whitehorsellc@centurytel.net, 256-218-3013.
 White's book, "The 666s Are in the Seed," is available at The Mustard Seed, 208
 Eustis Ave., and at http://whitehorsellc.com
 Since the mid-1990s, several faith groups have called for an end to the
 patenting of genes, whether in seeds or other living organisms. Among those
 encouraging the cultivation of traditional crops rather than genetically
 modified are Presbyterians (U.S.A.), United Methodists, American Baptists,
 Buddhists, The Ecumenical Consultative Working Group on Genetic Engineering in
 Agriculture, National Catholic Rural Life Conference and the National Council of
 Churches. Several also call for caution in assessing long-term environmental and
 healthy effects of genetically modified foods, which remain mostly banned in
 Europe.
 Another View: Representatives of Monsanto, one of the world's agribusiness
 giants and holder of seed patents, say genetically modified foods offer a safe
 way to build food supplies. Information at www.monsanto.com.
 David and Goliath
 Seeing the patenting of seed as a sign of the apocalypse may not be much of a
 stretch, says Jaydee Hanson, who has worked on bioethics issues for the United
 Methodist Church, the Center for Food Safety and the International Center for
 Technology Assessment. "Apocalypse," she says, can also mean a time of judging
 things from the perspective of God's justice.
 In a recent e-mail, Hanson summarized recent statements from religious groups
 issued from everyone, she says, from "American Baptists to Zen Buddhists,"
 urging that genes and genetically modified organisms, whether human, plant or
 animal, be held as resources for all.
 "(These statements) call for an end to patents on living organisms and their
 genes. I don't think it would be fair to characterize any of these statements in
 apocalyptic terms, but it is clear that these statements involve a perspective
 on justice/judgment. Jewish and Christian participants would all view the 'end
 times' as a time of judgments.
 "I would liken the control of genetic resources by a few companies to the
 ancient control of blacksmithing by the Philistines. It was not a fluke that
 David used a slingshot to slay the Philistine Goliath. The Philistines, who
 controlled the land that David lived in, forbade anyone but Philistines to
 operate a blacksmith shop.
 "This is really the essence of the Apocalypse - judgment and the ushering in of
 God's time."
 LOAD-DATE: December 16, 2008
 GRAPHIC: COLOR PHOTO: Jackson County farmer Michael White examines the grain
 seeds saved by his grandfather from more than a half century ago. Saving seed to
 plant for future crop is, White thinks, one of the foundational tasks God gave
 to human beings. He claims that increasing genetic modification and patenting of
 seeds is limiting that. Kay Campbell/Huntsville Times COLOR PHOTO: White stands
 by bags of the foundation stock of soybeans he will plant this year. "It's a
 monster, but people are waking up. The trend is finally turning around and going
 back to conventional. I hope I can wake some people up and get back to growing
 their own food." Kay Campbell/Huntsville Times COLOR PHOTO: Michael White
 writes: "The food shortages have begun. The honey bees are almost gone. The
 Terminator Gene with its altered fertility is being approved and planted." Kay
 Campbell/Huntsville Times
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: hut
                  Copyright 2008 The Huntsville Times Co., Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 462
 
                              Voice of America News
                                November 21, 2008
 Our World ' 22 November 2008
 LENGTH: 3462  words
 MUSIC: "Our World" theme
 This week on "Our World"... Regulating genetically engineered animals in the
 food supply... A study finds no proof that a popular herbal supplement helps
 prevent memory loss... and Oliver Sacks and the healing power of music...
 SACKS: "And these seemingly motionless people could dance and sing and function
 while there was music. This was very, very astounding."
 Those stories and more... and be sure to stay awake for our segment on sleep.
 I'm Art Chimes. Welcome to VOA's science and technology magazine, "Our World."
 Brain scientists cite increasing evidence of sleep's value
 Thousands of brain researchers and other neuroscientists got together in
 Washington this week to share their latest discoveries.
 The topics included the link between sex and smell; how songbirds learn to sing
 and what that can teach us about human learning; and the biological basis of
 addiction.
 But let's focus on something we all do every day: sleep.
 The more scientists study sleep, the more it shows up as a factor in a wide
 range of human conditions.
 Robert Stickgold of Harvard Medical School spoke about the link between sleep
 and some mental illnesses.
 STICKGOLD "All of the major psychiatric disorders have sleep disturbance as one
 of their characteristics. And I think there's more and more data coming out
 suggesting that rather than, well, he's depressed, so he doesn't sleep as much;
 she has ADHD so she doesn't sleep as much, and in fact the causal relationship
 might be in the opposite direction."
 In other words, a lack of sleep may cause depression or attention-deficit
 hyperactivity disorder, not the other way around.
 Stickgold also says there are studies linking a fully-functioning immune system
 with getting enough sleep. Glucose regulation, too, suggesting that obesity
 might be linked to bad sleeping habits.
 Sleep is also now seen as a key element in remembering, how short-term memory
 becomes long-term.
 The process by which memories get saved for long-term storage is not completely
 understood, but Prof. William Fishbein of the City College of New York says
 sleep appears to play an important role.
 FISHBEIN: "I'm a college teacher. And I teach students. And I sometimes wonder
 about what they do when they take an exam. They cram for an exam all night long
 to perform as well as they can, so that the information is stored in their
 short-term memory, but they don't get any sleep, and the information doesn't
 transfer to the long-term memory. They do well on the test, but a week later
 (pfft!) it's all gone."
 Getting a good night's sleep is a function of both quantity and quality. But as
 Gina Poe of the University of Michigan points out, sleep researchers have been
 discovering that not everyone needs the same amount of sleep.
 POE: "Sleep is very different sleep. In recent years, [researchers have been]
 finding the sleep fingerprint is as individual as a fingerprint. Each person
 sleeps differently, characteristically quite differently, and it might be that
 what we can find is that people who have this kind of sleep only need six hours,
 and people with this [other] type of sleep need more like eight or ten hours.
 And so it depends on your own sleep fingerprint."
 A few of the many findings from this week's meeting of the Society for
 Neuroscience here in Washington.
 Ginko Biloba does not prevent memory loss
 New research on a popular herbal supplement that's been touted as a memory
 enhancer and maybe protection against Alzheimer's Disease has failed to show any
 benefit in a large-scale study of older Americans. VOA's Jessica Berman reports.
 BERMAN: It's been widely touted as a natural treatment for enhancing memory. But
 in the largest study ever to look at Ginkgo Biloba in people with Alzheimer's
 disease, researchers found the herbal supplement did nothing to prevent memory
 loss, a hallmark of the disease.
 To see whether Ginkgo Biloba might stop or slow that descent, researchers at the
 University of Pittsburgh conducted a study involving 3,000 seniors over the age
 of 75, the people who most often get Alzheimer's disease.
 DEKOSKY: "Delaying onset of the disease by ten years would effectively eliminate
 it from the population."
 BERMAN: Steven DeKosky is the study's lead author.
 Half of the participants recruited by DeKosky and his colleagues took 240
 milligrams of the herbal tablets daily. The other half took a placebo or sugar
 pill. Investigators then followed the volunteers for six years, comparing the
 two groups.
 DeKosky, who is now a professor of medicine at the University of Virginia, says
 246 people in the placebo group and 277 people in the Ginko group were
 eventually diagnosed with dementia.
 DEKOSKY: "The test results showed us that under these circumstances, Ginkgo
 doesn't appear to have any effect of slowing down thinking changes in late
 life."
 BERMAN: An editorial accompanying the study results in this week's JAMA notes
 that there's been a lot of excitement about Ginkgo Biloba as a treatment for
 Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia but little actual scientific
 data on its effectiveness. The author says DeKosky's findings add to the growing
 body of evidence that the herb has little impact. I'm Jessica Berman.
 US considers regulation of genetically engineered farm animals
 The U.S. Food and Drug administration, which oversees food safety in this
 country, is considering how to regulate food from genetically modified farm
 animals.
 Genetic engineering involves modifying the DNA of a plant or animal to change
 some particular characteristic.
 Former science journalist Rick Weiss says the technique spans a broad range of
 possible modifications.
 WEISS: "Traits that would benefit the animal itself, such as cows resistant to
 mastitis, which is a pretty serious ailment in cows; traits that could benefit
 industry - goats, for example, that produce spider silk in their milk, from
 which bullet-proof vests, for example, can be woven; and traits that make for
 tastier or healthier food."
 Weiss is now a fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.
 At a symposium here in Washington he said genetic changes could help animals
 produce organs for human transplant, or could benefit the environment, by making
 animal waste less harmful.
 This is where the Enviropig comes in.
 Pig manure is loaded with phosphorus, because pigs can't digest it, and
 phosphorus is in the feed they eat.
 John Phillips of the University of Guelph in Canada says the problem is that the
 phosphorus-rich manure is used as fertilizer
 PHILLIPS: "That fertilizer is used to grow crops. Those crops will absorb much
 of the nutrient that's applied as fertilizer, but the phosphorus level is so
 high, the crops can not usually use it all. Year after year, the applications of
 pig manure to these fields will build up phosphorus residues in the soil, which
 will run off and pollute, and you'll be into a cycle of water pollution."
 The Enviropig, which Dr. Phillips developed, is genetically modified to digest
 the phosphorous, making its manure less harmful to the environment.
 Scientists involved in food production look at how genetic changes can improve
 crops or livestock, but many consumers aren't so sure. This is different from
 conventional breeding. As Rick Weiss mentioned with goats producing spider silk,
 there is seemingly no limit to how different species' genes can be combined with
 each other.
 The critics decry what they call "Frankenfood" and say the risks of possibly
 catastrophic harm outweigh the potential benefits.
 When given the choice, most shoppers say they prefer unmodified milk or fruit or
 chicken. But Scott Eiler, a corporate vice president at food processing giant
 Cargill, suggested that some day, genetically modified foods might actually be
 more desirable than un-modified products.
 He draws an analogy to the improvement that genetic engineering has brought to
 the insulin that his diabetic daughter uses, compared with the inconsistent
 insulin previously derived from cows and pigs.
 EILER: "And that gives me a sense of assurance. I know that every batch of
 insulin is going to be consistent, time-after-time. And so, as I see it, that's
 a use of recombinant technology that gives me great assurance. It's not crazy to
 think that at some point we could think the same way about the food that we
 consume. Hard for me to imagine today, but many things are possible."
 In the meantime, Greg Jaffe of consumer advocacy group, the Center for Science
 in the Public Interest, says this new way of changing the food we eat requires a
 showing of some benefit for consumers, plus trustworthy government oversight.
 JAFFE: "That regulatory system needs to, first and foremost, address whether the
 food from genetically-engineered animals is safe to eat. But it also needs to
 look at what is the environmental impact from any of those animals as well as
 ensuring that those animals are healthy and that they don't have any major
 animal welfare concerns."
 The Food and Drug Administration proposal for new rules governing genetically
 engineered animals prompted almost 17,000 public-comment submissions to the
 agency. You can read many of them online at regulations.gov. Many of the
 comments contend that because genetically modified animals are different, they
 should be regulated more strictly. In particular, the commenters want food from
 genetically engineered animals to be labeled as such... which the proposed
 government rules would not require.
 International trade in farm products on our Website of the Week
 Time again for our Website of the Week, when we showcase interesting and
 innovative online destinations.
 The United States grows and exports vast amounts of wheat, soybeans, corn, and
 other agricultural products each year. We also import a staggering array of food
 products from virtually every country on earth.
 For a wide range of information about American agricultural imports and exports,
 head on over to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Foreign Agricultural
 Service at fas.usda.gov.
 Spokesman Harold Kanarek says the website's information is collected from
 throughout the United States and directly from agents around the world, in what
 they call attache reports.
 KANAREK: "We have 102 offices around the world in 82 countries, so we have
 market information about markets in India, China, Japan - every country you can
 think of. This is an incredibly valuable resource. It's one of our most popular
 accessed pages."
 The main job of the Foreign Agricultural Service is to promote U.S. exports, but
 in the process they collect tons of data that will be of interest to farmers,
 processors, economists, students, and anyone interested in food.
 KANAREK: "We have a lot of searchable databases that give statistics about
 agricultural trade and production. Not only U.S. statistics, but also we have a
 production supply and distribution database, which gives estimates about
 agricultural production in countries all around the world."
 As we gear up for a change in presidential administration here in Washington,
 policy change is in the air, and the Food and Agricultural Service website keeps
 track of U.S. trade policy for you.
 KANAREK: "So this is where somebody would go to find out information about what
 our trading policy is, what our free trade status is with a particular country,
 and also find out the status of world trade negotiations and trade
 liberalization efforts."
 The U.S. Foreign Agricultural Service is online at fas.usda.gov, or get the link
 to this and more than 200 other Websites of the Week including several other
 recent political selections, from our site, voanews.com/ourworld.
 MUSIC: Matt Glaser Quintet - "Turkey In The Straw"
 You're tuned to VOA's science and technology magazine, Our World. I'm Art Chimes
 in Washington.
 Book probes links between music and the human brain
 Physician and author Oliver Sacks has won international renown for his
 bestselling accounts of his work at the frontiers of clinical neurology.
 In his latest book, Musicophilia, Sacks explores the many subtle and mysterious
 connections between music and the human brain, and how musical perception offers
 a window into the workings of our most complex organ. VOA's Adam Phillips
 reports.
 PHILLIPS: Dr. Oliver Sacks has been a music lover ever since his boyhood in
 London back in the 1940s, and the upright piano in his Greenwich Village home
 office today is very well-used. But Dr. Sacks first became interested in music's
 clinical potential at the Beth Abraham Hospital in the Bronx during the 1960s.
 He had just started to work on a ward for people suffering from the debilitating
 effects of encephalitis, a viral brain infection. Many patients had languished
 for decades in a deep physical lethargy. Many were unable to move at all -
 except, Sacks found, when they heard music.
 SACKS: "Music could get them going and these seemingly motionless people could
 dance and sing and function while there was music. And this was very, very
 astounding. It astounded me. It astounded everyone I knew. At that time I knew
 [the poet] W.H. Auden in his later years, and I once took him along there. And
 he was very fascinated. And being a poet, he quoted a poetic aphorism, an
 aphorism of [the German Romantic poet] Novalis who said every disease is a
 musical problem, every cure is a musical solution."
 PHILLIPS: Dr. Sacks has treated many other musical problems in his career as a
 neurologist. They include musical hallucinations, music-induced epileptic
 seizures, and a strange condition which Dr. Sacks himself once suffered while
 driving in his car enjoying Chopin's "Ballade Number 4."
 SACKS: "But then something started to happen to the music. It started to sound
 unpleasant and to reverberate, and then it seemed to lose its tonality. So that
 all these notes had the same pitch, and finally it just sounded like banging on
 a steel plate. So I had a brief experience of 'amusia,' of a complete amusia in
 which one loses the perception of pitch. You can't say that one note is higher
 than another. Everything becomes flat. If such a thing were to happen when I was
 in an MRI, having functional brain imaging, you would see that the parts of the
 brain concerned in perceiving and processing pitch were out of action, whereas
 other parts of the brain concerned with perceiving rhythm were intact."
 PHILLIPS: In Musicophilia, Dr. Sacks delves into other unusual neuro-musical
 phenomena, some with arguably positive effects, such as synesthesia, in which a
 person actually sees or even tastes music, as well as hears it. This condition
 suggests the diverse areas of the human brain that are involved in perceiving
 and imagining music.
 SACKS: "There is no single music center for the brain. There are auditory areas
 involved, but there are also visual areas. There are also motor areas, because
 whenever music is thought of, one tends to keep time with it automatically. And
 even if you don't do so visibly, the brain is keeping time. And there's always
 an emotional aspect to music and there's nearly always an evocative aspect to
 music. So the many, many parts of the brain to do with sensation, with movement,
 with intellectual judgment, with emotion, with memory, all tend to be involved."
 PHILLIPS: Dr. Oliver Sacks believes that continued research into the ways music
 interacts with the brain will lead to new treatments for patients suffering from
 a range of brain dysfunctions. And as Sacks' latest book, Musicophilia suggests,
 that research may also shed new light on the mysterious power music holds over
 the human mind. I'm Adam Phillips reporting from New York.
 Internet advocates see U.S. lagging in broadband use
 And finally today...
 Some 55 percent of Americans have high-speed, or broadband Internet service at
 home, according to a Pew study conducted earlier this year. There's been a
 steady increase in home broadband for several years, as prices have dropped and
 the amount of online video has increased.
 But the United States is not keeping up with some other industrialized
 countries, where broadband service is often faster and cheaper.
 Internet-related companies and organizations representing users are hoping the
 incoming Obama administration will develop a strategy for better Internet
 service here.
 Many of those groups are members of the Internet Innovation Alliance.
 Co-chairman Larry Irving noted that Barack Obama's successful election campaign
 made unprecedented use of the Internet to organize supporters, get out its
 message, and raise money.
 IRVING: "And that's what this debate in this country over the next several weeks
 and months is going to be: how do we get the infrastructure we need and deserve,
 how to make sure that every American that wants it can afford it and can have it
 in his or her household. The thing about broadband isn't that it's something
 abstract. It's not something that is just good because it's there. It's good
 because of what it can do."
 Some of those uses were highlighted at a symposium in Washington on Wednesday.
 One of the things it can do is help people learn about government programs. Paul
 Cosgrave heads the Department of Information Technology in New York City. He
 says residents can use the Internet to find out what help they can get from the
 government and apply for assistance, all in one step.
 COSGRAVE: "And we do that in several different languages including Spanish,
 Chinese, Korean, Russian, Arabic, Haitian Creole, and English. So by entering
 their household information once, the residents can then find out which of those
 35 programs they're actually eligible for, rather than having to do that 35
 different times, which was the way they could have had to do it before, and in
 most cases not even know they were eligible for programs because who in the
 world would go through that sort of a process."
 Government programs are only one anti-poverty approach where the Internet can
 help. Elaine Kamarck of Harvard University has written about some of the
 numerous other ways a good Internet connection can help, such as by helping
 rural producers in developing countries avoid middlemen and connect to buyers
 directly.
 KAMARCK: "Programs in rural areas - agronegocios in El Salvador is one - are
 helping to link rural farmers with markets. We're seeing this in the area of
 crafts. We're seeing it in a variety of economic development projects where the
 Internet is able to link producers to markets."
 Broadband Internet service is also helping in education. Math and science
 teachers, who are in short supply, can reach more students through lessons
 transmitted over the Internet. Susan Patrick of the North American Council for
 Online Learning says other schools use the Internet to enrich the curriculum.
 PATRICK: "If you're in Kentucky or Michigan, both of those state virtual schools
 are offering Mandarin Chinese that are co-taught by a licensed teacher in that
 state with a teacher in China. And those students are able to do voice-over-IP
 [Internet Protocol] and have discussions with Chinese students and the Chinese
 teachers."
 She says that in the years to come, a blended style of education is likely to
 emerge, with Internet-based lessons an important adjunct to regular in-person
 teaching.
 We'll mention one more example: health care. Throughout the United States, rural
 hospitals are threatened. Tough cases get transferred to big-city hospitals,
 where highly-trained doctors use advanced equipment. When that happens often
 enough, hospitals may be forced to close. High-speed Internet connections make
 it possible for specialists at a major medical center to consult directly with
 doctors at the rural hospital. Not only does it mean that more patients can be
 treated closer to home, Dr. Jay Sanders, adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins
 Medical School says it has an unanticipated benefit for those doctors at the
 rural hospital.
 SANDERS: "The primary care physician who uses a telemedicine system over a
 period of time actually decreases their consultative requests for the best of
 reasons: their educational level has been increased so that the question that
 they had previously, they now know how to take care of, and they don't need to
 ask for the specialist."
 During the just ended campaign, President-elect Obama said "America should lead
 the world in broadband penetration and Internet access." The details of how to
 do that, and on what timetable, may become clear in the months ahead.
 MUSIC: "Our World" theme
 That's our show for this week. If you'd like to get in touch, email us at
 ourworld@voanews.com Or use the postal address -
 Our World Voice of America Washington, DC 20237 USA
 Rob Sivak edited the show. Bob Doughty is the technical director.
 And this is Art Chimes, inviting you to join us online at voanews.com/ourworld
 or on your radio next Saturday and Sunday as we check out the latest in science
 and technology... in Our World.
 LOAD-DATE: November 21, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Journal
            Copyright 2008 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 463
 
                Agriculture Department Documents and Publications
                                November 19, 2008
 Syngenta Seeds, Inc.; Availability of Petition and Environmental Assessment for
 Determination of Nonregulated Status for Corn Genetically Engineered To Produce
 an Enzyme That Facilitates Ethanol Production;
 Federal Register Extracts
 LENGTH: 1735  words
 SUMMARY: We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
 Service has received a petition from Syngenta Seeds, Inc., seeking a
 determination of nonregulated status for corn designated as transformation event
 3272, which has been genetically engineered to produce a microbial enzyme that
 facilitates ethanol production. The petition has been submitted in accordance
 with our regulations concerning the introduction of certain genetically
 engineered organisms and products. In accordance with those regulations, we are
 soliciting comments on whether this genetically engineered corn is likely to
 pose a plant pest risk. We are also making available for public comment an
 environmental assessment for the proposed determination of nonregulated status.
 DATES: We will consider all comments we receive on or before January 20, 2009.
 ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
 * Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
 http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetailandd=APHIS
 -2007-0016 to submit or view comments and to view supporting and related
 materials available electronically.
 * Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send two copies of your comment to
 Docket No. APHIS-2007-0016, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,
 Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please
 state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0016.
 Reading Room: You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our
 reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South
 Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal
 reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
 holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817
 before coming.
 Other Information: Additional information about APHIS and its programs is
 available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Andrea Huberty, Biotechnology Regulatory
 Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 146, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301)
 734-0485, e-mail: andrea.f.huberty@aphis.usda.gov To obtain copies of the
 petition or the draft environmental assessment, contact Ms. Cindy Eck at (301)
 734-0667, e-mail: cynthia.a.eck@aphis.usda.gov The petition and the draft
 environmental assessment are also available on the Internet at
 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/05_28001p.pdf and
 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/05_28001p_ea.pdf.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, "Introduction of
 Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are
 Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests," regulate,
 among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or
 release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced
 through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to
 believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are
 considered "regulated articles."
 The regulations in SEC 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to
 the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination
 that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and
 (c) of SEC 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of
 nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the
 petition.
 On October 7, 2005, APHIS received a petition seeking a determination of
 nonregulated status (APHIS Petition No. 05-280-01p) from Syngenta Seeds, Inc.,
 of Research Triangle Park, NC (Syngenta), for corn (Zea mays L.) designated as
 transformation event 3272, which has been genetically engineered to produce a
 microbial enzyme that facilitates ethanol production. The petition stated that
 Event 3272 corn is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and, therefore, should not
 be a regulated article under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340.
 As described in the petition, Event 3272 corn has been genetically engineered to
 contain two transgenes: (1) The amy797E gene encoding the thermostable AMY797E
 alpha-amylase enzyme and (2) the pmi (manA) gene from Escherichia coli, which
 encodes the enzyme phosphomannose isomerase, used as a selectable marker. The
 AMY797E alpha-amylase enzyme is a chimeric, thermostable enzyme derived from
 three alpha-amylase genes originating from three hyperthermophilic
 microorganisms of the archael order Thermococcales. The expression of amy797E is
 driven by the promoter from a corn seed storage (gamma-zein) gene, which directs
 the accumulation of alpha-amylase in the corn kernel. The pmi gene is from one
 of the main species of bacteria living in mammal intestines, E. coli, and is
 driven by the polyubiquitin promoter from corn.
 This genetic insert also contains the terminator sequences from two plant pests,
 cauliflower mosaic virus and Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Both of these sequences
 are well-characterized, and are noncoding regulatory regions only. These
 sequences will not cause Event 3272 corn to promote plant disease.
 DNA was introduced into corn cells from a proprietary corn line using disarmed
 (non-plant pest causing) Agrobacterium tumefaciens -mediated transformation
 methodology with the transformation vector designated pNOV7013. Plant cells
 containing the introduced DNA were selected by culturing in the presence of
 mannose. After the initial transformation, broad-spectrum antibiotic cefotaxime
 was included in the culture medium to kill any remaining Agrobacterium.
 Therefore, no part of the plant pest A. tumefaciens is remaining in Event 3272
 corn due to the transformation method.
 Event 3272 corn has been considered a regulated article under the regulations in
 7 CFR part 340 because it contains gene sequences from plant pathogens. Event
 3272 corn has been field-tested in the United States since 2002, as authorized
 by APHIS notifications and permits. In the process of reviewing the permits for
 field trials of the subject corn, APHIS determined that the vectors and other
 elements used to introduce the new genes were disarmed and that the trials,
 which were conducted under conditions of reproductive and physical confinement
 or isolation, would not present a risk of plant pest introduction or
 dissemination.
 Field tests conducted under APHIS regulatory oversight allowed for evaluation in
 a natural agricultural setting while imposing measures to minimize the risk of
 persistence in the environment after completion of the test. Data are gathered
 on multiple parameters and used by the applicant to evaluate agronomic
 characteristics and product performance. These field test data, in turn, are
 used by APHIS to determine whether the regulated corn event poses a plant pest
 risk. Syngenta has petitioned APHIS to make a determination that Event 3272 corn
 and the progeny derived from its crosses with other nonregulated corn will no
 longer be considered regulated articles under 7 CFR part 340.
 APHIS has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) in which it presents two
 alternatives for the determination of nonregulated status based on its analyses
 of data submitted by Syngenta, a review of other scientific data, and field
 tests conducted under APHIS oversight. APHIS is considering the following
 alternatives: (1) Take no action, i.e., APHIS would not change the regulatory
 status of Event 3272 corn and it would continue to be a regulated article; or
 (2) the preferred alternative, grant nonregulated status to Event 3272 corn in
 whole. The EA also describes other alternatives that were initially evaluated
 but rejected from further consideration in the decision process for reasons
 explained in the EA.
 In section 403 of the Plant Protection Act (PPA) (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), "plant
 pest" is defined as any living stage of any of the following that can directly
 or indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plant or plant
 product: A protozoan, a nonhuman animal, a parasitic plant, a bacterium, a
 fungus, a virus or viroid, an infectious agent or other pathogen, or any article
 similar to or allied with any of the foregoing. APHIS views this PPA definition
 to cover direct or indirect injury, disease, or damage not just to agricultural
 crops, but also to other plants, for example, native species, as well as to
 plant parts and plant products whether natural, manufactured, or processed.
 Event 3272 corn is also subject to regulation by other Federal agencies. The
 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policy statement concerning regulation of
 products derived from new plant varieties, including those genetically
 engineered, was published in the Federal Register on May 29, 1992 (57 FR
 22984-23005). Under this policy, FDA uses what is termed a consultation process
 to ensure that human and animal feed safety issues or other regulatory issues
 (e.g., labeling) are resolved prior to commercial distribution of a
 bioengineered food. In compliance with the FDA policy, Syngenta submitted a food
 and feed safety and nutritional assessment summary to FDA for Event 3272 corn
 which was completed in August 2007 acknowledging that based on the information
 available, Event 3272 corn did not raise safety or other issues that would
 require pre-market review or approval by the FDA. As Event 3272 corn does not
 produce a pesticide or have a tolerance to any pesticide, the Environmental
 Protection Agency is not involved with evaluating Event 3272.
 National Environmental Policy Act
 A draft EA has been prepared to inform the public of, and to provide the APHIS
 decisionmaker with, a review and analysis of potential environmental impacts
 associated with the proposed determination of nonregulated status for Event 3272
 corn. The draft EA was prepared in accordance with (1) the National
 Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),
 (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the
 procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations
 implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures
 (7 CFR part 372).
 --This is a summary of a Federal Register article originally published on the
 page number listed below--
 Notice.
 Citation: "73 FR 69602"
 Federal Register Page Number: "69602"
 "Notices"
 LOAD-DATE: November 19, 2008
            Copyright 2008 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 464
 
                     The San Francisco Chronicle (California)
                            November 15, 2008 Saturday
                                  FINAL Edition
 Letters to Home&Garden
 SECTION: Home & Garden; LETTERS TO HOME & GARDEN; Pg. F3
 LENGTH: 712 words
 Stop flaunting others' riches at the rest of us
 Editor - I recently read all the information suggesting ways to save money, and
 I will certainly utilize that information. They were informative and made good
 sense. But in many of your recent Home&Garden articles, you have presented huge,
 enticing homes filled with gorgeous furnishings that make me angry, envious and
 bitter.
 My sole source of entertainment is the Internet and the newspaper both of which
 I am considering doing without as finances get tighter, but for right now as I
 turn depressing page after depressing page, I am looking at not only pretentious
 homes, furnishings and gardens but also horrendously expensive clothing, shoes,
 cosmetics, jewelry - all marketed to entice. Consider how depressing this might
 be for those who are finding themselves surviving on a shoestring, losing their
 homes, jobs and investments.
 I guess what I am saying is, having the obvious riches of some stuffed in our
 faces is hard to swallow as you simultaneously tell us that we should cancel our
 landline telephone or sell our second car. One minute you tell us to enjoy the
 holidays at home with a turkey we shoot in the backyard and in the next you tell
 us where we can host a family dinner in a fancy hotel for $12,500 a night! I am
 a long way from the poorest among us. But, perhaps fortunately, the poorest of
 the poor can't afford a newspaper.
 Mariposa
 Cotton vs. blends
 Editor - I enjoyed your article about economizing on clothing "Make it last,"
 Nov. 8. As a child of the Great Depression, I have been thrifty for as long as I
 can remember. I still remember the days when everything had to be ironed after
 washing and often clothes shrank out of shape. Nobody would be caught dead in
 unironed clothes; we even ironed our sheets! Then, glory be, they invented
 poly/cotton blends!
 Pants, blouses, dresses, T-shirts and sheets all came out of the dryer smooth
 and pretty; colors stayed bright; knits kept their shapes. I could buy gorgeous
 prints, solid colors and many interesting textures for dresses, blouses, skirts
 and pants, and I actually still have some of these great clothes. But this boon
 was not to last.
 Marketers realized that people were not buying as many new clothes because the
 old ones still looked good. The answer was to imply that 100 percent cotton
 garments were somehow classier than blends. Now we can buy T-shirts of
 cotton/spandex that shrink up and down and stretch sideways after every careful
 laundering in cold water. Freshly ironed blouses look like unmade beds after
 just a little while of being scrunched by a seat belt. Colors fade and knits
 lose their shapes. These clothes soon end up in the rag bin, and the poor, dumb
 consumers are buying again.
 I still have some of my favorite clothes made of blends. I peruse catalogs for
 styles and colors in tops and pants of cotton/poly and buy several when I find
 what I like. If this generation of consumers would refuse to buy clothes of 100
 percent cotton or spandex/cotton, they might send a message to the marketers and
 we all could ultimately save a lot of bucks.
 Santa Rosa
 Our right to know
 Editor - Thank you for publishing the article "Legal tussle over genetically
 modified sugar beets," Nov. 8 on the recent first harvest of genetically
 modified sugar beets. As you note, there was little fanfare. These food products
 will soon be working their way into our food supply, and none of us will be
 notified.
 I was pleased to read in your article that the Sierra Club is among the
 organizations seeking to enjoin the further planting, sale and use of these
 genetically modified sugar beets. I hope that the day will come when we can have
 required labeling of all genetically modified foods in this country. I
 understand that labeling is required in Europe, although I didn't notice any
 genetically modified food labels in Swiss grocery stores this past summer; maybe
 the labeling requirement scares vendors away from using genetically modified
 foods.
 In fact, I would like to go further than labeling; I would like to see a
 complete ban of the production of all genetically modified plants and animals
 for the entire planet. "You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only
 one."
 San Francisco
 LOAD-DATE: November 14, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2008 San Francisco Chronicle
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 465
 
                   The Republican (Springfield, Massachusetts)
                            November 6, 2008 Thursday
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A01
 LENGTH: 387 words
 Bailout details aired
 One day after Barack Obama was elected the next U.S. president, the Bush
 administration detailed its plans to borrow a record $550 billion through the
 end of the year to back the financial bailout. The Federal Reserve, meanwhile,
 said it will boost interest payments to banks as authorities battle the worst
 financial crisis in decades. The Treasury Department said Wednesday it will sell
 $55 billion in bonds next week, part of a massive borrowing effort to cover the
 $700 billion bailout and a budget deficit that may hit $1 trillion. Full story,
 Page A5
 Gay rights opposed
 Voters put a stop to same-sex marriage in California, dealing a crushing defeat
 to gay-rights activists in a state they hoped would be a vanguard and putting in
 doubt as many as 18,000 same-sex marriages conducted since a court ruling made
 them legal this year. The gay-rights movement had a rough election elsewhere as
 well Tuesday. Amendments to ban gay marriage were approved in Arizona and
 Florida, and Arkansas voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from
 serving as adoptive or foster parents. Full story, Page A7
 Swan begins paying debt
 State Rep. Benjamin Swan, D-Springfield, who has owed the city nearly $34,000 in
 delinquent taxes and interest, began paying off the debt Wednesday with an
 agreed upon down payment of $8,485. A repayment plan will be signed by both
 sides once the check clears on the down payment, said Eileen P. Hanley,
 assistant city treasurer. Swan said his
 intent is "to dispose of" the tax bill through a monthly payment plan. Swan took
 ownership of the vacant lot on Winchester Street in 1998, and the tax debt dates
 back to 1991. The Springfield representative has stated that he did not receive
 tax bills for the Winchester Street lot for years, and the debt grew without his
 knowledge.
 Full story, Page B1
 Organic farmers worry
 Critics of genetically modified crops have warned about "frankenfood" and
 "superweeds" for years. But today, more than four-fifths of the nation's corn,
 cotton and soybean crops are altered to resist pesticides and insects. Now Frank
 Morton, a 53-year-old organic seed farmer in Philomath, Ore., and other
 activists are plowing new legal ground in the battle, charging that genetically
 modified crops will spread and contaminate organic crops.
 Full story, Page D5
 LOAD-DATE: November 6, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: sun
                          Copyright 2008 The Republican
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 466
 
                           Kalamazoo Gazette (Michigan)
                             November 3, 2008 Monday
 Milwood school examines biotechnology applied to real world
 LENGTH: 591 words
 BY JENNIFER WEZENSKY Special to CityLife Milwood Magnet School launched a new
 curriculum this year, breaking down the complex topic of biotechnology into
 units that kids can relate to and that include knowledge that can be applied in
 the real world.
 The school for sixth- to eighth-graders, with 615 students, launched the
 curriculum this fall. It focuses on biotechnology, with units on technological
 innovations, global food chain, biofuels, environmental biotechnology and
 sustainable systems.
 The curriculum is funded by a federal grant that was awarded last year, pumping
 $9.5 million into the Kalamazoo Public Schools. Dividing the federal
 magnet-school grant money are Milwood, Edison Environmental Science Academy and
 Woodward School for Technology and Research. Edison and Woodward house grades
 KPS currently receives about $25 million a year in state and federal grants.
 This is the district's third-largest grant after Title I and state at-risk
 funds. The three schools are splitting $5.34 million over the 2008-09 school
 year.
 Dawn Kahler, an eighth-grade science teacher and mother of an eighth-grader at
 the school, said that the new curriculum was launched at the end of last year.
 In her 16 years of teaching, she said she hasn't seen her students so energized.
 "We've talked about housing and making sustainable buildings and housing," she
 said. "The kids have started to venture out into sustainable energy."
 The next unit is about the global food chain, Kahler said. They will focus on
 genetically modified foods, food consumption and productions.
 "They are really excited and have started really having opinions about the way
 things should happen in the world and have became vitalized to do something,"
 she said. "They're talking to their parents about things they would do to help
 their own home. It's really turned some kids' heads and they seem to like that."
 Milwood curriculum-integration teacher Tamela Brown said the school's goal is to
 bring students into the 21st century by providing "cutting-edge" learning
 opportunities. She hopes to create collaborators, critical thinkers, effective
 problem solvers and effective communicators.
 Teachers are developing real-world scenarios so students can apply knowledge to
 daily learning, she said. Subjects include drought in Third World countries,
 genetically modified crops and recycling.
 "Biotechnology is up and coming," Brown said. "It is a current-events type of
 area. It applies to everything that we see."
 The school is partnering with area biotechnology firms and universities, she
 said.
 "We want them to figure out how to go about approaching this problem," Brown
 said. "How can you collaborate with others to get the best solutions? We really
 want to push our kids to be thinkers for the future because they're our
 leaders."
 Milwood Principal Kevin Campbell said that teachers have worked diligently to
 create an engaging curriculum appropriate for their ages.
 "In some respects, we're taking a very big, global concept," he said. "But we're
 also teaching them basic fundamentals."
 Kalamazoo Public Schools Director of Communication Alex Lee said the curriculum
 will be integrated into KPS curriculum and will be sustainable after the grant
 funding runs out.
 Campbell said the primary component of the grant funding is the curriculum. With
 that in place, continuing the process after the grant money is depleted will be
 possible.
 "What is important is that there is good documentation and good thinking
 involved so that the curriculum can be there to sustain itself," he said.
 LOAD-DATE: November 3, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: zoo
                         Copyright 2008 Kalamazoo Gazette
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 467
 
                  The News & Observer (Raleigh, North Carolina)
                             November 3, 2008 Monday
                                  Final Edition
 Fruit flies and autism
 SECTION: EDITORIAL/OPINION; Pg. A13
 LENGTH: 256 words
 Recent comments by vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin about the importance
 of support for individuals with developmental disabilities (made Oct. 24 in
 Pittsburgh) also suggest that research on fruit flies has "little or nothing to
 do with the public good" and should not be a priority for funding.
 But fruit flies, known to scientists as Drosophila, have held a key role in
 genetics research and have for over 100 years. Indeed, recent advances in the
 fields of neuroscience and genetics, using genetically engineered fruit flies,
 have made them even more valuable tools for studying the effects of specific
 genes on the development of the nervous system.
 As noted by Keith Olbermann on "Countdown," recent genetic research on fruit
 flies at UNC-Chapel Hill "may lead to advances in understanding autism." Genetic
 factors are known to be important in autism.
 The research referred to by Olbermann is led by Professor Bhat's laboratory. His
 studies of genetically engineered fruit flies have demonstrated the crucial role
 of the neurexin gene in the development and function of a key structure in the
 fruit fly nervous system.
 Based on the most cutting-edge science in the autism field, support for fruit
 fly research is clearly of tremendous potential importance in contributing to
 scientific efforts to find a cure for autism and other neurodevelopmental
 disorders.
 Manzoor A. Bhat, Ph.D.
 Professor of cell and molecular physiology
 Joseph Piven, M.D.
 Director, Carolina Institute for Developmental Disabilities' UNC-Chapel Hill,
 Chapel Hill
 LOAD-DATE: November 3, 2008
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Letter
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2008 The News and Observer









Document Number: 468
 
                               The Washington Post
                             November 3, 2008 Monday
                                 Suburban Edition
 Extra-Nutritious Bioengineered Foods Still Years Away
 BYLINE: Marc Kaufman; Washington Post Staff Writer
 SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A12
 LENGTH: 943 words
 For years, advocates of agricultural biotechnology have promised a future in
 which foods will be genetically engineered to give more nutrition and to prevent
 chronic diseases, in which crops will be modified to thrive in salty soil or hot
 or dry climates and in which consumers will benefit directly from science's
 ability to tweak other characteristics of plants.
 So far, however, that has generally not happened, and the main beneficiaries of
 agricultural biotechnology remain farmers battling pests and weeds that threaten
 staple crops such as soybeans, corn and cotton, as well as the companies that
 develop and produce genetically modified seeds.
 But last week, consumers were reminded of what might be available in the future.
 Researchers at the British-government-sponsored John Innes Center announced that
 they had developed a purple tomato that has high levels of beneficial
 anthocyanins -- antioxidants known to neutralize potentially harmful oxygen
 molecules, or free radicals, in the body and reduce the risk of heart disease
 and cancer. The genes for the purple tomato came from snapdragons.
 The creators of the purple tomato, a team led by Cathie Martin, tested their
 fruit in cancer-susceptible mice and found that the animals on a diet of 10
 percent powdered purple tomatoes in their pellets lived significantly longer
 than those eating powdered normal red tomatoes. Her findings were published in
 the journal Nature Biotechnology.
 This advance does not mean that extra-healthful purple tomatoes will be on the
 market anytime soon -- that would require much more testing in animals and
 humans and, perhaps a bigger hurdle, finding a company that wants to develop,
 market and sell them.
 But Martin said the tomatoes are important because they are a promising example
 of a genetically modified food "that offers a potential benefit for all
 consumers." That's because the anthocyanins -- which are also found in many
 berries and in red cabbage -- would be delivered at high levels in a product
 that is widely and frequently consumed.
 "The goal here is to improve diets by putting important compounds like
 anthocyanins in foods everyone eats," Martin said.
 Researchers are genetically modifying many other foods to be more nutritious or
 to carry extra health benefits -- including staples such as rice, cassava and
 bananas, as well as vegetable oils engineered to have higher levels of healthful
 omega-3 fatty acids. Some are working on engineering ingredients in beer and
 white wine to boost levels of the antioxidant resveratrol, a heart-healthy
 compound found especially in red wine.
 Unlike the explosion in biotechnology to protect crops from insects and weeds,
 these modified consumer products are in the relatively early stages of
 development, and there is seldom much money supporting their research. What's
 more, they often require the introduction of two or more new genes into the
 existing plant or, as in the case of the purple tomato, the insertion of a
 "transcription factor" that controls the activity of numerous genes. The health
 risks of this broader-brush genetic engineering have been far less studied than
 those that involve modifying or inserting a single gene.
 Nonetheless, advocates of food biotechnology say the promise is there. Michael
 Wach, managing director for science and regulatory affairs at the Biotechnology
 Industry Organization, said many researchers are experimenting with ways to
 engineer more healthful fats, more nutritionally dense products, and foods with
 increased levels of iron, zinc and Vitamin A.
 It remains unclear whether any will pan out, but he said the traditional
 products of biotechnology that help farmers are becoming ever more important in
 poor nations as well as developed ones. About 282 million acres of genetically
 modified crops are planted in 23 nations.
 "The issue of food availability is becoming increasingly important, and we know
 that genetically modified crops can help," he said. "With all the research now
 into developing crops that can resist drought or poor soil, we think the
 importance of biotechnology to agriculture can only grow."
 Margaret Mellon, a food specialist with the Union of Concerned Scientists,
 disagrees. She generally views today's genetically modified crops as a problem
 rather than a solution. Although biotechnology could someday help increase the
 yields of staple crops and make them more resistant to climatic stress, she
 said, foods modified for nutritional benefits have fared poorly and can be
 produced better by conventional methods.
 "The big biotech firms always used the promise of consumer-friendly,
 extra-healthy foods to fend off some of the criticism of their pesticide- and
 herbicide-control products, which often were not terribly popular with the
 public," she said. "It doesn't look exactly promising that we'll get any of that
 kind of benefit anytime soon, if ever. Clearly, genetically engineering fruits
 and vegetables for nutritional benefits has proven far more difficult than the
 industry expected."
 And even if vegetables and fruits can be genetically modified to contain an
 abundance of a beneficial compound, she asked, do we really want them? Wouldn't
 it be better, she said, to develop richer soils -- using microorganisms and
 nutrients -- that could boost the nutritional value of all edible plants?
 Martin, the creator of the purple tomato, said conventionally bred and grown
 fruits, vegetables and berries can certainly supply the nutrients and minerals
 that people need. But nutrition experts say that would require eating five
 servings a day, she said, and "eating one tomato instead certainly would be
 easier and more likely to happen."
 LOAD-DATE: November 3, 2008
 DISTRIBUTION: Maryland
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2008 The Washington Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 469
 
                      The Santa Fe New Mexican (New Mexico)
                             October 31, 2008 Friday
 SECTION: LETTERS TO THE EDITOR; Pg. A-9
 LENGTH: 1550 words
 Did you know there are four other candidates running for president? Please
 refrain from responding with the "throwing your vote away" line. The only vote
 thrown away is the one cast without soul-searching integrity. Granted it is
 difficult to make a clear personal decision when we are programmed continuously
 by the two big political parties (thanks to main stream press, The Santa Fe New
 Mexican included).
 Here are the four other candidates: Cynthia McKinney, Chuck Baldwin, Ralph
 Nader, Bob Barr. Have the courage to examine their platforms.
 Real change is unlikely to come from the deeply entrenched structures of the two
 big parties, no matter who the candidate is. It's time to wake up. Here is one
 Web site that presents all the candidates -- www.
 thirdpartyticket.com
 Sheila Nixon
 Santa Fe
 Support available
 Voters are responsible for making sure they are on the voter-registration rolls
 and knowing where their polling places are. To check the status of
 absentee-ballot requests, go to
 voterview.state.nm.us/VoterView/AbsenteeBallotSearch.do. Time is short.
 Voters without these ballots in hand need to vote early at their respective
 county clerks' offices. Early voting makes the wait on Election Day that much
 less and any registration problems can be dealt with.
 Voters who think they've been denied the right to vote should call
 1-866-OUR-VOTE (1-866-687-8683) the Election Protection Hotline; this is the
 Lawyer's Committee on Civil Rights Under Law, composed of more than 100 partner
 organizations like the American Bar Association, ACLU and NAACP.
 William Mee
 Santa Fe
 Wedge issue
 Why is Republican lawyer Pat Rogers obsessed with ACORN? Is he worried about
 voter fraud? Or does he need a wedge issue against Democrats? That's what he
 said in an e-mail to then-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias on Sept. 29, 2004, as
 reported in the Department of Justice's report on the firings of nine U.S.
 Attorneys General in 2006.
 He wrote: "I believe the voter ID issue should be used (now) at all levels .
 This is the single best wedge issue ever in New Mexico today."
 Iglesias stood in the way of Republicans using phony voter fraud as an election
 issue. So Rogers and his friends complained to powers in Washington and Iglesias
 was gone.
 Rogers is behind the GOP's false claims of fraud in the June election. ACORN
 proved those votes were legitimate. So now Rogers appears to be hiring a goon,
 er  private investigator, to intimidate Albuquerque voters. Isn't it time the
 Republican Party got rid of this guy?
 Richard Folks
 Santa Fe
 Effort validated
 I arrived at an early-voting place at
 12:03 p.m. (it opened at noon). There were about 35 people in front of me, but
 it only took about a half an hour to get the ballot. I choked up when I filled
 in the box next to Barack Obama's name.
 I remembered a Saturday in April,
 44 years ago, marching in front of the White House with 20,000 other people.
 The following Monday, President Lyndon Johnson finally put his political weight
 behind a bill that had been languishing in Congress.
 Two months later, LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
 I'm glad I lived long enough to be able to vote for Barack for president.
 Ray Lyon
 Santa Fe
 'No' to Vigil
 This is a "heads up" to all citizens of Santa Fe County. When you vote on Nov.
 4, you will be asked to vote for retaining judges.
 When you see Judge Michael E. Vigil's name on the ballot, oppose him.
 Judge Vigil is soft on crime, especially in serious cases of murder. Vigil gave
 the man who murdered my husband in cold blood, a man who shot my husband in the
 back on our own property, only 312 years in prison, when he was facing a
 maximum of
 1812 years. My rights as a victim were trampled all over, under his watchful,
 or shall I say, unwatchful eye. Vote no, not to retain Michael E. Vigil.
 Gail Martnez
 Santa Fe
 Demand's changing
 Maybe our economy is not so bad, it is just that corporations won't give us what
 we want to buy: 100 percent cotton black jeans; undies that cup our buns; the
 most beautiful fuel-efficient car in the world; local renewable energy, easily
 available for my house; organic food, pesticides and genetically modified foods
 prohibited.
 And how about media that give us news, not just speculation and "he said, she
 said." Media that give voice to parties other than their favorites, and
 recognition that the parties are just corporations; do they work for us? I no
 longer want to sacrifice so much, socially and environmentally, for the "growth"
 of corporations.
 Jan Boyer
 Santa Fe
 Voter fatigue
 I am exhausted by the horribly negative ads from Darren White and Martin
 Heinrich. Santa Fe is plagued by these depressing ads even though we couldn't
 vote for these guys if we wanted to (which we don't).
 What I've learned from the ads is Heinrich has a trolley car in his living room
 and White is George W's identical twin brother. Or something. I wish I lived in
 Albuquerque so I could vote against both of them. Or write in Mickey Mouse. The
 scary part is that each of these men is spending enormous sums on their
 campaigns. Whoever wins is obviously planning to line his pockets substantially
 to get back the money he spent. Looking out for New Mexico's interests?
 Unlikely.
 Meg Meltz
 Santa Fe
 Down with legacies
 Shame on the Democratic Party! And special shame on the leadership of the
 Democratic Party for allowing Jerome Block Jr. and Ben Ray Luj n on the ballot!
 It appears that their only qualification is a political father with political
 clout and name recognition. I hate voting "against" instead of "for" a
 candidate, but I plan to do the former. Northern New Mexico could do better than
 this good old boys dynasty.
 Russ Shinn
 San Juan Pueblo
 Obama backers
 I voted for Barack Obama this week. This is why:
 u He is smart in his own right, and he's wise enough to select only top quality
 associates to work with him.
 u He listens intently and speaks articulately, most often in that order.
 u He gets information before making decisions.
 u He pays attention to both forest and trees.
 u He has energy and staying power.
 u He doesn't smirk or condescend.
 u He chose a responsible running mate whose experience will serve the country
 well.
 u He "wears well."
 u He's a quick study when it comes to analyzing, synthesizing, and learning in
 general.
 u I believe he loves this country and its people -- all of them -- as much as I
 do.
 Haley Curtin
 Santa Fe
 There is only one presidential candidate who is strong enough to help get us out
 of the quagmire we are in and move us positively forward, so that our children
 will be proud of us and other countries will respect us again. No one else
 compares to him in integrity, honesty, compassion and a willingness to govern us
 in the right direction, to uphold the Constitution and our rights. I want only
 the best for all of us and I have hope for the future. Yes we can! Barack Obama.
 Lisa Law
 Santa Fe
 The Republican Party is trying to distract voters from their policy failures
 during the past eight years. These include: turning projected surpluses into
 record deficits; diverting resources from fighting the terrorist infrastructure
 in Afghanistan to an unnecessary war in Iraq; damaging our ability to work in
 coalitions with allies against threats from terrorists; leaving our nation
 vulnerable to natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina; ignoring the need to
 repair and maintain our decaying infrastructure; refusing to acknowledge the
 threat of global warming; contributing to the widening gap between the top
 income earners and the bulk of our society; failing to come up with a plan to
 provide health care coverage for all citizens; and not creating a viable energy
 policy. Now we have the collapse of the
 U.S. financial market.
 Please vote for Barack Obama. This critical election will decide the future of
 our world.
 Sam Scott
 Santa Fe
 Comparing Obama and McCain's campaigns, one sees Obama as the vastly more
 intelligent, diplomatic and capable candidate. McCain has resorted to overt lies
 and dangerous hate-mongering. His choice of the absurdly under-qualified Palin
 as his running mate has been disparaged, even within his party, as "cynical
 opportunism."
 I am inspired by Obama's debate skills of countering lies with strength,
 integrity and calm, along with facts. If the campaigns are any indicator, Obama
 will be a brilliant and unifying leader. He certainly has my vote.
 Leslie McNamara
 Santa Fe
 Your Oct. 20 editorial, "Animals, habitat under siege -- enviros must act" must
 remind us of Gov. Palin's unrelenting war on wildlife and her contempt for
 scientific warnings on global warming. As the co-sponsor of the losing
 initiative outlawing aerial gunning observed, "She (Palin) uses ideology and
 ignores science when it is in her way ... this a reflection of somebody who
 doesn't have any use for science."
 Ignoring protests from more than
 150 scientists, she transferred authority over predator-control to Alaska's
 Board of Game (appointed by Palin!) and in 2007 sought to offer $150 bounty for
 the severed foreleg of each wolf killed.
 These policies are part of Palin's "us vs. the other" world-view, which has led
 Palin, in a grotesque irony, to compare herself to a mother bear in defense of
 her cubs at the same time her Board of Game approved (for the first time) the
 killing of black bear sows and cubs!
 Lynn de Gerenday, Ph.D.
 Santa Fe
 LOAD-DATE: October 31, 2008
 GRAPHIC: See pdf's for exact rendition, caption, graphics and photographer info.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2008 The New Mexican









Document Number: 470
 
                         Facts on File World News Digest
                                 October 30, 2008
 Medicine and Health;
 News in Brief
 SECTION: Pg. 792D2
 LENGTH: 2306 words
 Drug company Pfizer Inc. October 17 said it had agreed to allot $894 million to
 settle all claims related to its painkillers Bextra and Celebrex. Pfizer in
 April 2005 had withdrawn Bextra from the market, seven months after a similar
 drug, Vioxx, had been removed by drugmaker Merck & Co. after it was linked to an
 increased risk of heart attacks and strokes; Celebrex remained on the market.
 About 8,000 patients had sued Pfizer, along with the attorneys general of 33
 states and Washington D.C., alleging the company had improperly marketed the
 drugs. Pfizer said $745 million of the funds would resolve personal injury
 lawsuits, while $60 million would be paid to the states and $89 million set
 aside to settle consumer fraud claims. All three drugs fell into the category of
 Cox-2 inhibitors. [See 2005 Medicine and Health: FDA Pulls Painkiller 'Bextra'
 From Market]
 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) October 15 reported that
 the infant mortality rate was 6.71 per 1,000 births in 2006, a decline of about
 2% from the previous year. The U.S. rate as of 2004 remained high when compared
 to other industrialized countries, coming in at the 29th lowest. [See 2004
 Medicine and Health: Life Expectancy, Infant Mortality Rise; Other Developments]
 The American Academy of Pediatrics, the country's leading pediatricians'
 organization, October 12 recommended that the daily allowance of vitamin D for
 children be doubled to 400 units. The organization said the new standard
 resulted from research suggesting that more vitamin D could help children grow
 strong bones, and would help prevent a number of diseases, including diabetes,
 cancer and heart disease. The academy said it was likely that children would
 need to take supplements to meet the standard. [See 2006 Medicine and Health: No
 Benefit Found in Calcium Pills]
 The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) September 18 released a set of draft
 rules on theregulation of genetically engineered animals bred for use as food or
 in medicine. The proposed rules were considered more strict than those used to
 regulate genetically engineered plants and microorganisms, which were already
 present in the U.S. food system. They would require companies to specify the
 genetic material inserted into engineered animals, and what changes in an
 animal's behavior, health and nutritional value the alterations had. The rules
 did not require companies to notify consumers if products were made from
 genetically modified animals. [See 2008 International News: U.S., EU Declare
 Cloned Food Safe to Eat; 2007 Agriculture: Rulings Curb Genetically Modified
 Crops; Other Developments]
 Judge William Martini of U.S. District Court in Newark, New Jersey, August 20
 ruled that a 16-year-old boy suffering from a rare type of muscular dystrophy
 should be provided an experimental treatment over the objections of the company
 that produced it. The drug company, PTC Therapeutics Inc., had argued that the
 patient, Jacob Gunvalson, had not met the standards for inclusion in a clinical
 trial of the drug, known as PTC124. Gunvalson's parents had alleged that the
 company had initially promised that their son could participate in the trial,
 then reversed itself, claiming that his disease had progressed too far. [See
 2007 Medicine and Health: Gene Therapy Study Resumed]
 Researchers published in the August 14 issue of the New England Journal of
 Medicine accounts of three successful completions of a controversial procedure
 in which theheart of a severely brain-damaged newborn baby was removed and
 transplanted into another child. The doctors who performed the procedures were
 criticized because the heart donors, who were on life support, were not
 medically considered brain dead when the organs were removed. The transplant
 method, known as donation after cardiac death (DCD), required doctors to get the
 permission of families to remove life support. The hearts were then removed
 after they stopped beating. Six months after the procedure, all three heart
 recipients were alive, compared with an 84% survival rate among 17 babies who
 had received a heart under the traditional protocol, from donors who were
 technically brain-dead. [See 2006 Medicine and Health: News in Brief]
 The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) August 14 reported that it had reached a
 settlement of up to $30 million with Airborne Health Inc. over misleading
 advertisements used to market its Airborne brandhealth supplements. The FTC in a
 complaint said Airborne had claimed that clinical trials had shown its products
 to reduce the severity and length of colds. Under the agreement, consumers who
 purchased Airborne products between 2001 and 2007 could apply for refunds for as
 many as six purchases.
 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents August 6 arrested an executive of
 hospitals in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, in California, and the manager of
 a homeless facility on charges of using homeless people to generate fraudulent
 medical bills paid by federal and state health insurance programs. Rudra
 Sabratnam, owner and chief executive officer (CEO) of City of Angels Medical
 Center, and Estill Mitts, operator of the 7th Street Christian Day Center were
 arrested. Investigators alleged that they had participated in a scheme to
 recruit and pay homeless people from Los Angeles's notorious "Skid Row"
 neighborhood to fill beds in three private, for-profit hospitals, which then
 submitted bills to Medicaid and its California counterpart, Medi-Cal, totaling
 millions of dollars for fake treatments. [See 2006 Medicine and Health: News in
 Brief]
 The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which set federal policy on preventive
 medicine, August 4 recommended that doctors end prostate cancer screening for
 men older than 75, saying the potential harm of the tests outweighed any
 possible benefits. The panel also recommended that men younger than 75 receive
 counseling on the screening test, warning them of its potential risks. Prostate
 cancer was diagnosed in about 218,000 men annually, with some 28,000 dying from
 the disease each year. However, because the disease typically developed very
 slowly, it was unclear if early diagnosis reduced the death rate from the
 illness. The task force had last issued guidelines on prostate cancer screening
 in 2002. [See 2008 Medicine and Health: News in Brief]
 The FTC July 29 reported that food and beverage companies had spent $1.6 billion
 in 2006 marketing their products to children aged two to 17. The report was
 created as part of congressional efforts to monitor childhood obesity. The
 information was based on the marketing budgets of 44 food, beverage and fast
 food companies. The report found that the companies spent the highest percentage
 of their marketing budgets aimed at children, 46%, on television advertisements.
 An estimated $870 million was spent on children under 12, while about $1 billion
 was focused on children aged 13-17, with about $300 million of those
 expenditures overlapping the two categories. The FTC in the report recommended
 that companies market only "healthy" foods and beverages during programs aimed
 at children, and limit the licensing of popular children's characters to healthy
 foods. [See 2007 Medicine and Health: News in Brief; 2005 Medicine and Health:
 Panel Links Child Obesity to Advertising; Other Developments]
 The drug industry trade group the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of
 America (PhRMA) July 10 announced a voluntary marketing code for its members
 governing its interactions with physicians. The code banned companies from
 distributing to doctors products like pads and pens bearing the names of drugs.
 It also prohibited companies from providing doctors with free meals at
 restaurants. However, the companies were still allowed to provide catered food
 in doctors' offices. Critics said the new code failed to impose limits on
 payments made by companies to doctors for speechmaking and consulting work. Drug
 companies in recent years had been criticized for unduly influencing doctors to
 prescribe certain drugs. [See 2006 Medicine and Health: Doctors Urge Industry
 Relationship Rules]
 The American Academy of Pediatrics July 7 released new guidelines recommending
 wider testing of cholesterol in children, and a more assertive approach in using
 cholesterol-lowering drugs known as statins in treating children with high
 cholesterol levels. Under the previous guidelines, statins had been recommended
 for children as young as 10 who did not respond to a weight loss regimen. Under
 the new guidelines the age threshold would be lowered to eight. [See 2008
 Medicine and Health: Panel Sets Two Cholesterol Drug Warnings]
 The CDC June 26 reported that the decline in teenage smoking had stalled from
 2003 to 2007. According to data gathered from high schoolers by the Youth Risk
 Behavior Survey, the number of respondents who smoked fell to 21.9% in 2003,
 from 36.4% in 1997. However, the smoking rate was recorded at 23% in 2005, and
 less than 20% in 2007, variations that were not considered statistically
 significant. Antismoking activists said the leveling was likely due to cuts in
 prevention and quitting programs at the state level. [See 2001 Tobacco: Teen
 Smoking Drop Seen; Other Developments]
 Watchdog group the Center for Public Integrity June 24 reported that drug
 company lobbyists spent a record $168 million in 2007, a rise of 32% from the
 previous year. Together, drug companies, medical device makers and other health
 product manufacturers spent $189.1 million in lobbying in 2007, up from $146.1
 million the previous year. Spending by lobbying groups was led by PhRMA, with
 $22.7 million. The center said the sharp rise in lobbying spending might have
 been due to the assumption of control of Congress that year by Democrats, who
 were traditionally more inclined to regulate the industry. [See 2005 Medicine
 and Health: Drug Industry Sets Voluntary Ad Rules]
 The FDA June 16 added a "black box" warning, its strongest, to an older class of
 antipsychotic drugs, warning that they could increase the risk of death in
 elderly patients suffering from dementia. The drugs given the new warning
 included haldol and thorazine. None of them had been approved by the FDA for use
 in the elderly, but doctors often legally prescribed them for "off-label" uses.
 [See 2008 Medicine and Health: Drug Firm Lilly Settles Zyprexa Suit; 2006
 Medicine and Health: News in Brief]
 The National Center for Health Statistics June 11 reported that life expectancy
 in the U.S. had reached a record high of 78.1 years in 2006, exceeding 78 for
 the first time. That was an increase of 0.3 years over the 2005 figure. Life
 expectancy for men was 75.4 years, and 80.7 years for women. Heart disease and
 cancer remained the number one and number two causes of death, combining to
 account for 1.2 million deaths in the U.S. in 2006, or half the total. However,
 death rates from many diseases, notably influenza and AIDS, declined. [See 2008
 Medicine and Health: News in Brief]
 Kaiser Permanente, the U.S.'s largest nonprofit health maintenance organization
 (HMO), and Microsoft Corp. June 9 announced plans to run a trial program
 allowing Kaiser's 156,000 employees to manage their health records online.
 Participants in the program, known as HealthVault, would use Microsoft software
 to manage their medical information. If found viable, the program would be
 offered to Kaiser's 8.7 million members. [See 2004 Medicine and Health: News in
 Brief]
 The National Center for Health Statistics and the CDC May 27 reported that the
 obesity rate of children in the U.S. had appeared to level off. Health officials
 found no statistical difference in the obesity rates of children measured in a
 2003-04 survey and one conducted in 2005-06. Researchers said they did not know
 why the rate appeared to have stabilized. The percentage of children considered
 obese had been about 15% in 2006, up from 6.5% in 1980. [See 2007 Medicine and
 Health: News in Brief]
 Federal health officials May 22 announced a program utilizing data gathered on
 25 million people enrolled in the Medicare prescription drug program to identify
 potential risks of drugs and medical devices. The program, called the Sentinel
 Initiative, would allow the FDA to track drug safety more quickly and
 efficiently, health officials said. They also said researchers and other
 officials in the program would not be able to access the personal information of
 Medicare beneficiaries.
 Fast food restaurant company McDonald's Corp. May 22 said it had completed a
 shift to using only cooking oils free of so-called trans fats, or trans fatty
 acids. Trans fats were often used as a substitute for saturated fats because
 they had a longer shelf life, but had been linked to heart disease and other
 health problems by some scientists. Separately, a ban on trans fats in all foods
 served in restaurants in New York City, approved in 2006, went into effect July
 1. Restaurants caught selling food containing them after October 1 faced a
 $2,000 fine. [See 2008 Medicine and Health: California Approves Trans Fat Ban]
 The CDC May 16 reported that employees at a Las Vegas, Nevada, endoscopy clinic
 linked to 85 cases of hepatitis C had mishandled medical equipment and failed to
 follow basic hygiene protocol. The report found that medical staff at the
 Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada had reused syringes, vials and other devices
 and cleaning solutions, thereby infecting healthy patients with hepatitis C, a
 virus for which there was no cure. Nevada health officials July 24 said they had
 traced the transmission of the disease to two infected patients treated at the
 clinic in 2007. Some 53,000 people treated at the clinic had been told to get
 tested for hepatitis and HIV as a result of the clinic's practices. [See 2008
 Medicine and Health: News in Brief]
 LOAD-DATE: November 7, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2008 Facts on File, Inc.









Document Number: 471
 
                             October 27, 2008 Monday
 Genetically engineered tomato could fight cancer;
 Snapdragon gene boosts antioxidants
 BYLINE: Elizabeth Weise
 SECTION: LIFE; Pg. 5D
 LENGTH: 285 words
 British researchers have used genes from the snapdragon flower to increase
 tomatoes' cancer-fighting powers.
 When the genes were added, the tomatoes ripened to an almost eggplant purple.
 They contain very high levels of antioxidant pigments called anthocyanins.
 Cancer-prone mice fed the altered tomatoes lived significantly longer than those
 that didn't get them.
 The genetic engineering was minimal, says Cathie Martin, the plant geneticist
 who led the work. Tomatoes already make their own anthocyanins. The genes from
 the snapdragon flowers acted as a switch to turn that production on full blast,
 says Martin, who is based at the John Innes Centre, an independent plant
 research center in Norwich, England.
 The tomatoes produce levels of anthocyanins about on par with blackberries,
 blueberries and currants, which recent research has touted as miracle fruits.
 But because of the high cost and infrequent availability of such berries,
 tomatoes might be a better source, says Martin.
 The researchers fed 20 mice bred to be cancer-prone a diet that consisted of 10%
 powder from the genetically engineered tomatoes, with other groups getting no
 tomatoes and red tomatoes. The mice who got the tomato powder lived on average
 30% longer than those that didn't.
 The researchers acknowledge the findings are very preliminary.
 The tomatoes would have to go through years of regulatory processes to end up in
 supermarkets, says biotechnology project manager Greg Jaffe of the Center for
 Science in the Public Interest. Jeffrey Blumberg, director of the Antioxidants
 Research Laboratory at Tufts University in Medford, Mass., cautions that it
 would be a "big leap" to say that anthocyanins would definitely benefit people.
 LOAD-DATE: October 28, 2008
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO, B/W, Andrew Davis, John Innes Centre
                       Copyright 2008 Gannett Company, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 472
 
                      The Santa Fe New Mexican (New Mexico)
                            October 22, 2008 Wednesday
 SECTION: TASTE; Pg. D-3
 LENGTH: 357 words
 By Jessica Emerson
 For The New Mexican
 The only way to be 100-percent sure that a product is organic and not a
 transgenic is to grow it yourself -- but this is not possible for most of us.
 Looking at labels and only buying those labeled organic is another thing we can
 do to protect ourselves. The farmers market is a fun place to go, both for food
 and community. Vegetable buying clubs, or community-supported agriculture
 programs (CSAs), are starting up across the nation. Investors can often go to
 the farm, see the veggies, sometimes participate in the growing process -- this
 is a great place to take your children or grandchildren so they can see where
 their food comes from. Neighborhoods can work together to create community
 gardens and greenhouses. By investing a small sum of money, you can have fresh,
 in-season vegetables all summer and, with hoop houses, all winter.
 Become informed. Read. Search the Internet and go to the library. Talk with your
 neighbors, exchange information, talk to the farmers at the farmers market. Join
 consumer groups calling for labeling of GE foods. Support local groups -- like
 the Traditional Native American Farmers Association -- that promote seed
 sovereignty, traditional family-scaled farming, education and seed collecting
 (TNAFA, PO Box 31267, Santa Fe, NM 87594-1267).
 Write your senators, representatives and governor and tell them that you support
 legislation to require the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods.
 Let them know you do not want genetic experiments in your state, your community
 or your neighborhood.
 Attend food and seed conferences. Sign petitions. In 1999, Gerber announced that
 it would no longer use genetically engineered ingredients in its baby foods. It
 also announced that it would replace GE corn with organic corn. (One of the
 first foods a baby born in hospitals receives is "sugar water" made of corn
 syrup.)
 You may be just one person, but your voice can make a difference. Until these
 foods are proven safe, we as consumers have the right to know what we are
 putting into our bodies. We have a right to protect our families, our
 environment and our food.
 LOAD-DATE: October 22, 2008
 GRAPHIC: See pdf's for exact rendition, caption, graphics, and photographer
 info.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2008 The New Mexican









Document Number: 473
 
                          Omaha World-Herald (Nebraska)
                             October 21, 2008 Tuesday
                        Iowa; Midlands; Nebraska Editions
 Biotechnology helps offset planting delays A late start makes crops vulnerable
 to pests, and researchers find that genetically modified varieties fare better.
 BYLINE: Robert Pore, The Grand Island Independent
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 03B
 LENGTH: 461 words
 DATELINE: GRAND ISLAND, Neb.
 GRAND ISLAND, Neb. -- This year, much of the nation's Corn Belt had above-normal
 wet weather that either caused planting delays or flooded fields, forcing
 farmers to replant.
 The same was true in Nebraska. More than 20 inches of rain fell in the central
 Nebraska area during April, May and June -- more than 8 inches above normal for
 the three-month period.
 But despite the rain, Nebraska's corn crop is forecast at 1.39 billion bushels.
 Yield is forecast at 161 bushels per acre, four bushels above last month's
 forecast and the second highest on record, 5 bushels below the high of 166 set
 in 2004.
 The reason for the high productivity is biotechnology crops, according to a new
 study from grain crop specialists and entomologists at the University of
 Kentucky.
 In a seven-year study, the researchers found that Bt corn is most beneficial to
 growers who are forced to plant behind schedule, because late-planted crops are
 the most susceptible to pests.
 According to UK researchers, Bt corn is a genetically modified organism. That
 means a small amount of genetic material from a naturally occurring organism was
 added to its genetic makeup.
 The modified gene can control a pest or a group of pests, thus preventing
 potentially significant yield losses, the researchers said. One of the most
 common pests Bt corn protects against is the European corn borer.
 According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, biotechnology varieties
 accounted for 86 percent of Nebraska's planted acreage, up from 79 percent last
 year.
 Ric Bessin, entomologist in the University of Kentucky College of Agriculture,
 said Bt corn has been safely distributed, grown and consumed since its
 introduction into the agricultural sector.
 "And since it controls pest populations, it's even helping farmers that do not
 grow Bt corn," Bessin said.
 He said producers may find Bt corn extremely useful in today's grain market.
 With higher-priced corn, Bessin said, any damage to the crop is more costly.
 "Bt corn can help producers keep crop loss at a minimum and retain higher profit
 margins," he said.
 As technology has advanced, Bessin said, varieties that protect against
 different pests were developed. Some now available can control a single pest or
 group of pests. At UK, researchers are studying corn that has as many as five
 modified genes.
 "There is always the potential for pests to become resistant or tolerant to the
 genes," Bessin said. "We want to be proactive and continue to work to anticipate
 pest resistances."
 During a recent crop tour in Iowa, sponsored by the Iowa Corn Growers
 Association and the Iowa Corn Promotion Board, Prairie City grower Gordon
 Wassenaar told those on the tour, including representatives from 10 other
 countries, that biotech corn was the reason he had a crop this year.
 PRODUCTIVITY (69%) Agriculture; Crop; Statistics; Water; Weather
 LOAD-DATE: October 22, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2008 The Omaha World-Herald Company









Document Number: 474
 
                                The New York Times
                             October 13, 2008 Monday
                               Late Edition - Final
 The F.D.A. and Engineered Food
 SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Editorial Desk; LETTERS; Pg. 28
 LENGTH: 713 words
 To the Editor:
 Re ''Coming to a Plate Near You'' (editorial, Oct. 4):
 We agree with you that the Food and Drug Administration's proposed regulation of
 genetically engineered animals is more rigorous than its regulation of
 genetically engineered crops or cloned animals. Unfortunately, however, the
 F.D.A. will not be as rigorous as it needs to be.
 The agency may assess environmental impact, but it is not required to prohibit
 an animal that causes environmental damage.
 Although the F.D.A. says it will protect the animal's health, we note that it
 approved the sale of milk and meat from cloned animals even though the data show
 that more than 50 percent of cow clones are born with an abnormality known as
 large offspring syndrome, which adversely affects their health.
 Perhaps more important, the F.D.A. proposal has one glaring defect: there is no
 requirement to label food that comes from genetically engineered animals.
 Surveys clearly show that the vast majority of Americans want genetically
 engineered animals to be labeled as such. By not requiring labeling, the F.D.A.
 will take away a consumer's right to know and right to choose what she eats.
 Michael Hansen
 Senior Scientist, Consumers Union
 Yonkers, Oct. 6, 2008
 To the Editor:
 The Food and Drug Administration's proposed policy is inconsistent and unwise.
 The introduction of a gene into an animal is not the same as the administration
 of a drug, and the F.D.A. has not previously required pre-market reviews of food
 or non-food animals that contain genes from disparate sources, such as the
 beefalo (a cow-bison combination) or mule (a horse-donkey genetic hybrid).
 A better approach would be that taken for food products by the F.D.A.'s Center
 for Food Safety and Nutrition, which requires a pre-marketing safety review only
 for certain high-risk ingredients. These include any food additive that becomes
 a component of or otherwise affects the characteristics of a food if it is ''not
 generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by qualified experts for its intended use.''
 Traditionally, the combination of two GRAS substances is also GRAS. Similarly,
 because adding a GRAS gene to a GRAS organism is likely to yield a GRAS outcome,
 an F.D.A. pre-marketing review would not be necessary for many animals with a
 newly introduced gene. Henry I. Miller
 Stanford, Calif., Oct. 5, 2008
 The writer, a doctor and fellow at the Hoover Institution, was an official at
 the F.D.A. from 1979 to 1994.
 To the Editor:
 What is especially troubling about the Food and Drug Administration's decision
 to consider commercializing genetically modified animals is that consumers
 currently have no way of knowing which products sold in stores are, or contain,
 genetically modified organisms.
 If the F.D.A. is going to introduce genetically engineered fish and beef into
 supermarkets, then transparency must extend to labeling. Regardless of whether
 the agency determines that the new organisms are safe, we have a right to the
 information that will enable us to choose whether we want to buy them.
 Alissa A. Hamilton
 Toronto, Oct. 5, 2008
 The writer is a food and society policy fellow at the Thomas Jefferson
 Agricultural Institute.
 To the Editor:
 Your editorial identifies two major problems with the Food and Drug
 Administration's proposed regulation of genetically engineered animals: a
 totally secret process and the inability to address potential environmental
 issues.
 Unfortunately, conducting public meetings and consulting with experts from other
 agencies cannot fix the fundamental flaws in the law that the F.D.A. is applying
 to regulate those products. Congress needs to step in and eliminate the current
 secrecy requirements, so the safety data submitted to the agency and the
 F.D.A.'s analysis would be provided to the public to review and comment on.
 Also, Congress should give the F.D.A. (and other agencies) the legal authority
 to assess and address any environmental concerns engineered animals might pose.
 Only with Congressional help will the federal government be able to establish an
 open and comprehensive regulatory system for engineered animals.
 Gregory Jaffe
 Washington, Oct. 6, 2008
 The writer is director of the Biotechnology Project, Center for Science in the
 Public Interest.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: October 13, 2008
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Letter
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 475
 
                          Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
                             October 9, 2008 Thursday
                                  Metro Edition
 critic's picks
 SECTION: VARIETY; Pg. 8E
 LENGTH: 222 words
 A familiar face
 Jenna Elfman hasn't had a lot of luck since "Dharma & Greg" left the air (her
 2006 sitcom, "Courting Alex" was an unqualified bomb). But fans will get to
 reacquaint themselves with the kooky actress when she appears as a militant camp
 director named Kimmi Himmler on "My Name Is Earl" (7 p.m., KARE, Ch. 11).
 CBS appears to have a solid hit in "The Mentalist." Let's see if the network can
 strike gold a second time with "Eleventh Hour" (9 p.m., WCCO, Ch. 4), in which
 Rufus Sewell plays a biophysicist/FBI adviser who investigates crimes involving
 human cloning, genetically modified food, viruses and autism. Marley Shelton
 also does double duty, playing both sidekick and eye candy. (Read more about the
 show on E10.)
 Weird science
 FX may have finally found an appropriate companion to "It's Always Sunny in
 Philadelphia" with the wildly inappropriate new series, "Testees" (9:30 p.m.,
 FX) in which two male roommates, who could be the cousins of the "Flight of the
 Conchords" duo, serve as human guinea pigs for a suspect science lab. In the
 premiere episode, one of them appears to have gotten impregnated, leading to
 situations grosser and more outrageous than anything Arnold Schwarzenegger
 endured in "Junior." The pilot is a bit uneven, but "Philadelphia" also took a
 while before it hit on all cylinders.
 (68%); SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (68%); AUTISM (54%) television
 LOAD-DATE: October 15, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                           Copyright 2008 Star Tribune
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 476
 
                            The Taos News (New Mexico)
                             October 9, 2008 Thursday
 SECTION: VALLE VISTA/REGIONAL; Pg. B-8
 LENGTH: 599 words
 By Jerry A. Padilla
 The Taos News
 Genetically modified organisms -- GMOs -- and their effect on people was a hot
 topic at the recent Third Annual Food and Seed Sovereignty Symposium at Tesuque
 Pueblo.
 The symposium Sept. 26-27 included speakers such as Debra Harry of Northern
 Paiute, who called for the protection of genetic and indigenous cultural
 heritage. Percy Schmeiser, from Saskatchewan, explained how he was involuntarily
 embroiled in very costly litigation with the Monsanto Company, when his farm was
 unwillingly contaminated with GMO plants.
 One panel at the symposium included: Allen Richardson, of Sustain Taos; Clayton
 Brascoupe, of Traditional Native American Farmers Association; and Dwight
 Collins, of Seeds of Change.
 "Genetic engineers are getting ahead of themselves because they don't really
 understand how GMOs interact with the environment," Richardson, of Cerro, said,
 "The effects haven't been studied enough, and now we are finding out just how
 harmful they can be."
 He said a few scientists working with traditional and native farmers are finding
 out new information about the effects GMOs can have on people's health.
 Moreover, he asked even if people chose not to eat GMO foods, how do consumers
 know whether processed foods contain ingredients derived from modified crops if
 there is no labeling required?
 "Very few laws exist, and it's piecemeal at best, of what there is," said
 Richardson, "the Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency
 and the United States Department of Agriculture are charged with regulation of
 an entangled web of procedures and rules."
 "We are told, that to test for GMO contamination in corn for example,"
 Richardson elaborated, "it requires grinding 10,000 kernels of the corn to be
 tested. That can completely destroy a traditional crop seed supply, and why
 would traditional farmers risk losing all their seed to find that out?"
 Richardson explained California passed the first GMO protection bill, but how
 effective can it be if U.S. government employees are working with biotech
 companies like Monsanto. The first legally binding seed sovereignty law resulted
 from the Ojibway Nation wild rice suit against the University of Minnesota.
 Genetic contamination
 Brascoupe said, "it was originally known as genetic engineering, but those
 working on it don't have a clue about genetic contamination."
 He said some researchers are looking for industrial and medical uses for GMO
 crops. "If scientists are supposed to watch out for bio-engineered farming, what
 about those who do things like corn spliced with human genes," he said. "Some
 people might not know about these things, but indigenous people in the United
 States, Mexico, Canada, are well aware of the new GMO contraceptive corn. It
 kills human sperm cells, thereby sterilizing human beings."
 He continued, "to me it is a direct attack of who we are as indigenous peoples,
 if these engineers are manipulating plants to kill insects, and sterilize human
 beings."
 Collins expressed equally disturbing information by asking, "when was the last
 time you ate a GMO food?"
 Many admitted to knowing they had and asked how is one to know?
 He said that "80 percent of processed foods contain GMOs, including 70 percent
 of cheese and dairy products, and are not labeled as such."
 Collins, Brascoupe and Richardson agreed that consumers and traditional farmers
 concerned with these issues can organize consumer groups, boycott businesses
 known to carry GMO products, and contact local, state, and national officials to
 do something to bring about laws to stop the proliferation of GMO foods.
 LOAD-DATE: January 14, 2010
 GRAPHIC: See pdf's for exact rendition, caption, graphics and photographer info.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                           Copyright 2008 The Taos News
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 477
 
                                The New York Times
                             October 4, 2008 Saturday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Coming to a Plate Near You
 SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Editorial Desk; Pg. 18
 LENGTH: 457 words
 Genetically modified fish and beef may be moving closer to your dinner table.
 After years of pondering the complexities, the Food and Drug Administration has
 finally issued draft regulatory guidelines that should open a pathway to
 commercialization for potentially useful products that have thus far been
 research curiosities.
 We know that many consumers are leery of ''Frankenfoods,'' but genetically
 engineered crops and microorganisms are already widely used. Furthermore, the
 new guidelines should allow engineered animal foods to be introduced safely.
 Producers will have to show that the inserted genes do not harm the animal's
 health and that any food from a genetically engineered animal is safe to eat.
 Genetically modified animals should be a boon both for consumers, who may
 ultimately gain healthier foods and access to scarce medications, and for
 agricultural producers, who may cut costs with disease-resistant or
 faster-growing animals.
 The only genetically engineered animal currently sold in this country, other
 than lab animals, is an aquarium fish that glows in the dark. Now there are
 hopes that the new guidelines will speed the commercialization of salmon that
 have had genes inserted to make them grow faster, pigs whose manure is less
 damaging to the environment, cattle resistant to mad-cow disease and animals
 whose meat or milk is more nutritious.
 Animals are also being engineered to produce pharmaceutical substances -- human
 insulin, disease-fighting antibodies, scarce clotting factors and cancer
 inhibitors -- that can be extracted for use in medicines.
 There are legitimate concerns that the agency will wrap the whole approval
 process in great secrecy. The agency may well hold public advisory meetings for
 the first few novel products, but it should probably extend that practice
 indefinitely. With such a new technology, an open, transparent approach is the
 best way to instill public confidence.
 Some critics worry that the F.D.A. won't be adept at assessing and mitigating
 the environmental risks of genetically engineered animals. Agency officials are
 confident that they have the requisite expertise, buttressed by the ability to
 consult with experts at other agencies. Congress will need to make sure that the
 already overburdened agency -- whose main focus has been drugs and medical
 devices -- has the budget and staffing to handle such a sensitive task.
 The crucial advance is that the government will require safety and environmental
 assessments before approving genetically engineered animal products. That is far
 more rigorous than the agency's current oversight of genetically modified crops
 or cloned animals. The proposal is now open for comments that could help improve
 it further.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: October 4, 2008
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Editorial
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 478
 
                         Lincoln Journal Star (Nebraska)
                            September 30, 2008 Tuesday
 Genetically engineered meat needs labels;
 BYLINE: Lincoln Journal Star
 SECTION: Pg. B5
 LENGTH: 425 words
 OUR VIEW (Lincoln Journal Star Editorial)
 Finally, after years of delay, American consumers this week finally will find
 country-of-origin labels on their meat counters. Ironically, just as this
 improvement in consumer information went into effect, another federal agency
 proposed regulations - tion on a different controversial topic. The Food and
 Drug Administration has proposed rules that would allow companies to sell
 genetically engineered meat without informing consumers of that fact. That's
 misguided and inconsistent. Polls show that consumers are just as interested, if
 not more, in whether their meat was genetically engineered as they are in the
 country of its origin. They should have this information when making meat
 purchases. The proposed rule is still far from approval. It was part of a
 proposed new comprehensive regulatory system for genetically engineered cattle,
 chickens, fish and other animals.
 As part of that system, the FDA will determine whether a genetically engineered
 animal was safe to eat. If the answer to that question is yes, the agency
 reasoned, than it could be sold without an identifying label.
 Already waiting for regulatory approval is a proposal from Aqua Bounty
 Technologies for a faster-growing salmon. Scientists took genes from a different
 fish and spliced it into salmon DNA. The genetic alteration means that salmon
 produce growth hormone all year long and grow to full size in 18 months instead
 of three years, according to The New York Times.
 The same process could be used to create chickens that grow faster, cattle that
 are resistant to mad cow disease or pork containing healthy omega-3 fatty acids,
 which are usually found in fish.
 Genetic engineering is not new, of course. Genetically modified corn and
 soybeans have been consumed for almost a decade in the United States with
 virtually no reported ill effects. Some estimate that more than 65 percent of
 products on U.S. grocery shelves contain genetically modified ingredients.
 It's undeniable that genetic engineering offers the promise of producing
 healthier meat more efficiently with fewer negative effects on the environment.
 But genetically engineered meat should not be introduced to the market behind
 consumer's backs. It should be done openly, with labels that tell consumers what
 they are buying.
 If the advantages for genetically engineered meat are as great as proponents
 would have us believe, then enhancement by genetic engineering should be part of
 the sales pitch - not a secret kept hidden from the people who are paying the
 bills.
 LOAD-DATE: April 10, 2009 Friday
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2008 Lincoln Journal Star
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 479
 
                                    Roll Call
                            September 29, 2008 Monday
 Genetically Engineered Animals on the Shelves
 BYLINE: Anna Palmer, ROLL CALL STAFF
 LENGTH: 966 words
 For years, buying genetically modified beef or fish at the grocery store has
 been prohibited.
 That could be changing soon as the Food and Drug Administration moved forward
 earlier this month with its proposed guidelines on how to regulate genetically
 engineered animals. The move is expected to clear the way for them to eventually
 enter the food supply.
 First developed in the 1980s, genetically engineered animals have had their DNA
 altered to introduce new traits into the animal. While genetically modified
 plants are widely used in agriculture, so far the FDA has not approved any
 genetically engineered animals for food or medical treatments.
 Currently, there are at least two dozen applications at the FDA awaiting
 approval, including one for genetically engineered Alaskan salmon.
 The public has until Nov. 18 to comment on the proposed regulations.
 The FDA's proposal was welcome news for groups like the Biotechnology Industry
 Organization that have been lobbying the agency for years to put forth
 guidelines that will give the industry a better idea of what it will need to do
 to garner approval for genetically engineered animals.
 "We feel like publication of a regulatory process is a first step toward
 actually moving those applications," said Barbara Glenn, managing director of
 animal biotechnology for BIO. "Our members have been working on a lot of these
 steps, and likely many of them have been met. This moves the process along to
 potentially have one approved someday."
 BIO has been supporting a mandatory approval process as a way to ensure consumer
 confidence.
 The regulatory process would enable not only genetically engineered animals for
 food to be approved. The animals could also be used for medical treatments such
 as organ transplants and genetically engineered so that they are less prone to
 disease, said Jennifer Greiner, director of science and technology at the
 National Pork Producers Council.
 Animals could also be genetically engineered to be leaner, and therefore
 healthier, for humans to eat.
 The council has been supportive of the FDA moving forward with the regulations.
 Not everyone is happy with the proposal, of course.
 Consumer groups such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the
 Center for Food Safety have raised concerns about whether the FDA's proposal for
 approving genetically engineered animals is too secretive. The groups say it is
 likely the approval process will be closed to the public until after the food
 animal has been approved by the agency.
 Another area that has caught their attention is how the agency will make sure to
 consider environmental oversight in coordination with agencies like the
 Environmental Protection Agency.
 BIO's Glenn refuted the consumer groups' concerns.
 The biotech industry supports transparency to the fullest extent of the law, and
 expects that the FDA will be in line with the environmental regulations put
 forth by the EPA, she said.
 This isn't the first time the Center for Food Safety has gotten involved with
 how the FDA is regulating genetically modified animals.
 In 2004, the group brought a lawsuit, along with the Center for Technology
 Assessment, asking a judge to require the FDA to regulate the genetically
 modified GloFish. The fish, which was originally intended to help scientists
 study pollution, was marketed as the first genetically modified house pet.
 The Center for Food Safety was concerned that if not regulated it could open the
 door for less regulation of all genetically modified animals, according to the
 center's legal director, Joseph Mendelson.
 The consumer group lost that battle in 2004 when the court dismissed the case on
 the grounds that it was up to the FDA whether to enforce the matter.
 "Basically, it means enforcement is at the whim of the agency," Mendelson said.
 "It's a big loophole for them to say we aren't going to enforce against this
 treatment."
 More traditional agriculture groups like the International Dairy Foods
 Association have also taken an interest in the proposal.
 The IDFA has come out in support of a "rigorous review" of the approval process,
 according to Clay Hough, senior vice president for the group. They also expect
 to have input in the public comment process.
 "It's important to do a careful and deliberative process," IDFA spokeswoman
 Peggy Armstrong said. "The most important thing for us is that we maintain the
 trust of consumers in our products."
 One area in which there does not appear to be a consensus is whether the FDA
 should require labeling of modified food animals. The National Farmers Union,
 for one, is in favor of labeling the food, citing the concern that foreign
 countries have had in accepting U.S. products that have beef hormones.
 "Our concern is always that you have to be very careful as you go down this road
 because consumers are our customers," said Tom Buis, president of the National
 Farmers Union. "We have always supported labeling of the products to let the
 consumer make the choice. If they want it, that's a different story. They should
 be able to make their choice."
 Congress has yet to weigh in on the FDA's proposal, although it could just be a
 matter of time.
 Genetically modified foods have been on the market since the 1990s, and while
 their supporters say they can be a boon to reducing world hunger, detractors
 wonder about the long-term health effects and potential impact on biodiversity.
 BIO's Glenn said it would premature for Congress to now try to put a legislative
 mechanism in place.
 But consumer groups say they are encouraged by Members such as Rep. Dennis
 Kucinich (D-Ohio) stepping forward on issues like food labeling and liability
 issues.
 "The statues were never designed for technology," Mendelson said. "More
 oversight would be better to increase transparency and serve everyone much
 better."
 LOAD-DATE: September 29, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2008 Roll Call, Inc.









Document Number: 480
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                            September 29, 2008 Monday
 On its 10th anniversary, plant center still battles perceptions
 BYLINE: By Georgina Gustin ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A6
 LENGTH: 599 words
 CREVE COEUR - The Donald Danforth Plant Science Center opened its doors to an
 inquisitive public Sunday, inviting anyone who has ever wondered about the
 striking orange building - and the science that goes on within it - to join in
 its 10th birthday party.
 "I've always passed it and wondered what they did here," said Maureen Cantwell,
 as she toured the building, making her way from lab to lab with her son, Ryan.
 "We're just curious."
 The center, a nonprofit enterprise launched in 1998, was funded in large part by
 Monsanto, the world's largest agricultural biotechnology company, which
 maintains its headquarters just across the street.
 The Danforth Center's goal is ambitious: to improve the human condition through
 plant science. Over the past decade, the center has lured top scientists from
 around the world and built an endowment that approaches $150 million. Its
 scientists have developed biotech corn, soy and cassava, among other things,
 with the intention of giving the science away to developing countries to help
 feed the poor.
 But, so far, no country has allowed the free science in - though Uganda is
 close, Danforth scientists say.
 In 1996, Monsanto becamethe first company to bring a genetically modified crop -
 corn - to market. Since then, biotech food has become ubiquitous. By some
 estimates genetically modified ingredients are in 60 percent of our food.
 But the public has been skeptical about the so-called "frankenfood," worried
 that there could be unknown, long-term health and environmental consequences.
 European countries have resisted accepting genetically modified crops, though
 some, including Spain, Germany and Poland, have allowed them.
 The Danforth Center has put an altruistic face on biotech amid the debate.
 Danforth scientists say they are committed to stamping out global hunger through
 disease resistant crops that conserve resources. Such ambition - as the world
 faces a food crisis, a growing population and dwindling cropland - is more
 critical than it was a decade ago, researchers say.
 "They believe in the mission that plant science can improve the human
 condition," said Roger Beachy, president of the center. "This science can help
 the environment, and food safety, and food abundance."
 Biotech proponents say such research is misunderstood, and its potential
 contributions are being thwarted by an unfair public perceptions.
 "There's nothing but good reporting from the science," Beachy said. "We're
 disappointed when politicians don't have the conviction to go forward."
 The rising cost of food, Beachy continued, seems to be helping sway some
 opinions. The global mind set, he said, "is slowly changing."
 At Sunday's birthday soiree, though, there was little talk of public or
 political resistance. Children toured a miniaturized Ugandan village; adults
 wound through greenhouses bursting with cassava plants; and a dining area
 brimmed with visitors munching on cassava chips and soybeans. (Neither were
 genetically modified.)
 Nearby, Phyllis Cantor sat at a booth run by the Jewish Community Center,
 holding a sign that read: "Organic Food Co-Op at the JCC." Organic food in this
 country, by definition, cannot be genetically modified. Cantor is pro-organic,
 but has mixed feelings about the potential of biotech food products.
 "I don't think we know enough about what's going to be a benefit and what's
 going to cause harm," she said.
 Doubts or not, the center celebrated Sunday. Near the entrance to the building,
 Beachy cut into an elaborate cake - a confectionary replica of the center made
 with cassava - as African drumming pounded in the background.
 LOAD-DATE: September 29, 2008
 GRAPHIC:  PHOTO - Royce Dempsey and his daughter Amber Dempsey of Imperial visit
 the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center during Sunday's open house.  Erik M.
 Lunsford | Post-Dispatch
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2008 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 481
 
                               The Washington Post
                            September 28, 2008 Sunday
                                  Every Edition
 Vets Often Overlook Dangers In the Diet
 SECTION: EXTRAS; Pg. LZ17
 LENGTH: 1532 words
 Dear Dr. Fox:
 Like J.S. (Animal Doctor, "Suffering Beagle Needs Whole-Food Diet," June 15), I
 have a beagle that had dietary issues. At 2, he began to experience the same
 symptoms as her pet. I, too, had spent tons of money at the vet trying to find a
 solution. My sister suggested I try Natural Choice, the lamb and rice formula.
 After two to three weeks, the symptoms were gone. The excessive scratching and
 biting stopped, the redness on his skin went away and his hair grew back. Please
 inform J.S. about this dry dog food that can be purchased at PetSmart and Petco.
 Mechanicsville
 I receive many letters from people whose dogs are scratching and biting
 themselves to pieces, and the attending veterinarians do not consider their
 patients' diet a possible cause. They have been led to believe by pet-food
 manufacturers that all brand-name dog foods are scientifically formulated,
 complete and balanced for health and maintenance. This is far from the truth,
 since the basic ingredients and quality of some can change with each batch of
 manufactured product.
 Dogs are put on steroids to stop the scratching and chewing, only too often
 getting diabetes, cystitis and diseases of the adrenal glands -- like the
 all-too-common Cushing's disease.
 I hope that readers with suffering dogs like yours will take note and discuss
 the probability of food allergy or hypersensitivity with their animals' doctors.
 Fortunately, more and more veterinarians are recognizing the link between diet
 and a variety of health problems in dogs and cats, allergic reactions being
 indicative of a disrupted immune system.
 With the number of letters like this having significantly increased over the
 past five years, I surmise that genetically engineered ingredients in pet foods
 are a major culprit. For documentation of the potential health hazards of
 genetically engineered foods, check my Web site and recent book "Killer Foods."
 Few people know that about 80 percent of corn and soybean in the United States
 is genetically engineered -- crops that are outlawed in many countries.
 Dear Dr. Fox:
 We have two cats. One is laid-back, and the other is a bit aggressive.
 CoCo, the aggressive one, follows me around the house day and night. When I read
 or watch TV, she sits nearby and just stares at me. She acts as though I am her
 mother. She cries if I go outside to work in the yard or walk to the mailbox.
 But here's the real problem: Every night, between 4 and 5 a.m., she stands by my
 side of the bed and wails as loud as she can until I get up! She has plenty of
 food, so it's not hunger. Usually, I grab my pillow and lie on the sofa. This
 seems to satisfy her, but she just sits in a chair and stares at me. This is
 ruining my sleep. Please advise. Thank you.
 Virginia Beach
 Your cat seems to be showing increased dependence, fear of separation and, in
 the early-morning hours, anxiety and distress.
 You don't say how old she is. If she is about 10 or older, she could be
 suffering from one of several geriatric problems, such as senile dementia or
 painful arthritis. I would advise a full veterinary checkup, including thyroid
 function. Many cats with hyperactive thyroids, possibly caused by fire-retardant
 chemicals in the home, may develop changes in temperament.
 Try giving her up to 1 teaspoon of cod-liver oil (a natural supplement that has
 anti-inflammatory properties) in her food daily. A small electric blanket pad
 for her to lie on at night might also help. Discuss with your veterinarian the
 possibility of giving her valerian around your bedtime.
 If she is a young cat, maybe she has been overindulged and needs to learn a few
 boundaries. A spray bottle of water by your bedside may be all you need. A quick
 spray in the cat's direction preceded by a loud "Go away, CoCo" might do the
 trick.
 Dear Dr. Fox:
 We have two 11-year-old cats. About a year ago, they started avoiding the carpet
 in one of our rooms. To go outside, they go across the couch and chairs or on
 the ledge of the wall. They have also started avoiding the kitchen floor and
 have to be fed out on the porch. They stay in the house all day long, sleeping
 on different end tables, and then go outside at night. Is this normal behavior
 for house cats?
 Okeechobee, Fla.
 I take it that after 11 years your two cats have developed an aversion to going
 across the floor, especially in your kitchen. Maybe they are doing this for good
 reason.
 Most floor cleaners (unless it states clearly on the box or bottle) are not
 "green," environmentally friendly or pet-safe. Your cats may know more than you
 about these products. They could have chemical sensitivity and have developed an
 aversion, testing the chemical cleaner on their paws that they routinely lick
 during self-grooming.
 An alternative explanation is that your cats have simply developed a new game --
 staying above the floor (as cats often do) and jumping on furniture where they
 feel more secure. They prefer to eat outdoors and have trained you to feed them
 on the patio. But please do not let them roam at night! All cats should be
 indoors; and when outdoors, confined in an enclosure to keep them and other
 animals safe.
 Dear Dr. Fox:
 I have a 15-year-old cat that I take in every year for her annual shots.
 When I took her in last year for her shots, she developed a lump on the back
 side of her right front leg. The vet said I should have it removed right away
 because it was cancerous.
 After putting my cat through surgery, I found out the lump was caused by the
 rabies vaccination.
 My cat is due for her shots again, and I'm terrified to take her in. She is an
 indoors-only cat. Is it necessary to have these yearly shots, and if so, which
 ones?
 Shakopee, Minn.
 You and your cats are both victims of overzealous vaccinations. First, according
 to feline veterinary experts, annual booster vaccinations, except for rabies,
 are out. Your veterinarian needs to get up-to-date and change his or her
 vaccination protocol.
 Second, since the last rabies vaccination resulted in an adverse reaction that
 could have been a form of invasive cancer called fibrosarcoma, the veterinarian
 could write you a waiver notice. Since your cat is always indoors and had an
 adverse reaction to the rabies vaccination, no further vaccinations are advised.
 Back this up by having a blood test done and, quite likely, your cat will have a
 high enough rabies antibody titer to make a booster vaccination unnecessary.
 Dear Dr. Fox:
 I have an 11-year-old male cat, Jerry, who had his first episode of cystitis in
 2001. At that point, he was switched to a raw-food diet and a small amount (10
 pieces a day) of Wysong Uretic dry cat food, formulated for cats with cystitis.
 Jerry loved the raw-food diet, but six months later, he had another cystitis
 episode. One holistic vet I went to suggested taking Jerry off turkey, though my
 regular holistic vet thought turkey was an unlikely cause -- he didn't think
 food allergies could cause cystitis episodes. A week later, Jerry was blocked
 again, and I made the connection that corn might be the culprit. I discovered
 that the second ingredient in the Wysong was corn -- it has since been
 reformulated, and the corn has been removed.
 About seven months later, my normal supply of raw-chicken cat food was
 interrupted, and I had to put my two cats on the dog version of the raw food for
 a few weeks. I had forgotten that turkey might be a trigger and decided to give
 my cats some variety and gave them turkey as well as chicken. That was the last
 time Jerry has eaten anything with turkey, as that triggered his fifth cystitis
 episode. Jerry recovered from that episode and has been fine ever since. He'll
 be 12 soon and is very happy with a corn-free, turkey-free, mostly raw-food
 diet.
 One food often prescribed for cats with cystitis, Hill's Prescription Diet c/d,
 has corn gluten as the second ingredient in the dry food and ground corn in the
 wet food. Apart from the corn, the food is just garbage. I don't understand how
 the company is still in business.
 Only feed your pets high-quality food with no corn, no turkey and no byproducts
 or preservatives. Make your own observations, and don't assume that your vet
 knows everything.
 Bridgeport, Conn.
 Your letter is important reading for people whose cats get frequent bouts of
 cystitis or have chronic cystitis. I congratulate you on your deductive work.
 I firmly believe that no cat food should ever contain corn. Some cats are at
 risk when their litter is a corn byproduct.
 Fortunately, few cats -- to my knowledge -- are allergic to turkey; but any
 animal protein, especially fish and beef, can be problematic when cats develop a
 hypersensitivity to that particular protein.
 Cystitis problems can be compounded by inadequate water consumption, especially
 when cats are given dry food only. Social and emotional distress is also a
 contributor.
 Michael W. Fox, author of a newsletter and books on animal care, welfare and
 rights, is a veterinarian with doctoral degrees in medicine and animal behavior.
 More pet care information is available at his Web site, www.doctormwfox.org.
 Write to Fox at United Feature Syndicate, 200 Madison Ave., New York, N.Y.
 Copyright 2008 United Feature Syndicate Inc.
 LOAD-DATE: September 28, 2008
 DISTRIBUTION: Loudoun County
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2008 The Washington Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 482
 
                      Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania)
                           September 25, 2008 Thursday
 BYLINE: Margi Shrum
 SECTION: FOOD; Pg. D-2
 LENGTH: 227 words
 W e received samples of a new line of snacks, "home free," which caught my eye
 because they promise to be free of just about everything: peanuts, tree nuts,
 eggs, dairy, trans fats and cholesterol. Also allergen tested, certified
 organic, free of artificial colors and flavors, MSG, corn sweeteners, and for
 good measure, they're kosher and free of genetically modified organisms, or
 GMOs, says the package.
 The treats are made in dedicated kitchens, which avoids cross-contamination from
 such things as nuts.
 They're marketed as good for children with food allergies, which are no small
 concern. Information sent by home free's marketer says the Food Allergy &
 Anaphylaxis Network, an advocacy group, estimates 2.2 million schoolchildren
 have food allergies.
 I had a dear high school classmate die, suddenly and unexpectedly, in adulthood
 of anaphylactic shock, a very hard lesson in how allergies must be taken
 seriously.
 Our roving band of taste-testing staffers chomped on Soft Oatmeal, Oatmeal
 Chocolate Chip and Mini Chocolate Chip cookies.
 The Soft Oatmeal received the most favorable comments; other kinds were found to
 be somewhat dry or lacking flavor.
 I liked the Mini Chocolate Chip best.
 The company, based in New Hampshire, was founded by Jill Robbins, whose son has
 severe food allergies.
 For more information, call 1-800-552-7172 or go to homefreetreats.com.
 LOAD-DATE: September 26, 2008
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO: No Caption
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2008 P.G. Publishing Co.









Document Number: 483
 
                            The Taos News (New Mexico)
                           September 25, 2008 Thursday
 SECTION: VALLE VISTA/REGIONAL; Pg. B-10
 LENGTH: 761 words
 First in a two-part series
 By Jerry A. Padilla
 The Taos News
 It has been proven that chile can grow excellent yields in Taos County, and that
 it does well in acreage or greenhouses alongside other organically grown crops.
 Allen Richardson, employed by Cerro Vista Farm, is not only a farmer and an
 advocate of organic and pesticide-free traditional farming. He is also involved
 in a campaign to keep native New Mexico landrace chile varieties free from
 contamination by accidental hybridization from genetically modified organisms
 (GMO) or genetically altered seed.
 "It's like a Pandora's Box or letting the genie out of the bottle," Richardson
 said. "Once opened, the results can never be put back; there's no going back.
 Traditional crops can and are being changed forever by GMOs."
 Richardson is a "seed sovereignty activist" volunteering with the community
 organization Sustain Taos. He gained his initial activist training between 2001
 and 2003 as lead organizer for the New Mexico Association of Community
 Organizations for Reform Now, where he headed campaigns contributing to the
 passage of statewide anti-predatory lending legislation in New Mexico. In
 addition, he organized among livestock owners in the South Valley to prevent
 agriculture from being zoned out.
 Richardson was also outreach coordinator for the White Earth Land Recovery
 Project's successful campaign to protect Minnesota wild rice from contamination
 by engineered genes.
 Risks of farming
 While working harvesting varieties of chile, scallions, potatoes, and onions at
 Cerro Vista Farm, Richardson recently took the time to explain the risks of
 farming with GMOs
 Richardson said he had attended the New Mexico State University (NMSU) Chile
 Field Day in Las Cruces. There, he raised concerns about the 2008 funding
 package to NMSU, which includes funds to accelerate the genetic engineering of
 New Mexico chile. Richardson said it is confusing, because a 2007 legislative
 memorial backed traditional crops and seed stocks free from contamination by
 engineered genes.
 "The board of Sustain Taos has authorized me to look into the matter based on my
 prior experience involving the controversy over the proposed engineering of wild
 rice by the University of Minnesota," he said.
 "Because of my experience, I was invited to return to New Mexico."
 "I formalized this request to the New Mexico Chile Association (NMCA)
 administrator on Aug. 25 and have heard nothing since," Richardson continued. "I
 don't need to repeat that I am working on a farm near Questa that has grown and
 is harvesting a healthy crop of New Mexico chile."
 Central questions
 Richardson said two central questions arise when discussing the relationship
 between GMOs and traditional crops: Is contamination inevitable? And, if so,
 does it matter?
 He invites anyone who is concerned about GMOs, seed sovereignty, and keeping
 traditional crops from being modified or changed by intent or accident, to
 attend the Third Annual Symposium for Sustainable Food and Seed Sovereignty
 Friday and Saturday (Sept. 26-27) at Tesuque Pueblo.
 "It would perhaps clarify the concerns of traditional farmers regarding genetic
 engineering in agriculture," he said.
 Percy Schemiser, the Canadian farmer who was sued by Monsanto after his land was
 contaminated by GMOs, will be speaking at the event.
 "After hearing his story, perhaps NMSU, the New Mexico Dept. of Agriculture
 (NMDA), and the New Mexico Chile Association personnel could explain why it is
 that we should not be worried about such things happening in New Mexico," said
 Richardson.
 For information about the symposium, visit www.foodandseedconference.info or
 call (505) 955-7723.
 Regarding his concerns and questions, Richardson elaborated that "what's changed
 recently in debates of this kind is that there is no longer any nuance to the
 first question, is contamination inevitable? The contamination of the long grain
 white rice harvest that came to light in 2006 ended any debate on that subject."
 Richardson recommends anyone wanting to know more about what happened with the
 wild rice to read the article "Out of Bounds," in Nature Magazine, Jan. 10,
 He expressed that he does have hope that the issue of GMOs and the effect they
 have can be negotiated by working with those involved. "It's encouraging that
 during his presidential campaign, Gov. Bill Richardson (no relation) raised the
 issue that foods containing GMOs should be labeled as such, so that people who
 prefer not to eat foods containing them have a choice when shopping."
 Next week, Allen Richardson asks more difficult questions.
 LOAD-DATE: January 14, 2010
 GRAPHIC: See pdf's for exact rendition, caption, graphics and photographer info.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                           Copyright 2008 The Taos News
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 484
 
                               The Washington Post
                           September 25, 2008 Thursday
                                  Every Edition
 Vets Often Overlook Dangers in the Diet
 SECTION: EXTRAS; Pg. VA13
 LENGTH: 404 words
 Dear Dr. Fox:
 Like J.S. (Animal Doctor, "Suffering Beagle Needs Whole-Food Diet," June 15), I
 have a beagle that had dietary issues. At 2, he began to experience the same
 symptoms as her pet. I, too, had spent tons of money at the vet trying to find a
 solution to my dog's problems. My sister suggested I try Natural Choice, the
 lamb and rice formula.
 After two to three weeks, the symptoms were gone. The excessive scratching and
 biting stopped, the redness on his skin went away, and his hair grew back.
 Please inform J.S. about this dry dog food that can be purchased at PetSmart and
 Petco.
 Mechanicsville
 I receive many letters from people whose poor dogs are scratching and biting
 themselves to pieces, and the attending veterinarians do not consider their
 patients' diet a possible cause. They have been led to believe by pet-food
 manufacturers that all brand-name dog foods are scientifically formulated,
 complete and balanced for health and maintenance. This is far from the truth,
 since the basic ingredients and quality of some can change with each batch of
 manufactured product.
 Dogs are put on steroids to stop the scratching and chewing, only too often
 getting diabetes, cystitis and diseases of the adrenal glands -- like the
 all-too-common Cushing's disease.
 I hope that readers with suffering dogs like yours will take note and discuss
 the probability of food allergy or hypersensitivity with their animals' doctors.
 Fortunately, more and more veterinarians are recognizing the link between diet
 and a variety of health problems in dogs and cats, allergic reactions being
 indicative of a disrupted immune system.
 With the number of letters like this having significantly increased over the
 past five years, I surmise that genetically engineered ingredients in pet foods
 are a major culprit. For documentation of the potential health hazards of GE
 foods, check my Web site and recent book "Killer Foods." Few people know that
 around 80 percent of corn and soybean in the United States is GE -- the growing
 of which is outlawed in many other countries.
 Michael W. Fox, author of a newsletter and books on animal care, welfare and
 rights, is a veterinarian with doctoral degrees in medicine and animal behavior.
 More pet care information is available at his Web site, www.doctormwfox.org.
 Write to Fox at United Feature Syndicate, 200 Madison Ave., New York, N.Y.
 Copyright 2008 United Feature Syndicate Inc.
 LOAD-DATE: September 25, 2008
 DISTRIBUTION: Alexandria-Arlington
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2008 The Washington Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 485
 
                            September 22, 2008 Monday
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. B5
 LENGTH: 157 words
 In the face of nearly zero demand from consumers, genetically engineered food is
 on its way. Don't worry about any shock at seeing re-engineered fish or meat:
 The government doesn't want you to know what you're eating.
 That fits a pattern of denying consumers the right to honest labeling set by the
 administration with approvals for cloned animals and irradiated meat.
 Agri-business gets to do what it wants, and consumers shouldn't know what
 they're buying.
 The federal Food and Drug Administration is developing a regulatory framework,
 which could help prevent other safety issues, though we have serious doubts.
 Consider, too, the possibility that genetically modified salmon will get loose,
 further hurting wild runs.
 The FDA does envision labeling products changed by engineering; for example, if
 eggs have lower cholesterol. Sure: That works out great for a corporation making
 a health pitch. But consumers deserve labeling in every case.
 LOAD-DATE: September 23, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer









Document Number: 486
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                            September 19, 2008 Friday
 FDA sets rules for modified meat, fish It will not require labeling, but the
 agency will regulate genetically engineered animals designed for human use or
 consumption.
 BYLINE: By Georgina Gustin ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A3
 LENGTH: 512 words
 The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday helped pave the way for genetically
 engineered meat and fish to end up on American dinner tables.
 The agency said genetically engineered animals, created for human use or
 consumption, will be regulated in the same way as veterinary drugs, meaning they
 will go through a safety review process.
 But consumer groups said Thursday that the review process might not be stringent
 enough and expressed concern about environmental consequences.
 The agency underscored Thursday that it will not require package labeling that
 explicitly explains to consumers that an animal has been genetically altered,
 also drawing sharp criticism from food safety groups.
 The agency has been reviewing genetically engineered animals and animal products
 since the early 1990s but had never formally or publicly clarified the approval
 process for bringing them to the marketplace. On Thursday, it issued guidelines
 for the first time.
 "The guidance lays out how the industry should demonstrate safety," an agency
 spokeswoman said. "This public declaration doesn't change anything, it just
 makes it official."
 The agency has yet to approve a genetically engineered animal for human
 consumption, but it is currently reviewing between 40 and 50 applications, the
 agency said.
 Earlier this year, the agency declared meat and milk from cloned animals safe to
 eat.
 A cloned animal is, in effect, an exact replication of another animal. A
 genetically engineered animal is one whose genetic material has been altered
 with genetic material of another animal to give the new animal desirable
 characteristics or traits.
 Proponents say genetically engineered animals have uses that could dramatically
 improve human health, pointing to "biopharm" animals that are created to
 generate ingredients for medicines, or those raised for organ transplantation
 into humans.
 Officials say it likely will be years before genetically engineered meat ends up
 on store shelves, though one company is likely closer than most.
 Aqua Bounty of Massachusetts is hoping to market its genetically engineered
 salmon, which grows to maturity in less time than wild or farmed salmon, but it
 awaits approval.
 Researchers at the University of Missouri-Columbia have cloned and genetically
 engineered pigs that manufacture heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids, though it's
 not clear when or if the pork will reach stores.
 Consumer groups on Thursday said the public issuance of the guidelines was a
 positive step because it makes clear that the agency will regulate genetically
 engineered meat, unlike genetically engineered plants, which are not reviewed by
 the agency.
 "On the plus side, there's a mandatory safety assessment," said Michael Hansen,
 of Consumers Union. "It's better than what they've done with plants."
 Food safety groups say they're also concerned about the unknowns, particularly
 if genetically engineered animals mate with native populations.
 Several states, including Oregon and Washington, have prohibited transgenic fish
 because of concerns that they could mingle with their native fish.
 LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2008 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 487
 
                        San Jose Mercury News (California)
                           September 18, 2008 Thursday
 Editorial: FDA must require labels on genetically engineered foods
 BYLINE: Mercury News Editorial
 LENGTH: 219 words
 The Food and Drug Administration is gearing up to put a government seal of
 approval on genetically engineered animals, including salmon, cows and chickens.
 Despite the yuck factor among consumers, there's no closing the door on this
 scientific advance. That leaves the FDA with two obligations.
 First, it must provide compelling evidence that food from genetically engineered
 animals is safe before allowing it to appear in supermarkets and restaurants. It
 has released a proposed set of guidelines for approaching the analysis, which is
 a good first step.
 Equally important, the FDA must face up to the need to label these foods. On
 this count, it's falling down.
 American consumers need to know the origin of the food they eat. It's beyond
 comprehension that the FDA fails to acknowledge that. All food products from
 genetically engineered animals should be labeled. It's at least as important as
 labeling for country of origin.
 The fear of Frankenstein farms is overblown. We've always used science to
 improve food yields and quality. But this wouldn't be the first scientific
 advance that at first seemed harmless but later proved to be a problem. It's
 legitimate to question the long-term effects of genetic engineering, and by
 dodging the need to label these foods, the federal government is only fanning
 the flames.
 LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2008 San Jose Mercury News
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 488
 
                                The New York Times
                           September 17, 2008 Wednesday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Superfood or Monster From the Deep?
 BYLINE: By JULIA MOSKIN
 SECTION: Section F; Column 0; Dining In, Dining Out / Style Desk; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 1851 words
 OFF the coast of Peru swim billions of sardines and anchovies: oily, smelly
 little fish, rich in nutritious omega-3 fatty acids. Their spot on the food
 chain is low; many will be caught, ground up, and fed as fishmeal to bigger
 animals.
 But a few have a more exalted destiny: to be transported, purified and served at
 North American breakfast tables in the form of Tropicana Healthy Heart orange
 juice and Wonder Headstart bread. These new products promise to deliver the
 health benefits of fish oil without the smell and the taste -- without, in fact,
 the fish.
 The possible benefits of eating omega-3s include cardiovascular protection and
 improved neural development in children.
 However, ''People just aren't eating salmon or sardines twice a day,'' said
 Ellie Halevy, director for marketing of Tropicana, which is owned by PepsiCo.
 ''But they will drink two glasses of orange juice, if it has no fishy taste and
 all the benefits.''
 Orange juice laced with anchovies is one example of the latest way major food
 companies are competing for health-conscious consumers: plugging one food into
 another and claiming the health benefits of both. Shoppers are offered green tea
 extracts in their ginger ale, yogurt bacteria in their salsa, and powdered beets
 in their peanut butter. Market staples like blueberries (high in certain
 antioxidants), cherries (may have anti-inflammatory benefits) and bananas (when
 unripe, particularly rich in fiber) are being broken down, shaken up,
 microencapsulated, and put to work in new ways.
 These additives are often called nutraceuticals, broadly defined as ingredients
 that are derived from food, and that offer health benefits associated with that
 food. Nutraceuticals like garlic pills and cranberry capsules became popular in
 the 1990s, usually taken alone in the form of dietary supplements.
 Now Kraft, Dannon, General Mills and many other companies are adding
 nutraceuticals to existing foods: ''fat-burning waffles'' made from a newly
 developed corn flour, cheese that kills intestinal parasites, even ketchup that
 regulates digestion, are on the shelves or in the works. New technologies in
 food processing, and a landmark 1999 court decision giving the makers of
 supplements broad leeway to advertise their health benefits, have brought this
 new class of enhanced foods to supermarket shelves.
 These products are known as functional foods, meaning they have been modified to
 make them more nutritious, like genetically modified rice or fortified milk.
 ''One day, we believe, you will be able to walk into a supermarket and all the
 products could be enriched with omega-3s: milk, yogurt, tortillas,'' said Ian
 Lucas, head of marketing for Ocean Nutrition Canada, maker of the fish oil used
 by Tropicana.
 Are we really that close to a world in which food functions as a nutrient
 delivery system, made possible by microencapsulation and fine-spray coating? And
 what would this mean for food and human nutrition?
 ''This whole area is far more complex than we thought just one or two years
 ago,'' said Alice H. Lichtenstein, a professor of nutrition science and policy
 at Tufts University.
 Since the 1970s, as nutrition research has progressed beyond ''vitamins and
 minerals,'' a variety of new compounds have been touted as the key to health:
 antioxidants (related to vitamins, these include lycopene, beta-carotene and
 other plant-based nutrients); long-chain fatty acids like omega-3s, plentiful in
 fish and some plants; and ''probiotics,'' the live bacteria in yogurt and
 fermented vegetables.
 There is significant scientific agreement -- the standard the Food and Drug
 Administration requires before foodmakers can place unqualified health claims on
 packaging -- on the benefits of certain nutrients, including calcium, fiber,
 folate, soy protein, omega-3 fatty acids, lactic acid bacteria and a few others.
 In food, these have proved to help protect against specific diseases (calcium
 against osteoporosis, omega-3 fatty acids for heart disease), and many
 nutritionists believe that they are beneficial in supplement form.
 However, recent studies on supplemental vitamin E, beta-carotene and folate (all
 of which fall into the broad category of ''antioxidants'') surprised everyone by
 showing no benefits whatsoever for cardiovascular disease. ''There is a great
 deal we don't know about how the compounds in food are made available to the
 body,'' Dr. Lichtenstein said. ''Now we have to be more cautious about
 individual nutrients, though we should not close our minds, given the successes
 of the past.''
 Fortified food is certainly one of the great triumphs of public-health policy.
 When vitamin-B-enriched flour was introduced in the 1940s, rates of pellagra
 plummeted. Iodine-fortified salt virtually wiped out goiter, and
 vitamin-D-enriched milk eliminated rickets in children. But some experts say
 that such carefully designed campaigns have little in common with the fortified
 products now turning up in supermarkets.
 ''Those decisions were based on rigorous public-health studies,'' said Dr.
 Jeffrey Mechanick, a professor of endocrinology at Mount Sinai School of
 Medicine. ''But the science hasn't been done on the new nutraceutical products,
 and the F.D.A.'s current labeling standards are inadequate.''
 The agency does not have specific rules for the labeling of functional foods.
 ''It all depends on what type of claim is being made,'' said Michael Herndon, an
 agency spokesman. ''An unqualified health claim like 'calcium reduces your risk
 of osteoporosis,' has to be proved in advance. A more general claim like 'X
 keeps your heart healthy' has to be provable by the manufacturer, but we would
 not require proof in advance.'' As with conventional foods, functional foods
 must clearly state the presence of allergens, like milk or fish, in the
 ingredients list.
 The Food and Drug Administration does not conduct nutritional research. Several
 other federal agencies do so, but functional foods are not evaluated by any
 specific office. ''Nutraceutical products have characteristics of both food and
 drugs,'' said David A. Kessler, a former commissioner of the F.D.A. ''It's easy
 for them to slip through the cracks, and the industry is always ahead of the
 agency.''
 The free-market policy on claims for nutraceuticals benefits companies like
 LycoRed, a global provider of compounds pulled out of tomatoes that grow in
 desert greenhouses in Israel. LycoRed, like FutureCeuticals, National Starch,
 the German chemical giant BASF and other companies, produces a range of
 additives for the food industry.
 ''Everybody already knows that a tomato is healthy,'' said Udi Alroy, the
 company's chief marketer. ''We don't have to sell something from Mars.'' But the
 form in which the tomato appears in LycoRed products is somewhat unearthly.
 Specially bred tomatoes, bright red and flavorless, are pulped and then treated
 to extract the valuable compounds of lycopene, beta-carotene and lutein -- which
 are then encapsulated in ''beadlets'' so tiny they cannot be felt by the human
 tongue.
 ''People want their food to have the same organoleptic qualities, not be gritty
 or taste different or feel weird,'' said Kevin Stark, head of the food
 technology division of NineSigma, a research company that helps put clients like
 General Mills and Procter & Gamble in touch with scientists and technologists
 around the world.
 The tiny capsules, made of fat, protein or sometimes plastic, can be designed to
 deliver foods to a particular part of the digestive tract. Some capsules can
 wait out long periodson shelves or even survive heat treatment, the method used
 to cook and sterilize most canned foods.
 Other new technologies can remove the fishy smell of fish, distill a pomegranate
 into flavorless powder and possibly deliver the nutritional benefits of a green
 bean via a slice of pound cake, and major players like Dannon, Nestle and
 PepsiCo are plunging in.
 A new brand of peanut butter, Zap, is imperceptibly fortified with powdered
 beets, carrots and bananas. Nutritious Chocolate, a new product from Gary Null,
 a health-food marketer, includes the usual ingredients of chocolate: cocoa
 butter, cocoa beans, cane sugar, vanilla. Oh, and broccoli, cranberries,
 nectarines, parsley, pomegranates, watermelons, kale and more -- a total of 30
 additional plants, all in powdered form.
 But whether the nutritional benefits of the original foods survive in additive
 form is still to be determined.
 ''Whether a tomato is good for you, that's one thing,''  Dr. Kessler said.
 ''Whether the lycopene in a tomato is good for you, that's another. And then
 whether synthetic lycopene and microencapsulated lycopene are also good for you,
 that's yet another thing.''
 In a manufacturing plant outside Paris, the Danone Group, parent company of
 Dannon, nourishes more than 3,000 different strains of lactic acid bacteria for
 its lines of ''probiotic'' yogurts. All yogurt is fermented with live cultures,
 but Danone claims to have harnessed yogurt's healing potential to particular
 ends. ''Different strains work for different problems,'' said Miguel Freitas,
 Dannon's scientific affairs director. ''The one for Activia works on slow
 transit'' -- the company's elegant term for constipation -- ''and the one for
 DanActive on immunity.''
 Tropicana offers an orange juice tailored for bone loss, another for acid
 reflux, and one for weight loss. Many factors are pushing this trend toward
 health-specific foods: the aging population, changes in labeling rules, the
 general trend toward micromarketing that makes consumers accept, and soon
 expect, 12 slightly different Tropicana orange juices on the shelf where one
 used to be enough for everyone.
 Additionally, with recent rising costs in raw materials, flavorings and
 transport, many food companies are refocusing their research and development;
 instead of adding expensive ingredients like sun-dried tomatoes or honey-roasted
 almonds to existing products, the search is on for inexpensive ''value-added''
 products that customers will pay extra for. Mars's CocoaVia line of chocolate
 claims to offer health benefits because of high levels of antioxidants; an ounce
 of CocoaVia blueberry almond chocolate costs about $1.25, while an ounce of the
 same manufacturer's Dove blueberry almond chocolate costs about 75 cents. In
 order to get the nutritional benefits from CocoaVia, the company recommends
 eating two bars a day -- an investment of more than $700 and 4,000 fat grams in
 the course of a year.
 Eating the right nutrients is a complicated question, one that nutritionists say
 could most easily be solved by eating a wide range of basic foods.
 Dr. Lichtenstein of Tufts says that the recent setbacks and surprises in
 nutrition research have made her rethink the whole model of adding nutrients to
 the diet, despite the effectiveness of vitamin fortification.
 ''Maybe the true benefit of eating a lot of fish is that you are actually eating
 less of something else, like steak,'' she said. ''Maybe a subtraction model is
 the key. We have a long way to go to find out.''
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: September 17, 2008
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO: MIXING IT UP: Food companies have been extracting nutrients from
 one food (like tomatoes, broccoli, green tea, pomegranates) and processing them
 into other foods (like breakfast cereal, chocolate, ginger ale and
 coffee).(PHOTOGRAPH BY THOMAS HERPICH) (pg. F8)  DRAWING (DRAWING BY THOMAS
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 489
 
                                 University Wire
                           September 17, 2008 Wednesday
 Do you know what you're eating?
 BYLINE: By Hannah Tomlin, The Daily Vidette; SOURCE: Illinois State U.
 LENGTH: 859 words
 DATELINE: NORMAL, Ill.
 On Monday evening, Normal Theatre featured "The Future of Food," a documentary
 about genetic modification and the corporations that control our food.
 The movie began by discussing the decrease in the variety of vegetables after
 genetic modification, the introduction of herbicides and pesticides and the
 patenting of seeds by large companies
 Monsanto, a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation, owns 11,000
 patents. Many farmers have been forced to make settlements with Monsanto after
 supposedly infringing upon their patents.
 Percy Schmeister, a farmer from western Canada, explained his experience with
 Monsanto in the documentary. After spraying Roundup on his field, there were
 several canola plants discovered that had survived. Monsanto accused him of
 somehow obtaining their genetically modified canola and attempted to sue him for
 patent infringement.
 Although it was very likely that canola could have blown off the Monsanto trucks
 that drove by his field, he was forced to destroy over 1,000 lbs of seed that he
 and his wife had developed. Monsanto has sent out 9,000 letters to farmers, and
 there are 100 active lawsuits in the U.S. alone. Most are forced to settle in
 order to save money, but they are not allowed to discuss their settlements.
 When Schmeister was in court, the judge told him the fact that the genetically
 modified plants were there violated the patent, no matter how they got there. He
 also said any farmer who has a conventional plant that is cross-pollinated with
 the gene of a Monsanto plant automatically means the property belongs to
 Monsanto.
 Schmeister said it would be very difficult to find one field in Western Canada
 that is not contaminated with Monsanto's genetically modified canola. In May
 2004, the Supreme Court ruled five to four that Schmeister had infringed the
 patent.
 The first genetically modified food to be created was the Flavr-Savr tomato.
 However, it did not last long in the market because consumers did not like it.
 In 2001, the public began to realize the dangers of genetically modified food. A
 woman spoke about her experience of being taken into the emergency room after
 eating genetically modified corn used in taco shells, which caused her to have
 an allergic reaction.
 Ultimately, the cause was discovered after public interest organizations tested
 the corn on their own, rather than the government researching the case to
 discover its risk.
 Although 80 to 90 percent of Americans want genetically modified food to be
 labeled and 25 other countries require its identification, the Genetically
 Engineered Food Right to Know Act still has not been voted on by Congress.
 For an example of the risks these foods may pose, the documentary explained that
 mothers could be feeding genetically modified milk to a child, and the child
 could have an allergic reaction, but if the mother does not know the food has
 been modified, she may not be able to trace the cause of the reaction.
 The Japanese, who are very conscious about genetically modified foods, said they
 are going to watch the American children for the next 10 years to observe its
 consequences.
 The companies that produce these foods perform the safety testing on their own
 and report the results to the government voluntarily. These multinational
 corporations are taking over food consolidation worldwide. Only four companies
 currently process eighty percent of beef products.
 Although biotechnology claims it is going to feed the world, 800 million people
 are currently malnourished and wealthy countries are undercutting the markets of
 developing countries by subsidizing crops. Instead of feeding themselves with
 their own crops, these residents are being forced to pay their loans back to the
 World Bank and International Monetary Fund by growing expensive crops for
 export.
 Also, the U.S. is patenting crops in third world countries and will not allow
 these countries to use their own crops without paying us for it.
 Today, food in the supermarket has traveled an average of 15,000 miles. In
 response to this, many people have turned to community-supported agriculture.
 People are returning to buying fresh produce from local farmers. States such as
 South Dakota and Nebraska have passed constitutional amendments to ban
 non-family farming.
 After the movie, a panel talked about these issues. Bill Davison, who grows
 produce at Blue Schoolhouse Farm, said he typically sells 100 heads of lettuce
 on a given Saturday at the Bloomington Farmers' Market. He has had about 30
 interns over the past several years from ISU and Wesleyan University, but only
 one majored in agriculture. He believes it's important that "young people take
 up the task of changing farming."
 The other panelists that discussed the issues included Myles Harston, founder of
 AquaRanch, Terra Brockman, director of communications and farmer training at The
 Land Connection, Marsha Veninga, member of the Heartland Local Food Network and
 Ed Desmond, produce manager at Schnucks Markets.
 Harston said, "We need to ask our outlets for locally or organically grown food.
 It makes it easier for us to sell if people are asking for it."
 (C) 2008 The Daily Vidette via UWIRE
 LOAD-DATE: September 18, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2008 The Daily Vidette via U-Wire









Document Number: 490
 
                     Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock)
                           September 10, 2008 Wednesday
 Riceland tensions rise over lawsuit Co-op wants facts on contamination
 LENGTH: 845 words
 Disillusionment among members of Arkansas' largest farmer-owned cooperative has
 begun bubbling to the surface in the wake of an ongoing lawsuit involving the
 2006 contamination of U.S. long-grain rice supplies by unapproved, genetically
 engineered rice.
 Some members of Stuttgart-based Riceland Foods Inc. believe the co-op's managers
 are keeping secrets from them, said John Alter of DeWitt, whose family has been
 a Riceland member for three generations.
 Concerns were heightened last week when Riceland asked a Lonoke County Circuit
 Court judge to sanction two attorneys for releasing certain documents to the
 media during the pretrial discovery phase of the lawsuit, he said.
 "Farmers are outraged about the secrecy," said Alter, who is not a party to the
 case.
 The lawyers in question - Paul Byrd of Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton in Little
 Rock and Jerry Kelly of the Kelly Law Firm in Lonoke - represent a group of rice
 farmers who sued Riceland in late August 2006, after the U.S. Department of
 Agriculture announced that trace amounts of an unapproved, genetically
 engineered rice had been discovered in U.S. long-grain rice supplies.
 The lawsuit alleges negligence and fraudulent concealment on Riceland's part and
 seeks compensation for damages caused as a result of the contamination.
 Riceland, which has produced more than 20,000 documents in the case, has
 designated some of those documents as "confidential," in accordance with a
 protective order previously issued in the case. Such protective orders are
 common in complex business lawsuits that involve trade secrets and proprietary
 information.
 During an Aug. 20 hearing in Lonoke, Byrd and Kelly objected to the confidential
 designation assigned to about 45 documents by Riceland's attorney, Barry Deacon
 of Barrett & Deacon in Jonesboro.
 Judge Phillip Whiteaker issued oral rulings from the bench regarding some of the
 documents and promised to rule later on others.
 Some of the documents Whiteaker said should be declassified revealed that
 Riceland was actively involved in 2000 with the development of a genetically
 engineered medium-grain rice. Other documents showed that Riceland was aware of
 a 2006 contamination problem as early as Feb. 1 of that year.
 "What's so horrible about any of this?" Alter asked rhetorically. "What have
 they [Riceland] done? ... What are they doing right now that we don't know about
 that's going to pop up in five years?" In a Sept. 3 motion, Riceland asked
 Whiteaker to find Byrd and Kelly in contempt of court for releasing to the media
 some of the documents discussed during the hearing before the court had issued a
 final order regarding their confidential status. Deacon argues in the motion
 that Byrd and Kelly violated both the March 2008 protective order in the case
 and Arkansas' rules of professional conduct for lawyers.
 "Because of Plaintiffs' counsel's inappropriate press campaign against Riceland,
 a protective order specifically addressing statements to the press is
 warranted," the motion reads. "The ongoing and aggressive media campaign by
 Plaintiffs' counsel has now substantially impacted the ability of Riceland to
 obtain a fair trial in Lonoke County." John Dozier, a Marianna farmer and
 Riceland member who is not party to the lawsuit, said he would like the co-op to
 be more forthcoming with its members.
 "There's a lot of farmers that are real confused about this [genetically
 modified contamination incident] and how much Riceland was involved in it,"
 Dozier said.
 Riceland spokesman Bill Reed declined to comment about the matter.
 Riceland, which was created in 1921, is the world's largest rice miller and
 marketer, according to the co-op's Web site. Riceland - which has about 9,000
 farmer-members in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas - markets
 rice, soybeans and wheat; mills rice and processes soybeans.
 As cooperatives mature, "there's a tendency for growers to get less and less
 involved," said Shermain Hardesty, an agricultural economist and director of the
 small-farm program at the University of California at Davis. "So, when something
 starts going wrong, they start pointing fingers at the management." Farmer
 members need to accept responsibility for managing their cooperative, Hardesty
 said.
 Brent Hueth, an agricultural economist and director of the University of
 Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, agrees.
 Members, especially board members, need to actively participate in co-op
 governance, he said.
 "Boards have to work hard to maintain good relationships with their members and,
 at the same time, play their advisory and monitoring role [regarding]
 management," Hueth said. "It's a hard job." Jimmy Wallace of England, one of the
 farmer-plaintiffs in the Lonoke case and a former Riceland member, said he is
 guilty of taking a hands-off attitude for too long.
 "I'm like the typical farmer, I let somebody else take care of my business. But
 I'm not doing that anymore," he said.
 Wallace said everyone needs to "come clean" and lay the facts out on the table
 regarding the 2006 contamination.
 This article was published 09/10/2008
 LOAD-DATE: September 10, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2008 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 491
 
                         Albuquerque Journal (New Mexico)
                             September 7, 2008 Sunday
 the ways OF NATURE;
 Artist's 'Jungle Tango' reshapes the natural world and hints at dangers ahead
 BYLINE: Object Lessons KIM RUSSO For the Journal
 SECTION: SANTA FE GALLERIES; Pg. S4
 LENGTH: 777 words
 The popularity of organic produce is due, in part, to the rise of genetically
 modified (GMO) foods over the past decade. In a country like the United States,
 where labeling of GMO foods is not required, it is likely that all but the most
 diligent organic consumers in America are buying and swallowing GMO products
 every day.
 Genetic engineering has allowed scientists to create plants that produce human
 insulin and soybeans that won't die even when drenched in Roundup. Charles
 Amtzen at Cornell University is working on "edible vaccines" placed genetically
 inside of bananas.
 In early 2004, the first genetically modified pet, a tropical fish that glows
 under ultraviolet light, was available to consumers. According to Jeremy Rifkin,
 president of The Foundation on Economic Trends, "GMO technologies allow
 scientists to bypass biological boundaries altogether. You can take a gene from
 any species - plant, animal, or human - and place it into the genetic code of
 your food crop."
 The goal of all of this bioengineering is to create a food utopia - a world
 where there is no hunger, crop pests, or scarcity of medicine. And this sounds
 ideal. But it's still unclear whether the final outcome will be good or bad for
 the planet. One thing is for sure: Right now, humans are reorganizing nature.
 And this is exactly what Ming Fay is doing in his sculptures and installations:
 reshaping the natural world.
 Walking into the stark, white rooms of Eight Modern in Santa Fe, it's hard to
 miss the oversized orange, green and yellow hybrid fruits, vegetables, plants
 and insects. It's a sort of produce Disneyland in a sterile hospital. Or the
 end-result of an elementary school art class's collaboration with the new
 science teacher.
 Red and green balls that look wet and pock-marked hang from spindly branches in
 wild groupings, sometimes along with a massive, cartoonish fly. And they move,
 slowly, turning in the gallery's air currents, creating stunning negative shapes
 and creepy shadows.
 These sculptures are most successful when hung in tangled groups, the more
 densely, the better. However, on one wall in the gallery, individually placed
 fruits, leaves and insects hang equally spaced on the wall, like specimens on a
 medical table. This organization permits the viewer to inspect them closely.
 What the heck are these things, anyway? Animal, vegetable or mineral? Simulacra
 or science fiction?
 "Flame Plant" is an orange and yellow form, hanging solo on the wall, curved
 slightly to the right. Several antennae-like branches snake along its sides.
 It's hard to know what this is - a plant? But which plant? Or maybe it's an
 insect?
 Fay's materials are, like his ideas, hybrid combinations of the natural and
 artificial: paper, dye, wire, paint, polyurethane resin, and urethane foam. The
 urethane foam (or electrical foam) is the most recognizable material, and
 although it is helpful in producing the illusion of a morphing, oozing, live
 organism, it also looks like, well, electrical foam. After all the wonderful
 associations that Fay's work elicits, it's initially disappointing to look at
 and think about electrical foam. Then again, electrical foam is used to fill
 unwanted holes (perhaps like the holes we perceive in nature itself - the
 problems and inconveniences of nature - like disease, rot, imperfection, crop
 failure).
 Ming Fay's installations have been exhibited all over the world, including the
 Whitney Museum at Phillip Morris and MOCA Shanghai. He has created public art
 projects in several East Coast cities, Oregon, and Puerto Rico.
 Fay was born in Shanghai. Now in his 60s, he lives and works in New York, where
 he makes frequent visits to the produce markets in New York's Chinatown for
 inspiration (and actual produce). The Chinese associate oranges with good luck
 and pears with prosperity, and these sorts of symbols, from Fay's cultural
 roots, are in his work. However, Fay's references come from the hybridization of
 Eastern and Western sources: from American roadside attractions to Shinto
 shrines to urban gardens in vacant lots - to the teachings of his two (American
 and Chinese) tai chi instructors.
 In his show at Eight Modern, "Jungle Tango," Fay has added small, wiry human
 figures to the sculptures. By adding the figures, Fay is recognizing and
 announcing his hand (the human hand) in all of this - this dance on the edge of
 biological re-construction. It isn't an understatement that the slightly
 abstracted human figures can be easily missed among the Frankenstein flora. It
 is, instead, a very loud message.
 If you go
 WHAT: Ming Fay "Jungle Tango"
 WHERE: Eight Modern, 231 Delgado St.
 WHEN: Through Sept. 21
 LOAD-DATE: September 8, 2008
 GRAPHIC: Sculptor Ming Fay's "Jungle Tango," currently at Eight Modern, is a
 tangled installation of fanciful fruits, vegetables, plants and insects.
 Ming Fay's materials are, like his ideas, hybrid combinations of the natural and
 the artificial: paper, dye, wire, paint, polyurethane resin and urethane foam.
 As the mobile-like elements of "Jungle Tango" slowly move in the gallery's air
 currents, they create stunning negative shapes and creepy shadows.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2008 Albuquerque Journal









Document Number: 492
 
                    North County Times (Escondido, California)
                  Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News
                            September 4, 2008 Thursday
 Southern California growers skittish over citrus pest
 BYLINE: Zach Fox, North County Times, Escondido, Calif.
 LENGTH: 681 words
 Sep. 4--With water prices rising and the mother of all killer bugs invading,
 some local citrus growers are starting to wonder how long they can stay in
 business.
 Reports last weekend confirmed that the Asian citrus psyllid, a tiny insect
 known to carry a disease that wipes out citrus crops, had entered south San
 Diego County, near Bonita. Most of the region's citrus groves are nestled in the
 valleys of North County, but some growers do not expect to keep the bug at bay.
 "I'm resigned to the fact that it will be found in my grove. And once it's found
 in my grove, I'm out of business," said Bob Polito, a Valley Center grower and
 owner of Polito Family Farms. "Honestly, I don't see any way of stopping it."
 Other growers are more hopeful that they can fend off any damage the insect
 brings.
 Chuck Badger, owner of R.E. Badger & Sons, primarily grows lemons in Encinitas.
 He is anxiously awaiting new strains of fruit that is resistant to the bacteria
 commonly found among the bugs. "People talk about genetically modified foods
 being negative. Here, it's imperative," Badger said.
 Somewhat comforting to local citrus businesses is an absence of the actual
 disease, known as Huanglongbing. However, every time the aphidlike bug has been
 found, the bacterial disease has followed, said Ted Batkin, president of the
 California Citrus Research Board.
 Further, symptoms of an infection often are delayed, meaning farmers might not
 realize their crop is in jeopardy before the entire orchard is affected.
 The disease is also known as citrus greening because it causes fruit to not
 ripen fully, producing bitter, inedible fruit. Eventually, it kills the tree.
 No known cure exists for the disease.
 "The only remedy for a plant is to take a chain saw to it so it doesn't become a
 point of infection for the rest of the crops," said San Diego County's
 agriculture commissioner, Bob Atkins.
 San Diego County's citrus industry brings in $34.5 million per year, most of it
 in North County.
 In response to the psyllid, Badger, the Encinitas grower, is adding the pest to
 his list of what to check for when workers inspect the rows of lemon trees.
 County and state agriculture officials are setting sticky traps to catch the
 bugs and track its location.
 But Polito, the Valley Center grower, is taking a different approach.
 "Honestly, I don't even want to know I have the pest. Because once I know I have
 the pest, it's all over. I might as well throw in the towel," he said. "What are
 you going to do? Tent 80 acres?"
 Psyllids and the accompanying disease could kill thousands of trees, but perhaps
 most worrisome to growers is the probability of a quarantine. That would slash
 sales by prohibiting shipment of San Diego County fruit outside the county.
 And because the disease cannot show symptoms for months, or even up to a year,
 any quarantine would probably devastate a grower's profits for a while.
 The pests' potential destruction is so frightening that growers such as Badger
 will not expand production until the pests dissipate.
 Other concerns, such as rising water costs on a budget that is already stretched
 because of high land prices, lead some to question how long citrus will remain
 in North County.
 "It's getting to a point where it just pushes out the domestic farmer," said Ben
 Drake, owner of Drake Enterprises, a Temecula orchard that grows mostly avocados
 and wine grapes, but also oranges. He is replacing several orange groves with
 wine grapes. Yet urbanization and other challenges to Southern California
 agriculture have left him pessimistic about the industry.
 "If you think we have a problem now with foreign oil, wait until we're not
 growing our own food."
 To see more of the North County Times, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to
 http://www.nctimes.com. Copyright (c) 2008, North County Times, Escondido,
 Calif. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. For reprints,
 email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send
 a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee
 Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.
 INDUSTRY: Agriculture/Food
 LOAD-DATE: September 5, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2008 North County Times









Document Number: 493
 
                     The San Francisco Chronicle (California)
                           September 3, 2008 Wednesday
                                  FINAL Edition
 Ban on engineered alfalfa is upheld in appeals court;
 U.S. district judge had ruled a thorough study of safety had not been conducted
 BYLINE: Bob Egelko and Bernadette Tansey, Chronicle Staff Writers
 SECTION: Business; Pg. C4
 LENGTH: 574 words
 A federal appeals court upheld a nationwide ban on the planting of genetically
 engineered alfalfa Tuesday until the government completes a study on whether the
 altered seeds would contaminate other farmers' alfalfa crops.
 In a 2-1 ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld
 a federal judge's decision that halted the planting of Monsanto Co.'s
 herbicide-resistant strain of alfalfa on March 30, 2007. The suit was filed by
 alfalfa farmers who feared that the Monsanto product, spread by winds and bees,
 would pollinate their crops and take over their fields.
 The ruling was "a major victory for farmers, both conventional and organic, for
 consumers and for the environment," said attorney George Kimbrell of the Center
 for Food Safety, which represented the plaintiffs. He said it helps consumers
 who don't want dairy products from cattle that forage on altered alfalfa and
 protects growers who want to export crops to Japan, which bans genetically
 modified alfalfa.
 Monsanto had no comment.
 It was the second victory in a week for opponents of genetically modified food.
 The state Legislature passed a bill last week that would shield California
 farmers from lawsuits by companies such as Monsanto when patented pollen and
 seed drift onto their land.
 The bill, AB541, was a response to patent infringement suits by biotech
 companies against farmers who grew genetically altered crops because of
 uninvited pollination. The measure would protect farmers who acquired such crops
 unknowingly and had minimal levels of patented seeds on their land.
 Tuesday's ruling involved Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa, so named because it
 is designed to withstand applications of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. Alfalfa,
 used for hay and cattle feed, is grown on 23 million acres and is the nation's
 fourth-largest crop. California, with 1 million acres, is the leading producer.
 The U.S. Department of Agriculture approved the Monsanto alfalfa in 2005, saying
 buffer zones around organic farms would protect them from unwanted pollination.
 But U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco rejected the USDA's
 assurances last year and ruled that the department had failed to conduct a
 thorough study of the product's safety and environmental effects.
 Saying some crops had already been contaminated despite buffer zones, Breyer
 allowed farmers who had already bought Roundup Ready alfalfa to plant and
 harvest it, but prohibited further sales and planting until the government
 studied the possibility of effects on other crops and on human health. It was
 the first-ever injunction against a genetically altered, government-approved
 commercial crop, said the Center for Food Safety, which represented the
 plaintiffs.
 The appeals court upheld Breyer's ruling on Tuesday, saying the USDA and
 Monsanto have now conceded that the government approved the product without
 conducting the required study.
 Breyer reasonably concluded that, "while agricultural biotechnology has social
 value," Monsanto's alfalfa should be banned while its impact is studied,
 "because failing to do so could potentially eliminate the availability of
 non-genetically engineered alfalfa," said Judge Mary Schroeder in the majority
 opinion.
 Judge Randy Smith dissented, saying Breyer should have held an additional
 hearing and listened to Monsanto's witnesses before issuing a nationwide
 injunction with "severe economic consequences" for the company and its
 customers.
 COMPANY: MONSANTO CO (94%); MONSANTO AGRICULTURA ESPANA SL (91%) Monsanto Co.
 LOAD-DATE: September 3, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2008 San Francisco Chronicle
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 494
 
                                 The New York Post
                              August 25, 2008 Monday
 SECTION: All Editions; Pg. 91
 LENGTH: 509 words
 JUST when TV networks are shopping for new shows at the budget store, CBS has
 made a $30-million bet on a new series that sounds like "The X-Files" but looks
 like "CSI."
 "Eleventh Hour," which will debut in October, is being produced by Jerry
 Bruckheimer - the producer of all three "CSI" series, "Cold Case" and "Without a
 Trace," making him arguably TV's most successful producer of dramas of the last
 decade.
 Based on a hit British series, it follows a pair of investigators, a hunky
 scientist and an attractive female FBI agent assigned to keep him out of
 trouble, as they attempt to save the world from cutting-edge experiments gone
 wrong - botched cloning projects, genetically modified food gone wild (that'll
 be the premiere episode) and out-of-control cryogenic labs.
 It stars the British actor Rufus Sewell, known mostly for his villainous roles
 in movies like "The Illusionist" and "The Legend of Zorro."
 But "Eleventh Hour" is not intended to be sci-fi, says the show's executive
 producer Ethan Reiff. "Every person in the country has had their life touched
 with the scientific developments that have come to fruition in the last few
 decades," he explains. The pilot episode alone cost $4 million to produce,
 according to reports. And the 12 episodes the network has ordered will run about
 $2.3 million each.
 In order to get the show, CBS had to win a spirited bidding war against ABC,
 according to reports.
 Bookmakers might say that CBS' $30-million gamble is a better-than-even-money
 proposition. Nearly every show Bruckheimer has delivered so far, from "CSI" to
 "Amazing Race," has become among the most popular on TV.
 "Look at it this way," says a budget-minded producer from a competing network
 show, "CBS wouldn't have that money to spend in the first place if it wasn't for
 Bruckheimer."
 "What people will see is a really cool, somewhat stylish Jerry Bruckheimer
 show," Reiff says. "It's not exactly going to look the same as [other
 Bruckheimer series]. But it will be in the same family."
 At a little more than $2 million per episode, the cost of making "Eleventh Hour"
 is par for the course, in terms of network dramas, although the pricey pilot
 does cause it to stick out.
 The distinction of the most expensive pilot ever falls to "Lost." Creator J. J.
 Abrams reportedly spent nearly $12 million on the initial episode of the ABC
 drama. Abrams is reported to have spent as much for the pilot of his new Fox
 drama "Fringe."
 Like "Lost," which spent much of its budget on sets - think how expensive it is
 to dump a chopped up airliner on a beach in Hawaii - a good chunk of the
 resources for "Eleventh Hour" have been devoted to building movie-quality sets,
 Reiff says.
 In any given episode, the characters may travel to several different locales -
 even though it is all filmed in LA.
 "Rather than have one standing police headquarters or a legal office suite, we
 have to change stuff up every week," Reiff says.
 "There's this ongoing struggle," he confesses, "to be sensible and not create
 too many different locations."
 FOOD (70%); GENETIC ENGINEERING (68%) Fall TV - Due Oct. 9
 LOAD-DATE: August 25, 2008
 GRAPHIC: British actor Rufus Sewell and Marley Shelton star as a pair of
 investigators in "Eleventh Hour," premiering Oct. 9.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2008 N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 495
 
                        St. Paul Pioneer Press (Minnesota)
                             August 16, 2008 Saturday
 Scientific literacy -- it's not just for scientists
 BYLINE: By Eric J. Jolly
 LENGTH: 1036 words
 No one would think it's OK to be illiterate. No one would brag, 'I don't read.'
 But literacy doesn't end at the back cover of a book. The need for essential
 science literacy --the ability to understand and engage in the issues of science
 and technology that shape our culture -- has exploded in the past few decades.
 Our air, water and health and our economy are all profoundly affected by the
 choices we make. It's simply not wise -- no matter how long it's been since your
 last chemistry class -- to say, 'I don't get science.'
 But don't panic. We're smart and capable in these parts. What does it mean to be
 scientifically literate? Scientifically literate people don't need to have a
 bottomless well of science knowledge. You don't even need to have a mental file
 of science facts that you consult. What you need is a curious mind and critical
 thinking skills.
 A scientifically literate person knows there is power in language that needs to
 be understood; for instance, in science, a theory isn't a best guess -- it's a
 formal hypothesis that's been tested and revised. All research isn't created
 equal -- the best is conducted by scientists with a background in the area being
 researched and published in peer-reviewed journals.
 Sometimes the results are detailed and narrow, making them most important to
 other scientists; other times the study is broad and lengthy and has more
 significance to the general public. And scientifically literate people know that
 most disagreement among scientists occurs in details, just as most scientific
 advancement is made by tiny steps. The Galileos and Einsteins are far
 outnumbered by scientists in labs conducting and replicating laborious research.
 It's no surprise that advances in science and technology are everywhere. They're
 in the key-card we use to access our office buildings or hotel rooms. They're in
 the genetically modified foods we eat and the pharmaceuticals we ingest. We
 consume this technology every day, but using it isn't the same as understanding
 it. As these advances creep into every part of our lives, we've become less and
 less able to keep up with science policy and control how it affects our culture
 and democracy.
 Yes, science really does affect our democracy.
 Let's get one thing straight. Science literacy is different from reading and
 writing. Once you've learned to read, you can read forever. Science is changing.
 Constantly. The nature of the scientific method is to establish a base of
 knowledge and then constantly expand and adjust it. That's why the best
 practices can change over time -- 30 years ago, doctors recommended that babies
 sleep on their stomachs and drink formula. Now, doctors recommend that babies
 sleep on their backs and drink breast milk.
 When baby boomers were in school, space exploration to the moon was cutting
 edge. Today's students learn about robotic spacecraft missions to Mars and
 beyond. Literate citizens can glean information from newspapers, magazines, Web
 sites and books about the issues at stake. But scientifically literate people
 can analyze the data and ask informed questions about the ethical, social and
 economic implications.
 When we have dynamic civic engagement around issues of science, we do more than
 create a healthy environment and a better quality of life. We create economic
 opportunity and a better future. Science deserves the same vigorous debate as
 the economy or education; not surprisingly, the topics often overlap.
 A good example lies right outside the Science Museum of Minnesota, where a major
 effort is under way to devise a plan to clean the Mississippi River, which has
 been declared impaired. We know there are very high levels of phosphorus, which
 cause high levels of algae. We know there is enough sediment flow to fill a dump
 truck every 10 minutes. And we know that 90 percent of the pollution runoff
 comes from the Minnesota River watershed, even though only 25 percent of the
 water comes from that river. Why? Because the majority of the Minnesota River
 watershed is in agricultural row crops, which utilize pesticides.
 Two of our state's great sources of pride -- our agricultural heritage and our
 great river -- sometimes represent competing interests, especially as the market
 for ethanol and biodiesel fuels continues to grow. How can we halt or reverse
 the damage to the river without unnecessarily restraining the free market? It's
 up to Minnesota's scientifically literate citizens to decide.
 So how can we advance our science literacy? It's easy to make small changes. We
 can start with simple things: asking our newspapers to cover more science,
 reading science magazines like Discover, Popular Science, National Geographic
 and Scientific American, and tuning in to NPR's "Talk of the Nation: Science
 Friday" and PBS's "NOVA."
 We can also look for comprehensive science-based solutions for issues that
 affect public policy. We can support the creation of a science adviser to the
 governor -- many states have one, Minnesota does not -- and a science advisory
 panel for the Legislature. Science advisory panels not only help our leaders to
 be informed, but also help us track the key issues we face as a state by
 bringing legislative topics back into our communities. And we can ask candidates
 about their positions on these critical science issues during campaigns and
 debates.
 Minnesota historically has maintained a strong compass to guide the level of
 risk we are willing to take -- and the price we are willing to pay -- for an
 environment that's healthy for our children. As a state, we've always taken
 pride in our well-educated citizenry, quality schools and arts and culture. Now,
 as we move though this new era of scientific revolution, there are more reasons
 than ever to gather knowledge and participate.
 Citizens can -- and should -- get involved in critical scientific debates that
 will direct how we live in the future. Join in the conversation. There's plenty
 to talk about.
 Dr. Eric J. Jolly is president of the Science Museum of Minnesota. The museum
 served more than 1.2 million Minnesotans in the past year, working to achieve
 science literacy through visits, classes, teacher development, outreach and
 research. His e-mail address is eric.jolly@smm.org
 LOAD-DATE: August 17, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2008 St. Paul Pioneer Press
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 496
 
                            Huntsville Times (Alabama)
                              August 10, 2008 Sunday
 HudsonAlpha's Myers embraces community
 SECTION: LOCAL BUSINESS; Pg. 1C
 LENGTH: 1279 words
 Ten questions
 Rick Myers, hired by the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology with great
 fanfare almost a year ago, just completed his first month in Huntsville as
 full-time institute director.
 The Tuscaloosa native, a leading researcher in human genomics and inherited
 disease, was lured away from Stanford University by institute co-founder and
 President Jim Hudson.
 The institute is dedicated to the study of genomics, essentially the study of
 genes and their function. The work has become much more advanced following the
 mapping of the human genome - mankind's entire genetic makeup - in 2003. Myers
 and Hudson played key roles in that project.
 Myers' office is on the ground floor of the 270,000-square-foot building in
 Cummings Research Park. His lab is on the fourth floor, with space for 20
 people. Its view of the cotton fields nearby provides a striking contrast
 between North Alabama's agricultural bedrock and the groundbreaking research
 taking place inside.
 The commercial side of HudsonAlpha houses 12 companies and expects to add more.
 Myers said the nonprofit side of HudsonAlpha will have more than 100 people
 working in labs, doing high-level data processing and working on public
 education programs by year's end.
 He talked with business writer Brian Lawson last week about settling in, setting
 priorities and looking to the future. The conversation has been edited for space
 and clarity.
 How do you and Hudson divide responsibilities?
 The divvying will be for efficiency. He (Hudson) knows a lot more about the
 commercial side than I do, although I'm very interested in it. At the same time,
 Jim is also thinking about this as a campus, not just one building. He's working
 on recruiting new companies and new nonprofit people as well.
 My responsibilities, I sort of think of it as an institute director, to build
 the research side in particular. Basically, I'm recruiting faculty
 investigators. These are people who would be considered professors at
 universities. They work independently, in the sense they are responsible for
 building a research program.
 We're working on funding to have probably a dozen faculty on this side of the
 building. I'm choosing that number because that's the kind of critical mass that
 a really good department would have.
 What are your impressions of Huntsville?
 I've been recruiting for the last six to nine months. I'm getting outstanding
 applicants. I'm not surprised because I knew that there would be a talent pool.
 All you've got to do is fly people into Huntsville - then they get it. It's not
 the building. It's the culture we're creating. It's the city.
 Does the community influence the institute's work?
 We're working with the community physicians to do our work, rather than just the
 medical school physicians.
 Marshall Schreeder and our group are already establishing a pretty close
 collaboration. (Dr. Schreeder, an oncologist, co-founded the Clearview Cancer
 Institute.)
 We're planning and starting discussions with the hospitals. Also, I want to go
 out to smaller places, and that could be the whole state. It's different than
 the way biomedical research is usually done. These people are never included in
 biomedical research, or rarely, anyway. It's less efficient. You have to go
 around to these little places. But then you get people engaged, and they care
 about what you're working on.
 There's another real advantage. If you go to the Mayo Clinic (in Rochester,
 Minn.) or M.D. Anderson (in Houston), those are not the typical cases of cancer.
 Here, we're going to try to do community, and there's a scientific advantage to
 that. It's not specific to North Alabama; it's the same cancers that people get
 in Canada. But by engaging them, we think we will really help the science a lot,
 and I'm hoping this means the community will be very interested in what we're
 doing.
 You're doing cancer research?
 One of the big projects we're working on is cancer genomics. What we're doing
 now is looking at everything in a cancer cell. What's different about a cancer
 cell? Looking at how genes are expressed. We're doing that with the entire
 genome. We can sequence the genome and discover every difference in a person's
 genome. In five years, for about $1,000, you'll have all your DNA information on
 a card.
 There are thousands of different cancer cells. There are lots of diseases and
 types. They look the same to a pathologist, but they respond differently to the
 same drugs, and outcomes vary. We have no idea why. But when we look at the
 genomic detailed fingerprint, it's a blueprint.
 Other than the human genome, what are your areas of interest?
 My family is No. 1. My wife and I have two kids. My son is starting UC-Santa
 Cruz in the fall; my daughter is starting high school here. That's my favorite
 hobby. My wife is a school psychologist. She was very involved in the schools in
 Palo Alto (California) and wants to do that here.
 I have a very large extended family, five brothers and sisters. They all live in
 the Southeast. My parents both died last year, so the family part was certainly
 a motivator for coming here.
 I like to fish. I'm setting up a woodworking shop here. And I like to cook and
 have friends over. At Stanford, we'd have 70 or 80 people over. We're planning
 to do that a lot for the institute. People are really important to me. I'm very
 social.
 What's your management style?
 I tend to be fairly detail-oriented. My people in my lab would probably say I'm
 hands-off sometimes and not enough hands-off other times, so it's probably
 in-between.
 I want people to want to come into the lab every day. I've always worked hard to
 make it a good environment. It's not as easy to do when it's a bigger group, but
 you certainly want to create that culture: open-door policy, lots and lots of
 interactions.
 Is the open-building design working as you and Hudson had hoped in fostering
 interaction?
 The building is paying off. I walk up and down those middle steps so I can bump
 into people. Somebody did a fairly careful study on what is it that makes places
 that are famous for their research really good. It's places where people eat
 lunch together. I'm exaggerating a little, but by not having to make an
 appointment every time you want to talk to somebody, but you actually run into
 them casually, it leads to collaborations and interactions.
 How are you dividing your time between researcher and administrator?
 I've experienced this because I was chair of a department for the last six
 years. I'd say it's 50-50 now. It's a pretty good balance.
 Stanford is a wonderful university, but it's very big, and it's bloated. When we
 need to do something that's important here, the layers you have to go through is
 one. I'm used to it being 10 and never happening. I'm loving that efficiency
 part of it.
 What are some of the big challenges you face?
 Funding is one of the biggest challenges. You spend a huge amount of time
 writing grants, but no one survives just on grants. The funding agencies are
 cutting back, when they should be doubling their funding. This is like when the
 transistor was invented, and you have a million applications within 20 years.
 We're working on plans for how to do this. It's an important part of the job.
 We're working with UAH, UA, UAB on mutually beneficial projects.
 You talk a lot about community outreach by scientists. Why is that important?
 We owe it to the public. They're paying for a lot of this, they're affected by
 this, and there's the scientific literacy issue. There are questions we all
 face: Is genetically modified food bad for you? Vaccines? There's a need to
 understand the science behind it.
 I'd love for Huntsville to be the most genome-literate city in the country. I
 bet it will be.
 LOAD-DATE: September 10, 2008
 GRAPHIC: COLOR PHOTO: Rick Myers, Hudson Alpha Institute director, talks about
 the new discoveries and changes happening at the institute in the new lab at the
 facility in Huntsville on Tuesday. Eric Schultz/Huntsville Times COLOR PHOTO:
 "One of the projects we're working on is cancer genomics," says Ricky Myers.
 Eric Schultz/Huntsville Times
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: hut
                  Copyright 2008 The Huntsville Times Co., Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 497
 
                          Telegraph Herald (Dubuque, IA)
                              August 10, 2008 Sunday
 Seed giant flexes muscle
 BYLINE: Alan Guebert
 SECTION: B; Pg. 8
 LENGTH: 676 words
 In late March, Monsanto Co. sent a "Dear Valued Customer" letter to most U.S.
 corn and soybean farmers. The reason, wrote Jim Zimmer, Monsanto's vice
 president of U.S. branded business, was "to discuss " some current marketplace
 dynamics that will directly affect you in terms of increased prices for
 Monsanto's line of Roundup herbicides for 2008."
 Demand of glyphosate, Roundup's generic counterpart, "is at an all-time high,"
 explained Zimmer. As such, "We have seen the demand for Roundup brand herbicide
 increase more than our current ability to supply."
 That's a problem, he continued, because, "We have a reliable supplier commitment
 to farmers who choose to purchase Roundup Ready technology and who choose to
 purchase Roundup brand herbicide that we will have supply available."
 The solution?
 "Our competitive challenges have put our commitment at risk, forcing us to
 increase our price for Roundup herbicide."
 Golly, a farmer who phoned me about the letter asked, "How much is their promise
 to me going to cost me?"
 Globally, about $411 million, the amount Roundup net sales increased from March
 through May over the same three months in 2007, according to Monsanto's third
 quarter, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission June 27.
 That's a 54 percent increase.
 Additionally, the 10-Q reports, "Net sales of Roundup and other glyphosate-based
 herbicides increased 63 percent, or $1,222 million" - $1.222 billion - "in the
 nine-month comparison" with fiscal 2007's first three quarters.
 Remarkably, however, that $1.2 billion increase in Roundup sales, notes the
 10-Q, was posted despite a 7 percent sales volume drop in "Roundup and other
 glyphosate-based herbicides in third quarter 2008" and only an 8 percent
 increase in global Roundup sales for the nine-month period ending in May.
 Clearly, Roundup - mostly because Monsanto boosted its price - hit a home run.
 "Gross profit increased $927 million because of higher sales of Roundup and
 other glyphosate-based herbicides in the first nine months of 2008."
 What Monsanto did for Roundup herbicide this spring, it promises to do for
 Roundup seed corn next year, according to a July interview company officials
 held with DTN and Progressive Farmer editors.
 Indeed, wrote Marcia Taylor for DTN after the gathering, "Even the list price on
 seed corn will topple the $300 per bag barrier starting this fall, up about $95
 to $100 per bag, or 35 percent on average, according to Monsanto officials."
 Monsanto "thinks it deserves some extra profit sharing," offered Taylor, because
 it "claims" its triple-stacked, genetically modified corn hybrids deliver a
 12-bushel yield advantage over competitors in a normal year and maybe as much as
 a 35-bushel increase in a dry year.
 As such, the company - which that estimates 76 percent of all its 2009 seed corn
 sales will be triple stacked varieties - wants a hunk of that value. In short,
 that's why seed prices are set to soar.
 But, John Jansen, a Monsanto executive, told the editors, the company is certain
 its seed is so hot that "We can pass the red-faced test from the Panhandle of
 Texas to McLean County, Ill."
 Well, maybe not your red-faced test, so you check out a competitor.
 Again, according to Monsanto's most recent
 10-Q: "In the first quarter 2008, Monsanto entered into an agreement on corn
 herbicide tolerance and insect control technologies with Pioneer Hi-Bred
 International Inc. (whereby Monsanto will receive) cumulative cash receipts of
 $725 million over an eight-year period."
 Drat. How about a soybean competitor?
 "In third quarter 2008, Monsanto and Syngenta entered into a Roundup Ready 2
 Yield Soybean License Agreement (under which) the minimum obligation from
 Syngenta over this (nine-year) period is $81 million," reports the 10-Q.
 Is Monsanto everywhere? Almost. According to its June SEC filing, it recently
 bought a vegetable seed company in Europe, a seed corn company in Guatemala,
 another in Brazil "
 Guebert's weekly column is published in more than 75 papers in North America.
 His e-mail address is agcomm@sbcglobal.net
 LOAD-DATE: August 10, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2008 Woodward Communications, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 498
 
                             Flint Journal (Michigan)
                             July 30, 2008 Wednesday
 Journal biased in cereal story
 SECTION: LOCAL NEWS; Pg. A08
 LENGTH: 111 words
 It borders on criminal behavior for The Flint Journal to carry a color
 front-page story in which a Flint couple make unsubstantiated claims about
 potential future ingredients in Kellogg Co. cereals ["Biotech foes call for
 Kellogg boycott," July 19].
 Absolutely no proof is offered that genetically modified products are even
 potentially harmful. Yet, The Journal treats these allegations as fact. The
 paper does a great disservice to Kellogg's and its readers by featuring such
 opinion as fact.
 I suspect because one of the individuals making these outrageous charges is a
 contributor to the paper, such trash found its way into the paper.
 F. William Thewalt
 Grand Blanc
 BIOTECHNOLOGY & GENETIC SCIENCE (85%) localnews; local news; FNEW; Flint area
 general news
 LOAD-DATE: July 31, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: fjl
                           Copyright 2008 Flint Journal
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 499
 
                         Contra Costa Times (California)
                              July 29, 2008 Tuesday
 EcoChef: Slow Food Nation promotes growing your own produce -- even in the city
 BYLINE: By Aaron French Correspondent
 SECTION: FOOD; Lifestyle
 LENGTH: 750 words
 IT'S NOT OFTEN that a big-city mayor gets excited about gardening. But that's
 exactly what happened at the Slow Food Nation Victory Garden planting
 celebration when San Francisco Mayor Newsom got his first glimpse of the garden.
 "I'm just like a kid, I'm so excited about this!"
 Newsom, who was on hand to introduce Slow Food Nation's founder Alice Waters and
 executive director Anya Fernald, talked to the crowd about the role urban
 gardens can play in our food production system, adding that we need to do more
 with our public spaces. "The key of this movement," he said, "is about social
 equality "... and environmental justice."
 The original Victory Garden idea came from World War II. Between the years of
 1941 and 1943, more than 40 percent of the food consumed in the United States
 was grown in 20 million separate urban gardens. The gardens were forgotten in
 the postwar economic boom, but their legacy lives on in the current
 reincarnation. From now through September, a garden will occupy a prominent
 section of the Civic Center Plaza, at which time the food will be donated to the
 San Francisco Food Bank. Kei Hoshino from the Food Bank was excited about the
 variety of produce the garden would offer, adding that "it's a tremendous
 gesture of commitment from the city." And it's a timely gesture at that. With
 rising food prices comes the conflicting reality of greater food need, yet less
 food received per dollar spent. In this situation, the name Victory Garden
 really does apply.
 Referencing Newsom's comments, Fernald of Slow Food Nation said, "Lack of access
 to wholesome food is the social equality issue." She noted that in many
 communities, there are efficient distribution systems for junk food, but not for
 fresh vegetables. What we are doing, she said, is "bringing the food directly to
 the people with this garden in the heart of San Francisco." By increasing the
 number of connections between urban and agricultural areas, everyone stands to
 win. As food prices continue to rise, it is the urban poor who are hit the
 hardest, and particular attention is needed in those areas.
 There are many parts of the Bay Area with limited access to fresh vegetables.
 City Slicker Farms, a nonprofit urban agriculture organization in West Oakland
 and one of the co-creators of the San Francisco Victory Garden, is an advocate
 of the multiple benefits of urban gardening. Being involved with or simply
 exposed to an urban garden can help anchor people in the larger cycles of
 nature. In addition, eating a steady supply of green vegetables can reduce the
 risk of the damaging affects of the lead paint common in older neighborhoods.
 Kathryn Lyddan, a member of the advisory board of City Slicker Farms and
 executive director of the Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust, pointed out the
 various centers of food availability and scarcity on a large map of the East
 Bay. She particularly drew attention to the inequality between parts of urban
 Richmond and Oakland and the incredible farmland less than 45 minutes away.
 Urban gardens have a large role to play, but so does increasing communication
 between nearby farmers and urban centers. Lyddan recently organized a chefs tour
 of local Brentwood farms to foster communication by bringing together a varied
 group of chefs, gardeners and business leaders to visit a variety of local
 farms, tasting the produce and speaking with the farmers themselves.
 Sonya Binnewies of Oliveto and the underground Rocket Kitchen mused, "I think
 many of us in the coastal Bay Area, and in the food scene in general, have been
 used to looking for the organic label first, and it's interesting to see how
 that's not the end of the road, particularly if we care about the health of our
 local farming communities." Christopher Wiley, S.F. Food Bank director of
 development, says of the current Victory Garden, "It's really beautiful, and
 hopefully it will become a kind of sacred ground for food in this city."
 Hopefully that vision will flow over into all the surrounding communities and
 towns as well.
 In upcoming columns I will be tackling the issue of genetically modified foods.
 Please e-mail me with any questions or comments you have about that topic, and I
 might use them in a future column. Thank you.
 Ecologist Aaron French is chef at the Sunny Side Cafe in Albany. He can be
 reached at  aaron@eco-chef.com .Find OUT more
 For more information on the topic, check out these Web sites:
  www.brentwoodaglandtrust.org
  www.cityslickerfarms.org
  www.slowfoodnation.org
 LOAD-DATE: August 15, 2008
 GRAPHIC: Slow Food Nation founder Alice Waters celebrates the opening of the
 Victory Garden in Downtown San Francisco.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2008 Contra Costa Newspapers
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 500
 
                    Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (Ontario, CA)
                               July 28, 2008 Monday
 Keep sugar safe
 LENGTH: 575 words
 Genetically engineered sugar beets are hitting the marketplace this year and
 some major food companies have chosen to not guarantee that their products are
 free of any GE ingredients.
 Consumer groups, led by the Organic Consumers Association, have launched a
 boycott of Kellogg's products, including Kellogg's subsidiary Morningstar Farms,
 until Kellogg's commits to sourcing GE-free sugar.
 Genetically engineered foods are untested, unlabeled and continue a toxic model
 of food production. GE sugar beets are designed to withstand massive doses of
 Monsanto's controversial Roundup herbicide. If given the chance, many Americans
 would avoid eating GE foods. Poll after poll has demonstrated that most people
 want mandatory labeling of all GE foods.
 Protecting the environment and providing safe food for my family is very
 important to me. Until Kellogg's and other companies commit to sourcing non-GE
 sugar, I will be boycotting their products.
 Etiwanda
 An abundant life for all
 In the Holy Bible, it says in 2 Chronicles 7:14:
 "If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and
 seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and
 will forgive their sin and heal their land."
 None of us are without sin, but if we truly desire God to heal our land (the
 good old U.S.), then we need to try to do without drugs, swearing and dishonesty
 in all our dealings. Then He has promised to heal our land. Life would be a lot
 better. People will feel better about themselves and life will take on a new
 meaning.
 I believe in God's promises.
 They have helped me throughout my 84 years on His planet.
 God gave us ears to hear and a mind to understand what is best for us and a
 willing heart to live an abundant life that He has promised us.
 Hey, I'm ready to start!
 How about you?
 Ontario
 Mountain of debt
 How do you spell repeat?
 As this nation enters another period of involuntary debt liquidation, whoever
 wins the presidency in November will not have to worry about writing an
 inauguration speech. The president-elect can deliver the speech given by
 Franklin Delano Roosevelt on March 4, 1933.
 In that speech FDR laid the blame for the severe economic distress this country
 was experiencing on the financial community, particularly investment bankers. He
 firmly stated, "They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They
 have no vision, and when there is no vision people perish."
 Today, we can add the Federal Reserve to the same class. History will prove that
 the major blunders by the maestro, Alan Greenspan, and his successor Ben
 Bernanke were the ultimate trigger for our economic crisis.
 After Greenspan took leadership of the Fed in 1987, every economic hiccup was
 followed by a slashing of interest rates and an increase in the money supply,
 leading to a series of investment bubbles.
 The end result was a humongous real estate bubble giving us a massive debt
 mountain. Our politicians are totally clueless about what is happening because
 the debt mountain is covered by a shroud of fog as a result of the deceit,
 corruption and fraud by the investment bankers who in their demise are now being
 kept alive by their buddies at the Fed.
 Californians must understand that survival during this economic disaster will
 not be sustained by generating additional debt to be paid for by future lottery
 earnings or from any other con-game of creative financing.
 Orange
 LOAD-DATE: July 29, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2008 MediaNews Group, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 501
 
                           Sacramento Bee (California)
                               July 28, 2008 Monday
 Fungus tacos to purple maize: Corn is king at Stockton fiesta;
 Festival celebrates budding movement to preserve Mexico's native strains across
 California.
 BYLINE: Susan Ferriss sferriss@sacbee.com
 SECTION: METRO; Pg. B1
 LENGTH: 674 words
 Ugly fungus, or culinary treasure?
 Several hundred celebrants got to be the judges Sunday at a Stockton event
 featuring Mexican corn-based dishes, including huitlacoche -- pronounced
 weet-la-co-chay -- a dish made from corn fungus that's hard to find in the
 United States.
 "To a lot of people, it's just this black stuff that ruins corn. But to me, it's
 a tasty dish that's nutritious and doesn't get you fat," said Ramon Padilla, 66,
 a Sacramento former bracero -- farmworker -- who was sampling the food.
 Sunday's first Native Mexican Corn Festival, or Festival de Maiz Criollo, was
 the brainchild of a movement blossoming in the Central Valley to preserve
 Mexico's vast variety of native corn seed.
 Humans first developed corn thousands of years ago in Mexico, and it remains the
 cradle of the world's greatest diversity of strains. But as food production and
 trade globalize, native strains developed by farmers over centuries are in
 danger of losing their distinct traits.
 To do their part to safeguard seeds, immigrants who grew up cultivating corn are
 bringing kernels from hometowns in Mexico and growing it in California, from the
 Sacramento region to San Jose and the Salinas Valley.
 Federico Meza, who works on a farm near Stockton, is a pioneering part of the
 movement. He has been planting purple-hued corn from his native state of Jalisco
 for more than 10 years on the ranch where he lives and works.
 He has more than 1,200 stalks growing this year bearing cobs that glow with a
 hue ranging from deep purple to violet.
 "The corn here is good, too," he said. "But the Mexican corn is not super sweet,
 like the corn here, and the grains are not too hard, and it's very tasty."
 When Meza slow-roasts the purple corn in a pit for 10 hours, friends come from
 as far away as Los Angeles for a feast.
 Sales of imported, genetically modified corn from the United States have grown
 tremendously in Mexico, and plantings of that corn have occurred despite
 prohibitions. Scientists eager to preserve Mexico's corn maintain vaults in
 Mexico filled with samples, as well as a new Arctic underground frozen vault
 filled with varieties of grain from around the world.
 Luis Magana, a Central Valley farm labor advocate, helped organize Sunday's
 fair. The event stemmed from a project that Magana and others in the Stockton
 area undertook this year to plant a large amount of native Mexican corn on a
 shared plot.
 The Migrant Sons of Corn, as the group calls itself, harvested cobs recently
 from their milpa, the Mexican word for cornfield, and much of the corn made its
 way into the tamales, corn custards, pozole and the huitlacoche served Sunday.
 Francis Hernandez, a Stockton beauty salon owner, cooked the seasoned corn
 fungus. "It's expensive in Mexico City, and now I know why," Hernandez said.
 She used to buy the fungus, already cut and cleaned, in markets in Mexico.
 This time, she did the labor-intensive part herself. The local native-corn
 growers gave her a 50-pound bag of cobs, from which she scraped 10 pounds of
 fungus. Then she had to clean it of corn silk.
 The fungus takes root in corn kernels that don't develop. The infected kernels
 puff up into black, blue and pearly gray bulbs that are not a pretty sight. In
 the United States, infected cobs are discarded, but in Mexico they are a
 delicacy.
 When the fungus is chopped and cooked with onion, chile and herbs, it turns
 black and tastes like an especially earthy mushroom sauce.
 Hernandez served it stuffed inside a warm, handmade tortilla. She waited on a
 long line of people curious to taste it, or eager to eat something from the
 homeland.
 "I like the sustainability of it. You're using something that's supposedly
 rotten. But I like that it's used for culinary purposes," said Sergio
 Nezacoyotl, who grows native corn at his home in San Jose.
 The son of Mexican immigrants, he had never tasted huitlacoche before visiting
 Mexico City as an adult.
 "I don't think my parents thought I would be interested in these things," he
 said. "But I am." * * * Call The Bee's Susan Ferriss, (916) 321-1267.
 LOAD-DATE: July 29, 2008
 GRAPHIC: Florence Low photographs / flow@sacbee.com
 Jimena Flores, 6, of Stockton tries some native Mexican corn Sunday at the
 Festival del Maiz Criollo, or "Native Mexican Corn Festival," at Centro
 Comunitario Mexicano in Stockton. The festival features traditional Mexican corn
 dishes and is part of an effort to preserve Mexico's vast varieties of native
 corn.
 Jonathan Sanchez, 18, and Salina Ortega, 10, perform a dance at the native corn
 festival Sunday. Immigrants who grew up cultivating corn are bringing kernels
 from hometowns in Mexico and growing the crop in California.
 Wrapped in a tortilla is huitlacoche -- corn fungus that's been chopped and
 cooked with onion, chile and herbs. The dish is a traditional delicacy in Mexico
 and tastes like an especially earthy mushroom sauce.
 Maria Ramirez (in hat) and Rosalinda Carrillo serve tamales and other Mexican
 dishes at the Festival de Maiz Criollo in Stockton on Sunday. The fair was the
 brainchild of a group called Migrant Sons of Corn.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2008 McClatchy Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 502
 
                           Grand Rapid Press (Michigan)
                               July 27, 2008 Sunday
 Internet feeds Kellogg boycott
 SECTION: STATE; Pg. B3
 LENGTH: 439 words
 FLINT -- The grandkids won't munch Froot Loops anymore when they come to visit
 Mark Fisher and Kathleen Kirby.
 "They'll be getting organic oatmeal here," said Kirby, a retired English
 teacher.
 The Flint couple are among those calling for a national consumer boycott against
 Battle Creek-based Kellogg Co., the world's leading cereal maker, in an effort
 to block the use of genetically engineered sugar beets in products ranging from
 candy and breakfast cereal to bread.
 The Internet-based boycott is spreading mostly through Web sites dedicated to
 organic foods.
 "Kellogg isn't the only one. It's just the one we're going after," said Kirby.
 "If we can't stop this, there's going to be a domino effect. Pretty soon, all
 processed foods will have genetically altered sugar, and we won't be able to
 tell because it isn't on the label."
 "If you just boycott Froot Loops without explaining why, you may have a mutiny
 on your hands. But kids actually change faster than adults," said boycott
 participant Brenda McCumons of Lapeer, a registered nurse. "Once they hear the
 'why' and find out the foods good for them actually taste good, they don't have
 trouble giving up the junk."
 Industry officials discount the alarm bells sounded by the health activists and
 say critics overlook the advantages of genetically engineered crops.
 In Michigan alone, about half the sugar beet crop planted this spring is the new
 "Roundup Ready" genetically engineered variety, said Jim Byrum, president of the
 Michigan Agri-Business Association.
 No one has found evidence that biotech foods currently on supermarket shelves
 present a danger to human health. But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
 admits there are concerns, such as the potential for introducing new allergens
 into foods.
 "When you begin to mess with genes, we don't know what's going to happen in the
 long run," said Fisher, a retired science teacher. "Nature will allow us to
 cross-pollinate one kind of corn with another. But when you cross a couple genes
 out of a fish into a carrot, I don't know where that's going to end up."
 The new "Roundup Ready" sugar beets are genetically altered to withstand a
 popular Monsanto herbicide, following on the heels of Roundup Ready corn, soy
 and cotton.
 "Biotechnology is not unique to Kellogg or other food manufacturers in the
 United States, with biotechnology-produced grains having been grown in the U.S.
 for the past decade," said Kris Charles, Kellogg spokeswoman.
 Kellogg products sold in Europe are free of biotech ingredients, while U.S.
 products comply only with U.S. regulations -- which don't require labeling or
 restriction of gene-altered foods.
 (89%); GRANDCHILDREN (78%) Issue; Technology
 LOAD-DATE: July 29, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: grp
                        Copyright 2008 Grand Rapids Press
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 503
 
                                The New York Times
                               July 25, 2008 Friday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Food Safety Panel in Europe Is Doubtful Over Milk and Meat From Clones
 BYLINE: By STEPHEN CASTLE
 SECTION: Section C; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 4
 LENGTH: 779 words
 The European Food Safety Authority pulled back on Thursday from giving milk and
 meat from cloned animals a clean bill of health, making it less likely that such
 products could reach store shelves in Europe anytime soon.
 The final report from the authority, an independent advisory body, was less
 reassuring about safety than a draft in January. An earlier assessment by a
 European ethics committee was negative.
 The European Commission, which must decide whether to approve such products,
 will take both reports into account.
 The findings also contrast with those of the United States Food and Drug
 Administration, which concluded this year that such products were safe --
 although a voluntary moratorium on marketing them remains in place.
 Europeans seem likely to take an even more cautious approach, similar to that
 followed with genetically modified crops -- which has led to years of trade
 friction with the United States. Surveys show resistance in Europe to
 biotechnology remains high, especially when it comes to food.
 While cloning animals is still a young and inefficient technology, scientists
 expect it to improve. In theory, the procedure can produce meatier cows or pigs
 that are better able to resist diseases.
 But in its statement Thursday, the authority said that ''uncertainties in the
 risk assessment arise due to the limited number of studies available, the small
 sample sizes investigated and, in general, the absence of a uniform approach
 that would allow all the issues relevant to this opinion to be more
 satisfactorily addressed.''
 Some of the same points were mentioned in the draft report, but they were given
 less weight.
 A spokeswoman for the authority, Karen Talbot, acknowledged that there was a
 change of emphasis in the new findings, which followed months of consultations
 with industry bodies, trade and farming associations, consumer groups and
 nongovernmental organizations.
 ''The conclusions are not fundamentally different,'' she said, ''but, after the
 consultation, they have acknowledged more clearly what they do know and what
 they don't know.''
 The chairman of the authority's scientific committee, Vittorio Silano, said that
 for cattle and pigs, food safety concerns were ''unlikely.'' But, he added,
 ''the evidence base, while growing and showing consistent findings, is still
 small.''
 The opinion Thursday is one of three pieces of advice that will be considered by
 the commission, which would have to give authorization for food from cloned
 animals to be marketed within the 27-nation European Union.
 Another opinion emerged in January in a report by the European Group on Ethics
 in Science and New Technologies.
 It said that there were ''doubts as to whether cloning animals for food supply
 is ethically justified.''
 It added that it did ''not see convincing arguments to justify the production of
 food from clones and their offspring.''
 The food safety authority's report Thursday also noted health and animal welfare
 problems associated with cloning. In practice, the process produces a relatively
 high proportion of deformed animals that cannot survive, although such rates
 will probably decline as the technology improves.
 The third element to be considered by the commission is an opinion survey, which
 is expected to be available in the fall.
 ''We are gathering the pieces of the puzzle. Then we will consult with the
 member states, stakeholders and the European Parliament,'' a European Commission
 spokeswoman on health issues, Nina Papadoulaki, said.
 During its consultation process, which began after the draft report was
 released, the food safety authority said that it had received 285 submissions
 from 64 interested parties, including individuals, organizations and national
 risk-assessment bodies.
 In a statement issued after a Feb. 7 meeting, the panel noted that the main
 issue ''was the strength of the evidence base on which to reach conclusions.''
 ''A related point made by a number of participants was the need for ongoing
 research into cloning,'' it added.
 In January, the F.D.A. concluded that meat and milk from clones of cattle, swine
 and goats were as safe to eat as food from conventionally bred animals. It asked
 the cloning industry to adhere to a voluntary moratorium on putting cloned
 products into the food chain to prepare for a smooth transition.
 The European Commission said the latest opinion pointed to unresolved issues.
 ''The very preliminary reaction to this report is that it gives rise to
 increased concerns on aspects of animal of animal health and welfare,'' it said.
 It said that because of the absence of data, there were some open questions on
 food safety.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: July 25, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 504
 
                Agriculture Department Documents and Publications
                                  July 24, 2008
 Monsanto Company; Availability of Determination of Nonregulated Status for Corn
 Genetically Engineered for Insect Resistance
 LENGTH: 1643  words
 SUMMARY: We are advising the public of our determination that a corn line
 developed by the Monsanto Company, designated as transformation event MON 89034,
 which has been genetically engineered for insect resistance, is no longer
 considered a regulated article under our regulations governing the introduction
 of certain genetically engineered organisms. Our determination is based on our
 evaluation of data submitted by the Monsanto Company in their petition for a
 determination of nonregulated status, our analysis of other scientific data, and
 comments received from the public in response to a previous notice announcing
 the availability of the petition for nonregulated status and its associated
 environmental assessment. This notice also announces the availability of our
 written determination and our finding of no significant impact.
 DATES: Effective Date: July 24, 2008.
 ADDRESSES: You may read the petition, environmental assessment, determination,
 finding of no significant impact, the comments we received on our previous
 notice, and our responses to those comments in our reading room. The reading
 room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and
 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to
 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there
 to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming. Those documents may also
 be viewed on the Internet at
 http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetailandd=APHIS
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Robyn Rose, Biotechnology Regulatory
 Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301)
 734-0489, e-mail: robyn.i.rose@aphis.usda.gov To obtain copies of the petition,
 environmental assessment, or the finding of no significant impact, contact Ms.
 Cindy Eck at (301) 734-0667, e-mail: cynthia.a.eck@aphis.usda.gov To view those
 documents on the Internet, go to
 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/06_29801p.pdf and
 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/06_29801p_ea.pdf.
 Background
 The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, "Introduction of Organisms and Products
 Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which
 There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests," regulate, among other things, the
 introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment)
 of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that
 are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such
 genetically engineered organisms and products are considered "regulated
 articles."
 The regulations in SEC 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to
 the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination
 that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and
 (c) of SEC 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of
 nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the
 petition.
 On October 26, 2006, APHIS received a petition seeking a determination of
 nonregulated status (APHIS No. 06-298-01p) from the Monsanto Company (Monsanto)
 of St. Louis, MO, for corn (Zea mays L.) designated as transformation event MON
 89034, which has been genetically engineered for resistance to European corn
 borer and other lepidopteran pests, stating that corn line MON 89034 does not
 present a plant pest risk and, therefore, should not be a regulated article
 under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340. Monsanto responded to APHIS'
 subsequent request for additional information and clarification and submitted an
 addendum to their petition on January 23, 2007.
 Analysis
 As described in the petition, corn transformation event MON 89034 has been
 genetically engineered to express the transgenes cry1A.105 and cry2Ab2, both of
 which were derived from a well-characterized gene sequence from Bacillus
 thuringiensis, and encode insect control proteins. The neomycin
 phosphotransferase II (nptII) gene was used as a selectable marker, but was
 eliminated by traditional breeding methods in the later stages of development of
 MON 89034. Thus, MON 89034 contains only the cry1A.105 and cry2Ab2 expression
 cassettes. Expression of the transgenes by corn plants renders the corn line
 resistant to European corn borer, as well as other lepidopteran pests.
 Regulatory elements for the transgenes were obtained from Agrobacterium
 tumefaciens. These regulatory sequences are not transcribed and do not encode
 proteins. The DNA was introduced into corn cells using Agrobacterium -mediated
 transformation methodology with the T-DNA binary transformation vector
 designated PV ZMIR245.
 In a notice /1/ published in the Federal Register on December 13, 2007 (72 FR
 70817-70819, Docket No. APHIS-2007-0030), we announced our receipt of the
 Monsanto petition and solicited comments on whether MON 89034 corn is or could
 be a plant pest. In that notice, we also made available for public comment a
 draft environmental assessment we prepared to analyze any potential
 environmental effects associated with the proposed determination of nonregulated
 status for the MON 89034 corn event.
 FOOTNOTE 1 To view the notice, petition, environmental assessment, and the
 comments we received, go to
 http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetailandd=APHIS
 We received 29 comments by the close of the 60-day comment period, which ended
 on February 11, 2008. There were 5 comments submitted in support of the petition
 to grant nonregulated status to MON 89034 corn and 24 that were opposed. APHIS'
 responses to these comments can be found as an attachment to the finding of no
 significant impact.
 Determination
 Based on APHIS' analysis of field, greenhouse and laboratory data submitted by
 Monsanto, references provided in the petition, other relevant information
 described in the environmental assessment, and comments provided by the public,
 APHIS has determined that MON 89034 will not pose a plant pest risk for the
 following reasons: (1) Gene introgression from MON 89034 corn into wild
 relatives in the United States and its territories is extremely unlikely and is
 not likely to increase the weediness potential of any resulting progeny or
 adversely affect genetic diversity of related plants any more than would
 introgression from traditional corn hybrids; (2) it exhibits no characteristics
 that would cause it to be more weedy than the non-genetically engineered parent
 corn line or other cultivated corn; (3) it does not pose a risk to non-target
 organisms, including beneficial organisms and threatened or endangered species,
 because the insecticidal activity of the Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 proteins are
 limited to lepidopteran target pest species; (4) it does not pose a threat to
 biodiversity as it does not exhibit traits that increase its weediness and its
 unconfined cultivation should not lead to increased weediness of other
 cultivated corn, it exhibits no changes in disease susceptibility, and it is
 unlikely to harm non-target organisms common to the agricultural ecosystem or
 threatened or endangered species recognized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
 Service; (5) compared to current corn pest and weed management practices,
 cultivation of MON 89034 corn should not impact standard agricultural practices
 in corn cultivation and controlling volunteer corn any differently than any
 other deregulated corn line expressing Cry proteins. Moreover, MON 89034 should
 not present any new or different impacts on organic farmers from those Bt corn
 lines that are currently cultivated; and (6) disease susceptibility and
 compositional profiles of MON 89034 corn are similar to those of its parent
 variety and other corn cultivars grown in the United States, therefore no direct
 or indirect plant pest effects on raw or processed plant commodities are
 expected.
 In conclusion, APHIS has determined that there will be no effect on the
 federally listed threatened or endangered species, species proposed for listing,
 or their designated or proposed critical habitat resulting from a determination
 of nonregulated status for MON 89034 and its progeny. APHIS also concludes that
 new varieties bred from MON 89034 corn are unlikely to exhibit new plant pest
 properties, i.e., properties substantially different from any observed for corn
 event MON 89034, or those observed for other corn varieties not considered
 regulated articles under 7 CFR part 340.
 National Environmental Policy Act
 An EA was prepared to provide the APHIS decisionmaker with a review and analysis
 of any potential environmental impacts associated with the determination of
 nonregulated status for MON 89034. The EA was prepared in accordance with: (1)
 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for
 implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3)
 USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA
 Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). Based on that EA, and other pertinent
 scientific data, APHIS has reached a FONSI with regard to the determination that
 Monsanto corn line MON 89034 and lines developed from it are no longer regulated
 articles under its regulations in 7 CFR part 340. Copies of the EA and FONSI are
 available as indicated in the ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
 sections of this notice.
 Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80,
 and 371.3.
 Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of July 2008.
 Kevin Shea,
 Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
 Notice.
 Citation: "73 FR 43202"
 Federal Register Page Number: "43202"
 "Notices"
 LOAD-DATE: July 24, 2008
            Copyright 2008 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 505
 
                           Kalamazoo Gazette (Michigan)
                              July 22, 2008 Tuesday
 Genetically altered Kellogg products target of boycott
 LENGTH: 341 words
 BY ELIZABETH SHAW Newhouse News Service FLINT -- The grandkids won't munch Froot
 Loops anymore when they come to visit Mark Fisher and Kathleen Kirby.
 "They'll be getting organic oatmeal here," said Kirby, a retired English
 teacher.
 The Flint couple are among those calling for a national consumer boycott against
 Battle Creek-based Kellogg Co., the world's leading cereal maker, in an effort
 to block the use of genetically engineered sugar beets in products ranging from
 candy and breakfast cereal to bread.
 The Internet-based boycott is spreading mostly through Web sites dedicated to
 organic foods.
 "Kellogg isn't the only one. It's just the one we're going after," said Kirby.
 "If we can't stop this, there's going to be a domino effect. Pretty soon all
 processed foods will have genetically altered sugar, and we won't be able to
 tell because it isn't on the label."
 "If you just boycott Froot Loops without explaining why, you may have a mutiny
 on your hands. But kids actually change faster than adults," said boycott
 participant Brenda McCumons, of Lapeer, a registered nurse. "Once they hear the
 'why' and find out the foods good for them actually taste good, they don't have
 trouble giving up the junk."
 Industry officials discount the alarm bells sounded by the health activists and
 say critics overlook the advantages of GE crops.
 In Michigan alone, about half the sugar-beet crop planted this spring is the new
 "Roundup Ready" genetically engineered variety, said Jim Byrum, president of the
 Michigan Agri-Business Association.
 "It took a lot of work all the way through the system to make sure this was no
 surprise. And it's not as if it's a new technology," said Byrum.
 No one has found evidence that biotech foods currently on supermarket shelves
 present a danger to human health. But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
 admits there are concerns, such as the potential for introducing new allergens
 into foods.
 "When you begin to mess with genes, we don't know what's going to happen in the
 long run," said Fisher, a retired science teacher.
 LOAD-DATE: July 22, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: zoo
                         Copyright 2008 Kalamazoo Gazette
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 506
 
                            Mobile Register (Alabama)
                              July 22, 2008 Tuesday
 Internet fueling Kellogg boycott
 BYLINE: ELIZABETH SHAW, Newhouse News Service
 SECTION: B; Pg. 07
 LENGTH: 742 words
 Internet fueling Kellogg boycott
 By ELIZABETH SHAW Newhouse News Service
 FLINT, Mich. - The grandkids won't munch Froot Loops anymore when they come to
 visit Mark Fisher and Kathleen Kirby.
 "They'll be getting organic oatmeal here," said Kirby, a retired English
 teacher.
 The Flint couple are among those calling for a national consumer boycott against
 Battle Creek-based Kellogg Co., the world's leading cereal maker, in an effort
 to block the use of genetically engineered (GE) sugar beets in products ranging
 from candy and breakfast cereal to bread.
 The Internet-based boycott is spreading mostly through Web sites dedicated to
 organic foods.
 "Kellogg isn't the only one. It's just the one we're going after," said Kirby.
 "If we can't stop this, there's going to be a domino effect. Pretty soon all
 processed foods will have genetically altered sugar and we won't be able to tell
 because it isn't on the label."
 "If you just boycott Froot Loops without explaining why, you may have a mutiny
 on your hands. But kids actually change faster than adults," said boycott
 participant Brenda McCumons of Lapeer, a registered nurse. "Once they hear the
 'why' and find out the foods good for them actually taste good, they don't have
 trouble giving up the junk."
 Industry officials discount the alarm bells sounded by the health activists and
 say critics overlook the advantages of GE crops.
 In Michigan alone, about half the sugar beet crop planted this spring is the new
 "Roundup Ready" genetically engineered variety, said Jim Byrum, president of the
 Michigan Agri-Business Association.
 "It took a lot of work all the way through the system to make sure this was no
 surprise. And it's not as if it's a new technology," said Byrum.
 "We hear some fringe groups expressing concern ... but we're not hearing a
 general outcry from the general populace at all."
 No one has found evidence that biotech foods currently on supermarket shelves
 present a danger to human health. But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
 admits there are concerns, such as the potential for introducing new allergens
 into foods.
 "When you begin to mess with genes, we don't know what's going to happen in the
 long run," said Fisher, a retired science teacher. "Nature will allow us to
 cross-pollinate one kind of corn with another. But when you cross a couple genes
 out of a fish into a carrot, I don't know where that's going to end up. I don't
 mind if they run the experiment - I just don't want to be part of it. "
 The new "Roundup Ready" sugar beets are genetically altered to withstand a
 popular Monsanto herbicide, following on the heels of Roundup Ready corn, soy
 and cotton.
 "Biotechnology is not unique to Kellogg or other food manufacturers in the
 United States, with biotechnology-produced grains having been grown in the U.S.
 for the past decade," said Kris Charles, Kellogg spokeswoman.
 "We use grain from a number of suppliers in our country, so our supply would
 likely include (GE) grain in the same proportion that it occurs in the United
 States supply. Our position on use of GE sugar ... is the same."
 Byrum said GE critics are missing the target for their concerns. "Without these
 advanced technologies the cost of production would be substantially higher.
 Plus, there are millions of tons of additional pesticides and herbicides we
 don't use today because of them," Byrum said. "Even the pope and the G-8 Summit
 have endorsed biotech to help alleviate the scarcity of the food supply around
 the world."
 Kellogg products sold in Europe are free of biotech Ingredients, while U.S.
 products only comply with U.S. regulations - which don't require labeling or
 restriction of gene-altered foods.
 "In the U.S., most consumers are not concerned about biotechnology, and we
 receive very few contacts on the subject," said Charles.
 Fisher agrees organic foodies such as he and his wife are in the minority of
 Kellogg customers.
 "I'm sure we're not gonna hurt 'em at all. Their bottom line won't change
 because of what we don't buy," he said.
 But that could change, said Lapeer's McCumons.
 "I think one person can make a huge difference in any effort they're committed
 to. ... One voice with another voice can create a choir that will be heard."
 JOHN W. ADKISSON/Newhouse News Service
 Kathleen Kirby and Mark Fisher of Flint, Mich., are joining consumers
 nationwide, boycotting Kellogg Co. cereals because of fears over the use of
 genetically modified sugar beets in cereals and other products.
 LOAD-DATE: September 9, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: mbr
                  Copyright 2008 The Mobile Press Register Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 507
 
                           Sacramento Bee (California)
                               July 18, 2008 Friday
 Ventria funded by Kansas
 BYLINE: Jim Downing
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. D1
 LENGTH: 214 words
 Ventria Bioscience has received $3.75 million in financing from the state of
 Kansas to expand the company's processing capacity and prepare its
 anti-diarrheal rice products for market.
 Ventria's rice is genetically modified to produce two proteins found in human
 breast milk. Those proteins are thought to help children recover from diarrhea
 more quickly. The rice is processed into a powder used to make oral rehydration
 solutions.
 Chief Executive Scott Deeter has said Ventria will launch an over-the-counter
 product by the end of the year. It would be the first genetically engineered
 "medical food" to reach the market.
 Ventria's technology was developed at the University of California, Davis, and
 the company was founded in Sacramento 15 years ago. The company's corporate
 headquarters is now in Colorado, but its research operations remain in the area.
 Ventria's processing plant is in Junction City, Kan., where farmers cultivate
 the genetically modified rice under contract.
 Ventria had planned to grow the rice in the Sacramento Valley but gave up in
 2004 following protests from local rice farmers anxious about genetic
 contamination.
 The Kansas Bioscience Authority announced the funding package Tuesday. It is a
 convertible note -- a loan that can convert to shares in the company.
 LOAD-DATE: July 20, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2008 McClatchy Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 508
 
                               The Washington Times
                               July 18, 2008 Friday
 But critics say sowers of biotech could reap the whirlwind
 BYLINE: By Kara Rowland, THE WASHINGTON TIMES
 LENGTH: 650 words
 A new "supercorn" with eight genetic modifications that make it even more highly
 resistant to insects and weed killers than earlier versions is just one of the
 agricultural developments Americans will see over the next several years as
 scientific advances enable technicians to customize crop plants with stacks of
 genes, biotechnology expert Clive James said.
 Mr. James stressed the need for genetically modified crops to help farmers grow
 more food on fewer acres as the world is running out of land and water while the
 population is expected to climb to 9 billion by 2015.
 "In the next 50 years, the global population will consume twice as much food as
 the global population has consumed since the beginning of agriculture 10,000
 years ago," Mr. James, chairman of the International Service for the Acquisition
 of Agri-biotech Applications, told reporters and editors Wednesday at The
 Washington Times. "You have a choice: You can think of it as a problem, or we
 think of it as an opportunity."
 Twelve million farmers in 23 countries are now using crops that have been
 enhanced with additional genes to achieve benefits such as resistance to pests
 and viruses, according to 2007 data from ISAAA, a nonprofit focused on spreading
 biotechnology to alleviate hunger and poverty in developing countries.
 Meanwhile, biotech crop area grew last year by 12 percent to about 285 million
 acres.
 The U.S. is the world's largest user of biotech crops, with about 80 percent of
 processed food including genetically modified soybeans or corn, Mr. James said.
 Ten other industrialized nations and 12 developing countries use the technology,
 which was commercialized in 1996.
 In India, farmers who used Bt cotton - cotton that has been combined with a
 bacteria found in soil to resist insects - increased their crop yields by up to
 50 percent and income by up to $625 per acre, Mr. James said, citing ISAAA data.
 They also saw environmental benefits, using 45 percent less pesticide, he added.
 "Is the food from these crops as safe as conventional food? The answer is yes,
 and in some cases, safer," he said.
 Not everyone supports the technology, however. Some environmental groups like
 Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth oppose genetically modified crops, arguing
 they are unsafe or could have unforeseen consequences in the future. While Mr.
 James said his organization is "pro-choice" - biotech crops should not be forced
 on anyone - he was critical of groups he said were not being constructive.
 "If you go to Greenpeace and say, OK, how are you going to feed the world, they
 say that's not our business," he said. "The activists have taken it upon
 themselves to make a decision on behalf of [farmers who have used the crops],
 which they shouldn't be doing. Let's ask these people."
 Mr. James said much of the opposition to biotech crops stems from a lack of
 understanding.
 "Man doesn't handle change very well. I think what you've seen is a society
 dealing with a new science and trying to get hold of it," he said, likening the
 experience to initial opposition to pasteurized milk.
 Ceding that biotechnology is not a "golden bullet," Mr. James nevertheless
 stressed higher incomes and crop yields as undeniable benefits that result in a
 better quality of life for poor farmers, who are able spend more time with their
 families and less time in the fields plowing.
 He was also optimistic about the spread of the technology to countries whose
 governments have been slow to support it, citing Korean approval of biotech
 crops and a strong endorsement from David King, an influential English
 scientist.
 "For those not using this technology, the greatest risk associated with this
 technology is not using it," Mr. James said, adding that countries who wait will
 only fall further behind as crops with multiple genes - thus multiple benefits -
 are introduced. "What you see today is the very, very small tip of the iceberg."
 LOAD-DATE: July 18, 2008
 GRAPHIC: Farmer Robin Andrews, of Zirconia, N.C. waits for buyers to purchase
 his pole beans for $15 per bushel at the State Farmers Market in Columbia, S.C.
 Food prices showed a big increase in June, rising by 0.7 percent, more than
 double the 0.3 percent increase of May. Vegetable prices shot up by 6.1 percent,
 the biggest increase in nearly four years. (Below) Dr. Clive James, talks about
 the promise of genetically modified foods in helping to address global food
 crisis. He is an international biotechnology expert. [2 Photos by Joseph
 Silverman/The Washington Times and Associated Press]
 A laboratory technician stacks test tubes containing tissue cultured banana
 plantlets raised in the biotechnology research center of the Hijo Resources
 Corporation on the Philippines southern island of Mindanao. Hijo and many other
 local growers are experiencing boom time in supplying bananas to a growing
 global market. [Photo by Agence France-Presse/Getty Images]
 A laboratory technician inspects test tubes containing tissue cultured banana
 plantlets at Hijo Resources Corp. [Photo by Agence France-Presse/Getty Images]
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                     Copyright 2008 The Washington Times LLC
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 509
 
                        Richmond Times Dispatch (Virginia)
                              July 17, 2008 Thursday
                                  Final Edition
 Enough Said
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A-14
 LENGTH: 39 words
 Norman Borlaug, Nobel laureate and father of the Green Revolution: "We have the
 technology to double or triple food production. I've been in the field for a
 long time, and I believe genetically modified food crops will stop world
 hunger."
 LOAD-DATE: July 19, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                     Copyright 2008 Richmond Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 510
 
                            Ruidoso News (New Mexico)
                              July 17, 2008 Thursday
 They gas tomatoes, don't they?
 BYLINE: Marty Racine On Second Thought
 LENGTH: 510 words
 In 1969 I worked for a radio station in Mesa, Ariz. - KMND-AM/FM.
 It was a weird deal. The FM side was automated, programming "beautiful music" on
 large reels that I had to rotate at 3 o'clock in the morning. That's all I did
 from midnight till dawn, except for recording transmitter readings and
 scribbling bad poetry that never crossed a publisher's desk.
 At sunrise, I signed the AM station on the air and acted as the interim DJ until
 the real guy got there. It was a country format, and I got lots of desert
 dwellers calling up in a coffee-fueled twang requesting the latest Johnny Cash
 or Waylon Jennings.
 One was a lady who, like many callers to radio stations, sounded lonely and a
 bit of a crackpot. I figured she'd been up all night communicating with
 spaceships, especially when she'd blurt out something like, "Do you know they
 gas the tomatoes at the supermarket to make them turn red?"
 So, I say to you: Do you know they gas (some) tomatoes sold in supermarkets to
 make them turn red?
 Some people are just ahead of their time.
 So now we're in a Salmonella scare traced to tomatoes - or is it jalapeos or
 serranos? Who knows where half these fruits are coming from or the conditions in
 which they're grown? How much oversight exists at the worldwide agri-business
 level; is genetically modified food real food or are we Guinea pigs for a
 science project; and does the FDA seriously protect your interests?
 I'll answer that one: Not when they allow anything with high-fructose corn syrup
 on your table.
 Before tomatoes, there was the alar expos with apples. Then it was onto
 strawberries and spinach, mad cow hysteria and the canned-chili recall.
 When we moved to this big land, we bought enough earth to grow our own food. We
 ply the soil with horse poop and fish emulsion instead of potions concocted and
 packaged in the Big Box Empire. From the heavens, hail pounds our bounty, and
 from the depths of hell the gophers covet it. From out of nowhere,
 peculiarlooking bugs with spots chew holes in the leaves. But it's ours; we know
 where it's coming from and how it got here.
 There are others in the mountains and valleys, on plots large and small, growing
 gardens of eatin'. Some will be at the Capitan Farmers Market Saturday morning
 for the opening of its third season.
 With a cold, dry spring, the pickin's won't be plentiful yet, but you will find
 honest edibles from the motherland of Lincoln County, forbidding as it sometimes
 is.
 If the price of gas and groceries teaches us anything, it's that it costs mucho
 to be consumer units dependent on systems beyond our realm - corporations, the
 government, the global economy run by bankers, politicians, lawyers and
 speculators (see "G8 to poor women ..." ).
 We all need the supermarket, but pushing seeds into the ground and watching them
 stretch into luscious stalks links us to the local-food movement spreading
 throughout the land. It's about planting roots and finding community.
 And, by the way, given time, tomatoes actually turn red (and yellow and orange)
 in the sun. I know it's hard to believe ....
 LOAD-DATE: July 19, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
             Copyright 2008 Ruidoso News, a MediaNews Group Newspaper
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 511
 
                                 University Wire
                             July 16, 2008 Wednesday
 Staff Editorial: Our record high gas prices aren't just figments of our
 imaginations
 BYLINE: By
 LENGTH: 653 words
 The Food and Drug Administration should be one of the most trusted
 organizations.
 Because they regulate what we put into our bodies, it is hoped the FDA keeps
 track of what medicines are harmful and what foods should be removed from
 shelves.
 The FDA was created to stop quacks from offering snake oils to cure illnesses
 and to regulate dangerous meatpacking factories. The reality is very different
 from the idea we have of this bureaucracy that colludes with pharmaceutical
 corporations.
 For example, Vioxx is a drug used for arthritis that was pulled off the market
 after it was linked to 27,000 heart attacks and deaths.
 This may seem like a tragic mistake on the surface, but a study linking Vioxx to
 heart attacks proves otherwise. Dr. David Graham, an FDA scientist, conducted
 the study and was instructed to downplay the fatal side effects.
 The deputy director of the FDA's Office of Drug Safety told Graham to warn
 Merck, the pharmaceutical company responsible for Vioxx, of the research before
 the public found out first.
 Only when the media found out was Graham able to publish the findings, which
 demonstrated that as high as 139,000 people have had heart attacks as a result
 of taking Vioxx.
 The Union of Concerned Scientists conducted a survey of FDA scientists, asking
 questions involving the influence of pharmaceutical companies on the research
 done. Nearly one-fifth reported they had to change or eliminate their findings
 for non-scientific reasons.
 Forty percent said they were afraid of reprisals. Nearly 60 percent reported
 political interference with FDA decisions. The UCS called for accountability,
 protection from altering research and whistleblower protection to help alleviate
 the problems in the FDA.
 In 1991, Dan Quayle headed the Council on Competitiveness, which gathered
 representatives from pharmaceutical and biotech companies for advice to help the
 U.S.compete in the global market.
 Suggestions included speeding up the drug approval process, using private
 companies to screen drugs instead of the FDA and bringing genetically modified
 food to the market.
 There are numerous problems with these proposals. Although expediting the
 approval process for life-saving drugs can be beneficial, this would apply to
 even minor drugs with side effects that can outweigh the affliction being
 treated itself.
 Also, private companies would be prone to the same corruption as the FDA, but
 with less accountability, and genetically modified foods would not be tested for
 their safety but immediately sold without labels warning consumers of the
 product.
 Perhaps the most insidious result of the Council on Competitiveness was the
 passing of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act. This gave the FDA's budget a
 boost, but from the money of pharmaceutical companies. This effectively turns
 drug companies into clients and the FDA into a pseudo-corporation that's
 accountability is not to the public.
 In order to make more money, the market is flooded with new drugs when current
 drugs do the same thing. Safety is not an issue.
 In Great Britain, a national system is used to keep track of the consumers' side
 effects, a stark contrast to the companies having to report the side effects -
 if they do at all.
 The FDA itself realizes it is fallible, as illustrated by Raymond Woosley's
 comments - every American who takes medicine is essentially conducting the
 experiments that the FDA or the companies never properly performed.
 Over 100,000 people die every year from the medicines that are supposed to treat
 them. This does not have to happen. The FDA once engaged in ethical practices -
 the best example being Frances Kelsey standing up to the Merrell Company for a
 potentially dangerous medicine being prescribed to pregnant women.
 This, however, has changed. As long as the FDA is literally in the pockets of
 "big pharma," we will not be completely safe from the predatory practices of
 immoral companies.
 (C) 2008 via UWIRE
 LOAD-DATE: July 16, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                              Copyright 2008 U-Wire









Document Number: 512
 
                              The Houston Chronicle
                              July 15, 2008 Tuesday
 BYLINE: Houston Chronicle News Services
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. 6
 LENGTH: 361 words
 Mideast airlines spend big at show
 FARNBOROUGH - Airlines from oil-rich Middle Eastern countries saved the world's
 largest air show from an otherwise lackluster start on Monday, booking orders
 for about 150 planes worth more than $25 billion.
 Many European and U.S. airlines are expected to refrain from signing any big
 deals at the Farnborough International Airshow as they cope with rocketing fuel
 prices and flagging passenger demand.
 In contrast, several Middle Eastern carriers with the benefit of oil-backed
 sovereign wealth funds are banking on huge investments and greater tourism in
 the Gulf region to justify spending for aircraft.
 The biggest deal Monday came from Etihad Airways, which split an order for 100
 aircraft between Airbus and Boeing worth $20 billion at list prices.
 Banking giant moves in on lender
 MADRID - Spanish banking giant Banco Santander said Monday it has agreed to buy
 the British mortgage lender Alliance & Leicester in a deal valued at $2.5
 billion.
 Banco Santander, which also owns Britain's Abbey National Bank, said that under
 the terms of the proposed takeover, Alliance & Leicester shareholders would
 receive one share in Santander for every three shares they hold in the British
 lender.
 Alliance & Leicester is one of several British banks which have been badly
 bruised by a tightening credit market following the collapse of the U.S.
 subprime mortgage market. Banks' unwillingness to part with loans as house
 prices fall have cut into revenue and depressed share prices.
 Large gain sought in corn production
 Mexico is aiming to increase corn production 27 percent within four years to
 reduce dependence on more expensive imported grain, the government said.
 Farmers will increase output to 30 million metric tons by 2012, from 23.7
 million tons in 2007, by planting more high-yielding, genetically modified corn,
 the Agriculture Ministry announced Monday.
 About 10 percent of the corn sold on world commodity markets is bought by
 Mexico, where it is used to feed livestock. Shortages of yellow corn have forced
 farmers to divert white corn, which is used to make tortillas, a staple food, to
 feed animals.
 (70%); CONTUSIONS (65%) business Banks
 LOAD-DATE: July 15, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
             Copyright 2008 The Houston Chronicle Publishing Company
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 513
 
                               Chicago Daily Herald
                               July 8, 2008 Tuesday
                                    L1 Edition
 Farmers market hits 28 years in Libertyville
 BYLINE: Lee A. Litas
 SECTION: NEIGHBOR; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 623 words
 "The fight to save family farms isn't just about farmers. It's about making sure
 that there is a safe and healthy food supply for all of us. It's about jobs,
 from Main Street to Wall Street. It's about a better America," singer/songwriter
 Willie Nelson once noted, speaking from the heartland on a subject that touches
 each and every one of us.
 Illinois has one of the largest farming communities in the land and, locally,
 markets like the Libertyville Farmers Market do what they can to support the
 efforts and keep American farmers from becoming extinct.
 "A large part of Libertyville's goal is to keep not only our downtown merchants
 economically viable but also to support (local) vendors like this," said Randy
 Nelson, executive director for MainStreet Libertyville, a nonprofit,
 volunteer-based organization dedicated to the economic development and historic
 preservation of Libertyville's historic downtown.
 This year marks the 28th anniversary of the market, which traditionally starts
 on the Thursday after Father's Day and runs for 18 weeks through the third week
 in October. The venue's longevity and reputation for quality both in the variety
 of vendors and in the products they offer has earned it a serious reputation;
 one that even warrants a waiting list. Currently, there are more than 30 vendors
 hoping to get placement.
 The market prides itself on being what is known as a "traditional farmers
 market," meaning that each and every vendor has to either grow, bake or make
 what they are selling. Nobody is allowed to buy something elsewhere and resell
 it, and the community is "self policing" when it comes to keeping true to this
 maxim.
 With dedicated vendors like Bunny Senne, 60, this is not such a hard task. A
 fourth-generation farmer, Senne hails from Woodstock where she works some 340
 acres of land growing everything from purple cauliflower to white and yellow
 carrots. Like many farmers, this year has been a particularly tough one for
 Senne, who lost nearly a quarter of her land to flooding.
 "Please support the Illinois farmer. It's been a hard year; we've lost 93 acres
 under water and I know others have lost more. I know it's a little more effort
 to come (to a farmers market.) It's not like going to the Jewel where they have
 everything, but we bring you the freshest things that we can bring you," said
 Senne.
 After four generations of farming, this is the end of the line for Senne's
 family trade, with perhaps only five to 10 years more before she retires. Of her
 six children, none wish to follow in the family business.
 "They all have what they call 'real jobs, with real money.' "
 Such trends are causing an understandable shortage in supply while the demands
 of a growing population keep increasing. The inevitable change over to
 mass-production and dubious benefits of genetically modified foods beg the
 question of what will become of our overall health
 and well-being once the farmers disappear.
 "I know it's progress. There are a lot of genetically altered things, but I
 don't think it should be our food source," said Senne.
 With the opportunities offered by farmers markets, the strength and conviction
 of such traditional farmers thankfully still rubs off and attracts new vendors
 like Jan and Leonard Sosinski, from Antioch. New to the market this year, they
 came to sell their homemade jams, jellies and flavored vinegars, all made with
 only domestically grown produce to keep the profits within the U.S. borders.
 "I already love the people and the setting," said Jan Sosinski. "It's a
 family-friendly atmosphere, everybody knows everybody and it's really like a
 party," she said. Let's hope we keep the party going for a long time to come.
 * Lee A. Litas can be reached at lakecountylife@dailyherald.com
 LOAD-DATE: December 2, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2008 Paddock Publications, Inc.









Document Number: 514
 
                 The Berkshire Eagle (Pittsfield, Massachusetts)
                              July 5, 2008 Saturday
 Corn syrup tax makes good sense
 BYLINE: Letters
 LENGTH: 173 words
 The problem with the new tax on cigarettes is that it highlights the lack of
 imagination of our lawmakers. If the rationale is that buyers of unhealthy
 products should defray medical costs, let's put the same percentage tax on
 products that contain high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).
 HFCS was initiated by Archer Daniels Midland and fellow processed food giants by
 bribing Congress to inflate the price of cane sugar, via import tax, to make
 HFCS "affordable." HFCS is not digestible. It is processed by the liver. The
 rise of HFCS use has a very close correlation with the increase of both Type II
 diabetes and obesity. HFCS is universally made with genetically modified corn,
 which introduces another wild card into the health equation.
 Check the labels on items such as soda, ketchup, bread, cookies, marinades, and
 any sweets that are soft or "chewy." To keep with the rationale of defraying
 medical costs, these products should have a tax of 30 to 50 percent. That would
 raise a lot more money than the cigarette tax.
 Pittsfield
 LOAD-DATE: July 14, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
    Copyright 2008 MediaNews Group, Inc. and New England Newspaper Group Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 515
 
                         The Daily Record (Baltimore, MD)
                              July 2, 2008 Wednesday
 At 4 Md. hospitals, health now starts with the food
 BYLINE: Anne Riley
 LENGTH: 653  words
 Invoking images of watery Jell-O and mystery meat, hospital food has a bad
 reputation for being mass-produced, bland and, ironically, unhealthy.
 No more.
 As part of University of Maryland School of Nursing's "Healthy Food in Health
 Care Initiative," four Maryland hospitals - Mercy Medical Center, Sinai
 Hospital, Carroll Hospital Center and Anne Arundel Medical Center - have pledged
 to change the way they think about food by committing to buy locally grown
 produce, organic foods and non-modified meats and daily products.
 "It doesn't make sense to give food to our patients that isn't healthy," said
 Nicole Killion, a nurse at Washington Adventist Hospital in Takoma Park who
 worked to develop the initiative.
 Not only is the food at participating hospitals healthy, but it's good, too,
 said Mike Ferrante, a Tuesday afternoon patron at Mercy's cafeteria.
 "It's probably the best hospital food I've ever had," said Ferrante, who said
 his wife gave birth at the hospital on Monday. "Usually, there's no flavor to
 hospital food - it's like it's been sitting there for a while. This is fresh. "
 The goals of the program, which is one step of the Maryland Hospitals for a
 Healthy Environment initiative, are threefold: to provide patients, staff and
 visitors more nutritious foods; to support local farmers and the Maryland
 economy; and to lower health risks associated with modified foods and
 large-scale outbreaks of disease.
 "It's just a really nice sense of security, knowing where that product is
 grown," said Steve Lentz, district manager of Cura Hospitality, which provides
 food services to Mercy.
 Additionally, buying locally allows hospitals to reduce their carbon footprint,
 Lentz said.
 "Local products means less travel time," he said. "It just makes sense. "
 While only four hospitals in Maryland have signed on to the initiative, "over 30
 hospitals in the state are participating in some form," said Louise Mitchell,
 project coordinator at the University of Maryland School of Nursing.
 "There are these varying degrees of comfort in signing [the pledge]," Mitchell
 said, noting that those hospitals that have not signed it are still striving to
 green their food purchasing, just at a slower rate.
 According to Mitchell, participating in the initiative does not necessarily cost
 hospitals more, even though local and organic foods are sometimes more
 expensive, because hospitals save money by composting and do significantly more
 business at their cafeterias when they switch to healthier options.
 "There are tradeoffs," Mitchell said.
 In addition to buying local and organic foods, some hospitals have stocked
 vending machines with healthier options, committed to composting food waste and
 declared their buildings "fast food-free zones," Mitchell said. At Anne Arundel
 Medical Center, efforts also include removing bottled water from the physicians'
 lounge and buying every staff member a reusable mug, according to Kay Patterson,
 patient and food sources specialist at the hospital.
 "We are leaders of health care. We should be the example for the community,"
 Patterson said.
 Another benefit of buying organic food, Mitchell said, is that by reducing the
 consumption of meat modified with antibiotics, hospitals are doing their part to
 minimize the formation of antibiotic-resistant organisms, "helping to protect
 antibiotic use in health care. "
 If hospitals continue serving meat from animals raised on antibiotics, "then the
 drugs that we need to use become less effective or not effective at all," added
 Robyn Gilden, program manager at the University of Maryland School of Nursing.
 Although the initiative only changes the way people eat while on hospital
 grounds, Killion said she hopes the program will encourage patients to continue
 to eat healthier once they recover and return to their daily lives.
 "A big part of nursing is patient education," Killion said. "You want them to
 take those lessons home with them. "
 LOAD-DATE: July 2, 2008
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: General news
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2008 Dolan Media Newswires









Document Number: 516
 
                      Marin Independent Journal (California)
                               June 27, 2008 Friday
 Herbicides could be used wisely
 BYLINE: By Joe Kohn
 SECTION: OPINION; Cartoons
 LENGTH: 575 words
 WHEN I FIRST HEARD of bringing back herbicides to the Marin watershed, I thought
 it was an insane proposal.
 After all, the No. 1 herbicide is Roundup, and Roundup is produced by Monsanto,
 and I feel that Monsanto is the most evil corporation on the planet.
 Its genetically modified food is the reason I eat organic.
 However, after going through the training of the Environmental Forum of Marin, I
 thought it was best to put my personal biases aside and to open my ears to those
 land managers who work in habitat restoration, and to hear what they had to say
 on the subject.
 But, since talk is cheap, I've also gone out with Tanya Baxter's National Park
 Service work crew in the Headlands, gone out for the past few years with the
 Friday Rare Plant Monitoring team at Point Reyes, and even helped to set up
 tours for members of the California Native Plant Society and the Environmental
 Forum of Marin to take of test sites in the Marin Municipal Water District
 watershed to let us see with our own eyes what works, and what doesn't, to
 eradicate invasive weeds.
 As a fierce and dedicated eco-warrior, my personal attempts at eradication of
 French broom have sent me up twice to Kaiser Hospital for treatment of
 tendonitis.
 What convinced me that herbicides are a necessary tool in the battle to
 eradicate invasive French broom is the meadow that's several acres in size near
 the Sky Oaks Ranger Station.
 Years back, that was over-run by French broom. And now, there's not even a
 single shoot of French broom growing there.
 What took care of it was 12 ounces of Roundup, hand-painted onto emerging
 shoots. Twelve ounces. That's about one-third the size of the smallest container
 of Roundup that's sold at every hardware store in Marin.
 Seeing was believing.
 I believe that 800 to 1,000 acres of French broom in our watershed produce a
 much greater hazard to our public health than does the minimal amount of Roundup
 that would be required to remove all that French broom.
 I ask myself - if native plants help to purify and filter rainwater in the
 watershed, what do 800 or 1,000 acres of nitrogen-fixing plants do? - and cringe
 at the possible explanations.
 At last month's MMWD meeting, we were told of an eight-acre test plot that had
 been rid of French broom entirely, using "way less than one gallon" of Roundup.
 I wish that there was another way, but I've seen the results of 300 school
 children pulling broom and have seen what torching and bulldozing do. The truth
 of the matter is that those methods are completely ineffective.
 Bulldozing a hillside, and then seeing tens of thousands of French broom shoots
 emerging from the ground the following spring, was proof enough for me.
 If we want a clean, pristine watershed again - a watershed that provides humans
 with clean water and the birds, bees and mammals with food to eat - we need to
 take drastic actions now.
 Just the other night, I attended the monthly meeting of the Yerba Buena chapter
 of the California Native Plant Society and spoke about the issue of herbicides
 in a watershed with its president, who works in the field of Habitat
 Restoration.
 He said to me that it's the surfactants in Roundup that make it toxic, so I am
 pleased to know that MMWD is considering alternative brands of herbicides that
 use less-toxic surfactants than Roundup and are not manufactured by Monsanto.
 Joe Kohn of San Rafael is a member of the board of directors of the Marin
 Chapter of the California Native Plant Society.
 LOAD-DATE: June 28, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
     Copyright 2008 Marin Independent Journal, a MediaNews Group publication
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 517
 
                           Grand Rapid Press (Michigan)
                              June 26, 2008 Thursday
 'We have the right to say no';
 Altered crops not for all, safety advocate argues; local professor says rhetoric
 gets in way of testing issues
 SECTION: CITY & REGION; Pg. B1
 LENGTH: 462 words
 GRAND RAPIDS -- Even at the produce-rich Fulton Street Farmer's Market, the
 radish question was unexpected.
 "I was doing my pick-up and a lady said to me, 'What do you do with a radish?'"
 said Mary Jane Halloran, a longtime vegetarian and organic food-lover who gets
 her veggie fix at the market every Wednesday.
 "I thought to myself, 'You've never eaten a radish before?' "
 Such is the state of food awareness these days, even among some who frequent the
 100-plus stands at the market at Fulton Street and Fuller Avenue.
 Yet some say knowing your food never has been more important, as the debate
 raging over an issue known as "GMOs" -- genetically modified organisms --
 arrives in West Michigan.
 "These foods are untested, they're unlabeled, and we're eating them," Andrew
 Kimbrell, head of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Food Safety, a political
 nonprofit group, told reporters Wednesday.
 "There are enormous health hazards and environmental hazards, and they made us
 guinea pigs."
 On the market for the past decade, genetically modified organisms are most
 prevalent in corn, soybean and cotton. Adding genetic components to the crops
 helps fend off pests, experts say.
 But tinkering with biological processes threatens consequences both known --
 such as new allergies -- and unknown, Kimbrell said.
 Worse yet, he said, we don't know which foods are GMOs. Unlike European Union
 countries and elsewhere, the U.S. government doesn't require labeling, and
 companies selling GMOs aren't labeling them on their own.
 Kimbrell said GMOs bypassed regulations and entered the food stream in the early
 1990s because top officials from companies profiting from GMOs won appointments
 to federal regulatory agencies.
 "We have the right to say no to these crops in our supermarkets," Kimbrell said.
 Not everyone is alarmed.
 David Koetje, a Calvin College biology professor specializing in agricultural
 biotechnology, is researching a book on the effects of GMOs and the political
 rhetoric he says clouds the issue.
 "It's a complicated scenario, and it depends on which side of the fence you
 stand on, and who you believe," Koetje said. "The rhetoric out there is just so
 hot."
 "I think these foods are tested very, very thoroughly, probably more than those
 that are conventionally bred. I trust the studies. I genuinely believe the foods
 that are out there are safe."
 Koetje says GMO labeling, which Kimbrell supports and the U.S. Department of
 Agriculture wants to finish before November, is unnecessary but appropriate if
 organic-foods consumers like Halloran want to know what they're eating.
 He supports a blend of organic and GMO farming.
 Halloran, 51, of Grand Rapids wants to see labels, but she won't panic.
 "I'm not really an alarmist. I'm passionate about food. I want to eat pure
 food."
 (90%); FOOD SAFETY (76%) Agriculture; Health
 LOAD-DATE: June 26, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: grp
                        Copyright 2008 Grand Rapids Press
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 518
 
                             June 25, 2008 Wednesday
 BYLINE: Karen Richardson
 SECTION: Section C; Column 1; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 45 words
 Karen Richardson Ahead of the Tape column cites 22% rise in Monsanto's stock
 this year as sign that popular aversion to genetically modified foods is waning
 amid global food shortages; contrasts 10% decline in organic supermarket Whole
 Foods Market's 2007 earnings; graph (M)
 (86%); 2008 GLOBAL FOOD CRISIS (90%); FOOD CRISES & SHORTAGES (91%) Food;
 Genetics and Heredity; Organic Foods and Products; Shortages; Supermarkets
 ORGANIZATION: Monsanto Co; Whole Foods Market Inc
 PERSON: Karen Richardson
 LOAD-DATE: June 26, 2008
 GRAPHIC: Graph
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Abstract
                    Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
                               All Rights Reserved
                            Information Bank Abstracts









Document Number: 519
 
                           Times-Picayune (New Orleans)
                               June 23, 2008 Monday
 Students examining careers in medicine;
 STAR program is hands-on
 BYLINE: By Jennifer Evans, Staff writer
 SECTION: METRO; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 884 words
 A dozen high school students wearing lab coats huddled around a scientist in the
 tissue culture room at Ochsner Medical Center.
 The day's lesson: preparing cells to be infused with DNA.
 During lab work Tuesday, some students stood on their toes to get a closer look
 as Dawn DeHaro, a research associate in molecular genetics, raised a plastic
 container of orange liquid.
 While most of their peers are relishing the first weeks of summer vacation with
 late-morning snoozing and pool-side relaxing, the students at Ochsner are in a
 full-time program designed to introduce them to careers in science and health
 care.
 Now in its second year, the Science Technology Academics and Research, or STAR,
 program aims to provide the students with learning opportunities that venture
 beyond the scope of the average high school science class.
 For six weeks, STAR students churn through a whirlwind of activities  --
 attending lectures, conducting experiments and learning about the skills and
 equipment used by hospital specialists.
 Through a partnership between Ochsner Health System and Blue Cross and Blue
 Shield of Louisiana, students are able to attend the summer program for free.
 In this year's program, STAR united top junior and senior high school students
 from Jesuit High School, Patrick F. Taylor Science & Technology Academy, New
 Orleans Math & Science Charter School, Lusher Charter School, Ben Franklin High
 School and St. Mary's Dominican.
 Rachelle Bordlee, 17, who will be a senior at Dominican in the fall, said she
 has always been interested in health care but was unsure which area was a good
 fit for her.
 By marrying hospital observation with hands-on research, STAR provides a unique
 opportunity for students to gain exposure to the health care industry, said
 Kaela Barnett, the outreach project coordinator for Ochsner.
 Beginning week days at 8 a.m., students make stops in hematology, oncology and
 pediatrics, being led by the specialists who know the departments best. Students
 also take classes in resume and grant writing, medical terminology and ethics.
 "You'd never find this type of program somewhere else," Bordlee said. "You can
 visit flight care, radiation, robotics . . . all in one day."
 As medical professionals move students through the clinical rotations, they
 share their experiences and provide guidance about the training each career
 requires.
 "The chance to shadow doctors and do lab work really opens your eyes," Bordlee
 said. "You can read about it (in school), but you don't really know what they do
 until you see it."
 Kyrstin Dees, who will be a junior at Lusher Charter School, said she knew she
 wanted to be a doctor since she was 2. Now, at age 16, Dees said she dreams of
 becoming a neurosurgeon and finding a cure for cerebral palsy  --  a disease she
 was diagnosed with as a child.
 While she dreams big, it was not until attending STAR that Dees said she
 realized the amount of time it would take for her vision to become a reality.
 "I didn't know I'll be in school for 16 years," she said. "It's OK though. I've
 got time."
 During afternoons at STAR, Ochsner faculty lecture the students about real-world
 applications of science in medicine before unleashing students to run their own
 experiments in a lab created especially for them, known as the iLab.
 Jawed Alam, co-director of the research laboratory in molecular genetics at
 Ochsner and scientific director of STAR, said he designs experiments for the
 students that shy away from the "cookbook recipe" experiments often run in high
 school science labs.
 "Kids need to be given inquiry-based experiments with a problem and question
 that is relevant (to them)," Alam said.
 Recently, students manufactured insulin and tested some of their favorite snack
 foods to see whether they contain genetically modified food products.
 By isolating and testing the DNA of corn chips, the students discovered that,
 unbeknownst to them, they were eating genetically modified foods. The experiment
 led to a debate among class members about the risks and benefits associated with
 genetically modified foods.
 "We want the students to understand how science issues impact society," Alam
 said.
 By explaining the scientific processes behind hot-button issues like genetically
 modified foods, stem-cell research and human cloning, students receive a
 foundation upon which they can weigh such controversial issues, he said.
 Although the students admit the days at STAR can be long, they say they have no
 regrets about spending 40-hour weeks at the hospital.
 "The best thing is that everyone here wants to be here," Bordlee said. "There is
 nothing I would rather be doing on my summer vacation.
 Beyond learning about health care at STAR, Bordlee said the exposure to
 different areas of health care is helping her learn about herself. Although she
 said her time in the lab has taught her she likes hands-on work and that she
 sees the direct application of research to medicine, she now said she sees
 herself pursuing a career as a physician.
 "The goal isn't just to teach but to get (the students) into medical careers and
 to get them to stay in the New Orleans community," Alam said. "We want to see a
 health care work force that is sustainable. . . . They are our future."
 Jennifer Evans can be reached at jcevans@timespicayune.com or (504) 826-3386.
 LOAD-DATE: June 23, 2008
 Student Ngoc Pham conducts an experiment in an Ochsner Medical Center
 laboratory. The experiments in the Science Technology Academics and Research
 program are designed around questions that are relevant to the students' lives.
 [4183498] The STAR students, chosen from six local schools, listen as Ochsner
 researcher Dawn DeHaro shows how to examine cells on slide. During the six-week
 program, the students attend lectures, conduct experiments and learn about the
 skills and equipment used by hospital specialists. [4183497]
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
               Copyright 2008 The Times-Picayune Publishing Company









Document Number: 520
 
                      The Press Enterprise (Riverside, CA.)
                              June 20, 2008, Friday
 Science: The Ucr Professor Shares Grains Of Knowledge By Reviewing A Script.
 SECTION: LOCAL; Pg. C03
 LENGTH: 452  words
 Norman Ellstrand may be a star in his field, but he never thought he'd break
 into show biz.
 However, when Hollywood came calling this year, the UC Riverside professor of
 genetics was happy to play a role.
 "I was so flattered," said Ellstrand, who has earned his chops researching crop
 evolution for the past three decades. As one of the country's foremost experts
 on plant gene flow, he is director of the Biotechnology Impacts Center at UCR.
 A nonprofit group dedicated to supporting independent filmmakers tapped
 Ellstrand to evaluate the work of a young woman who was making a movie with a
 scientific theme.
 Cast as an adviser to a movie called "Basmati Blues," Ellstrand, 56, agreed to
 scour the script last March for inaccuracies.
 He had assumed it was a documentary. Instead, he was delighted to plunge into a
 romantic comedy, a high-energy Bollywood musical about love, intrigue and
 genetically engineered rice.
 The story pivots around a young American scientist named Linda Watt who is sent
 to India to promote a new kind of rice. She quickly finds herself struggling
 with the consequences of her work and the attentions of two very different
 suitors.
 Ellstrand zoomed in on details. Did the writers get the scientific names of
 flowers right? Do these flowers even grow in India?
 Yes and yes. Except for a clarification on a crucial plot point, which he won't
 divulge, Ellstrand found the science sound. "The script was in need of only
 little fine-tuning and improvement," he said.
 Producer Monique Caulfield praised Ellstrand's "good, creative suggestions. He
 took our script to the next level," she said. "He increased our confidence."
 The Los Angeles-based Caulfield, 33, said her team would soon cast the $6
 million movie, then shoot it in India. Her husband, Danny Baron, 43, who
 co-wrote the script with partner Jeff Dorchen, plans to direct the film.
 The inspiration stemmed from a book called "The Cost of Living" by prize-winning
 Indian author and activist Arundhati Roy.
 "We're not opposed to genetically modified food," Caulfield said. "The script
 explores the downside of science in the hand of corporations whose only drive
 and responsibility to shareholders is profit."
 Rather than conceived as a heavy-handed polemic, the movie "is trying to raise
 awareness about a nuanced issue," Caulfield said. "First and foremost, it's
 meant to be entertaining, so you walk away and laugh."
 Caulfield expects the film will be out in U.S. theaters in fall 2009. "Basmati
 Blues," which will be dubbed in Hindi and other Indian languages, will feature
 five song-and-dance numbers.
 "I was tickled with the script," Ellstrand said. "And the science was amazingly
 good."
 Reach Laurie Lucas at 951-368-9569 or llucas@PE.com
 LOAD-DATE: June 20, 2008
 GRAPHIC: (1) Norman Ellstrand (2) Monique Caulfield MUGS
                    Copyright 2008 The Press Enterprise, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 521
 
                          Brattleboro Reformer (Vermont)
                             June 18, 2008 Wednesday
 Observations: Are Killer Tomatoes Just the Beginning?
 BYLINE: By Eric Pero
 SECTION: NEWS; Local
 LENGTH: 883 words
 News reports across the country last week greeted us with a touching story of
 killer tomato and hundreds of sick people. Since then, millions of pounds of
 tomatoes have been pulled off store shelves and restaurant menus. How could this
 happen? Well, it all comes down to bacteria - salmonella.
 Recent news reports have said that procedures are in place to help eliminate
 bacteria from fresh produce, and consumers shouldn't be too worried about
 getting sick. One news report said that most tomatoes are dipped in a bleach
 solution before shipment to kill bacteria like salmonella. Other times shipping
 containers are filled with gasses to prevent spoilage. Bleach? Gasses? Can these
 be safe? How much of that bleach or gas is absorbed by the produce? This got me
 thinking about what else is done to our foods before they get to the store, and
 our dinner plates.
 While somewhat questionable chemical processes take place before produce gets to
 our local grocery store, there's an even bigger problem quickly emerging with
 our food supply - genetically-modified (GM) products. Many people don't realize
 that many of the products we purchase at the grocery store contain GM
 ingredients, and since our government is requiring no special labels for these
 products, many of us eat them without even knowing it.
 According to True Food Now (www.truefoodnow.org), "Genetic Engineering (GE) is a
 radical new technology that manipulates the genes and DNA - the building blocks
 of all living things. To create GE crops, genes from bacteria, viruses, plants,
 animals and even humans have been inserted into plants like soybeans, corn,
 canola, and cotton."
 As an example, some GM products are Round-Up Ready, meaning the pesticide can
 literally be dumped on the plants without killing them. Meanwhile, our
 groundwater is suffering from the over-use of chemicals. This also leads to
 "super bugs" which have evolved to survive the onslaught of pesticide, and
 "super weeds" that can spread uncontrollable without easily being killed.
 According to research done at the Press Democrat, a newspaper in Santa Rosa,
 Calif., more than 60 percent of foods in the grocery store contain GM
 ingredients. While the argument can be made that humans have been
 genetically-modifying foods for hundreds of years (carrots used to be very thin,
 with a red or purple color, until Dutch scientists turned them orange in the
 1500s), this situation is different.
 Genetically-modifying foods in a laboratory has only been possible for the past
 30 years, and it's introduction into our food supply with full force has only
 been around for less than a decade. There have been no long-term comprehensive
 studies on consuming GM foods, so we, the American people, are basically guinea
 pigs for this technology. It makes me wonder what kind of long-term effects will
 come from eating these foods.
 According to GEO-Pie Web site (www.geo-pie.cornell.edu), 81 percent of soybeans,
 40 percent of the corn, 60 percent of canola and 71 percent of cotton, grown in
 the U.S. in 2003 were genetically-modified. If you look on a label at the
 grocery store, most products have some sort of corn-syrup, canola oil or soy
 product, which is most likely GM.
 The Web site www.truefoodnow.org has a comprehensive list of GM foods found in
 the average grocery store. It also has a list of non-modified alternatives
 people can buy. Here's a few examples of what genetically-modified foods we
 unknowingly eat: Carnation Infant Formulas (get 'em hooked early!), Betty
 Crocker and Bisquik products, many Pillsbury products, Hershey's chocolate
 chips, Nestle Tollhouse Cookies, Wonder Bread, Kellogg's Pop Tarts, Cheerios,
 Frosted Flakes and many other cereals, Quaker products, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and
 Campbell's soups (just to name a few).
 Now, I'm a sensible person, and maybe this GM food is ok for humans to eat.
 Maybe it could even be beneficial one day (some GM crops can survive droughts
 and other strenuous events). But I do not trust these companies that create GM
 seeds and products. With little government oversight, what's to stop these
 companies from adding addictive qualities to their foods? What's to stop them
 from altering our DNA through these foods? Or, what's to stop terrorists or
 other organizations from using these foods to start a viral outbreak or pandemic
 disease (if such a thing is even possible)?
 The more technology moves away from the "natural" way of doing things, the more
 destructive these processes can become. And the more technological things get,
 the more likely these processes will be used in deceptive and selfish ways.
 At the rate things are going, it will take a huge movement by consumers to get
 GM products out of our fields and off store shelves. And it may already be too
 late to do that. But we, as individuals, should have the right to say, "NO to
 genetically-modified foods!" And the only way to even have the choice is by
 forcing state and federal government to require the labeling of GM products.
 According to www.thecampaign.org, a Web site dedicated to getting GM products
 labeled in grocery stores, Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama is
 on-board for labeling GM products. The Republican candidate, John McCain,
 however, is not.
 Visit www.thecampaign.org for steps you can take to require labeling of GM
 products.
 LOAD-DATE: June 18, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
    Copyright 2008 MediaNews Group, Inc. and New England Newspaper Group Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 522
 
                         The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
                               June 15, 2008 Sunday
                                   Main Edition
 World's woes benefit biotech;
 The catch: While biotechnology revenues surge, industry overall has yet to make
 a profit
 BYLINE: BOB KEEFE; Cox Washington Bureau
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. 4E
 LENGTH: 1421 words
 San Diego --- Food supplies are shrinking. Diseases are mutating. Global warming
 and high gas and oil prices are making alternative energy a must.
 Critics still have plenty of problems with genetically engineered foods and
 bio-based medicines and fuels, but worldwide woes are giving the biotech
 business an unexpectedly big boost.
 "It's a great time to be in this space," said Patrick Kelly, a vice president of
 the Biotechnology Industry Organization trade group.
 In a sign of the industry's strength, more than 2,200 companies and 20,000
 attendees from around the globe are expected to attend the association's annual
 BIO International conference in San Diego this week. Next year, the conference
 will be held in Atlanta.
 Look just about anywhere in the country, though, and you'll find that biotech is
 booming.
 Georgia, for example, has named biotech and life sciences as the No. 1 industry
 it wants to recruit to the state. Along with hosting next year's BIO conference
 to raise its profile, Georgia has set aside millions to help fund startup
 biotech companies. Several universities have recently opened or are planning to
 open major biotech research centers, including a new center for biomedical and
 health sciences at the University of Georgia and biotech and nanotechnology
 centers at Georgia Tech.
 "This industry is growing so fast and is so critical to really every economy
 around the world," said Ken Stewart, commissioner of the Georgia Department of
 Economic Development. "Every state and every community tends to want to compete
 for this industry."
 Biotech industry revenues hit an all-time high last year, according to
 consulting firm Ernst & Young, as did venture capital investments in biotech
 companies.
 The value of mergers and acquisitions in the business hit a new high too ---
 nearly $60 billion in the United States --- as big pharmaceutical companies
 faced with a record number of expiring patents on their medicines bought up lots
 of little biotech companies.
 But is the recent rise in biotech just a precursor to a fall?
 Even though it is bringing in record revenues, the biotech industry overall has
 yet to make a profit.
 Last year, the global biotech business lost $2.7 billion, according to Ernst &
 Young. In the United States, biotech companies lost nearly $300 million ---
 their best year yet.
 Wall Street may be growing tired of the losses. While stocks of large biotech
 companies have generally held their value, small and midsize biotech stock
 indexes have dropped as much as 16 percent so far this year, according to
 Burrill & Co., a biotech venture capital firm. Pricings for initial public
 offerings are down 70 percent from a year ago, prompting many biotech companies
 to shelve their plans to go public.
 "This is a tough, tough business," said Brian Adams, director of business
 development for Atlanta-based drug maker Sciele Pharma Inc.
 "It costs a lot of money, time, effort and luck to come up with that blockbuster
 ... and you can't just keep cranking them out all the time," he said.
 Meanwhile, some recent high-profile failures --- most notably of
 anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx, which had to be pulled from the market --- are
 resulting in tougher regulations and scrutiny of biotech drugs.
 They're also helping fuel critics' claims that bio-based products need more
 study before they're released. Among the most controversial right now:
 genetically altered foods designed to produce stronger crops and bigger yields
 that could help address food shortages worldwide.
 "We don't know the health effects, we don't know the environmental effects, and
 we don't know if some farmer is going to get sued in the future because [a
 biotech company] has a patent on the corn," said Kathy Jo Wetter, a researcher
 at ETC Group in Carr-boro, N.C., which monitors the biotech industry.
 ETC is lobbying world organizations and governments for more study into biofoods
 and biofuels. But industry officials say there's already plenty of regulation
 and scrutiny of the biotech business.
 It typically takes seven to 12 years and $1 billion to develop a new bio-based
 drug, according to BIO. Still, only about 20 percent of all drugs get FDA
 approval and make it to the market.
 Because of the time, money and effort needed to get bio-based drugs to market,
 many biotech companies are focusing on biofuels and agriculture-related
 products.
 "The regulatory hurdles ... are nowhere near what they are for health-based
 applications," Kelly said.
 One of the most high-profile biofuel projects is Craig Venter's. The scientist
 who in 2000 led the effort to decode the human genome, Venter today is working
 on creating a new type of bacteria that would eat carbon dioxide --- the main
 gas contributing to global warming --- and turn it into a new type of fuel.
 Venter, a keynote speaker at this year's BIO conference, has said his
 "trillion-dollar bug" could be ready to start eating within a few years.
 Other companies are working on ways to turn algae and other plants into fuel, as
 well as animal and even human waste.
 Critics, of course, point out the problems with ethanol from corn, which some
 say uses more energy to produce than it generates, and which is contributing to
 high food prices and shortages.
 They also say that just because biotech companies are just now raising money to
 work on such solutions, it will likely be years --- if not decades --- before
 they ever get to market. Even then, we still may not fully understand all the
 potential harmful effects of using them.
 "We're talking about creating new organisms that have never before been seen in
 nature," said Gillian Madill of the activist group Friends of the Earth. "Why
 would we take the risk ... when we have alternatives that already work, like
 wind power?"
 Some bioethics questions such as those --- as well as the ongoing debate over
 stem cell research --- will undoubtedly come up at this week's BIO conference.
 But mainly, discussions will center on how to keep the biotech industry growing,
 and where and how to grow it.
 "It's essentially a huge investment shopping bazaar," BIO's Kelly said of the
 conference. "Investors are looking for companies, and companies are looking for
 investors."
 At least 250: Biotech or bioscience companies
 15,300: Private-sector biotech jobs
 $61,500: Average private-sector biotech annual wage
 7,500: Public-sector biotech-related jobs
 $6.9 billion: Projected biotech industry revenues in 2008
 38 percent: Industry growth 2001 to 2006
 Sources: Georgia Department of Economic Development; BIO.org, Georgia BIO
 1,500: U.S. biotech companies
 1.2 million: Employment in biotech/life sciences industries (2004)
 $65,800: Average annual biotech wage (2004)
 More than 200: Number of new vaccines/therapies developed by biotech companies
 Source: Biotech Industry Organization
 Based on number of biotech companies in 2006
 1. California
 2. Massachusetts
 3. North Carolina
 4. Maryland
 5. New Jersey
 6. Pennsylvania
 7. Georgia
 8. New York
 9. Texas
 10. Florida
 Note: Does not include numerous new biotech companies that have moved to Florida
 since 2006.
 Market capitalization of public biotech companies, 1994-2005
 1994 ....$45 billion
 1995 ....$41 billion
 1996 ....$52 billion
 1997 ....$83 billion
 1998 ....$93 billion
 1999....$138 billion
 2000..$353.5 billion
 2001....$331 billion
 2002....$225 billion
 2003....$206 billion
 2004....$337 billion
 2005....$408 billion
 2006....$392 billion
 Biotech industry revenues, 1994-2005
 1994 ..$11.2 billion
 1995 ..$12.7 billion
 1996 ..$14.6 billion
 1997 ..$17.4 billion
 1998 ..$20.2 billion
 1999 ..$22.3 billion
 2000 ..$26.7 billion
 2001 ..$29.6 billion
 2002 ..$29.6 billion
 2003 ..$39.2 billion
 2004 ..$43.8 billion
 2005 ..$50.7 billion
 2006 ..$55.5 billion
 Biotech funding, 1998-2006
 Includes venture capital, public and other financing
 1998 ..$2.8 billion
 1999 ..$8.8 billion
 2000..$32.7 billion
 2001 ..$7.9 billion
 2002 ..$8.7 billion
 2003..$14.4 billion
 2004..$17.0 billion
 2005..$14.7 billion
 2006..$20.3 billion
 Biotech initial public offerings. 1998-2006
 Sources: Ernst & Young, Biotech Industry Organization
 The biotech industry got its start in the 1970s when California researchers
 developed new recombinant DNA techniques to develop drugs. Since then, the
 industry has expanded to encompass genetically modified foods, alternative
 fuels, DNA-based sciences and all sorts of consumer goods.
 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS (77%); BIOMEDICINE (78%) businessstory
 LOAD-DATE: June 15, 2008
 GRAPHIC: Photo: THE BIOTECH INDUSTRYThe biotech industry got its start in the
 1970s when California researchers developed new recombinant DNA techniques to
 develop drugs. Since then, the industry has expanded to encompass genetically
 modified foods, alternative fuels, DNA-based sciences and all sorts of consumer
 goods./ImageData*
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspapers
                 Copyright 2008 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution









Document Number: 523
 
                                 University Wire
                              June 4, 2008 Wednesday
 Column: Forests, where sustainability meets the sandwich
 BYLINE: By Josh Grenzsund, Oregon Daily Emerald; SOURCE: U. Oregon
 LENGTH: 1007 words
 DATELINE: EUGENE, Ore.
 Most people have no problem thinking of some forest products as items that
 belong in a pantry - like maple syrup or paper towels. However, it's not likely
 people think that part of the soft wood load on the back of a logging truck
 rolling down a muddy mountain road could end up in their salad dressing, cheese
 or ice cream. I've had the pleasure to watch the harvesting of 80-foot conifers
 close up, and nothing in the blue-sweet smell of chainsaw exhaust, splintered
 pine and diesel fumes makes me think of food. Until recently I probably would
 have dismissed the claim that fir and pine doesn't just serve for newsprint and
 lumber but is also served up in many of our snacks and processed foods - even
 foods labeled "organic."
 In investigating Oregon's forests and looking into the question of genetically
 modified and "Roundup® resistant" trees that are researched and developed at
 Oregon State University and then planted throughout the Pacific Northwest, I
 came across references to pulp mills and the production of cellulose for use as
 a food ingredient. Disturbingly, modified and pesticide-resistant trees can be
 certified under the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, as the regulations allow
 each petitioner to define what factors in timber growth and harvesting should be
 considered in the certification process. Because SFI certification is marketed
 as the forestry equivalent of "organic," and because of how the key word
 "sustainable" has been branded in our cultural vocabulary, the public can often
 remain ignorant to the fact that an SFI-certified forest could likely be a
 pesticide-heavy tree farm. Fast growing trees with a high survival rate are key
 to both timber and to pulp mills, and if GM trees are fed into pulp mills, then
 GM cellulose will be the product at the consumer end. But it is an invisible and
 USDA certifiably "organic" route for GMOs and arguably synthetic ingredients to
 enter our food. Wood is used as a source for cellulose because wood is 50
 percent cellulose. And cellulose has many industrial applications as well as
 dozens of uses as a food ingredient. According to the 2001 Technical Advisory
 Panel review of cellulose for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National
 Organic Standards Board, "powdered cellulose may be added to bread to provide
 noncaloric bulk. It is also used in reduced-calorie baked goods to stay moist
 and fresh longer, and provide an increased content of dietary fiber." Other very
 common uses include use as an "anti-caking agent, used in shredded cheese and
 spices, in frozen products to maintain texture through freeze - thaw cycles,
 barbecue sauces, frozen cheese lasagna, frozen guacamole, marshmallow topping,
 liquid diet products, sandwich spreads, [and] low calorie mayonnaise." Cellulose
 also "replaces fats and oils" because it thickens food items and provides a
 "favorable mouth feel" that makes you think you're eating fat because of the
 improved "adhesion of sauces [and] salad dressings." Processed vegan products
 sometimes have cellulose in them to help give fuller and more satisfying
 textures. These vegan and "organic" labeled products contain cellulose as a food
 ingredient even though turning a tree into microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) is a
 highly industrialized process in which "timber is debarked and cut into chips,"
 according to the USDA TAP. The document further describes how the chips are then
 "mechanically ground and then digested (cooked) chemically using either a
 sulfite or alkali process at elevated temperatures in pressure vessels or
 digesters." Also, "MCC production uses an additional step involving hydrolysis
 of the purified wood pulp, using hydrochloric acid to reduce the degree of
 polymerization." Though this expensive processing is acknowledged in the TAP,
 cellulose is allowed as an ingredient in foods labeled "organic" for two main
 reasons: First, there is no "non-synthetic" method of active cellulose
 production that can keep up with demand for this ingredient. Cotton can be used,
 but the infrastructure and processing plants do not exist. Secondly, the TAP
 points out that "cellulose, powdered cellulose, and microcrystalline cellulose
 do not appear in 21CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] as regulated or GRAS
 [generally recognized as safe]." It's a catch-22, because it is not listed or
 addressed anywhere - not even on the National List of organic substances -
 "powdered cellulose is considered to belong in the 'prior sanctioned category'
 as a food addition in use prior to the passage of the Food Additives Amendment
 in 1958. It is considered 'grandfathered' and permitted (FDA, 1986)." The TAP
 summary recommendation does prohibit synthetic cellulose, as derived from wood,
 in products labeled as "95 percent organic." However, for "70 percent organic"
 products, it is fully allowed. If nothing else, a detailed critique and
 examination of USDA documents will draw attention to the highly ambiguous nature
 of the term and label "organic." Aside from the invisible allowance of synthetic
 cellulose, the National List of "synthetic substances allowed for use in organic
 crop production" - 7CFR 205.601(i) - lists streptomycin and tetracycline.
 Awareness of these allowances should make you less trusting of the organic
 label. USDA "organic" certification is not a health-based or environmentally
 based process. It is one of argumentative rhetoric and economics. The NOSB TAP
 was conducted not to certify cellulose as itself organic - the process is
 characterized as having "many environmental concerns" related to "caustics,
 sulfites, and bleaching agents" - but to demonstrate how it is necessary to
 allow synthetic cellulose into products labeled organic. A key example is how
 only cellulose added to shredded cheese will "keep the cheese from compacting
 into a non-saleable mass." So on your next trip to the grocery store, check the
 ingredients of your favorite products for cellulose powder, sodium
 carboxymethylcellulose or solutions of xanthan or guar. Then thank a logger. (C)
 2008 Oregon Daily Emerald via UWIRE
 LOAD-DATE: June 4, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2008 Oregon Daily Emerald via U-Wire









Document Number: 524
 
                            Christian Science Monitor
                              June 3, 2008, Tuesday
 Plant a second Green Revolution
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. 8
 LENGTH: 526 words
 With lofty grain prices forcing an estimated 100 million people toward severe
 hunger, a food summit in Rome this week may help boost emergency relief. But the
 world faces a long-term crisis in supply, one that needs the same devotion - and
 results - of the Green Revolution four decades ago.
 It was largely American investment in agricultural science that drove the
 productivity revolution of the 1960s and '70s, creating new varieties of rice,
 wheat, and other crops - and prevented mass starvation. But success in higher
 yields led to complacency and a decline in research for further - and now
 necessary - gains, especially in less-arable lands.
 And in hindsight, US leadership was largely driven by concern during the cold
 war to keep poor countries from going communist.
 Now the world again faces a food shortage, reflected in a nearly 70 percent
 price rise over the past two years. The productivity gains of the past simply
 aren't enough to feed an additional 3 billion people by 2050. And the crisis has
 become acute because of a convergence of factors: a rapid rise in oil prices,
 droughts caused by climate change, a rising Asian demand for grain-fed meat, and
 the diversion of land to produce corn ethanol.
 With US attention largely diverted to domestic concerns, the June 3-5 food
 summit is a critical test of whether a collective global leadership can push big
 reforms in how the world feeds itself.
 A second green revolution would need to go beyond recent science in genetically
 modified (GM) seeds. Poor farmers often can't afford the high prices charged by
 companies that own rights to these seeds. And in many nations, especially in
 Europe, consumers remain unnecessarily wary of GM food. Despite advances in GM
 crops over the past decade, world crop yields have risen at about half the
 yearly rate since 1990 as they did during the two previous decades of the Green
 Revolution.
 A first step would be to recognize the revolution's mistakes. It relied too much
 on the assumption of cheap oil and on farmers' ability to afford expensive
 pesticides and chemical fertilizers. The easy gains in productivity were also
 based on building massive irrigation systems.
 A smarter revolution will need to consider many more variables, such as global
 warming, new types of nonpetroleum energy, and better ways of watering (such as
 drip systems). Finding silver bullets in farm science must now give way to
 scattershot approaches, often tailored to local conditions.
 Those countries that need higher crop yields will also need to adjust to new
 types of assistance. Aid now focuses on reviving, not restricting private
 markets. Donors expect long-term accountability in results. Strings will be
 attached, such as demands to remove trade barriers and divert more government
 resources to rural areas.
 A recent forecast of a 60 percent rise in food prices over the next decade
 should serve as a wake-up call about recent declines in agricultural investment
 - and barriers to trade in farm products, such as subsidies to rich farmers in
 the West. But who will jump on this tractor and drive in the direction it needs
 to go?
 (c) Copyright 2008. The Christian Science Monitor
 LOAD-DATE: June 2, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
             Copyright 2008 The Christian Science Publishing Society
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 525
 
                              Voice of America News
                                   June 3, 2008
 At UN Summit, US Offers Three-Prong Approach to Food Crisis
 LENGTH: 496  words
 DATELINE: Washington
 U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer said Tuesday the world's leaders have a
 responsibility to allow markets to provide food efficiently, without obstructing
 access to it or limiting safe technologies to produce it. Schafer leads the U.S.
 delegation to the U.N. summit on Food Security and Climate Change in Rome. The
 summit is being held at the headquarters of the U.N. Food and Agriculture
 Organization.
 At a news conference Tuesday, Schafer said, The United States is implementing an
 integrated a three-pronged strategy to combat rising global food prices. First,
 the president has committed an immediate and expanded humanitarian response that
 targets the most critical needs globally and supports those individuals who are
 most vulnerable to rising food prices."
 Second, we support urgent efforts to address the underlying causes of the food
 crisis in developing countries that have the potential to become major producers
 in their regions. Longstanding issues of improving agriculture productivity,
 alleviating market bottlenecks and promoting market-based principles remain and
 therefore require immediate attention. Third, we ask all countries to allow the
 free flow of food and the safe technologies that produce that food, he said.
 Schafer was asked whether biofuels production is a major contributor to higher
 food prices and shortages. Many critics of biofuels production say it takes away
 food from those in need and drives up the cost of food.
 Increased biofuels production is but one of many contributors to increased food
 prices. Other factors contributing to food price increase include rising energy
 costs, poor harvests in major grain producing countries and greater use of
 export restrictions, he said.
 The U.S. agriculture secretary said biofuels contributes only a small amount to
 food inflation prices.
 We are anticipating this year an over 40 percent increase in food price
 inflation globally, 43 percent approximately. Of that we can identify two to
 three percent of that price increase that is driven by biofuels. A majority, of
 course, is energy and the second largest piece or about equal piece is the
 increase in consumption around the world, which is using up the production
 stocks, he said.
 Schafer said the issue of agricultural subsidies would best be addressed at the
 Doha round of global trade talks. He also defended the use of genetically
 modified foods.
 Well, certainly we think that GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are safe.
 We"ve been using them for 10 years in the United States and they have a proven
 effectiveness in increasing yields, in lowering the use of fertilizer, in
 providing better water and soil management and also increasing taste and
 appearance. So, you know, those are all good things, he said.
 Many countries oppose GMOs, citing possible safety reasons. However, Schafer
 reiterated, Certainly, we have proven the safety environmentally from a human
 standpoint food safety issue that GMOs are fine to use.
 LOAD-DATE: June 3, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Journal
            Copyright 2008 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 526
 
                            Christian Science Monitor
                               June 2, 2008, Monday
 Briefing: Lessons from past food crises
 BYLINE: Mark Rice-Oxley Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
 SECTION: WORLD; Pg. 12
 LENGTH: 1841 words
 A burgeoning population. Soaring energy costs. Rising demand for meat. A
 catastrophic harvest. A sudden run on the grain market - and an 80 percent surge
 in food prices in three years.
 A brief run-down of the current world food crisis? Yes, but it also applies to
 the early 1970s - the last time the collective cupboard was bare. Despite
 similarities, today's food price shock also has some striking features which
 sets it apart from past crises.
 As world leaders gather in Rome Tuesday for a three-day United Nations
 conference on what steps to take to address the international food crisis, they
 might study what lessons can be learned from the recent pages of history.
 How unusual is this food crisis?
 The current situation is hardly unprecedented. The 1972 alarm, triggered by a
 hungry Soviet Union seeking to compensate for failed grain harvests, had brutal
 knock-on effects in East Africa and the Asian subcontinent. Farm prices didn't
 start falling until 1975, once Washington and Moscow reached an agreement on
 grain trade. The deal sought to regulate Soviet grain purchases and calm markets
 by removing any sudden spikes in demand that would drain stockpiles. The episode
 left a clear lesson: transparency and regular trading between big market players
 can prevent price spikes.
 Prior to 1972, anyone who has read John Steinbeck's early works will know about
 the privations of the 1930s. This was the most lasting food shock of the past
 century. It started during the Great Depression and was extended by World War
 II, as trading between nations broke down.
 But Prof. Tim Lang, a prominent British food industry expert, says it was this
 shock that produced the modern agronomic era, where science took aim at boosting
 farm productivity.
 Food prices also spiked in the late 1980s, and again in the mid 1990s after a
 drought crimped US grain supplies. On both occasions, markets settled down as
 farmers responded by planting more crops.
 How does this crisis compare?
 It's similar - and yet different. The World Food Program highlights four
 principal drivers. Two are familiar: the rise in oil prices which affect the
 entire value chain of food production, and weather-related events (bad harvests,
 particularly in Australia). Two are new: the diversion of crops for use in
 biofuels, and the rising prosperity of the world's two most populous nations,
 China and India.
 "We have probably close to 4 billion people wanting to move up the food chain,
 consuming more meat, milk, and maize - and that takes a lot of grain," says
 Lester Brown, who heads the Earth Policy Institute in Washington. Data from the
 Australian Central Bank finds that the Chinese ate 20 kilograms (44 pounds) of
 meat per capita in 1985. Today, it's 54 kilograms (119 pounds) of meat per year
 (see chart).
 "We have also seen an enormous growth in the last couple years in the use of
 grain to produce ethanol fuel in the US," Mr. Brown adds. The annual growth in
 world grain consumption, he says, has shot up from around 20 million tons a year
 from 1990-2005 to more than 40 million tons in the past two years. He blames
 much of the rise on a diversion of corn to ethanol distilleries.
 "Biofuel demand is the largest source of new demand in decades and a strong
 factor underpinning the upward shift in agricultural commodity prices," said a
 report by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) this past week.
 But US Agriculture Secretary Edward Schafer told reporters Thursday that biofuel
 production has only pushed up global food prices by 2 or 3 percent. He added
 that biofuels had cut consumption of oil by a million barrels a day.
 What is the impact of this crisis?
 Brown argues that the effects of this crisis are very different from the 1970s.
 Then, he says, the impact was geographical with famine in the African Sahel and
 Bangladesh. Today, he says, hunger no longer hits just a few specific countries,
 but hits the lowest income groups around the world.
 Still, as incomes rise globally, fewer may actually experience hunger. In many
 parts of the world, food takes a far smaller percentage of family budgets than
 it did a generation ago. In rich countries, the FAO says, it has gone from
 around 30 percent in the 1970s to less than 10 percent of the budget today. In
 middle-income countries, food costs have also fallen proportionally, though they
 still take up a sizable chunk of the weekly paycheck (30-40 percent). So the
 public response this time around has been more anger than hunger.
 But in poorer countries, the pinch is felt. "When you look at food as a
 percentage of the consumer price index in poor countries, it's [still] more than
 50 to 60 percent of household spending," says Abdolreza Abbassian, secretary of
 intergovernmental group on grains for the UN's FAO.
 The number of people considered "food insecure" (i.e. who go hungry) is starting
 to rise back above 850 million, after having fallen consistently for decades to
 800 million, according to the FAO.
 What can be learned from the resolution to previous crises?
 Both the 1930s and 1970s crises generated blue-sky thinking about how to feed
 the world. The 1970s gave rise to a boost in research and development and the
 green revolution. "The analogy today would be [to spur research in] GM (
 genetically modified food)," says Mr. Abbassian. "One of the lessons is to look
 at research in food technology and whether this has room to improve. People have
 to look at agriculture from scratch. Research has been neglected for so long."
 What institutional responses have been helpful?
 During this crisis - like those in the past - governments have initially acted
 to either protect their consumers or their producers, with mixed results. Some
 like Mauritania and Egypt are now spending money to increase food assistance to
 the poor. Cash handouts are better than food handouts, nongovernmental
 organizations say.
 Two dozen countries have reduced import duties in an effort to make food cheaper
 for their citizens. Others are trying to boost local infrastructure to help
 local producers.
 Longer term, Oxfam spokesperson Amy Barry calls for basic measures like better
 storage facilities, roads, and ports to ensure that produce in developing
 countries by smaller producers competes on a level playing field. The World Bank
 has noted that better transport links in Congo helped to brake accelerating food
 prices in 2006.
 What institutional responses have not been helpful?
 Predictably, many governments have rushed to restrict exports to ensure that
 their own people don't go hungry while their produce is being shipped overseas.
 But national hoarding, history tells us, tends to perpetuate the global
 shortage, pushing up prices. "It's more a result of panic reaction rather than
 rational thinking," says Abbassian. "Export restrictions - taxes and bans - that
 we have seen starting with Russia, Ukraine, and Argentina, prolong the
 situation."
 After initiating export bans in March, Cambodia and Pakistan recently lifted
 their bans on exporting rice - and prices have started to ease.
 Longer term, some analysts say the subsidies and tariffs that Europe and the US
 have used to protect their farmers must be reduced. Some experts note that the
 Nixon administration boosted US subsidies (instead of loans) to farmers as the
 "solution" to the 1970s grain crisis.
 Today, "France is arguing that subsidies are even more necessary than before"
 [to ensure food security and build up domestic stockpiles], says Prof. Wyn
 Grant, a food and agricultural policy expert at Warwick University in England.
 "But these are blanket, nontargeted subsidies which have little to do with what
 is produced. The higher tariff protection also makes it very difficult for third
 world producers to break into world agriculture."
 For example, the US charges a 54-cents-per-gallon import tariff on Brazil's
 sugar-cane ethanol, which is cheaper to produce than corn ethanol. If the
 tariffs were lifted, US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke argued in
 February, it would ease demand (and lower prices) for corn. He saw it as a way
 to fight inflation.
 What needs to happen in the long run to feed the world?
 UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon noted recently that the world had consumed more
 than it had produced in the past three years, but this need not provoke alarm.
 It didn't produce as much because stockpiles were high, prices were low, and
 farmers had little incentive to plant. With that situation reversed, supply will
 increase.
 The FAO is already predicting a 2.3 percent rise in rice output this year.
 Abbassian says production for most cereals will be much higher in 2008 than in
 2007. The World Bank says high prices will persist through 2009, before
 declining slightly "as supply and demand respond to high prices."
 Other are skeptical, however, that this crisis will be buried under copious
 volumes of bumper grain harvests.
 Brown says the first step is "to reduce the amount of US grain going into
 ethanol. In an effort to reduce our oil insecurity we have increased global food
 insecurity big time," he laments. He adds that both population growth and
 climate change will have to be stabilized to mitigate the affect of future food
 price shocks.
 And then there is water. "We need to launch an international effort to raise
 water productivity in much the same way that in the 1950s we concentrated on
 raising land productivity," Brown says.
 Professor Grant calls for greater public funding for research into food
 technology. "Advances made by multinational companies [alone] are not trusted,"
 he says, and governments need to step in, particularly in the area of
 genetically modified foods, which could promise greater yields.
 Ms. Barry says that global trade rules need reforming to help developing
 countries maintain a range of tools that will benefit domestic farmers. "Decades
 of trade liberalization have removed trade policy tools from the hands of
 developing country governments, which essentially means they are in a more
 vulnerable position," she says.
 And Lang agrees with Brown that water is a crucial factor: scarce, critical to
 production, yet woefully underpriced. In fact, he ventures a counterintuitive
 thought: "Our food prices are too cheap," he says, the current situation
 notwithstanding. "They do not include the full cost of production."
 The current model that emerged from the dark days of the 1930s and '40s, he
 says, has led in many parts of the world to overproduction and overconsumption.
 As a result, he says, we're dealing with obesity, health problems, water
 stresses, environmental degradation, and contamination.
 It's time, he says for a new agricultural model, based on different standards of
 excellence: nutritional content, carbon footprint, water use, land use,
 biodiversity, animal welfare, social justice, and locally grown produce. "I can
 get green beans at Tesco [a British grocery chain] from Kenya, but each one has
 four litres of 'embedded water' from a water-stressed country," he says. "That
 is a disaster. I think that water should stay in Kenya."
 (c) Copyright 2008. The Christian Science Monitor
 LOAD-DATE: June 2, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
             Copyright 2008 The Christian Science Publishing Society
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 527
 
                          Omaha World-Herald (Nebraska)
                               June 2, 2008 Monday
                Iowa; Metro; Midlands; Nebraska; Sunrise Editions
 Biotech fear fading Food shortages in Europe, Africa are leveling playing field
 for GM crops.
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. 06B
 LENGTH: 297 words
 For many years now, what has appeared to be an irrational fear has led many
 European and African nations and their citizens to reject shipments of American
 grains because bioengineered seeds were used to produce some or all of the
 crops. In light of recent food shortages, that fear may be fading.
 Or else it is being overcome by other concerns, such as higher prices for corn
 and other products grown from nonmodified seeds, which often yield smaller
 crops.
 Biotech seeds are typically engineered with genes that give plants resistance to
 insects, pesticides or herbicides. They generally increase yields, a major boon
 in a hungry world.
 Americans have been consuming goods made with biotech crops for years. Half the
 world's acreage of engineered crops were raised here last year; 75 percent of
 the U.S. corn crop was grown from genetically modified (GM) seed.
 Many inputs, including water and fertilizer, contribute to yield, but biotech
 seeds are one sure way that farmers in the United States and around the world
 can ensure sufficient crops to feed the hungry. Water is an increasingly scarce
 commodity in many areas -- Australia has suffered under a lengthy and severe
 drought, for instance -- and the price of fertilizer is rising fast due to the
 increase in oil prices.
 In Britain, the National Beef Association (representing cattle raisers) demanded
 that "all resistance" to GM crops "be abandoned immediately," the New York Times
 reports. The reasons: shifts in world demand for food, the increasing prevalence
 of food shortages and "the prospect of declining domestic animal production."
 Well, if the British continue to cling to their unfounded fear of
 "Frankenfoods," you can bet quite a few Nebraska farmers are ready to supply the
 beef the British won't produce themselves.
 MEATS (72%); OIL & GAS PRICES (71%) Agriculture; Nutrition; Technology
 LOAD-DATE: June 3, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2008 The Omaha World-Herald Company









Document Number: 528
 
                             Buffalo News (New York)
                               May 30, 2008 Friday
 Are plants new and 'improved'?
 BYLINE: By Sally Cunningham
 SECTION: LIFESTYLES; Pg. C3
 LENGTH: 479 words
 We are all part of a grand experiment, as genetically modified foods, plants and
 their pollens enter our kitchens and gardens. Among scientists, industries and
 politicians the debate rages on -- over the ethics, controls and application of
 the science.
 Genetic modification refers to the engineering of plant DNA by taking genes from
 one organism and transferring them into another, even crossing species lines.
 GMOs -- genetically modified organisms -- result.
 Fish genes have been spliced into tomatoes, bacteria into corn, etc. Some say
 the science will help with world hunger and disease. Others believe we don't
 understand enough to release this technology; it's too fast, unsafe and
 unethical.
 >Variety, hybrid or GMO?
 What are the different ways in which a new (better) plant comes about? First,
 new plants pop up all the time in nature. Wind, bees and other animals provide
 cross-pollination, and a new "variety" appears -- a naturally occurring
 modification.
 Once people learned to cross-pollinate plants themselves, the process speeded
 up. We call human-induced crossing "hybridization" and the results are called
 "cultivars."
 We have all enjoyed bigger roses, a variegated coreopsis and yellow tomatoes as
 a result.
 But, recently, scientists learned how to determine which genes control every
 characteristic of living organisms -- and can move those genes around. It's been
 described as "shuffling the genetic deck."
 The first widely known use has been "Bt corn," that builds bacteria into the
 genes of the corn, to kill caterpillars (i.e. corn borer larvae). One-third of
 all corn is genetically modified, and it's common in processed foods.
 The Bt helps producers, and nobody likes those corn worms, so what's the
 problem?
 >The concerns
 *Super bugs -- insects resistant to the Bt product -- are evolving rapidly.
 *Super weeds that resist the Roundup type of product will develop. (Some
 Roundup-ready weeds will cross with weeds in the field.)
 *Danger to wildlife: Caterpillars will ingest plants with pollen from the Bt
 corn fields.
 *Harm to soil: Microbiologists have shown that Bt toxin remaining in soil
 depresses microbial activity.
 *Human health: Genetic engineering may alter the nutritional content of food.
 Allergens may increase when a gene from some product (i.e. a nut) is used in a
 different food. More issues face farmers: They can't save their own seed, since
 the Bt corn is patented; organic farmers could lose certification because the
 Bt-pollen drifts onto their fields; lawsuits are pending.
 *Ethics: Consumers have the right to know what they're eating; so far there's is
 no labeling requirement for GMO content.
 The European Union (27 countries) has banned what some call "Frankenfoods" and
 blocked U.S. corn imports. Japan is demanding labeling.
 Learn more, and contact Congress if you have an opinion.
 Sally Cunningham is a garden writer, lecturer and consultant.
 LOAD-DATE: May 30, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                         Copyright 2008 The Buffalo News
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 529
 
                               The Washington Times
                               May 30, 2008 Friday
 Consumption or energy?;
 Expert wants biofuels out, genetic-modified crops in
 BYLINE: By Ashish Kumar, THE WASHINGTON TIMES
 LENGTH: 623 words
 Agriculture scientist Norman Ernest Borlaug, who received the Nobel Peace Prize
 in 1970, played a significant role to usher in the Green Revolution by
 developing successive generations of disease-resistant, high-yield wheat
 varieties in the 1960s and the '70s. In an interview with Washington Times
 reporter Ashish Kumar Sen, Mr. Borlaug, 94, refutes President Bush's assertion
 that countries such as India and China are to blame for the shortage of food
 stocks and higher prices. The fault, he says, lies with the world's obsession
 with biofuels. Excerpts:
 QUESTION: Do you believe the U.S. is facing a crisis?
 ANSWER: This is not just the U.S. This is getting to be the [situation]
 everywhere.
 What is happening is that the price of food grains - especially rice, wheat and
 corn - has been so low that many opportunities present themselves to sell the
 grain to those who are converting it to energy by fermentation.
 It is not easy to control this change in demand. The prices for grain going into
 production of ethyl alcohol are very great. Some governments have placed a limit
 on this, but how effective this will be remains to be seen.
 Q: President Bush said one of the reasons for the shortage of supplies is the
 increased demand from the middle classes of countries such as India and China.
 Are India and China to blame for the present situation?
 A: No. They are doing what any reasonable government would do in order to try to
 alleviate their energy problems. But this comes in conflict with food policies -
 trying to keep the prices of food at a low-enough level so that you don't get
 inflation that will destroy the standards of living of many of the lower-income
 people.
 Q: Is the increased focus on biofuels responsible for this problem?
 A: Of course. We are mixing together two things that shouldn't be together. We
 neglected for decades the importance of energy and fuel. And now we are looking
 for ways to correct all of this, and it is going to have to be by setting limits
 on the amount of corn that can be converted into alcohol in certain countries.
 Q: Are genetically engineered crops the solution to this crisis?
 A: Genetically improved crops are important tools for the future to produce food
 and part of the energy. There are a lot of extreme greenies who don't want to
 have anything to do with the improved biotechnology. I think this is foolhardy.
 This is something that we have to have to continue to make human progress for
 the benefit of all mankind over long periods of time ahead.
 Q: Is the time ripe for another Green Revolution?
 A: The so-called Green Revolution of the '60s and '70s and '80s is a continuing
 one. Yields have continued to go up. In the '60s, the world was saying that
 there was no hope. India and China were going to starve. That was wrong.
 Q: Do the benefits of genetically modified crops outweigh the harmful effects?
 A: We need to use new biotechnology if we are going to cope with the future
 growth of population and standards of living. If we did not use the so-called
 Green Revolution technology of the 1960s, we would [have been unable to produce]
 the food that changed India and China and Pakistan to food-adequate nations, so
 that there was no massive starvation. India became self-sufficient. Had this not
 happened - this Green Revolution - what kind of a mess would the world be in
 now?
 Q: What is your advice to governments as they grapple with these food crises?
 A: Use some common sense. The sad part is, as nations become more and more urban
 and less and less rural, there are fewer and fewer people who understand the
 basic importance of the food system and how it contributes not only to better
 nutrition and better health but how it is deeply involved in the economic
 development of a country.
 Consumption-or-energy?
 LOAD-DATE: May 30, 2008
 GRAPHIC: Needy Pakistanis line up for free food being distributed yesterday in
 Islamabad, Pakistan. President Bush has blamed skyrocketing food prices on high
 demand by growing middle classes abroad. [Photo by Associated Press]
 Norman Ernest Borlaug is presented with the Congressional Gold Medal in July. He
 says genetically modified foods are crucial to prevent mass starvation, but that
 the global food shortage is caused by devotion to biofuels, not consumption in
 growing countries. [Photo by Mary F. Calvert/The Washington Times]
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                     Copyright 2008 The Washington Times LLC
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 530
 
                          Spokesman Review (Spokane, WA)
                              May 29, 2008 Thursday
                                  NVoice Edition
 BYLINE: Richard Roesler Staff writer
 SECTION: N; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 1030 words
 Until this week, the state's top election official - a guy who spends a lot of
 his time touting the importance of voting and civic involvement - had no one
 running against him.
 Not anymore. On Saturday, Clifford Mark Greene, chairman of a fledgling
 political party called the Party of Commons, has filed campaign finance
 paperwork to challenge Secretary of State Sam Reed.
 "No automatic coronation for Sam," Greene wrote on his blog.
 Not that the minimally-financed Greene and his "word of mouth campaign strategy"
 are likely to be a major threat. A perennial federal candidate, Green was
 planning to run for Congress for a sixth time, but apparently was $500 short for
 the filing fee.
 "It's no coincidence that Mark's campaign financial wherewithal to file for
 Secretary of State as opposed to Congress is an approximate difference of $500,"
 he wrote. Besides, he said, no incumbent should be unopposed in an election.
 His party's based in Bellevue.
 "A bold and dynamic new national party has taken hold," reads its Web site,
 which spells out a platform of "economically progressive, culturally
 traditional, noninterventionist" planks. Among them: trade protectionism AND
 mandatory labeling of genetically modified food.
 The Catholic Diocese of Spokane is one of those taking sides in the assisted
 suicide measure that proponents are trying to get on the ballot this year.
 In a recent letter to parishioners, Spokane Bishop William Skylstad urged church
 members not to sign the petitions to put the measure before voters.
 I-1000, modeled on Oregon's unique death-with-dignity law, would allow doctors
 to prescribe lethal medication to competent, terminally ill patients who request
 it. Among its backers: former Gov. Booth Gardner, who is suffering the effects
 of Parkinson's disease.
 Proponents call the measure a carefully-safeguarded way to give dying people who
 want it a say in their departure from life. And it's not suicide, they argue,
 for an already-dying person to choose how and when to go.
 "Certainly we do have fears about death, pain, the resulting loss of control in
 our lives, and becoming a burden on others," Skylstad wrote. "We recognize these
 fears as part of our existence, yet in embracing the Resurrection of Christ we
 can confront these challenges and live in faith and hope."
 The letter also urges church members to discuss the measure with their friends
 and neighbors - and provides several talking points. Among them: that the
 measure would mushroom into euthanasia, threatening disabled people and doctors'
 role as healers.
 Look for lots more of this debate between now and Election Day. Initiative 1000
 is well-funded and highly likely to make it to the ballot. Similar debates in
 other states - only Oregon's has passed - were emotional, expensive and
 hard-fought.
 The state Supreme Court famously has ruled - repeatedly - that it's not the
 state's place to police candidates lying about each other. But now, it seems,
 they can lie a little more.
 Meeting last week, the state's campaign watchdog, the Public Disclosure
 Commission, decided to stop enforcing a state law banning candidates from
 falsely claiming to be an incumbent or for lying about who endorsed them.
 The decision comes in the wake of a recent high-court ruling throwing out part
 of the law as unconstitutional. On the advice of its lawyers, the PDC decided
 not to press the rest of the issue.
 In other words, someone who's never held any office can now put up "re-elect"
 signs without fear of a PDC fine. The same goes for endorsements, although you
 might draw a group's ire. (And in either of these cases, people like me are
 likely to write about candidates lying.)
 This may, however, be a narrow window of opportunity. The PDC will ask state
 lawmakers to fix the law in January.
 *Superintendent of Public Instruction: As we noted in the paper over the
 weekend, Washington Education Association-endorsed candidate Rich Semler has
 bowed out of the race to be with his wife as she deals with a health problem. A
 strong campaigner and popular Richland superintendent, Semler was running as a
 Washington Assessment of Student Learning reformist.
 His departure from the race is a boost to Randy Dorn, who's now the presumptive
 frontrunner to challenge incumbent Terry Bergeson. Bergeson, who staved off a
 strong challenge in 2004 by former schools chief Judith Billings, has angered
 many lawmakers by defending the test as a measure of accountability for schools.
 *Suprising no one, Sen. Mark Schoesler announced this week that he'll run for
 another term in the state Senate. A strong fundraiser, he filed his campaign
 paperwork two years ago.
 Schoesler has served in the Legislature for 16 years. He's helped pass bills
 dealing with water law, capping undergraduate tuition hikes at 7 percent a year,
 and cracking down on bogus degrees from diploma mills. During the next
 legislative session, we're going to be facing some of the most significant
 challenges in our state's history," the Ritzville Republican predicts.
 *Fellow farmer Rep. Joe Schmick, after a year as an appointee, is running for
 his state House seat.
 Schmick, R-Colfax, owns and runs a 900-acre wheat, barley and bean farm as well
 as a vending-machine business. Among his victories this past session: a bill to
 promote computerized instruction to help high schoolers get college credits for
 advanced work.
 State Sen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester, was in critical care at an Olympia hospital
 early this week after a "cardiac episode" at home Saturday night. Swecker is
 vice chairman of the Republicans in the Senate.
 An echocardiogram test showed that Swecker, who recently turned 61, has a
 congenital heart valve abnormality that requires open heart surgery, according
 to his office. Surgery was slated for this week.
 Swecker had just gotten out of the hospital after hip replacement.
 In Pierce County, campaign finance records show, a person named Rajendra Prasad
 Kollu has discontinued his run for Pierce County Assessor/Treasurer to instead
 run for sheriff.
 LOAD-DATE: June 7, 2008
 NOTES: Richard Roesler can be reached at (360) 664-2598 or by e-mail at
 richr@spokesman.com
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Column: Eye on Olympia
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                     Copyright 2008 Spokane Spokesman-Review









Document Number: 531
 
                               The Washington Post
                              May 29, 2008 Thursday
                                 Suburban Edition
 U.S. Experts Bemoan Nation's Loss of Stature in the World of Science
 BYLINE: Keith B. Richburg; Washington Post Staff Writer
 SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A04
 LENGTH: 580 words
 DATELINE: NEW YORK, May 28
 Some of the nation's leading scientists, including Secretary of State
 Condoleezza Rice's top science adviser, today sharply criticized the diminished
 role of science in the United States and the shortage of federal funding for
 research, even as science becomes increasingly important to combating problems
 such as climate change and the global food shortage.
 Speaking at a science summit that opens this week's first World Science
 Festival, the expert panel of scientists, and audience members, agreed that the
 United States is losing stature because of a perceived high-level disdain for
 science. They cited U.S. officials and others questioning scientific evidence of
 climate change, the reluctance to federally fund stem cell research, and some
 U.S. officials casting doubt on evolution as examples that have damaged
 America's international standing.
 "I think there's a loss of American power and prestige that came about as a
 result of our anti-science policies," said David Baltimore, a biologist and
 Nobel laureate and board chairman of the American Association for the
 Advancement of Science. Raising questions about the science of evolution, he
 said, "leads to a certain disdain for American intelligence." He added, "What we
 need is leadership that respects science."
 The panelists also expressed concern that science funding has not been a major
 issue for any of the presidential candidates. "The campaign so far has given too
 little attention to what science means for our own economy and our status in the
 world," said Harold Varmus, a Nobel laureate and president of Memorial
 Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
 Nina Fedoroff, a plant molecular biologist who is Rice's science and technology
 adviser, said science in the United States "has really kind of died over a
 quarter of a century, even as the importance of science has grown."
 Although the United States has long been the recognized global leader in
 science, Fedoroff said, that position is now being challenged by others,
 specifically China, which is raising its global profile. "They're educating 10
 times as many students as we are," she said. "The next generation of scientists
 in other countries might not speak English."
 Speaking about the global food crisis that has sparked unrest in some countries,
 Fedoroff said that genetically modified crops are one answer to shortages. But
 she said that "persistent misperceptions," particularly in Europe, about
 genetically modified foods has led to their underuse and even their prohibition
 as food aid in needy countries.
 She and the other panelists said one impediment to wider use of genetically
 modified crops is suspicion of American motives. "We're in a delicate position,"
 she said. "If we push biotech too much, it looks like . . . we're trying to
 protect our own economic interests."
 New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg opened today's science summit echoing many
 of the same themes. Bloomberg bemoaned a tendency toward "political science,"
 which he called "the willingness to disregard or suppress scientific findings
 when they don't confirm to a predetermined political agenda."
 Bringing the science festival to New York, Bloomberg said, will showcase the
 city as a hub of innovation. New York is known more as the site for the hit
 television series and new film "Sex and the City." But Bloomberg, who majored in
 engineering, called science "just as exciting, just as cool, just as
 cutting-edge" and said the festival will "make science in our city sexy."
 LOAD-DATE: May 29, 2008
 DISTRIBUTION: Maryland
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2008 The Washington Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 532
 
                    Winston-Salem Journal (Winston Salem, NC)
                              May 21, 2008 Wednesday
                                  Metro Edition
 SECTION: D; Michael Hastings; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 773 words
 Farmers in the United States planted 93 million acres of corn in 2007, a 39
 percent increase over the 67 million acres planted in 1970, according to the
 U.S. Department of Agriculture.
 The proliferation of U.S. corn grabbed the attention of filmmakers Curt Ellis
 and Ian Cheney and gave them an idea. They would move to Iowa, plant an acre of
 corn and see what happened.
 Their corn-filled journey is the subject of King Corn, a documentary they made
 in 2004 and 2005. The film was released in 2007 and shown at the RiverRun Film
 Festival in Winston-Salem. King Corn ($26.95, Docurama Films) just came out on
 Although the filmmakers take a meandering path, their investigation eventually
 leads viewers down a road that links federal agricultural policy to a cultural
 dependency on cheap, fast food.
 In grandfathers' footsteps
 Ellis and Cheney chose Greene, Iowa, because it's where their great-grandfathers
 once lived.
 First, they leased an acre from a local farmer. They filled out paperwork to get
 a government subsidy of $28 for their acre of corn.
 There was some actual work to do, but not much since they rented machines.
 First, they injected 150 pounds of ammonia into the soil to fertilize it.
 Second, they planted 31,000 genetically modified corn seeds in 18 minutes.
 Third, they sprayed herbicide to keep down the weeds. While they waited for the
 corn to grow, they traveled the country trying to figure out how the corn
 business works.
 They discovered that the commodity corn they were growing is bred for yield. It
 will likely produce up to 200 bushels in that acre, compared to 40 bushels in
 their great-grandfathers' day.
 They also learned that it is not bred for taste. "Disgusting," "chalk" and
 "sawdust" are how they describe the taste of their corn. It turns out that about
 55 percent of their crop is destined for animal feed, 32 percent for export or
 ethanol use, and a small portion for such sweeteners as high fructose corn
 syrup. It doesn't need to taste good since no one's going to eat it off the cob.
 A policy of abundance
 A central point throughout King Corn is that the United States is producing an
 incredible amount of corn, and of those 93 million acres planted in 2007, only
 about 250,000 were for sweet corn, the stuff that's edible right off the cob.
 As Michael Pollan, a noted author on U.S. food production, says in the film, the
 commodity corn common to Iowa is a raw material. "It must be processed before we
 eat it. The irony is that an Iowa farmer can no longer feed himself (with his
 own corn)."
 Ellis and Cheney trace this situation to Earl Butz, a former secretary of
 agriculture. In 1973, he changed U.S. food policy. Before, the government
 regulated production, sometimes paying farmers not to plant certain crops in
 order to keep prices high and supply in line with demand.
 Butz unleashed a flood of corn production by doing the opposite: encouraging
 farmers to plant as much as possible.
 Companies soon found ways to use the extra corn. Cattle, once raised on grasses,
 could be fattened more cheaply on corn.
 Similarly, food manufacturers realized that food could be sweetened a lot more
 cheaply with high-fructose corn syrup than sugar. (For a reason never explained,
 the filmmakers don't go into the ethanol issue.)
 But the film shows problems with these uses. Corn, not being a natural diet for
 cattle, causes cows to get sick, as does the close confinement of feedlots.
 Enter the use of antibiotics to keep them healthy until slaughter.
 The filmmakers are also uncomfortable with the use of corn syrup in everything
 from salad dressings to sodas. They link soda consumption to current problems
 with obesity and diabetes.
 As Ellis says of their experiment, "We didn't realize we were growing an acre of
 sugar."
 When the filmmakers interviewed Butz, he defended his policy of abundance,
 saying that the resulting low food prices are the basis of our affluence. Ellis
 and Cheney didn't attempt to refute the statement.
 They appear to have mixed feelings about what they learn, saying they feel
 uncomfortable about selling their corn. "It was Earl Butz' farm program that
 made our parents' dream of plenty a reality," Cheney says. "We also might be the
 first generation to live in a time when abundance brings too much."
 They do come upon a small solution, though. The end of the film shows them
 buying the acre they leased. They did not plant commodity corn, sweet corn or
 any kind of food. Instead, they planted grass.
 - Michael Hastings, the Journal's Food editor, can be contacted by phone at
 727-7394, e-mail at mhastings@wsjournal.com, or mail at c/o Winston-Salem
 Journal, P.O. 3159, Winston-Salem, NC 27102.
 LOAD-DATE: May 22, 2008
                  Copyright 2008 Media General Operations, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 533
 
                       The Star-Ledger (Newark, New Jersey)
                               May 18, 2008 Sunday
 BOOK REVIEW: Is biotech food ethical?
 SECTION: PERSPECTIVE; Pg. 8
 LENGTH: 632 words
 Beyond Biotechnology: The Barren Promise of Genetic Engineering Craig Holdrege
 and Steve Talbott University Press of Kentucky, 272 pp., $45 REVIEWED BY KITTA
 MACPHERSON One of the most disturbing aspects of the bitter, roiling 1990's
 debate over the safety of genetically modified food was the fact that it pitted
 groups of very good scientists against one another.
 How was a public to decide?
 Molecular biologists, made confident by the medical advances brought on by the
 techniques of genetic engineering, could see little difference between those
 earlier experiments and those proposed in altering or substituting genes in
 plants or animal products that would be consumed by humans. Ecologists, on the
 other hand, were shocked by what they viewed as the cavalier attitude of the
 mol-bio crowd to play dice with what ecologists saw as an intricately connected
 web of life in which every change matters.
 Ultimately, the U.S. government, through agencies like the Department of
 Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug
 Administration, allowed such food to be brought to market. But it's difficult to
 say who really won the argument, if the success of chains like Whole Foods is
 any indicator. Ecological scientists have certainly not conceded defeat and have
 not given up watching and waiting. They take the long view.
 With this work, Craig Holdrege, director of the Nature Institute, and Steve
 Talbott, a senior researcher there, are laying the philosophical groundwork for
 this continued opposition. They are in good company. The book is part of a
 series examining the "new agrarianism" with an advisory board that includes some
 of ecology's leading lights - Wendell Berry, Wes Jackson, Bill McKibben and
 Michael Pollan among them.
 Agricultural biotechnology, the authors say, is doomed to fail because its
 practitioners have the wrong worldview - one that is too reductionist. The gene
 manipulators, they say, literally cannot see the forest for the trees, and are
 doomed by such ignorance. The book opens with the iconic image of an endless
 expanse of Nebraskan prairie, filled with gently swaying, genetically engineered
 corn. The reader is invited to decide whether the vision is ideal or hellish.
 Genetic engineering allows us the possibility of manipulating living organisms,
 by zeroing in and making single-gene changes, much more efficiently than ever
 before. But that precision, the authors say, is illusory. Mankind does not know
 enough about the complexities of a cell, let alone an ecosystem, to be making
 such changes. And, the authors press on, even if we did possess such knowledge,
 such changes would be morally wrong.
 "This is the decisive question," they write: "Does the organism possess a
 wholeness, an integrity, that demands our respect? And can we gain a deep enough
 understanding of it to say, `This change is a further expression of the
 organism's governing unity, and that change is a violation of it.'?"
 While some chapters are dedicated to criticizing other aspects of agricultural
 biotechnology, questioning claims about the viability of the much celebrated and
 still experimental "golden rice" (genetically engineered to contain Vitamin A),
 the book extends its inquiry by looking more widely at genetics research.
 The authors correctly skewer some of the architects of the human genome project
 whose claims to have decoded the "book of life" now seem premature. The authors
 are on shakier ground when they try to link the mindsets of molecular biologists
 and particle physicists. True, scientists in both fields often do focus on the
 realm of the super-small. They can still, however, possess a view that's as
 big-picture as any ecologist's.
 Kitta MacPherson is a science writer based in Princeton.
 Photo Credit: ILLUSTRATION BY PAUL LACHINE
 LOAD-DATE: May 18, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: nsl
                     Copyright 2008 Newark Morning Ledger Co.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 534
 
                          Omaha World-Herald (Nebraska)
                              May 17, 2008 Saturday
                                 Midlands Edition
 NEBRASKA VISIT EU ag official says Europe must consider new crops
 BYLINE: Leslie Reed, WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 01B
 LENGTH: 537 words
 DATELINE: MEAD, Neb.
 MEAD, Neb. -- High food prices, biofuel development and climate change may well
 combine to make Europe more willing to consider the use of genetically modified
 crops, a top agriculture official with the European Union said this week.
 Neil Parish, a former dairy farmer from Somerset County, England, is Agriculture
 Committee chairman of the European Union Parliament.
 Parish was in the state to learn more about genetically modified crops and
 agriculture production methods in Nebraska and the United States.
 He spent Thursday afternoon at the University of NebraskaLincoln Agriculture
 Research and Development Center near Mead, where NU researchers told of their
 latest findings about no-till farming, carbon losses in corn and soybean crops,
 and plant genetics.
 Parish also took a spin on a computer-guided John Deere 7830 tractor pulling a
 16-row planter. It was quite a bit more sophisticated than the John Deere 3050
 he used to drive on his own farm, he said.
 "It's a good piece of kit," Parish said of the high-tech tractor.
 The European public long has been more leery than Americans of genetically
 modified crops, Parish said.
 Some critics have called such crops "Frankenfoods."
 But Parish said he believes European agriculture needs to adopt the new crops.
 "We will lose competitively if we eliminate ourselves from these crops," he
 said. "There is a great deal of public resistance, but we've got to have this
 debate."
 Sally Mackenzie, director of UNL's Center for Plant Science Innovation, told
 about efforts to make crops resistant to disease and pests, and to make them
 more tolerant of drought and cold. A plant that can tolerate cold weather can be
 planted earlier in the spring, and is thus less susceptible to damage from
 drought later in the year.
 She said UNL does more field testing of genetically modified crops than any
 other U.S. university. She said UNL frequently comes in third, after
 agribusiness giants Monsanto and Syngenta, in seeking U.S. Department of
 Agriculture permits for large-scale field tests of genetically modified crops.
 Coming soon, she said, are genetically modified crops that can't cross-pollinate
 with other crops, and a genetically altered soybean oil that will have more of
 the nutritional qualities of olive oil.
 Parish said Europeans don't trust Monsanto when it tries to assure them that
 genetically modified crops are safe. They are suspicious, he said, because it is
 Monsanto that sells the seeds.
 He said Europeans would find reassurances from the university more persuasive.
 Parish said the development of crops that can't cross-pollinate would help sell
 European consumers and producers on the crops.
 Parish, who said he is "liberal" on what he prefers to call biotechnology, said
 the advantages of the new crops are many. They can be more cost-effective to
 grow and be safer for the environment because they do not require fertilizer and
 pest sprays.
 In addition, if policymakers want to divert more crops to biofuels, agriculture
 producers around the world are going to have to find new ways to meet food and
 fuel demands, he said. Parish added that climate change may require European
 farmers to turn to drought-resistant crops.
 Contact the writer
 402-473-9581, leslie.reed@owh.com
 LEGISLATIVE BODIES (72%) Agriculture; Crop; Technology
 LOAD-DATE: May 17, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2008 The Omaha World-Herald Company









Document Number: 535
 
                         Facts on File World News Digest
                                   May 8, 2008
 Global Economy;
 U.N. Chief Sets Food Crisis Task Force
 SECTION: Pg. 305F2
 LENGTH: 608 words
          Bush Pledges Increased Food Aid
 United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon April 29 said the U.N. would create
 a task force to address problems stemming from a recent spike in global food
 prices. Ban, speaking at a U.N. forum in Bern, Switzerland, said food inflation
 could lead to "widespread hunger, malnutrition and social unrest on an
 unprecedented scale." Ban would oversee the task force, which would be headed by
 Sir John Holmes of Britain, a senior official at the U.N. [See 2008 Global
 Economy: World Bank, IMF Address Food Prices]
 Ban said the task force would urge countries to donate a total of $755 million
 to the U.N. World Food Program (WFP) to help it provide emergency aid to
 countries suffering from food shortages. The program currently had a mere $18
 million on hand in funding, after a recent appeal from affected countries for
 aid. The program March 10 had put its funding shortfall at $500 million, but
 revised that number upward as prices rose. The price of rice, a staple for many
 developing countries, had risen nearly 70% since the beginning of 2008. WFP
 spokeswoman Josette Sheeran March 22 had described the food crisis as a "silent
 tsunami."
 The task force would also establish a $1.7 billion fund that would purchase
 seeds for farmers in developing countries. Ban said poorer farmers were
 "planting less, producing less, due to the escalating cost of fertilizer and
 energy." He added, "We must make every effort to support those farmers" to
 prevent future food shortages.
 Ban said the dramatic increase in food prices was due to a variety of factors,
 including increased demand, higher fuel prices (which made the farming and
 shipping of food more expensive), recent natural disasters and "the new craze of
 biofuels." Biofuels were energy products made from plants, including food crops
 such as corn, that had been promoted as an alternatives to fossil fuels.
 U.N. officials at the meeting also warned countries that placing bans on food
 exports could further exacerbate the problem, by depleting the supply of food in
 international markets. Several countries in recent months had stopped exports to
 keep domestic food prices low. [See 2008 Philippines: Government Addresses Rice
 Shortage]
 Protests and rioting over food prices and related government actions had
 occurred in recent months in dozens of countries all over the world. [See 2008
 Haiti: PM Fired in Wake of Food Inflation Unrest]
 Bush Pledges Increased Food Aid
  U.S. President George W. Bush May 1 called on the U.S. Congress to pass
 legislation that would provide an additional $770 million in food aid to poorer
 countries. Bush's proposal came after the U.S. April 14 pledged $200 million in
 emergency food aid, to be distributed by the U.S. Agency for International
 Development (USAID). If Bush's new request was approved, the U.S. would spend a
 total of $2.3 billion on food aid in 2008.
 Bush also called on countries to ease their restrictions on genetically modified
 crops to increase food production. Bush said such crops were "safe," capable of
 producing greater yields than traditional crops and more resistant to disease
 and drought. Certain European countries did not allow farmers to grow
 genetically modified foods, due to environmental and health concerns.
 Separately, in an indication of the effects of food price rises in wealthier
 countries, Sam's Club, a U.S. retailer that was part of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.,
 April 23 had begun limiting the amount of rice it sold, to four 20-pound
 (nine-kilogram) bags per person. The decision came after U.S. companies began
 making bulk purchases of rice to avoid paying higher prices in the future.
 LOAD-DATE: May 14, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2008 Facts on File, Inc.









Document Number: 536
 
                           Grand Rapid Press (Michigan)
                               May 6, 2008 Tuesday
 Food for thought;
 Looming global crisis should raise questions about effective food production and
 use
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A6
 LENGTH: 392 words
 United Nation warnings about a global food crisis coupled with food riots and
 unrest in a half dozen countries should put the hunger issue on the world's
 plate. The prospect of a shortage raises questions about food production and
 use. Questions such as: Can we afford to use food to make biofuel? Can the
 poorest and hungriest countries in the world continue to shun using genetically
 modified crops to increase food production?
 Most Americans are in no danger of starving because milk, eggs, bread -- and
 just about everything else -- costs more. But for people in developing countries
 who survive on $1 a day or less, rising food prices can literally be a life or
 death proposition. World food prices have risen 83 percent in the last three
 years and have led to riots in the Caribbean, Africa and Asia. Rice alone is up
 141 percent since January. The World Bank warns that 33 countries are at risk
 from hunger-driven social upheaval.
 Even so, many of the countries with the greatest need continue to resist
 planting or importing genetically modified (GM) crops. Global campaigns against
 such crops have influenced public attitudes and government policy. The crops
 have been dubbed "suicide seeds," "Frankenfood," and "Terminator technology," by
 environment groups, even though there is no scientific evidence disputing their
 safety.
 More than 12 years after being introduced as a way to grow cheaper, faster,
 pest-free food in drought-stricken and other harsh climates, genetically
 modified crops are not widely used. They account for only 4 percent of total
 global cultivation. Most of the world's genetically enhanced crops are produced
 in just five countries: the United States, Canada, Argentina, Brazil and China.
 The GM crop issue needs to be seriously discussed, especially with a looming
 food crisis. So does the burgeoning biofuel industry. Using corn and soybeans as
 fuel for cars instead of food for humans warrants a re-examination. Midwest corn
 is being used in ethanol plants sprouting up across the country. An
 international food policy group in Washington says corn prices would fall by 20
 percent and wheat by 10 percent if a moratorium was imposed on biofuel use
 worldwide this year.
 With much of the world going hungry, getting the maximum nourishment from the
 food we have is important. So is reaching our potential to produce more of it.
 Editorial
 LOAD-DATE: May 8, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: grp
                        Copyright 2008 Grand Rapids Press
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 537
 
                       Monterey County Herald (California)
                                May 5, 2008 Monday
 Researchers alter goats with human genes
 BYLINE: By CHRIS BOWMAN McClatchy Newspapers
 LENGTH: 1014 words
 SACRAMENTO   University of California-Davis professor James Murray knows his
 experiments with human genes and goats give some people the creeps.
 Crossing anything human with four-legged hoofers evokes images of mythical
 half-man, half-animal centaurs from ancient Greece.
 In reality, genetically altered goats look and behave no differently than
 regular ones   both are just as eager to gnaw Murray's sleeves and untie his
 shoes at the university goat barn.
 "Could you get your grubby paws off?" Murray asked of his inquisitive test
 subjects during a recent tour.
 Murray and fellow animal scientist Elizabeth Maga engineered a small herd of
 Alpine and Toggenburg dairy goats to produce high levels of a human
 antibiotic-like protein in their milk.
 Just as mother's milk helps protect infants from germs, the researchers figured,
 humanized goat's or cow's milk would better defend dairy animals and their
 offspring from illness. Germ-fighting milk might also slow spoilage, prolonging
 the shelf life of dairy products.
 The scientists' ultimate question, though, is a humanitarian one:
 Could the same procedure produce fortified powdered milk and, eventually,
 genetically modified goat herds for poor regions of the world?
 The beneficial protein, lysozyme, destroys bacteria that cause intestinal
 infections and diarrhea, which every year claim more than 2 million impoverished
 young lives. That's a toll among children under age 5 higher than from AIDS,
 tuberculosis and malaria combined, according to the World Health Organization.
 "If we can prevent some of that, I think we should do it," Murray said, mindful
 of long-standing protests from animal rights activists, ethical concerns and
 fears of messing with Mother Nature.
 The goat's milk represents one of the first genetically engineered food products
 designed to improve human health, though none has been approved for human
 consumption.
 Scientists have been manipulating animal genes for nearly 25 years. They've
 changed properties of milk for human food and as raw material for
 pharmaceuticals   turning animals into virtual medicine factories. Murray
 himself has changed the genes of cows, sheep, pigs and mice.
 The goat's milk experiments, however, are among the few to transfer human genes
 to animals, said Michael Fernandez, former director of the Pew Initiative on
 Food and Biotechnology.
 "It's certainly not the predominant practice right now," Fernandez said. Private
 biotechnology companies and universities usually obtain genetic material from
 microbes or plants, not humans, he said.
 Ventria Bioscience of Sacramento is a prominent exception. The company is
 growing genetically altered rice that contains lysozyme and another
 antibacterial ingredient in human breast milk. The company aims to produce an
 over-the-counter rehydration solution made from the fortified rice.
 Ventria recently found a place to farm their patented rice in Junction City,
 Kan., after running afoul of Sacramento Valley and Missouri growers who fear
 medical rice might mix with their grains.
 Doug Gurian-Sherman, a biotechnology specialist with the Union of Concerned
 Scientists advocacy group, said he has similar concerns about transgenic goats.
 Should the goats get into the wild   their altered genes indeed make them more
 fit to survive   they could more easily multiply and over-browse a landscape,
 threatening native species and causing erosion, he said.
 "We don't have a regulatory system that addresses these kind of environmental
 issues in this country, let alone developing countries," Gurian-Sherman said.
 Why human genes for goats?
 Goats, humans and all other mammals have lysozyme in milk, saliva and tears.
 Human breast milk, however, carries at least 1,600 times more than goat's milk.
 University of California-Davis dairy goats born with the human gene that
 regulates lysozyme in mammary glands have far more lysozyme in their milk than
 they would naturally   67 percent of human levels compared with 0.06 percent,
 Murray said.
 While other animals carry high levels of the protein, Davis researchers chose to
 inject the human gene to minimize chances of an allergic reaction, should people
 ever drink the modified goat's milk.
 "You drink lysozyme every day in your saliva, so the chances of you reacting to
 it are pretty small," said Maga, a research biologist in the animal science
 department.
 Several more studies are needed to satisfy food safety regulators in the United
 States and elsewhere that this medicinal milk would be safe to drink,
 researchers said.
 The latest findings, published in the May issue of the Journal of Nutrition,
 show altered goat's milk helps fend off common E. coli-related illnesses in
 pigs, which have human-like digestive systems.
 Pigs fed the lysozyme-rich milk from transgenic goats had significantly lower
 levels of harmful bacteria in their small intestines than those raised on
 regular goat's milk.
 Dr. Miriam Aschkenasy, a public health doctor with the nonprofit humanitarian
 aid group Oxfam America, doesn't share Murray's optimism that the goat's milk
 would provide comparable protection for children.
 While human breast milk is considered beneficial to infants, "there is, as far
 as I know, very little evidence that if you feed it to an older child these same
 affects apply," Aschkenasy said.
 Said Murray: "The absence of evidence does not mean it isn't so, it just means
 we do not yet know. Hopefully studies with our transgenic goat's milk will help
 to answer this question."
 The UCD Academic Federation Committee on Research funded the experiment with
 pigs. Murray is seeking additional funding from philanthropies interested in
 improving health in developing nations.
 For the next experiment, Murray wants to see whether modified goat's milk not
 only prevents intestinal illness in pigs but also treats it.
 "We'll make them sick and see if they get better," he said.
 (c) 2008, The Sacramento Bee (Sacramento, Calif.).
 Visit The Sacramento Bee online at www.sacbee.com/
 Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
 PHOTO (from MCT Photo Service, 202-383-6099): SCI-GOATS
 LOAD-DATE: May 5, 2008
 GRAPHIC: University of California-Davis animal science professor James Murray
 had a herd of goats genetically modified to produce milk that can protect
 children in poor regions of the world from fatal illnesses.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2008 The Monterey County Herald
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 538
 
                            Investor's Business Daily
                              April 28, 2008 Monday
 A Green Revolution
 SECTION: ISSUES & INSIGHTS; EDITORIALS; Pg. A16
 LENGTH: 707 words
 Food: Today's headlines are filled with Americans expressing their fears of food
 shortages and frustration with spiraling grocery prices. As part of the
 solution, it's time to give genetically modified crops a try.
 There's much resistance to overcome, however. In the fall of 2006, Friends of
 the Earth publicly asked governments in the hungry African countries of Ghana
 and Sierra Leone to recall American food aid that contained genetically modified
 rice.
 Four years earlier, when southern Africa was tormented by famine, the U.S.
 offered 540,000 tons of genetically modified grain.
 Though the World Health Organization estimated that nearly 14 million Africans,
 including 2.3 million children under 5, were at risk of starvation, leaders in
 the region rejected the food.
 One, Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa, called it "poison."
 Had Mwanawasa been listening to environmentalists from rich nations too much?
 Progress-phobic activists have campaigned hard against genetically modified, or
 biotech, crops. They call them "frankenfood" and fret about their risks and
 "unnatural" character.
 Destruction of property -- from hazmat-suit-wearing Greenpeace mobs trampling a
 field of genetically engineered plants in Britain during the 1990 s, to radicals
 destroying crops more recently at a California research center -- is just
 another part of the crusade.
 There's no evidence that biotech foods, which are some of the most thoroughly
 tested products in history, are harmful.
 Humans have been safely altering their food sources for 10,000 years,
 cross-breeding livestock and agriculture. Genetically modified crops are part of
 this advance. Yet opposition remains, fueled by ignorance and hysteria.
 The hostility is irresponsible, particularly in a world that is dealing with
 man-made food shortages and could use biotech plants, which yield far more food
 per acre than conventional or organic crops. After four decades of increased use
 of genetically engineered crops -- from 1950 to 1990 -- the world grain harvest
 went from 692 million tons to 1.9 billion tons on roughly the same amount of
 acreage.
 In this nation, according to the Biotechnology Industry Organization, corn
 production increased by 33% from 1996, the first year a biotech variety was
 commercially planted, to 2007; soybean yields increased during that same time by
 More than a half-century ago, hero-scientist Norman Borlaug kicked off the Green
 Revolution, which has done more to relieve world hunger than any environmental
 group or left-wing nongovernmental organization.
 Instead of chasing "academic butterflies," Borlaug, a geneticist and plant
 pathologist, chose a more practical goal: feeding people. Among his many
 achievements was the development in the 1960 s of wheat varieties that had
 increased yields of 70%.
 "We have the technology to double or triple food production," says Borlaug, who
 won a Nobel Prize in 1970. "I've been in the field for a long time, and I
 believe genetically modified food crops will stop world hunger."
 Genetically modified plants can produce bigger harvests because they can be
 engineered to resist pests, diseases and drought. This is especially important
 in nations where half of what is planted is often destroyed by pests and
 disease.
 The maturation process of genetically modified crops is faster, which means food
 can be put in empty stomachs sooner. Biotech crops also can be genetically
 fortified with proteins, vitamins, minerals and antioxidants to improve
 nutrition.
 Americans daily eat 1 billion servings of food containing genetically modified
 ingredients. About 60% of food found in grocery stores is made from engineered
 crops. The number of acres sown with biotech plants has passed 280 million in 23
 countries by 12 million farmers -- 90% of whom are resource-poor farmers in
 developing nations, says the Biotechnology Industry Organization.
 Yet not a single death or sickness can be blamed on biotech foods.
 We have the means to keep a hungry Third World sated, grocery store shelves
 stacked full and bodies everywhere richly nourished.
 There's a grand opportunity for someone to take the lead on this.
 How about a president who has but a few months left in office and nothing to
 lose politically from starting the next Green Revolution?
 LOAD-DATE: April 25, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2008 Investor's Business Daily, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 539
 
                            Pittsburgh Tribune Review
                              April 27, 2008 Sunday
 Italians are living la dolce vita with chocolate
 BYLINE: Francine Segan
 LENGTH: 1148 words
 Chocolate news flash: Italy invades Switzerland.
 To the long list of yummy delicacies from Italy -- pasta, pizza, salami,
 Parmesan cheese and extra-virgin olive oil -- we Americans often forget to add
 chocolate.
 Yet Italy is home to some of the world's finest chocolate companies, such as
 Caffarel, Ferrero, Pernigotti and Venchi. And smaller firms such as Amedei and
 Domori are winning gold medals in international competitions. In just one region
 of Italy, Piemonte, there are more master chocolatiers than in Belgium and
 France combined. In Tuscany, there is such a concentration of fine chocolate
 makers that journalists have dubbed the area between Florence and Pisa the
 Chocolate Valley.
 Veritable Willy Wonkas, Italy's chocolatiers love thinking up new flavors.
 "It is an Italian's way to be creative," beams Mariella Maione, owner of Peyrano
 Chocolates. "Instead of sleeping, we dream up new taste combinations."
 Andrea Slitti, of Slitti Chocolates, confides, "I sometimes start with a name
 that intrigues me, and then find a flavor to match it." Another imaginative
 Chocolate Valley chocolatier, Paul DeBondt, whose creations include dark
 chocolate accented with wild fennel and white chocolate flecked with bitter
 almonds and cocoa nibs, admits, "My favorite flavor is the one I have yet to
 invent."
 Some larger companies hold special monthly creative team meetings to develop new
 flavors. "A dozen or so specialists -- gourmets and technical experts -- spend
 all day brainstorming new chocolates," says Vincenzo Montuori of Caffarel. One
 successful result of those meetings is MonViso, the 2007 winner of the most
 innovative product awarded at the Eurochocolate festival. This coffee, cream and
 liqueur bonbon is whimsically shaped like the Alpine mountain peak visible from
 the Caffarel factory.
 Milk chocolate gets the short shrift here in the States, where gourmets focus
 almost exclusively on dark chocolate. The Italians, who love the richer taste of
 milk chocolate, have managed to retain the sophistication of dark and all of the
 decadence of milk chocolate.
 Slitti, a Tuscany-based company, is one of several Italian firms to create a
 line of milk/dark chocolate hybrids. Instead of the usual 31 percent to 35
 percent cocoa content found in most milk chocolates, Slitti's LatteNero --
 "milk-dark" -- contain cocoa concentrations as high as 45 percent, 51 percent,
 62 percent and 70 percent. The result is amazingly smooth, with a milk chocolate
 flavor but without the excessive sweetness of commercial milk chocolate.
 One reason Italian chocolate is so good is that Italians care so much about the
 purity of ingredients. For example, Italy bans genetically modified foods. But
 there is no better evidence of their concern for quality than the country's long
 battle with the European Union (EU) over cocoa butter.
 "Since 2003, the EU permits chocolate to contain a certain percentage of
 vegetable oils, like palm, to substitute for the more expensive cocoa butter,"
 says Mario Piccialuti, director of AIDI, Italy's confectioners association. "For
 us Italians, this is not 'pure chocolate,' but a chocolate-like substance, and
 should be labeled accordingly."
 When's the best time to eat chocolate? According to one chocolate maker: "We
 Italians eat chocolate when we are happy to celebrate, but we also eat it when
 we are sad, to cheer us up." He pauses, then, eyes twinkling, adds, "Italians
 also eat chocolate before making love, but it is wonderful after making love,
 too!"
 Italy's favorite chocolate candy
 Gianduiotto, Italy's favorite candy flavor, is a creamy blend of chocolate and
 hazelnuts, and was invented in 1852 out of necessity. Because of the long
 Napoleonic Wars, transport of cocoa beans across the Atlantic was severely
 curtailed and Europe began to experience chocolate shortages. To extend their
 meager supplies of cocoa, the Caffarel company began blending ground hazelnuts
 into their cocoa. The result was a creamy, flavorful delight, and it became an
 instant success.
 Shaped like an upside-down canoe, is named for Gianduja, a traditional carnival
 character popular in Turin. Gianduiotti wrapped in paper were given out by a
 masked Gianduja character at the 1865 Carnival in Turin. This is the first time
 any chocolate candy in the world was paper-wrapped.
 Gianduiotti are not only popular in Italy. Grace Kelly and Prince Rainier III of
 Monaco selected them as their official wedding candy.
 Five ways to savor Italy
 1. Check sites like www.chocolitaly.com that list special tastings, events and
 chocolate shows, such as the two-week Turin Chocolate Festival held in early
 March or Perugia's Eurochocolate in October.
 2. Visit one of Italy's chocolate factories like Perugina, makers of Baci.
 3. Take a chocolate-making class like the fun-filled ones given by Paul De Bondt
 in Pisa.
 4. Be on the lookout for chocolates that are hard to find in the States, like
 Ferraro's Kinder Sorpresa, small chocolate eggs filled with puzzle pieces that
 assemble into a collectible toy; or its Pocket Coffee, little shots of real
 espresso coated in bittersweet chocolate.
 5. Enjoy a Michelangelo chocolate moment, and treat yourself to one of Italy's
 chocolate sculptures. Italians craft gorgeous objects in chocolate, such as
 antique tools coated with cocoa "rust" and whimsical Easter eggs, which,
 depending on the intended recipient, are filled with either toys, jewelry or
 collectibles. One chocolate shop in Pistoia will even put custom items into
 chocolate Easter eggs. Clients bring the gift to the shop -- everything from an
 engagement ring to a cell phone and even a black-lace nightie -- and wait while
 it is encased in a chocolate egg.
 Eat chocolate like an Italian
 o Savor a square of chocolate after dinner before an espresso. Many Italians
 even melt the chocolate right in the cup.
 o Try a tiny chocolate spoon. Stir your espresso with the spoon until the tip
 melts, then nibble the spoon's handle as you drink the resulting luscious mocha
 brew.
 o Pair dark chocolate with one of Italy's fine spirits like a glass of Tosti's
 Bracato, of sparkling red wine that is fruity but not sweet.
 Italian Chocolate Nib Parmesan Crisps
 These crisps are delicious with a glass of wine or a cocktail before dinner. You
 can make them with other Italian cheeses that pair well with chocolate nibs,
 such as Gorgonzola or pecorino.
 o 1 cup finely grated Parmesan cheese
 o 3 tablespoons chocolate nibs
 Heat a nonstick skillet over medium heat. Working in batches, sprinkle the
 Parmesan in a thin layer in circles about 2 inches in diameter in the skillet.
 Scatter the nibs over each circle.
 Cook until light golden brown, for about 3 minutes. With a spatula, carefully
 slide the Parmesan-nib round out of the pan and onto a serving plate.
 Repeat the process until you've finished all the cheese and nibs.
 Makes 8 servings.
 LOAD-DATE: April 27, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                 Copyright 2008 Tribune Review Publishing Company
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 540
 
                           Grand Rapid Press (Michigan)
                              April 25, 2008 Friday
 High price of food
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A9
 LENGTH: 434 words
 WASHINGTON -- Typically food crises have been localized affairs, famines due to
 drought or crop failures. But we are now in the midst of a food crisis that
 though uneven is widespread; it is fair to call it global in scope.
 There have been food riots in Egypt, Haiti and West Africa, and troops have been
 called out to stop warehouse looting in Pakistan and Thailand. The World Bank
 warns that 33 countries are at risk from hunger-driven social upheaval.
 The reason has less to do with shortages, although there are plenty of those,
 than food price inflation -- soaring prices driven by demand. World food prices
 have risen 83 percent in the last three years. Rice alone is up 141 percent
 since January. This has led the Economist magazine to pronounce, "the era of
 cheap food is over."
 Cruelly, the rising prices fall most harshly on the poorest of the poor -- the
 over 1 billion who survive on $1 a day or less and the 1.5 billion who get by on
 $2 or less -- wiping out what little gains they made when times were better.
 The hardest hit countries have reacted with measures that are short-term and
 shortsighted -- price controls, food subsidies, export quotas and tariffs on
 grains, in some case outright bans. While these measures may quell the political
 passions of the moment, their long-term effect will be to raise prices.
 The reasons for the high prices illustrate how intricate and interrelated the
 world food supply has become. For one reason, as China and India get richer,
 their people are eating more and better. Australia's grain producing regions
 have endured six years of harsh droughts. The Green Revolution with its rapidly
 rising yields is over, and further yield growth has been hampered by European
 resistance to genetically modified foods. Soaring oil prices have driven the
 cost of fuel and fertilizer out of reach for small farmers.
 While biofuels are only a part of the problem, the United States has suffered
 yet another international black eye for its generous subsidies for corn-based
 ethanol that have driven up prices and distorted the world market. The Indian
 finance minister called the U.S. ethanol program "a crime against humanity."
 The United States is once again a generous contributor to the World Food
 Program. But we can do more. The giant and wasteful farm bill is marooned in
 Congress. Even if it gets on track, President Bush has threatened to veto it.
 While so much of the world is going hungry, now might be the time for the
 lawmakers to rethink the protectionist agri-biz subsidies that drive up prices,
 distort markets and leave Third World farmers unable to compete.
 (56%); 2008 GLOBAL FOOD CRISIS (90%); FOOD CRISES & SHORTAGES (91%) Column
 LOAD-DATE: April 25, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: grp
                        Copyright 2008 Grand Rapids Press
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 541
 
                      The Press Enterprise (Riverside, CA.)
                             April 24, 2008, Thursday
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. B10b
 LENGTH: 675  words
 Shape student-athletes
 It's discouraging to read that members of the community are more concerned about
 successful high school programs than the well-being of student-athletes
 ("Misguided athletics," Your Views, April 21).
 Student-athletes are at a stage in their lives when they're influenced by so
 much. Why not have a coach who shows them that there is more to life than x's
 and o's and wins and losses, that character, morals and integrity are just as
 important?
 I would like to think that our area schools are developing students who, when
 they graduate, will be well-rounded, contributing members of society.
 Thank you, administrators, for wanting to hire coaches with winning philosophies
 about athletics and about life.
 Corona
 Helping hunger?
 Regarding U.S. and European genetically modified food policies and the hungry,
 consider the following facts ("Hunger by design," Our Views, April 22):
 More than 90 percent of U.S. genetically modified "food" crops are soybeans and
 corn. More than 90 percent of these do not go directly into human mouths.
 Take corn: 25 percent is converted to ethanol for our gas tanks. The vast
 majority of what remains is either fed to livestock or processed into industrial
 chemicals, some of which - like the high fructose corn syrup used in soda and
 candy - end up in processed foods.
 The most important food in the hungry nations of the world is rice. Only one
 country in the world has been growing genetically modified rice for human
 consumption. That country is Iran. Given these facts, I leave it to readers to
 evaluate the suggestion that food shortages and high prices will last until
 Europe drops its trade barriers.
 Director, Biotechnology Impacts Center UC Riverside
 Riverside
 Ignorance abounds
 Dan Bernstein's column on UC Riverside students' ignorance of Thurgood Marshall
 was great ("Goods on Thurgood," April 22).
 Unfortunately, most students don't know anything that happened before their
 immediate history (from 1990 on).
 If Bernstein really wanted to confound these students, he should have asked who
 Crispus Attucks was or what Josh Gibson did. Having taught middle and high
 school for six years in Los Angeles, I have learned to never underestimate the
 ignorance of today's students.
 The most shocking discovery was to read that even an Alvord school board member
 didn't know who Marshall was ("Name suggestion draws objections," April 19).
 That should be grounds for being stripped of board membership.
 America suffers from acute collective amnesia when it comes to any person not on
 the cover of People magazine or any event more than a week old.
 Riverside
 Put animals first
 It is wonderful that members of an agency charged with building a new animal
 shelter in Wildomar have come through for the animals ("Agency promises shelter
 deal," April 8)!
 Is it possible that county staff wanted to use another architect and did
 whatever it could to make the situation impossible for the current one?
 I think it is important that county staff and architect George Miers put their
 differences behind them and work together in getting this shelter built.
 People need to remember that even though 39 animals perished in a fire, many
 more animals are put to death regularly because the current shelter doesn't have
 room to house them ("Fire kills dozens of animals," Feb. 29).
 Lake Elsinore
 Drugs wreck lives
 In regard to Marc Bender's op-ed on drugs, I have known people on both sides of
 this crime. Trust me when I say it is never consensual ("Jail drug users," April
 Who asks to have a family member steal from you and leave his or her children
 with you for who knows how long? Who asks to watch that person end up skinny,
 covered in sores and homeless?
 I have worked with children for 24 years and have seen what drugs can do to
 families. People lose their children, homes, health, freedom and faith in
 others, and the children have an overwhelming sense of fear and distrust. I'm
 sure they didn't consent to any of that.
 Riverside
 LOAD-DATE: April 28, 2008
                    Copyright 2008 The Press Enterprise, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 542
 
                      Deseret Morning News (Salt Lake City)
                             April 23, 2008 Wednesday
 Let markets solve food crisis
 BYLINE: Deseret News editorial
 LENGTH: 407 words
 The demand for food is growing worldwide, fed by economic gains in places such
 as India and China. As always, this rising demand, and the rising food prices
 that result, are hitting the world's poor the hardest. Already this has resulted
 in riots in Egypt, Haiti and West Africa, and more unrest is sure to come.
 But it's a crisis that can be tackled if wealthy Western nations, including the
 United States, are willing to let free markets do their magic. That means
 eliminating, once and for all, farm subsidies. It means never giving a
 government check to a farmer who lets his fields sit idle. It means allowing
 genetically modified foods that can increase yields, resist droughts and feed
 people more efficiently.
 It means reducing tariffs and quotas and strengthening free-trade agreements. It
 also means ending government subsidies for corn ethanol, which provide financial
 incentives to grow corn for fuel, rather than for food.
 This is not a typical food crisis, which in the past has involved famine and
 shortages. There is plenty of food to go around. The problem has to do with
 price. To a large measure, the rising price of oil has caused this, making food
 much more expensive to grow and ship.
 But under a typical free-market scenario, this increase in price would lead
 farmers to invest in more land and plant more crops. There is, after all, money
 to be made. Unfortunately, governments all over the world, including in the
 United States, have created disincentives to do so. As if to underscore this
 economic illiteracy, some of the world's poorest countries are turning to
 protectionist measures, including price controls and subsidies, to counter the
 crisis. All they are doing is driving prices even higher.
 Since January, rice has become 141 percent more expensive. The World Bank says
 33 countries may face social and political unrest because of high-priced food.
 People who survive on little each day now must survive on even less.
 In the middle of all this, Congress has yet to pass a proposed farm bill. Now
 would be a good time to rip it in pieces and start over. This nation's
 protectionist agriculture laws are designed to make it impossible for Third
 World farmers to compete with American agri-business. All that does is make the
 world's poor even poorer.
 With oil prices bringing this inequity into high relief, it's time to do as
 Americans do in other segments of the economy and free the market to solve the
 problem.
 LOAD-DATE: April 23, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2008 The Deseret News Publishing Co.









Document Number: 543
 
                      Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania)
                             April 23, 2008 Wednesday
 SECTION: LOCAL; Pg. B-1
 LENGTH: 556 words
 The U.S. attorney in Buffalo, N.Y., is deciding whether to appeal a judge's
 dismissal of the government's case against a college professor for illegally
 obtaining biological materials from a researcher at the University of Pittsburgh
 for use in an art exhibit.
 U.S. District Judge Richard J. Arcara ruled Monday the mail and wire fraud case
 brought nearly four years ago against Steven J. Kurtz, an art professor at the
 State University of New York at Buffalo, was "insufficient on its face."
 Peggy Kelly McFarland, spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Terrance P. Flynn of the
 Western District of New York, said yesterday her office would have no comment on
 Judge Arcara's dismissal.
 "We're reviewing the decision now and are trying to decide whether to appeal
 it," she said.
 Mr. Kurtz is a founding member of the Critical Art Ensemble, which has used DNA
 and other biological materials in works meant to examine the impact of science
 and technology on consumer culture. The federal case against him drew
 international attention, particularly in artistic circles which sharply
 criticized the government for improperly intruding upon artistic freedom.
 Mr. Kurtz, a former art professor at Carnegie Mellon University, obtained the
 biological materials from his friend, Pitt professor Dr. Robert E. Ferrell. Dr.
 Ferrell ordered the material and had it sent to Pitt's human genetics lab, and
 then forwarded it to Mr. Kurtz's home in Buffalo, N.Y.
 Mr. Kurtz planned to use the bacteria as part of an art project addressing
 genetically modified food. Health officials have said the materials posed a low
 risk of human infection.
 Originally charged with mail and wire fraud, Dr. Ferrell entered a plea in
 October to a lesser misdemeanor charge of "mailing an injurious article" which
 carried a recommended guideline range of up to six months in prison and a $5,000
 fine. In a statement, his family said he pleaded guilty for health reasons.
 Since the prosecution began, he suffered three strokes and dealt twice with
 cancer, which is now in remission
 In February, Judge Arcara sentenced Dr. Ferrell to serve 12 months unsupervised
 probation and to pay a $500 fine. In exchange for his plea, Dr. Ferrell was
 required to cooperate with the case against his friend.
 His attorney, Efrem M. Grail, said yesterday his client did not want to comment
 on the case.
 "Dr. Ferrell, because of his physical condition and his desire to focus his
 energies on teaching and research obligations to the University of Pittsburgh
 and his family, was pleased to put his case behind him several months ago," Mr.
 Grail said. "I'm sure that he feels [hopeful] that his co-defendant may perhaps
 do the same now as well, pending of course, the government's decision on whether
 or not to appeal."
 The case began as a bioterrorism investigation in May 2004 when Mr. Kurtz called
 911 to report his wife had died, apparently from a heart attack. First
 responders found the biological materials -- two kinds of bacteria -- and
 equipment they likewise deemed suspicious and alerted the FBI's Joint Terrorism
 Task Force. They showed up in full biohazard gear to search his home.
 Mr. Kurtz's wife died of natural causes and the lab equipment was determined to
 be part of his artwork but he was indicted for receiving the biological material
 on charges that carried a maximum of 20 years in prison.
 LOAD-DATE: April 23, 2008
 NOTES: Michael A. Fuoco can be reached at mfuoco@post-gazette.com or
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2008 P.G. Publishing Co.









Document Number: 544
 
                      The Press Enterprise (Riverside, CA.)
                             April 22, 2008, Tuesday
 Hunger By Design
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. B12
 LENGTH: 436  words
 The United States and other developed nations should be attacking high food
 prices - and a developing nutrition crisis - by advancing farm science and
 increasing production. European bureaucrats, lamentably, are clinging to
 outmoded methods of farming. U.S. efforts to force a policy change should
 continue until Europe drops its moratorium on genetically modified foods.
 Inland shoppers are feeling the effect of this European policy with the rest of
 the world. Last week's Consumer Price Index report had white flour rising 22
 percent over last year, with white bread up 23 percent.
 The price increases are a direct result of American farmers planting less wheat.
 They plant less wheat because they get better yields with genetically modified
 corn. They could plant modified wheat, but it is nearly impossible to export. So
 researchers have stopped working on new varieties of wheat. (Virtually all U.S.
 corn exports go to trading partners in the Americas and Asia.
 This lack of wheat production is the fault of European Union policy, based on
 fears of unknown effects of consuming the foods. But people in other nations
 have been eating modified foods for years. In America, 75 percent of the corn
 crop is an engineered strain.
 And while the wheat shortage is causing discomfort for consumers here, the
 policy is having disastrous effects elsewhere. Food riots have been reported in
 the past few weeks in Haiti, Africa and the Philippines.
 Genetically modified grains can solve both price and hunger dilemmas.
 Scientifically designed strains may provide larger yields, or be
 disease-resistant or more nourishing. For example, American researchers helped
 Mexico switch to a high-yield dwarf wheat variety in the mid-1940s. By 1963,
 crop size had increased sixfold, and Mexico was exporting wheat.
 The United States, Canada and Argentina sued the European Union in 2003 in the
 World Trade Organization to end the moratorium. The EU has taken some small
 steps toward introduction of new types of grain. It has approved, at least, a
 labeling system for modified foods. But the EU's individual members continue to
 reject the products.
 Europe's continued resistance to modified foods denies the reality of a growing
 world population. Food production has to grow to keep up. Farmers can produce
 more food, and do it more efficiently, if they can grow high-tech grains.
 Shortages and high prices will last until Europe drops its trade barriers. The
 United States and its partners should keep up the pressure in court until all of
 EU's members have opened their markets. Food policies that cause starvation
 cannot be allowed to stand.
 LOAD-DATE: April 24, 2008
                    Copyright 2008 The Press Enterprise, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 545
 
                                The New York Times
                              April 21, 2008 Monday
                               Late Edition - Final
 In Lean Times, Biotech Grains Are Less Taboo
 BYLINE: By ANDREW POLLACK; Su-hyun Lee in Seoul, South Korea, and Yasuko
 Kamiizumi in Tokyo contributed reporting.
 SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 1404 words
 Soaring food prices and global grain shortages are bringing new pressures on
 governments, food companies and consumers to relax their longstanding resistance
 to genetically engineered crops.
 In Japan and South Korea, some manufacturers for the first time have begun
 buying genetically engineered corn for use in soft drinks, snacks and other
 foods. Until now, to avoid consumer backlash, the companies have paid extra to
 buy conventionally grown corn. But with prices having tripled in two years, it
 has become too expensive to be so finicky.
 ''We cannot afford it,'' said a corn buyer at Kato Kagaku, a Japanese maker of
 corn starch and corn syrup.
 In the United States,  wheat growers and marketers, once hesitant about adopting
 biotechnology because they feared losing export sales, are now warming to it as
 a way to bolster supplies. Genetically modified crops contain genes from other
 organisms to make the plants resistance to insects, herbicides or disease.
 Opponents continue to worry that such crops have not been studied enough and
 that they might pose risks to health and the environment.
 ''I think it's pretty clear that price and supply concerns have people thinking
 a little bit differently today,'' said Steve Mercer, a spokesman for U.S. Wheat
 Associates, a federally supported cooperative that promotes  American wheat
 abroad.
 The group, which once cautioned farmers about growing biotech wheat, is working
 to get seed companies to restart development of genetically modified wheat and
 to get foreign buyers to accept it.
 Even in Europe, where opposition to what the Europeans call Frankenfoods has
 been fiercest, some prominent government officials and business executives are
 calling for faster approvals of imports of genetically modified crops. They are
 responding in part to complaints from livestock producers, who say they might
 suffer a critical shortage of feed if imports are not accelerated.
 In Britain, the National Beef Association, which represents cattle farmers,
 issued a statement this month  demanding that ''all resistance'' to such crops
 ''be abandoned immediately in response to  shifts in  world demand for food, the
 growing danger of global food shortages and the prospect of declining domestic
 animal production.''
 The chairman of the European Parliament's agriculture committee, Neil Parish,
 said that as prices rise, Europeans ''may be more realistic'' about genetically
 modified crops: ''Their hearts may be on the left, but their pockets are on the
 right.''
 With food riots in some  countries focusing attention on how the world will feed
 itself, biotechnology proponents see their chance. They argue that while genetic
 engineering might have been deemed unnecessary when food was abundant, it will
 be essential for helping the world cope with the demand for food and biofuels in
 the decades ahead.
 Through gene splicing, the modified crops now grown -- mainly canola, corn,
 cotton and soybeans -- typically contain bacterial genes that help the plants
 resist insects or tolerate a herbicide that can be sprayed to kill weeds while
 leaving the crop unscathed. Biotechnology companies are also working on crops
 that might need less water or fertilizer, which could have a bigger impact on
 improving yield.
 Certainly any new receptivity to genetically modified crops would be a boon to
 American exporters. The United States accounted for half the world's acreage of
 biotech crops last year.
 But substantial amounts of corn, soy or canola are  grown in Argentina, Brazil
 and Canada.  China has developed insect-resistant rice that is awaiting
 regulatory approval in that country.
 The pressure to re-evaluate  biotech comes as prices of some staples like rice
 and wheat have doubled in the last few months, provoking violent protests in
 several countries including Cameroon, Egypt, Haiti and Thailand. Factors behind
 the price spikes include the diversion of crops to make biofuel, rising energy
 prices, growing prosperity in India and China, and droughts in some regions --
 including Australia, a major grain producer.
 Biotechnology still certainly faces obstacles. Polls in Europe do not yet show a
 decisive shift in consumer sentiment, and the industry has had some recent
 setbacks. Since the beginning of the year France has banned the planting of
 genetically modified corn while Germany has enacted a law allowing for foods to
 be labeled as ''G.M. free.''
 And a new international assessment of the future of agriculture, released last
 Tuesday, gave such tepid support to the role genetic engineering could play in
 easing hunger that biotechnology industry representatives withdrew from the
 project in protest. The report was a collaboration of more than 60 governments,
 with participation from companies and nonprofit groups, under the auspices of
 the World Bank and the United Nations.
 Hans R. Herren, co-chairman of the project, said providing more fertilizer to
 Africa would improve output much more than genetic engineering could. ''What
 farmers really are struggling with are water issues, soil fertility issues and
 market access for their products,'' he said.
 Opponents of biotechnology say they see not so much an opportunity  as
 opportunism by its proponents to exploit the food crisis. ''Where politicians
 and technocrats have always wanted to push G.M.O.'s, they are jumping on this
 bandwagon and using this as an excuse,'' said Helen Holder, who coordinates the
 campaign against biotech foods for Friends of the Earth Europe.  G.M.O. refers
 to genetically modified organism.
 Even Michael Mack, the chief executive of the Swiss company Syngenta, an
 agricultural chemical and biotechnology giant, cautioned that the industry
 should not use the current crisis to push its agenda.
 Whatever importance biotechnology can play in the long run, food shortages are
 making it harder for some  buyers to avoid engineered crops.
 The main reason some Japanese and South Korean makers of corn starch and corn
 sweeteners are buying biotech corn is that they have dwindling alternatives.
 Their main supplier is the United States, where  75 percent of corn grown last
 year was genetically modified, up from 40 percent in 2003.
 ''We cannot get hold of non-G.M. corn nowadays,'' said Yoon Chang-gyu, director
 of the Korean Corn Processing Industry Association.
 But the tightening global supply has  made it harder to get nonengineered corn
 from elsewhere. And as corn prices soar, millers and food companies are less
 able to pay the surcharge to keep  nonengineered corn separate from biotech
 varieties. The surcharge itself has been rising.
 Mr. Yoon said non-engineered corn cost Korean millers about $450 a metric ton,
 up from $143 in 2006. Genetically engineered corn costs about $350 a ton.
 In Europe, livestock producers say that regulations on genetically modified
 crops could choke feed supplies at a time when they are already reeling from
 higher prices. Even after a new genetically engineered variety is approved for
 growing in the United States, it might take several years for Europe to approve
 it for import.
 Moreover, European rules require an entire shipment of grain to be turned back
 if it contains even a trace of an unapproved variety. Such a problem last year
 disrupted exports of corn gluten, a feed product, from the United States to
 Europe.
 Feed makers and livestock producers want faster approvals and a relaxation of
 the rules to allow for trace amounts of unapproved varieties in shipments.
 Even in the United States, where genetically engineered food has been generally
 accepted, the wheat industry has had to rethink its reluctance to accept biotech
 varieties.
 Because about half of America's wheat crop is exported, farmers and processors
 feared foreign buyers would reject their products.  Facing resistance from
 American farmers, Monsanto in 2004 suspended development of what would have been
 the first genetically modified wheat.
 But some  farmers and millers now say that the lack of genetically engineered
 wheat has made growing the grain less attractive than growing corn or soybeans.
 That has, in turn, contributed to shrinking supplies and rising prices for
 wheat.
 Milling & Baking News, an influential trade newspaper in Kansas City, Mo., said
 in an editorial that companies that used wheat were now paying the price for
 their own ''hesitancy, if not outright opposition'' to biotechnology.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: April 21, 2008
 GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: A soybean harvest in Campo Verde, Brazil. Genetically modified
 crops typically contain genes that help plants resist insects.(PHOTOGRAPH BY
 PAULO FRIDMAN/BLOOMBERG NEWS)(pg. A11)
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 546
 
                      The Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin)
                             April 16, 2008 Wednesday
 BYLINE: Jim Goodman
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; GUEST COLUMN; Pg. A7
 LENGTH: 565 words
 As a child I was told to clean my plate because there were people starving in
 China. It seemed silly. How would getting sick help hungry Chinese? That was in
 the 1950s, the heart of the green revolution.
 After college I was ready to farm as one of the green revolutionaries. I was
 ready to feed the world. Now, 40 years later, I admit I was wrong - high-tech
 agriculture wasn't the answer.
 In 1974 Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said that by 1980 "not a single child
 should go to bed hungry."
 When the U.N. General Assembly opened the Second United Nations Development
 Decade in 1980, it set 2000 as the new deadline for eliminating hunger.
 In 2000 the U.N. set 2015 as the target date for completion of the U.N.
 Millennium Development Goals - eight goals that respond to the world's main
 challenges. The first of these is, you guessed it, ending extreme poverty and
 hunger.
 In 2006 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimated 854
 million people or 12.6 percent of the world's population was undernourished.
 An abundance of food is something we take for granted, but we have money.
 Collectively as a nation, food has always been there, and we could buy whatever
 we wanted. What if that changed? What if food became really scarce and really
 expensive? Could it happen? It has already started.
 * Total world stocks of all grains are close to their lowest level in 30 years.
 * USDA predicts wheat surpluses to be the smallest in 60 years.
 * A virulent strain of wheat rust that can reduce yields to zero is spreading
 worldwide.
 * Wheat prices have risen well over 50 percent from a year ago.
 * The FAO cites 37 countries as facing a food crisis due to rising prices.
 Food price is dependent on the price and availability of grain. Since 1960 the
 world grain harvest has tripled, and the world population has doubled. So why
 isn't there more grain available at a lower price? Why have the prices jumped?
 I can see what's gone wrong from my front door. Beyond my wheat, pasture and
 hayfields, I see two crops, genetically engineered corn and soy - two of the
 most widely grown crops in the world. Government subsidies encourage planting
 more corn and soy while companies like Monsanto deliver their package of GE seed
 and herbicides. Government works in partnership with industry to establish an
 agricultural system that places more value on commodity crops than food crops.
 It's the neo-green revolution.
 Too many acres growing corn and soy for animal feed and agrofuels, too few
 growing wheat, rice, millet and vegetables for people. With grain stocks low,
 record food prices and more people slipping into poverty daily, droughts, floods
 or water shortages could trigger faster and more devastating shifts in world
 food supplies. We could, in the near future, experience food shortages and
 increased hunger in this country as well.
 Jacques Diouf, head of the FAO, has admitted that the best way to feed poor
 countries is to let them grow their own food locally - food sovereignty.
 International agencies and governments need to allow people to feed themselves
 by using farming practices and crops they have passed on through the
 generations.
 We need to prioritize grain for people, not for cattle or cars. Unless we act,
 we will face food shortages, and our daily bread will not come cheaply.
 Jim Goodman is a farmer in Wonewoc and a policy fellow for the Food and Society
 Fellows Program.
 LOAD-DATE: April 17, 2008
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Column
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                     Copyright 2008 Madison Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 547
 
                          Portland Press Herald (Maine)
                              April 13, 2008 Sunday
                                  Final Edition
 In Montville, unengineered seeds of rebellion;
 The small town has kicked up a controversy by banning the cultivation of
 genetically modified crops.
 BYLINE: TUX TURKEL Staff Writer
 SECTION: FRONT; Pg. A1
 LENGTH: 1552 words
 Yellow bumper stickers here proclaim: ''Montville Maine: The way life is.''
 It's a twist on the state's former tourism slogan: ''Maine. The way life should
 be.''
 Like its inspiration, the Montville moniker, which also appears on the home page
 of the town's Web site, is existential and open to interpretation. But it
 clearly shows a streak of independent thinking.
 Two weeks ago, that tendency drew some worldwide attention to Montville. At
 their annual town meeting, voters passed a binding ordinance banning the
 cultivation of genetically engineered crops. Supporters say Montville is the
 first American community outside California to do this.
 The Maine Legislature also weighed in on the issue last week. After more than a
 year of debate, lawmakers approved a compromise that, among other things, offers
 some legal protection to organic growers who unintentionally are exposed to
 genetically engineered seeds.
 But it's hard to find middle ground in the Montville ban, and that's causing
 controversy. A Maine group that represents large biotechnology companies says
 the ban could chill research and development efforts and hurt the state's
 economy. Meanwhile, the Maine Department of Agriculture is asking the attorney
 general for an opinion on whether Montville's ordinance violates the state's
 right-to-farm rules, or is even legal.
 Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, refers to plants, animals or
 microorganisms that are transformed by genetic engineering. In crops, changes to
 a plant's molecular biology can make it more resistant to drought or disease,
 for instance.
 But opponents of genetic engineering say the technology is so new that the
 changes might have unintended, harmful consequences to people, animals and
 plants. In Europe, public concern over the safety of modified organisms has led
 to tight restrictions on imports and to consumer-labeling laws. Late last month,
 a French court upheld a controversial ban on a variety of pest-resistent corn
 produced by Monsanto, the large American seed company.
 The global controversy over genetically modified products in the food supply
 rarely makes headlines in Maine. The votes in Montville and Augusta may bring
 the issue closer to home.
 Behind the controversy are competing visions of agriculture, food safety,
 corporate power and, at the core, progress. They represent differing views of
 life in Maine - how it is, how it should be.
 Life, to take license with a slogan, is in the eye of the beholder in Montville.
 The town of 1,000 residents has no school, no store, not even a post office.
 Montville's a blur in the rear-view mirror for traffic sailing across Route 3
 and the rolling hills between Augusta and Belfast.
 Turn north on Route 220, however, and bump along muddy side roads. Pass front
 yards where melting snow has uncovered the junk cars, rusting appliances and
 other signs of rural poverty. In time, an outpost of another era appears in the
 hardwood forest: plastic hoop greenhouses and a hand-built log home.
 Thirty-eight years ago, Claudette Nadeau and Mike Beaudry followed their
 back-to-the-land instincts with $2,000 and an 8-month-old baby. Beaudry, a
 timber framer, soon created a cozy house that he has since expanded. Nadeau
 pursued her passion for plants, a venture that thrives today.
 For 19 years, Nadeau's Roots-n-Shoots Greenhouses has been selling an expanding
 mix of organically grown, open-pollinated seedlings, varieties that sprout true
 to seed. That means this season's tomato seeds will produce seedlings next year
 that are exactly like the parent plant.
 Many organic gardeners value these plant varieties. They save exotic seeds to
 create heirloom plants, cultivars that can be handed down for generations. For
 Nadeau, any threat from engineered seeds that could cross-pollinate with her
 heirloom varieties and change their genetic makeup is a big concern.
 But Nadeau's interests go way beyond business.
 In 2006, Nadeau and friends in the local organic growers co-op gathered to watch
 a documentary, ''The Future of Food.'' The movie bills itself as an
 investigation into the claim that multinational corporations have quietly been
 filling supermarket shelves over the past decade with patented, unlabeled,
 genetically engineered food, part of a bid to control the world's seed and food
 supply.
 The movie reinforced Nadeau's distrust for corporations and big government. It
 reminded her of past reassurances that chemical compounds, such as DDT and PCBs,
 were safe for humans and the environment.
 Also watching the film was Kai George. An organic gardener who sells flowers and
 vegetables, George and her architect husband moved to town 35 years ago. They
 live on 63 wooded acres in a handsome, barn-inspired home.
 ''We came here wanting to have a healthy, rural environment for our kids, and it
 was the best thing we did,'' George said.
 That health concern, George said, extends to the unknown, long-term effects of
 genetically modified food. Since the ordinance passed, she has received e-mails
 from as far away as Germany and South Africa wanting more information.
 It's an unusual twist. The United States grows more genetically modified food
 than any country, but awareness and debate here is muted.
 In Maine, opponents of genetically modified organisms have been organizing on
 the local level. A few towns - neighboring Liberty, and Lincoln and Brooklin -
 have passed nonbinding resolutions in recent years to be ''GMO-free zones.''
 These votes trouble Doug Johnson, executive director of the Maine Biotechnology
 Information Bureau. The bureau is set up to ''promote informed discourse on
 biotechnology issues'' affecting Maine. It's supported in part by corporations,
 including Monsanto and DuPont.
 Early last week, Johnson sent a press release saying Montville's ordinance could
 hurt the state's economy. The ban, in his view, also restricts other forms of
 genetic research and development. If The Jackson Laboratory were located in
 Montville, he said, it would have to close.
 That opinion is open to dispute. The real impact of the ban in Montville might
 be more symbolic than practical.
 The ordinance gives growers of genetically modified crops two years to phase
 them out. But the town has fewer than 10 commercial farms, according to the town
 clerk. And only one farmer has been growing genetically-engineered crops, George
 said, on leased land.
 In a subsequent Internet blog, Johnson touched on a more-relevant theme: the
 split between commercial, commodity agriculture, such as Aroostook County's
 potato industry; and sustainable, organic enterprises, like those practiced by
 small growers in Waldo County.
 ''This isn't a fight over what may or may not be grown in Montville,'' he wrote.
 ''It's a battle over the public's acceptance of science in shaping the future of
 agriculture.''
 Commodity growers see benefits from genetically-engineered crops that can resist
 insects or tolerate herbicide sprays. Over the past decade, for example, Maine
 farmers have used these varieties to grow soy and canola. This year, they have
 approval to plant field corn that is toxic to borers and other pests.
 But Kai George and other organic growers oppose this trend.
 Maine isn't Iowa, they say. Rather than compete with farm states in commodity
 crops that are dependent on genetic modification, why not capitalize on consumer
 demand and premium prices for organically-raised produce and animals? Rather
 than hurting the economy, George said, sustainable agriculture could generate
 new revenue.
 Balancing these viewpoints has become delicate business at the Maine Department
 of Agriculture. But Ned Porter, the agency's deputy commissioner, said a law
 just passed in the Legislature attempts to do that.
 The law directs the state to establish management practices that are specific to
 genetically-engineered crops. It also shields organic farmers from lawsuits by
 corporate seed makers for patent violations linked to the unintended presence of
 engineered plant material on their land.
 ''We're a big state with a lot of different markets,'' Porter said. ''Farmers
 should be able to choose what they want to do. We ought to be able to
 accommodate all that.''
 But Montville's ordinance, Porter said, goes in the opposition direction.
 Farmers who plant genetically-engineered crops could get into a tussle with
 neighbors, he said, if other towns enact similar rules. That's why he's seeking
 a legal opinion on Montville's ordinance.
 Prior to last month's vote, Kai George and ordinance supporters showed ''The
 Future of Food'' at the Montville Community Hall. Charles Fletcher came to watch
 the movie.
 An organic gardener, Fletcher dreamed up, ''Montville Maine: The way life is.''
 It was a joke, he said, but the sarcasm seems to resonate with many people in
 town.
 Fletcher joined more than 100 people who came to the town meeting. The ordinance
 vote was a show of hands. Fletcher joined the majority.
 Natives and folks from away generally coexist in Montville, Fletcher said. In
 passing the ordinance, though, tiny Montville has drawn a line in the soil.
 ''Things that belong to everybody seem to have been taken away by a few people
 in power,'' Fletcher said. ''And we can't have that.''
 Staff writer Tux Turkel can be contacted at 791-6462 or
 tturkel@pressherald.com
 LOAD-DATE: April 15, 2008
 GRAPHIC: Photos by John Patriquin/Staff Photographer
 Montville organic farmer Claudette Nadeau worries that her plants, like these
 oregano seedlings, could be cross-pollinated by genetically engineered crops.
 Kai George, an organic gardener, moved to Montville with her husband 35 years
 ago. ''We came here wanting to have a healthy, rural environment for our kids,
 and it was the best thing we did,'' she said.
 Staff photos by John Patriquin/Staff Photographer
 Farmer Claudette Nadeau runs an organic business, Roots-n-Shoots Greenhouses, at
 her farm in Montville. She and a group of local organic growers are concerned
 that corporations will use genetic engineering to control agriculture.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2008 Blethen Maine Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 548
 
                         The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon)
                             April 10, 2008 Thursday
                                 Sunrise Edition
 Condos to cluck over: 'Ecovillage' in works
 BYLINE: David Rosenfeld, Special to The Oregonian
 SECTION: Metro Portland Neighbors: In Portland; Pg. 17
 LENGTH: 560 words
 It won't be your average Northeast Portland condo. Part of your dues will help
 buy chicken feed. After all, you'll be on a farm.
 Columbia Ecovillage, taking shape in the Cully neighborhood at about 47th and
 Killingsworth, will be part of the Portland Permaculture Institute, a 4-year-old
 organic oasis founded by Joe and Pam Leitch that offers classes on sustainable
 living.
 The Leitches and business partner Rick Gustafson paid $1.5 million in November
 for an adjacent apartment complex. They'll convert the units to 37 condos, plus
 remodel for energy conservation.
 "Normally in your Pearl District condo, your general common element might be the
 weight room," says Pam Leitch, 52. "But in this instance, there's no weight
 room. There's a farm."
 Joe Leitch, 56, eyes the grounds around The Columbian apartments with
 anticipation. Where others see rooftops, Leitch sees rain collectors. Where
 there is grass, he sees garden beds.
 "It's like a blank canvas," he says.
 The institute will grow from 1.6 acres to 3.75 acres, including buildings. The
 Leitches will convert their 1912 farmhouse into a common building and move into
 one of the condos. The units, studios to three bedrooms, will run $145,500 to
 Details about how the community will function, such as how many work-hours will
 be required, are undecided. Prospective members --16 have signed on so far
 --meet monthly to prepare. Reservations will be taken starting in May, and
 move-in is scheduled for November.
 Residents will have a stake in cultivating their own food on the farm, and
 they'll share some meals in the main house. But don't call it a commune. Pam
 Leitch says communes typically entail a shared primary income. This village will
 be a co-housing community similar to Portland's Peninsula Park Commons and
 Cascadia Commons.
 Above all, the Leitches want to recapture the values and freedoms they remember
 from childhood when people knew their neighbors and parents let their kids out
 at night.
 "That's all gone now," Pam Leitch says. "So we'll just try and re-create some of
 that safety and connection to your neighbors."
 Lisa Weasel is among those considering buying a condo. "The family-friendly
 nature of it is what's really appealing to me," says Weasel, a biology professor
 at Portland State University, author of the forthcoming book "Food Fray," about
 genetically modified food, and the mother of a 5-year-old. "For my daughter, I'm
 interested in living in a community with other children and where she can have
 other adults as role models."
 Weasel also likes the idea of sharing as a way to conserve resources. "Things
 like lawn mowers that are easy to share don't have to be duplicated."
 The expansion is happening much sooner than the Leitches figured. Owner Abel
 Kamasz, knowing they were interested, offered it to them without putting it on
 the market because he likes what they're doing. Current residents were given six
 months' notice.
 Joe Leitch hopes the village eases parenting stress; his and Pam's four children
 are grown. "I would like to see people eating meals together regularly, singing
 songs, celebrating birthdays and marking deaths."
 Pam Leitch says the village is part of taking care of the environment. "What can
 we do," she says, "to change our lifestyle that will be more in line with
 reality?"
 Portland News: 503-221-8199; portland@news.oregonian.com
 Illustration: map
 LOAD-DATE: April 14, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                           Copyright 2008 The Oregonian
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 549
 
                                 The Denver Post
                             April 9, 2008 Wednesday
 Gluten-free baking event leavened with hope, humor
 BYLINE: Susan Clotfelter The Denver Post
 SECTION: Pg. E-05
 LENGTH: 557 words
 Gluten avoiders saw the future last weekend, and its name was modified starch.
 "Oh my God, are you a saint?"
 "Are you married?"
 Those were the audience reactions when baker Chadwick White passed around
 samples of his pillowy-soft raised knot rolls Saturday during his presentation
 at the first Gluten-Free Baking Invitational.
 The two-day event at Johnson & Wales University featured baking contests for
 culinary students and pros, demonstrations from such experts as Deanna Scimio,
 pastry chef at Fruition, and gluten-free meals and samples from Bob's Red Mill
 and other ingredient vendors.
 Gluten is the protein component that gives most baked goods a structure to
 support their rise - and which provokes a digestive autoimmune reaction in
 approximately one in 133 people. That reaction can range from no symptoms at all
 to a gamut of digestive and skin reactions that can be severe enough to
 eventually require hospitalization.
 The only treatment is removing gluten from the diet so that the digestive tract
 can heal - and keeping it out for life. The disorder is called celiac disease.
 Those who don't test positive for the disease, but still find they do better
 without ingesting gluten, usually refer to themselves as gluten-intolerant.
 And avoiding gluten usually means giving up the kind of bread White was passing
 around with his talk. He achieved that result with the help of a blend of two
 modified starches - one a modified potato, the other a modified tapioca - that
 aren't yet available to the public. But the breads he's developing will be
 available through Udi's Gluten-Free, a brand that King Soopers and City Markets
 are set to carry.
 Carol Fenster, Ph.D. and author of "Gluten-Free Quick and Easy," held up an
 example of the bricklike, rice-flour-based breads that were all a celiac could
 hope for 20 years ago. "And we thought ourselves lucky to get it," she said.
 With the help of the (unfortunately named) Expandex, another new modified
 tapioca starch, she was able to show off a beautiful raised, flax-flecked yeast
 bread that looked like its gluten-supported cousins. Some of the recipes in her
 forthcoming cookbook will use Expandex, although the audience remained somewhat
 skeptical of the complicated chemistry involved in modified starches.
 It doesn't help that modified food starch - sometimes derived from wheat - is an
 ingredient many celiacs had to learn the hard way to avoid. The additive gives
 baked goods additional lift, moisture and shelf stability; the tapioca and
 potato versions perform the same way.
 Modified starches aside, the event put on by GF Culinary Productions, Inc.
 showed celiacs and others the wide range of what was possible without gluten.
 Leslie Ratica of Blue Moon Cake Design in Boulder competed with a Poire Williams
 Napoleon with lavender pastry cream, garnished with triangles of brie rind, that
 blew the judges away.
 Presenter Keith Theodore, sous chef for Charles Court restaurant at the
 Broadmoor in Colorado Springs, created a quinoa crepe that he topped with duck
 cracklings in a chokecherry-accented veal demi-glace.
 And winning students Kate Martin and Eric Bushman pleased attendees with a pia
 colada crunch cookie and a chipotle brownie. Bushman's brownie with a kick will
 be featured occasionally at Deby's Gluten-Free in Denver.
 Susan Clotfelter: 303-954-1440
 or sclotfelter@denverpost.com
 SYSTEM DISORDERS (70%); NON FICTION LITERATURE (63%) food
 LOAD-DATE: April 9, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2008 The Denver Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 550
 
                           Tri-City Herald (Washington)
                               April 6, 2008 Sunday
 Letters to the editor 4-6-08
 BYLINE: Compiled by Herald staff
 SECTION: LETTERS; Pg. F2
 LENGTH: 999 words
 Beneficial radiation
 In supplement to Jim Boak's comments (Letters, March 27) about the effects of
 radiation exposure on cancer frequency, there are scores of technical documents
 that conclude that radiation exposure above the normal 300 millirem annual
 background radiation dose reduces the frequency of cancer. The study of the
 Hanford workers concluded that radiation workers had a cancer fatality rate of
 about 85 percent of the rate for the workers that were not irradiated.
 The 1973 Frigario study of the white population of the lower 48 states concluded
 that the cancer frequency of the Rocky Mountain states with annual radiation
 exposures up to 250 millirem was about 15 percent lower than the national
 frequency.
 It is ridiculous that the EPA regulations cause much trauma and unnecessary
 billions of dollars for preventative activities to protect us from beneficial
 radiation. At least the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is realistic in ruling
 that the maximum permissible annual radiation dose for nuclear workers is 5,000
 millirems.
 Pasco
 President: For Obama
 I noticed something strange yet wonderful about a political campaign sign I saw
 in Texas. The message "HOPE" was printed in much bigger print than the name. I
 have never seen that before in my life, a candidate that takes second billing to
 their message.
 That is one small, but not unimportant, reason why I will be voting for Barack
 Obama.
 With "HOPE" for a better tomorrow.
 Kennewick
 Guns and global climate
 One man, probably Anthony Kennedy, will decide what this nation's founders meant
 when they composed the incoherent verbiage of the Second Amendment about 220
 years ago.
 It's unfortunate that the Sunni and Shia factions of modern-day America won't
 just get rid of this gibberish and then agree on consensus federal and state
 statutes that express the real needs and preferences of 21st century America.
 The pendulum will swing back and forth until and unless we leave the 18th
 century behind us.
 On another subject, it looks like we're supposed to accept that we global
 warming skeptics are just a bunch of right-wing ideologues while the believers
 are all climate experts, free of any ideological prejudices and offering CO2
 reduction as the only rational path to salvation.
 Well, there are about 5 billion people on this planet who aspire to the American
 standard of living, and they aren't about to take their cues from American
 tree-huggers. The phrase "nuclear power" sticks in the throats of these
 so-called "non-ideologues" and until I hear more support for nuclear power, food
 irradiation and genetically modified foods, and more opposition to organically
 grown foods and Evian water, I'll have my own opinion about who the real
 ideologues are.
 Richland
 8th District: Moser
 I was so glad to read that Carol Moser is going to run for the Legislature. The
 people of the 8th District could not find a more caring person, and one who has
 such an extensive public service background. She has already shown her great
 work ethic as a member of the Richland City Council.
 We need her now more than ever to make sure that our district has a voice in
 Olympia.
 Richland
 Save our ridges
 OK, so there's a lot of towns that have ridges in and around them but in most of
 these towns, these ridges were developed long ago. Most look very different now.
 Our area is different. Somehow the ridges near the Tri-Cities have made it all
 the way into the 21st century and escaped development. For years and years,
 humans who lived in this area have looked upward and seen this familiar view in
 our sky. Do we really want to change it after all this time?
 Some of us want to develop them. Others want them left alone and preserved.
 Can't we compromise? Can't we leave the ridge lines untouched and build houses
 at lower elevations?
 There's been a lot of land bulldozed and built over in the few years I've lived
 in the Tri-Cities. Our native plants and animals are being pushed out. They need
 some space. Let's leave these ridgetops the way the Kennewick Man saw them. Come
 on Tri-Cities, wake up and smell the sagebrush before it's too late.
 West Richland
 More local TV news
 This e-mail is in response to Paul Gravelle's letter March 25 about local
 television news.
 I am with him. I am so tired of hearing about Yakima and the Valley on the news,
 I hardly watch the news anymore.
 What happen to the local news of the Tri-Cities? We have four, counting Fox,
 local channels, and we have to listen about Yakima and the Valley all the time.
 Very little is said about the Tri-Cities, and nothing is ever said about Finley
 and Burbank. We have more ties with those communities than up in the valley.
 There is more than enough news and information going on locally. Leave the
 Yakima Valley up there where it belongs. Come on channels, get with it.
 Kennewick
 Sowell piece hogwash
 Reading Thomas Sowell's March 24 column, "Obama needs to show us more than
 words," reminded me of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
 I heard the news of King's murder while preparing for a performance of Shaw's
 St. Joan, a play about politics, religion and martyrdom. Upon hearing the news,
 one of my fellow cast members shouted out, "Good! He deserved to die!"
 Just as this cast member was reflecting a savage reaction to the progress of
 civil rights that Dr. King was producing in our country in 1968, Sowell is
 reacting to another attempt to face our historic race mistakes by comparing
 Barack Obama to the Soviet kangaroo courts of the 1930s. Sowell's comparison is
 too great a stretch. It is intended to create a guilt by association that
 doesn't exist: Obama equals Soviet oppression. He is a better columnist than
 that. He should apologize for this poor choice of comparison.
 Obama is challenging all of us - white, black, brown, pink and purple - to face
 our racial attitudes; Sowell is saying that anyone who does so is a traitor to
 America.
 Hogwash. And Sowell knows it.
 Richland
 LOAD-DATE: April 18, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2008 Tri-City Herald
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 551
 
                                 University Wire
                             April 2, 2008 Wednesday
 N.C. State researchers targeting carcinogens
 BYLINE: By Maggie Luckadoo, Technician; SOURCE: N.C. State
 LENGTH: 396 words
 It began with soybeans.
 Before Ralph Dewey, Ramsey Lewis and one of Dewey's former students employed at
 the University of Kentucky began their studies on tobacco plants, which would
 lead to a reduction in the presence of harmful carcinogens known as
 tobacco-specific nitrosamines, or TSNAs, they first used the beans to mediate
 herbicide tolerance.
 That was seven years ago, and tobacco company Phillip Morris took notice,
 offering to sponsor the project.
 Dewey, a professor of crop science, said it will take several more years to
 implement the research in a widespread manner.
 But it doesn't mean they haven't made progress.
 According to Dewey, the rationale of the project -- which impacts smokeless
 products such as chewing tobacco -- was that by reducing the precursor to
 N-Nitrosonornicotine, or NNN, which is one of the aforementioned TSNAs, NNN
 itself could be reduced in the plants.
 At first, the team used genetic modification to produce these results in the
 plants. But due to FDA regulations, intellectual property issues and a lack of
 acceptance of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, in parts of the world,
 Dewey said they are working toward achieving the same results through standard
 plant breeding.
 Field trials of the plants were conducted in North Carolina, Virginia and
 Kentucky. Using various locations prevented environmental factors from
 determining the outcome of the experiment.
 "In this study, we showed we could get an 80 percent reduction in NNN [in the
 tobacco plants]," he said. "There was a 50 percent reduction in total TSNAs."
 And while the study showed the effectiveness of the project in smokeless tobacco
 and the potential impact it can have on agents linked to cancers in nasal and
 oral cavities, Dewey said it probably wouldn't have the same effects in
 cigarettes.
 According to Dewey, part of the reason for this is what's produced when a
 cigarette is smoked.
 He said when one burns a material, such as a cigarette, many resulting products
 weren't necessarily there to begin with.
 "We think this has the most potential in smokeless products as opposed to
 cigarettes," he said.
 Along with Dewey's former student at the University of Kentucky, he and Lewis
 will continue their research. Dewey said Lewis, a tobacco geneticist, is most
 involved with field trials, while he and his Kentucky counterpart conduct more
 lab work.
 (C) 2008 Technician via U-WIRE
 LOAD-DATE: April 2, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2008 Technician via U-Wire









Document Number: 552
 
                      The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC)
                              April 1, 2008 Tuesday
                               Correction Appended
                                  Final Edition
 BYLINE: Compiled by The Post and Courier
 SECTION: EDITORIAL/OPINION; Pg. A9
 LENGTH: 2715 words
 In the March 14 edition of The Post and Courier, a letter writer complains about
 the federal government eavesdropping on private citizens and wonders why the
 president and others don't uphold the Constitution and enforce the right to
 privacy we were guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment.
 I, too, have such reservations, but it seems that there aren't too many Islamic
 terrorists out there who subscribe to the U.S. Constitution and its adherence to
 the rule of law in this country.
 Which part of the Constitution justified and authorized the 9/11 attacks? I
 don't like having a camera pointed at me without my knowledge or permission, but
 these days most banks, major businesses and ATMs have such coverage - 24/7 - and
 no one seems to have been upset for the past several years. Not to mention that
 the federal government began such surveillance back in the 1960s, when Robert
 Kennedy kept wiretap surveillance on Martin Luther King Jr. There were no
 complaints back then as I recall.
 As far as the writer's question in closing, "If the government decides to trash
 the Constitution in favor of protecting the American people, who is going to
 protect the people from the government?" The answer is simple: We, the people,
 are going to protect ourselves from the government since the founders thought of
 this issue over 230 years ago. It's called the Second Amendment and check out
 the Federalist Papers, No. 23 and No. 29 on the Internet at:
 foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers.com
 Robert T. Rogers
 Brookside Drive
 Hanahan
 Creationism is alive
 In a recent Post and Courier, there is an article about the Rev. Michael Heller,
 who is a Polish priest and a scientist, winning a $1.6 million prize from the
 Templeton Foundation.
 The fifth paragraph reads, "Heller in his statement criticized adherents of
 intelligent design, which holds that aspects of the universe and living beings
 are best explained by a higher power, as committing a 'grave theological error.'
 This is a paraphrase from Rev. Heller's statement when he accepted the award,
 and it sounds like a death knell to intelligent design and a boost for
 evolution.
 However, in the last sentence of the same paragraph, Rev. Heller says: "Within
 the all-comprising Mind of God, what we call chance and random events is well
 composed into the symphony of creation."
 Creationism is alive and well.
 The entire statement appears in http://www.templetonprize.org/bios.html.
 The full paragraph is reprinted below.
 "Adherents of the so-called intelligent design ideology commit a grave
 theological error. They claim that scientific theories, that ascribe the great
 role to chance and random events in the evolutionary processes, should be
 replaced, or supplemented, by theories acknowledging the thread of intelligent
 design in the universe. Such views are theologically erroneous. They implicitly
 revive the old manicheistic error postulating the existence of two forces acting
 against other: God and inert matter; in this case, chance and intelligent
 design. There is no opposition here. Within the all-comprising Mind of God what
 we call chance and random events is well composed into the symphony of
 creation."
 WILLIAM RICHER JR. Ph.D.
 Eades Lane
 Charleston
 Global warming?
 A March 11 letter promoting the threat of global warming to wildlife ignores the
 many inconvenient scientific facts, including: 1) "Greenhouse gases" are 95
 percent water vapor; 2) the total of all human activities (largely carbon
 dioxide) equals less than 3 percent of all greenhouse gases; 3) 400 prominent
 scientists (by name and country in a Senate committee report) in 2007 disputed
 man-made global warming claims; 4) over millennia, the earth has warmed and
 cooled without any human activity at all; 5) the winter of 2007-2008 was the
 coldest in a century, and worldwide annual temperatures dropped 0.6 of a degree.
 The letter is another example of a politically motivated scare theory with
 flawed arguments being used for political purposes by special interests.
 Using federal funds to reduce emissions by miniscule proportional amounts would
 not only have a hardly measurable result but would have a highly negative impact
 on a faltering economy. It is our choice, but a poor choice.
 Carroll Gantz
 Treeloft Trace
 Johns Island
 No housing bailouts
 I am becoming increasingly disturbed by proposals from Congress to bail out
 companies and people who made poor decisions in the recent housing mania.
 The real estate agents, mortgage brokers and lenders made plenty of money over
 the past several years, and many people saw huge increases in the value of their
 homes. Have them pay for this mess with a special windfalls profit tax rather
 than have ordinary taxpayers foot the bill.
 Or how about Congress being assessed a special tax to pay for this? By the time
 people with poor credit were buying houses with little or no money down,
 everyone knew this was a problem waiting to happen. Congress, though, did
 nothing about it when it could have. They were all too happy to look the other
 way while getting campaign donations from those making large profits.
 I am tired of this "heads I win, tails the taxpayers bail me out" mentality.
 Rewarding irresponsibility and punishing responsible behavior gets you more of
 the former and less of the latter, which hurts everyone in the long run.
 Greg Smith
 Gordon Street
 Charleston
 Helped by an angel
 I would like to share an experience I had recently. My car fan belt broke in
 front of an auto parts store at 8 p.m. The clerk said the mechanic had gone for
 the day. A man standing by me said he might be able to help.
 He pulled out his tool box, found the right tool and replaced my fan belt in
 just a few minutes.
 This man was my angel that night. His name is Don Truex from Boynton Beach, Fla.
 God bless him.
 Savage Road
 Charleston
 Draft best teachers
 What would happen if we got as excited about drafting outstanding teachers as we
 do college and professional athletes?
 I'm not anti-sports, and I have seen how young men and women benefit
 academically, socially and financially from being a college or professional
 draft recipient.
 Imagine opening the paper and finding this headline: "Friendly town school
 district drafts 20 outstanding education graduates." The article goes on to
 state, "They will receive a signing bonus and other incentives, and there will
 be a public signing ceremony at the board of education offices tomorrow evening
 at 7 p.m."
 Imagine another article stating: "The school district has acquired the
 employment of Mrs. Good Name as an outstanding educator, with more than 15-years
 experience as a public school science teacher."
 It continues, "There were several school districts throughout the state seeking
 her professional services. She has established a reputation as a child-centered
 teacher who has a proven track record in assisting each child in reaching
 his/her academic and social potential. Superintendent Good Lady and the school
 board will have a press conference tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. to formally
 celebrate her acquisition."
 Just as quality players help determine the won-lost record of college and
 professional teams, professional educators determine the status and
 effectiveness of our schools and our children's future.
 When we can get just as fired up about recruiting wars, signing bonuses and
 retention of professional educators as we do about athletes, the future of our
 children and grandchildren will be greatly enhanced, and our society will be on
 its way to rearranging its priorities.
 Let's continue to enjoy our athletes and their God-given talents, but let's also
 re-evaluate our priorities and assign the same status to the teaching
 profession. They do more than just win games, they change the world.
 Stonehenge Drive
 Hanahan
 Economic order
 Things are looking "curiouser and curiouser" through the looking glass as the
 failure of the establishment leads us into a re-establishment of an economic
 order.
 J. P. Morgan's efforts to stem the panic of 1907 are now echoed by his successor
 firm, but this time with public funds.
 Bear Sterns now "belongs to the ages" to support public confidence in a system
 of private investment being underwritten by the full faith and credit of the
 American public.
 Perhaps it is time to question whether there is any faith left, much less any
 credit left. As the Federal Reserve has drastically cut its overnight rate to
 regulated banks, it passed into the never-never land of lending to all financial
 houses against no other collateral.
 As investors fled from private equities into Treasury paper, they have declared
 no confidence in the system that "brung" them. That is their privilege, but it
 should be recognized that they have forgone the mantra of "free market" forces
 and hewed to public financing. They might want to hold that paper up to the
 mirror to see if it's not possibly worthless.
 Is it pertinent to ask why the public should be guaranteeing profit to investors
 buying the paper, which is ensuring continuation of the private investment
 system? Is it remotely possible that the re-establishment will have to emphasize
 the production of wealth, rather than its exchange, to work out this cramp in
 its flaccid muscles? Could dividends, rather than appreciation money earned
 through production and not made with borrowed speculation, become the orders of
 the day?
 As an old-timer might advise, "Hold what you got." Don't sell the system of
 private enterprise to the public treasury in the name of "free enterprise." It
 would be a wry commentary if in less than 100 years, we admit the prophecy of
 public ownership of the means of production in the very name of private
 enterprise. "Freedom is not free," and neither is the underwriting of fiduciary
 greed.
 God has blessed America. Now, it's our turn to do so.
 Eugene P. Corrigan Jr.
 High Hammock
 Seabrook Island
 Honor guard active
 Regarding the March 24 article concerning American Legion Post 179 titled "Land
 dispute divides W. Ashley Legionnaires":
 Contrary to the quote in the article that the post's "honor guard has become
 inactive," the post's honor guard is fortunately still very active with a small
 contingent of Legionnaires who remain dedicated to providing the dignified
 military honors that are so rightfully due our country's deceased veterans and
 their families whenever possible.
 We had the privilege of providing such services as recently as last week.
 Allan M. Crane
 Post 179
 Honor Guard member
 Oakdale Place
 Charleston
 Sand in marina
 What if one owned front beach property along with a slip at the marina on Isle
 of Palms?
 I sure am lucky not to.
 The marina is filled in with sand and the Intracoastal Waterway has enough sand
 shoals to cause safety concerns when we use it. The marina is grounding out at
 low tide because of the sand.
 Where did the original beach sand go? The bags went into the ICW, Goat Island
 and beyond to the marina. We collected a few. Does anyone have a plan to save
 the marina from more sand?
 The Isle of Palms' beach management plan completely disregards the shoaling of
 other valuable properties on or around the island's waterways, and inlets.
 David Blair
 Springbok Lane
 Wando
 Agree with Dems
 I agree wholeheartedly with Sen. Hillary Clinton when she insinuates that Sen.
 Barack Obama is not qualified or capable of running this country, and I agree
 wholeheartedly with Sen. Barack Obama when he insinuates that Sen. Hillary
 Clinton is not qualified or capable of running this country.
 So, for the first time that I can recall, I am in total agreement with the
 Democratic Party.
 Bobby J. Hosmer
 Windwood Land
 Moncks Corner
 Engineered crops
 The March 13 commentary by Hugh Weathers on S.C. agriculture prompts this
 letter.
 Of course, it's fiscally important to support state farming, but what I want to
 know and what I think the public has the right to know, is which farms are
 growing bio-engineered crops?
 My guess is that most of our citizens don't know what that means. I didn't,
 until recently.
 I thought genetically modified food meant putting together a cherry and a tomato
 and getting a cherry-tomato. I did not realize, until I saw the documentary
 titled "The Future of Foods," that there is an alarming new industry of
 injecting plant life in order to instantly kill the insects that eat them. The
 more I researched, the more I learned the amount of toxins going into the crops
 we eat is getting greater and greater.
 There are no laws in this country requiring the labeling of this food and no
 laws to protect us.
 In Europe, Australia, Japan and many other countries any GMP ingredients that
 enter those countries are required to be labeled.
 As the season for farmers' markets nears, it is important that the public is
 informed and can ask the questions of the farmers: Where do your seeds come
 from? Are they genetically modified seeds? Are they bio-engineered seeds?
 The demand for organic food is more important now than ever. It is important
 that the public is educated about which companies are selling this type of seed
 so we can make educated choices about what we plant in our gardens at home.
 Sheri Cohen
 Morrison Street
 Mount Pleasant
 Passing of wisdom
 What is it that shakes your foundation when someone who has influenced your life
 leaves this world? It comes close to losing a parent because it emphasizes the
 passing of an era and of a generation, and the loss of wisdom held and shared.
 In truth, part of your heart leaves with the person's passing, and you remain
 with deeply felt memories and sorrow.
 Henry Anderson passed away on March 2. While I was growing up, he treated me as
 his own daughter. He always had a smile and hug for me, and held my daughter
 when she was christened. I am only one tiny part of his generous smiling
 influence.
 I'll miss him and miss knowing that he's meeting my parents for lunch, just as I
 miss Mr. Ellison and Mrs. Ripley, Dr. Anderson and Dr. Scarborough, Mrs. Spann,
 the Doughertys, and the Smiths, Mr. Bamberg and the Hagertys, Mrs. Stevenson,
 the Rileys and the Balls. The list goes on and on. These are the many people who
 brought up my generation and those around me.
 We were all family and a community that shared hopes and dreams, sorrows and
 losses - friends who corrected their children and their children's friends, so
 as to teach them values, and they loved them as if all the children belonged to
 each one of them. I think Liz Young will live forever. Myrt Riggs will always be
 in a sports stand, and Jane Thornhill will take tours to her grave.
 We are all fortunate to have these many wisdom-keepers for so long that we take
 for granted their presence. They are our myth-makers - those whose personal
 stories weave examples of how we live and thrive in community. They move our
 culture forward and support us as we honor them. They show us how to raise the
 next generations so new myths will develop.
 Then they leave us quietly with a strong message: Care for those you love; love
 your family and friends; honor them always; and remember them in your hearts.
 Len Craver Young
 East Vaquero Drive
 Scottsdale, Ariz.
 Trees, marsh, Tibet
 Thanks to The Post and Courier for the several illuminating articles concerning
 the current and chronically ongoing violent injustices perpetrated on the people
 of Tibet by the Chinese government.
 This is the same government whose reluctance to consider environmental
 protections as an integral part of its manufacturing industry has resulted in
 large-scale degradation of its natural environment and indigenous population.
 In my mind, it has become inextricably linked to the impending degradation of
 our own local environment.
 The success of a Wal-Mart (superstore, or any other kind) is based largely on a
 consumer market greedy for cheaply-manufactured goods made primarily in China.
 The local environmental cost on James Island would be to the tune of 30
 irreplaceable oak trees and three acres of irreplaceable marsh.
 It's most-favored nation trade status, I guess.
 Whatever.
 I prefer the pluff mud and the Spanish moss to the plastic fantastic.
 Save the trees and marsh and free Tibet.
 Caroline Hutson
 Tradd Street
 Charleston
 Is it true?
 Is it true that President George Bush recently stated: "The economy is fine.
 With their paycheck, the average American can afford Mexican labor, Chinese
 products and Texas gasoline. What more could they want?"
 William G. Ethridge
 Ethridge Drive
 Bonneau
 LOAD-DATE: April 3, 2008
 CORRECTION-DATE: April 3, 2008
 CORRECTION:Privacy vs. freedom
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
               Copyright 2008 The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC)
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 553
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                              April 1, 2008 Tuesday
 Monsanto moves to greenhouses Latest purchase sells seeds for protected
 cultivation.
 BYLINE: By Rachel Melcer st. louis post-dispatch
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. D1
 LENGTH: 894 words
 Monsanto Co. on Monday announced an $860 million acquisition that takes its
 vegetable-seed business from open fields into the rarefied air of the
 greenhouse.
 The purchase also should bring innovation to supermarkets, as Monsanto applies
 its high-tech breeding methods to develop tastier, longer-lasting and better
 looking hothouse vegetables.
 The Dutch company it is buying, De Ruiter Seeds Group BV, sells high-priced and
 highly profitable seeds for protected cultivation - tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers
 and other produce that grow under glass, plastic or nets. It is one of the
 leading companies in a $600 million global market that boasts growth of between
 8 and 10 percent a year, Creve Coeur-based Monsanto said.
 De Ruiter fits like peas in a pod with Monsanto's Seminis unit, which sells
 seeds for about 25 types of vegetables that are grown in the ground. A greater
 amount of open-field seeds are used worldwide each year - about $2.4 billion
 worth - but sales in that market are growing more slowly at an annual rate of
 about 4 percent.
 Combined, these businesses should bring $1 billion in annual sales to Monsanto
 by 2012.
 "This really is a growth story," said Kerry Preete, who leads Monsanto's
 vegetable-seed operation.
 As the company became more familiar with that market, which it entered with the
 2005 acquisition of Seminis, Monsanto realized it needed a presence in
 greenhouse seeds. Building a unit from scratch would have taken five to seven
 years of costly research, product development and infrastructure construction,
 he said. So, the company went looking for an acquisition.
 De Ruiter "is a company that wasn't for sale," Preete said.
 But the family-owned firm warmed to Monsanto's promise of delivering high-tech
 breeding techniques to more quickly develop improved produce for store shelves,
 Preete said.
 Its new parent's financial resources also will accelerate De Ruiter's expansion
 into Asia and South America, the company's Chief Executive Biense Visser said in
 a statement.
 De Ruiter's "growth has been fantastic," he said. "However, the competition is
 very strong and the demands for investments are increasing every year."
 Monsanto, which last week boosted fiscal 2008 earnings projections for the
 second time this year, is doing well with sales of Roundup herbicide and
 genetically modified corn and soybeans. It said it expects 2008 free cash flow,
 a measure of liquidity, of $1.4 billion.
 It will use cash to buy De Ruiter for 546 million euros, or nearly $863 million
 using Monday's exchange rate. The purchase requires regulatory approvals, so the
 companies could not say when they expect it to close.
 Greenhouse growers and their customers - supermarkets - are hungry for new
 approaches in a highly competitive industry.
 "It definitely is a business where they are looking for innovation," Preete
 said.
 Consumers in the developed world demand the same variety and quality of
 vegetables and fruits in the off-season that they receive when summer crops are
 rolling in. And such tastes are spreading as booming economies in places like
 India and China improve people's buying power and dietary desires.
 Greenhouse production is the way to meet those demands, said Gary Hickman, a
 greenhouse vegetable consultant with the Intota Expert Network who retired as a
 horticulture adviser with the University of California-Davis after 25 years.
 "Generally, the quality is better. It costs more to produce in a greenhouse, but
 (vegetables and fruits) are all hand-harvested and handled real carefully, then
 put in nice little wrappers and packages," he said. "And ... people are willing
 to pay for that."
 That factor, coupled with the ability to produce many more vegetables per acre
 in a greenhouse than a field, translates into high profit margins throughout the
 supply chain - from supermarkets to growers and seed companies.
 "A lot of consumers of this kind of relatively expensive produce like the
 novelty of it. That's why they buy it in the first place," Hickman said.
 And innovative products, such as Seminis' single-serving seedless watermelons,
 catch consumers' attention along with their dollars.
 "High-quality produce (is) one of the top things that consumers always look for
 when selecting a supermarket," said Bill Greer, spokesman with the Arlington,
 Va.-based Food Marketing Institute, a supermarket trade group.
 In today's competitive grocery environment, supermarkets are asking "What can I
 do to get consumers in the door? How can I stand out and become their primary
 supermarket? And they're looking to do that with their perishables departments,"
 he said. "Anything that makes food more convenient to prepare, or to consume, is
 going to be very popular."
 Seminis Business: Provides seeds for open fi eld cultivation. 2007 sales: $606
 million Core crops: 25, including tomato, peppers, melon Market opportunity:
 Openfi eld seed sales exceed $2 billion with gross margins of 55-65 percent;
 annual growth rate of 4 percent. Employees: 3,000 Headquarters: Creve Coeur
 De Ruiter Business: Provides seeds for "protected culture" growth in greenhouses
 2007 sales: $144.7 million Core crops: fi ve, including tomato, cucumber, sweet
 peppers Market opportunity: Protected culture seed sales exceed $600 million
 with gross margins above 75 percent; annual growth rate of 8-10 percent.
 Employees: more than 900 Headquarters: Bergschenhoek, The Netherlands
 LOAD-DATE: April 1, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2008 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 554
 
                           Inside Bay Area (California)
                              March 31, 2008 Monday
 Fremont district bond oversight committee to meet
 LENGTH: 628 words
 The Fremont school district's bond oversight committee will meet from 7 to 9
 p.m. Wednesday in the district's board room, 4210 Technology Drive.
 Committee members will discuss general business, public outreach, and projects
 that have yet to be completed as part of the $157 million health-and-safety bond
 that voters approved in 2002.
 There also will be a review of the committee's bylaws and the presentation
 that's been developed to present to community groups regarding the bond.
 For information about the meeting or projects, call 510-498-2424 or visit
 http://www.fremont.k12.ca.us/hsbondinformation.htm .
 Three students qualify
 for state geography bee
 Three Tri-City students have qualified to compete in Friday's state geography
 bee in Sacramento.
 Sean Huang, a seventh-grader at Thornton Junior High, and Ray Hua Wu, an
 eighth-grader at Hopkins Junior High, are from Fremont. Nikhil Desai, an
 eighth-grader from Challenger School in Newark, also will compete.
 The bee is open to students in grades four through eight. Winners of the state
 competition will advance to the national bee, to be held in May in Washington,
 D.C., for a chance to win up to $25,000 in scholarships.
 Irvington to host class
 in preparedness
 The Irvington High School Parent Teacher Student Association will host a free
 personal emergency preparedness course, facilitated by members of the Fremont
 Fire Department, from 7 to 10 p.m. April 8 in the school's Norse Hall.
 The course teaches residents how to prepare for an emergency and how to take
 care of their families afterward.
 During the session, participants will learn about disaster awareness, hazardous
 materials and mitigation, the various types of fire extinguishers, smoke
 detector placement, emergency supplies, and the shutting off of gas, electricity
 and water.
 St. Joseph students seek
 funds for Atlanta trip
 A group of seventh- and eighth-graders at St. Joseph School in Fremont are
 seeking donations to fund a $15,000 trip to Atlanta for the robotics team world
 competition.
 Under the guidance of teacher Bob Wolff, the St. Joseph team won the Inspire
 Award during the regional competition in December, giving them an automatic
 berth to the international competition.
 Of the 32 teams at the regional competition, only two were composed of students
 in junior high; the rest featured high school students.
 St. Joseph team members are Sanders Aspelund, Angelique Do, Kyle Hogan, Greg
 Landowski, Ashley Lim, Dominic Rapp, Natasha Silva, Anne Wolff, Stefan Wooding
 and Andrew Zeppa. The students will leave for the trip April 15.
 To donate, call Wolff at 510-610-8488 or 510-656-6525. Checks should be made out
 to "St. Joseph School," but the memo line should say "SJS Robotics Team." The
 school is at 43222 Mission Blvd., Fremont 94539.
 Kennedy High students
 win world affairs kudos
 Three of the nine Kennedy High School students who competed in the March 15
 World Affairs Challenge at San Francisco State University earned placements in
 the academic event.
 More than 500 middle and high school students from Northern California were
 quizzed on their knowledge of world affairs.
 With this year's theme being global health, teams also discussed and proposed
 solutions to issues such as universal health care, child mortality and the side
 effects of genetically modified foods.
 Sophomore Shaona Bandyopadhyay and junior Assile Osman tied for third in the
 "best global awareness quiz score" category. Also, senior Katie Gedeon was a
 member of the third-place team in the "best collaborative question" category.
 HomeRoom is a Monday feature of The Argus. If you have school news, call Linh
 Tat at 510-353-7010, e-mail her at ltat@bayareanewsgroup.com or send a fax to
 510-353-7029. The mailing address of The Argus is 39737 Paseo Padre Parkway,
 Fremont CA 94538.
 LOAD-DATE: March 31, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
             Copyright 2008 MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 555
 
                             March 27, 2008 Thursday
 BYLINE: BILL VIRGIN P-I reporter
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. E2
 LENGTH: 525 words
 Just about every big story is a business story these days: oil prices, housing
 prices, the stock market's gyrations, the economy and prospects of a recession.
 Cable and satellite television viewers have multiple choices of channels
 specifically devoted to those topics: CNBC, the new Fox Business channel and
 Bloomberg TV.
 Scattered around the radio dial are shows devoted to the same topics, from
 nationally syndicated investment and personal-finance talk hosts such as Clark
 Howard, Bruce Williams, Bob Brinker and Ray Lucia to public radio's
 "Marketplace."
 But nationally, there are just 25 stations with business news as their primary
 format, according to M Street Publications, which tracks the radio industry.
 None of those are in Seattle.
 As recently as 2004, Seattle had a business station and, for a short time in the
 late 1990s, it had two. What was then KEZX-AM/1150 shifted to a soul/R&B format
 in 1998, the same year that KNWX-AM/770 went from all-news to a business format.
 Eventually the latter station's owner moved the call letters and format to 1210,
 then sold the station. It now has a Spanish-language music format.
 So why aren't there more business-talk stations?
 "It's so, so narrow of a niche," says Scott Sutherland, market manager for
 Bonneville International, whose local properties include KIRO- AM/710 and
 "It takes a special type of person to listen to that around the clock," adds Tom
 Cock, an educator with Seattle-based money management firm Merriman Berkman
 Next. Cock co-hosts "Sound Investing," heard at 10 a.m. Sunday on KVI-AM/570, as
 well as on stations in Wenatchee, Phoenix and Palm Springs, Calif.
 Cock once owned a Spokane radio station that had a business format and before
 that worked at KEZX when it, too, featured business and investment programming.
 "It had its moments in Seattle," says Cock, recalling the crowds that radio host
 Don McDonald would draw when he came to town.
 But "because it was such a narrow niche, people had trouble selling it," he
 adds. That led to selling blocks of time rather than spots, which in turn
 "watered down the quality" of the format.
 The Internet and its wealth of resources for tracking business and investing
 news have claimed many of the listeners who might otherwise tune in
 business/financial radio, Sutherland adds. News-talk stations like KIRO do carry
 business headlines.
 "The majority of people just want the general information," he says.
 Sports is a niche in the talk market, too, but the enthusiasm for teams and time
 spent tuned in more than makes up for that. "People listen forever," Sutherland
 says.
 In other radio notes:
 Don Riggs' guests on "Introspect Northwest" at 6 a.m. Sunday on KMPS-FM/94.1 and
 9 a.m. Sunday on KPTK- AM/1090 include Larry Sager, author of a memoir on cab
 driving, "No Guns, No Knives, No Personal Checks."
 Lizz Sommars' guests on "Conversations" at 6 a.m. Sunday on KISW-FM/99.9, KKWF-
 FM/100.7 and KMTT-FM/103.7 and 7 a.m. Sunday on KNDD-FM/107.7 include Jonathan
 Javitt, author of a thriller on genetically modified foods, "Capitol
 Reflections."
 P-I reporter Bill Virgin
 can be reached at 206-448-8319
 or billvirgin@seattlepi.com
 LOAD-DATE: March 28, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer









Document Number: 556
 
                            The Taos News (New Mexico)
                             March 27, 2008 Thursday
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. B-8
 LENGTH: 374 words
 "If there was an Olympics of growing foods, the F1 hybrid would be it," says
 organic food grower and seed farmer Daniel Carmona of Cerro Vista Farm. "For
 instance, all the incredible varieties of melons we have now are a result of
 people cross breeding and growing melons," he said. Most modern melons are
 products of people growing and hybridizing melons. We enjoy all sorts of
 variation in watermelons and cantaloup as a result of careful cross-bred
 practices by growers and hobbyists. Cross pollinating two different plants to
 create a desired mix of traits has been going on ever since the monk Gregor
 Mendel created the sweet pea. Whether your desire is to mix the colors of your
 two favorite roses or you're trying to grow the world's tastiest tomato, cross
 breeding is how it is done.
 Not genetic engineering
 "I don't support genetic engineering at all and people are often confused about
 the difference," Carmona added. An F1 hybrid is one thing, but tomato spiked
 with fish genes is something else. "Combining genes from widely different
 organisms, such as corn and cows, introduces elements of uncertainty and risk
 that we have never encountered before," biologist Jane Rissler, Ph.D., of the
 Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) told National Geographic's Green Guide
 www.thegreenguide. com. Nevertheless, by now you've probably eaten genetically
 modified foods unknowingly, because they're not labeled as such. Often, they're
 ingredients in processed foods. Since 1997, tests reveal that many foods we eat
 contained "transgenic" soy or corn. Some 60 percent of all processed foods
 contain soy or corn derivatives, such as soy protein, lecithin (soy), dextrose
 (corn), and soy or corn oil. In 1998, an estimated 38 percent of U.S. soybean
 acreage was planted with Roundup Ready soy, engineered to survive otherwise
 fatal doses of the herbicide Roundup. Thirty-two of the country's corn crop has
 been engineered to emit a toxin normally sprayed to control insects. With
 increasing toxins registering in foods and the commercial lure of genetic
 engineering, farmers like Carmona are setting the bar for locally grown healthy
 seeds and foods. For more information call Cerro Vista Farm at (575) 586-0877 or
 cell (575) 770- 1426.
 LOAD-DATE: June 6, 2010
 GRAPHIC: See pdf's for exact rendition, caption, graphics and photographer info.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                           Copyright 2008 The Taos News
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 557
 
                        The Virginian-Pilot(Norfolk, VA.)
                             March 27, 2008 Thursday
                                BEACON FR Edition
 Scientifically engineered food
 SECTION: Pg. 10
 LENGTH: 444 words
 By Rita Frankenberry
 The Virginian-Pilot
 Kids know they shouldn't play with their food. But try to tell that to these
 Three Oaks Elementary students.
 The youngsters configured cars out of three skewers, four wooden toothpicks, a
 rubber band and an assortment of fruits and vegetables.
 It was enough to make any parent proud - even if the kids didn't eat their
 veggies - and it was all in the name of science.
 The school held its first Lunchbox Derby, an event pitting teams of
 fourth-graders against one another , on March 20 .
 Using food was an interesting twist on teaching them about force, motion and
 energy, said gifted resource teacher Kendall Shuffler .
 "That's a difficult concept for fourth-graders to grasp - and they're really
 excited about this."
 Students spent several weeks working together, designing their food cruisers
 built for speed . First through third places were awarded to the teams whose
 cars traveled the greatest distance down an 8-foot ramp without falling apart .
 All vehicles had to have at least three wheels and a double axle.
 First-place winners Kyle Messapeso, Bradley Hilliard, Taryn Griffith, all 10,
 and Sara Bess, 9, watched as weeks of determination finally paid off.
 O n race day, as other teams assembled their cars, the quartet assembled three
 alternate speedsters, each with a unique design.
 One featured the long, sleek body of an English cucumber; another a carrot body
 with cucumber wheels. A third had a cucumber body with two big oranges for the
 back wheels and two smaller clementines for the front.
 After testing , the team went with the cucumber/orange/clementine combo .
 "We thought it would go down further," Sara said . "We thought the weight from
 the back would push it further."
 The youngsters' mastery of scientific concepts was evident in their edible
 vehicles: cars made from short, hefty pickles, big bright lemons and curved
 yellow bananas. Or racers with round, orange wheels and green cucumber wheels,
 both usually affixed to their axles with raisins, carrot tips or purple grape
 hubcaps.
 "I think she learned how to mechanically make it work," said Jeff Graves ,
 father of Taylor Graves, 10 .
 Bradley, one of the winners, took the assignment so seriously that he tested
 some of his team's designs at home. A few were weeded out or tweaked thanks to
 that extra step .
 Even Bradley's mother had an assignment from her son. The night before race day,
 he asked her to find the straightest cucumber she could at the supermarket .
 Apparently, it worked.
 The question remains: Did the winning vehicle find new life in a salad? Gives
 meaning to the phrase "chop shop."
 Rita Frankenberry, 222-5102 or
 rita.frankenberry@pilotonline.com
 LOAD-DATE: March 27, 2008
 GRAPHIC: Lunchbox Derby competitors Nick Akeman and Sebrina Gonzalez 4th graders
 at Three Oaks Elem. School in Virginia Beach. March 20, 2008. (David B.
 Hollingsworth / The Virginian-Pilot) Billie Rawls, 4th grade teacher at Three
 Oaks Elem. over sees the 1st leg of the Lunchbox Derby held at the school for
 the fourth graders. March 20, 2008. (David B. Hollingsworth/The Virginian-Pilot)
 Jackie Alwine a parent of a student at Three Oaks Elem. measurers what turn out
 to be the winning entry in the schools 1st Lunchbox Derby. The produced went
 12ft 8 inches and came from Team 13, Jennifer Heft's 4th grade class. March 20,
 2008. (David B. Hollingsworth / The Virginian-Pilot) Olivia Popp and William
 Cederquest get ready to launch their Lunchbox Derby entry, a pickle with
 cucumber wheels. The two are fourth-graders at Three Oaks Elementary.
 Fourth-grade students at Three Oaks Elementary look on as fellow fourth-graders
 race produce in the inaugural Lunchbox Derby. In charge of the starting flags
 and the school is Principal Lisa Hannah.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2008 Landmark Communications, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 558
 
                           Grand Rapid Press (Michigan)
                              March 25, 2008 Tuesday
 Genetically modified food not the same as cloned;
 Knowing difference can help you make better choices
 SECTION: YOUR LIFE; Pg. E3
 LENGTH: 430 words
 News reports of the FDA declaring cloned meat harmless reminded me of a
 taste-test reported a while ago by the Los Angeles Times. That test concluded
 cloned beef tastes just like regular beef.
 There is no reason whatever to imagine beef from a cloned steer would not taste
 just like beef from any other animal. But some people were so crazed by the very
 idea they refused to take part in the Times' taste test -- even when offered
 free steak.
 The Times suggested the negative reactions to the cloned meat arose from all the
 controversy and negative publicity about cloning, and some people's fear if we
 clone cows today, we no doubt will start cloning your brother-in-law tomorrow.
 But I wonder if some of the issue has to do with a confusion between genetically
 modified foods and cloned foods.
 A cloned steer is a regular, normal steer in every way you can tell. The thing
 that makes it "cloned" is it happens to have exactly the same DNA, meaning all
 the same genes, as another animal.
 From a genetic point of view, it is the other animal's identical twin. No one
 thought identical twin calves, if cooked, would taste any different from any
 other kind of veal.
 Genetically modified foods, by contrast, have had genes inserted into them that
 are not a natural part of the plant or animal. These could vary all across the
 board.
 The first examples we heard about were plants with an added gene that made them
 more resistant to some pest or longer-lasting on store shelves. There has been
 controversy about a genetically modified form of rice that basically is a
 factory to manufacture a drug.
 Whether the resulting food is safe depends on what gene was inserted, what
 products that gene makes and whether there is a danger this gene will spread to
 nearby plants.
 It often is not clear to scientists what the term "natural" means. But by most
 any standard, a cloned animal is much more "natural" than one that is
 genetically modified.
 Now, here's the funny thing -- 64 percent of Americans tell pollsters they are
 leery of animal cloning. Even though the FDA has declared cloned products
 totally safe, many localities are rushing to pass laws to demand cloned products
 be specially labeled.
 People in Europe feel much the same way about genetically modified foods, and
 many American crops have been banned from Europe because of genetic
 modifications. But we seem not to be very worried about eating genetically
 modified foods.
 I'd advise you to try to eat healthy foods and decide which foods you want to
 eat. But keep some basic facts in mind when you decide which foods you allow to
 scare you.
 (54%); MAMMALS (76%); ANIMALS (89%); FOOD SAFETY (78%) Column
 LOAD-DATE: March 26, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: grp
                        Copyright 2008 Grand Rapids Press
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 559
 
                      The Santa Fe New Mexican (New Mexico)
                             March 19, 2008 Wednesday
 SECTION: TASTE; Pg. D-3
 LENGTH: 541 words
 Gardening tips and a movie
 A 7 p.m. tonight, the Santa Fe Farmers' Market Institute screens the second film
 in its five-month Wednesday-night movie series.
 The Future of Food, by Deborah Koons Garcia, examines issues surrounding the
 increasing corporate control of our food supply and presents the disturbing
 truth behind the unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have
 quietly filled U.S. grocery-store shelves for the past decade.
 In a review when The Future of Food played at the 2004 Santa Fe Film Festival,
 Pasatiempo critic Jason Silverman wrote: "The film explores GMOs from a variety
 of angles -- from patent laws that allow corporations to 'own' the rights to a
 particular plant, to lawsuits by seed companies against independent farmers who
 have resisted their use. The Future of Food offers a layperson's guide to the
 science of genetic engineering, showing how specialists can rejigger an
 organism's genetic structure. ... The (film) also suggests that genetic
 engineering is a central part of an attempt by multinational corporations,
 including Monsanto, to gain control of our planet's food sources. That makes it
 one of the most important issues we face."
 After the movie, pick up free seeds and seed catalogs; get information about
 gardening and seed starting; and munch on non-GMO snacks. Local experts will be
 available to answer questions.
 The program is at the New Mexico Film Museum (formerly Jean Cocteau Cinema), 418
 Montezuma Ave. Admission is $9 for adults, $7 for institute members and farmers.
 Youth under 18 are free.
 Natural beauty boutique opens
 Desert Blends of Taos and Spabox Organic Apothecary have opened a new natural
 beauty boutique at 211 Galisteo St., between Alameda and Water Streets. All of
 the product lines offered are made with natural and organic ingredients and some
 are certified organic. The shop carries a mix of local artisan-made beauty lines
 and artisan-produced gifts. Both businesses are women-owned.
 Spabox, which was founded as an Internet-based business by Santa Fe resident
 Cherilyn Swenson in 2004, features food-based body-care products. For those who
 think globally but want to buy locally, the company donates a percent of its
 profits to environmental and social causes and purchases offsets so its shipping
 is carbon neutral.
 Winter hours are 11a.m.-5 p.m. Tuesday through Sunday. For more information,
 call 982- 5363 or visit www.spabox.com or www.desertblends.com.
 Kim Mller cooks with Gourmet Club
 On March 25, the Gourmet Club of Santa Fe hosts a class and dinner with Kim
 Mller, formerly of The Compound, now executive chef of the Galisteo Inn.
 Mller's spring menu includes a roasted beet salad with wild watercress,
 Friend's Ranch blood oranges and Spanish goat cheese with Meyer lemon
 vinaigrette; seared diver scallops, hedgehog mushrooms, fresh peas, toasted red
 quinoa, a petite herb salad and herb-lemon beurre blanc; and Pixie tangerines
 with vanilla-tangerine syrup and a chocolate-caramel sandwich.
 The program, which is held at Judy Youens' Eastside home, starts at 6:15 p.m.
 and costs $60 for Gourmet Club members, $72 for nonmembers. For reservations or
 more information, call 954-4209.
 Got local food news? E-mail it to pwest@sfnewmexican.com or call 986-3085.
 LOAD-DATE: March 19, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2008 The New Mexican









Document Number: 560
 
                     Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock)
                              March 11, 2008 Tuesday
 Tyson ends plan for plant in Brazil Firm still has sights set on S.America
 LENGTH: 468 words
 Tyson Foods Inc.'s South American expansion plans hit a snag recently when the
 Springdale meat company failed to reach an agreement with a takeover target
 there.
 Spokesman Gary Mickelson confirmed Monday that Tyson had an interest in buying
 Pena Branca, a privately held chicken processor in Brazil.
 However, certain regulatory matters made it difficult to reach a "mutually
 acceptable agreement," Mickelson said, declining to describe those issues.
 "We remain committed to establishing a presence in Brazil and continue to
 explore several other opportunities there," Mickelson wrote in an e-mail Monday.
 As early as November, Tyson said it expected to close a deal on a Brazilian
 poultry company this year.
 Though Tyson declined to name the firm at the time, the director of Sao
 Paulo-based Pena Branca said Feb. 13 that Tyson was working on a deal to buy his
 company.
 The now-defunct deal became apparent Thursday when Marfrig Frigorificos E
 Comercio De Alimentos SA, a Brazilian beef and pork packer, said it would buy a
 controlling stake in Pena Branca for about $53 million.
 According to numbers provided by Pena Branca's director - and reported by Dow
 Jones Newswires in February - Tyson had expected to buy the entire Brazilian
 company for $74.4 million.
 Besides its South American plans, Tyson is increasing its Chinese holdings in
 hopes of boosting overseas sales to $5 billion a year.
 In February, Tyson signed a deal with Jiangsu Jinghai Poultry Industry Group Co.
 Ltd., a Chinese poultry breeder, to sell chicken in Shainghai and nearby
 provinces.
 Paul Aho, a principal of Connecticut-based industry consultant Poultry
 Perspective, said Brazil has a number of midsize poultry companies that Tyson
 could buy.
 "The timing right now probably isn't very good because of the high grain prices
 in Brazil and the high value of the [Brazilian] real," Aho said, referring to
 the currency's appreciation against the U.S. dollar. "I think if they want to be
 there, they will be patient and find a good deal down there." Brazilian firms do
 not use genetically modified corn, which raises their grain prices above
 average, Aho said. However, grain costs can change quickly and make certain
 buyout targets more attractive.
 Pena Branca, noted as the largest poultry producer in Sao Paulo state, has a
 capacity to slaughter 320,000 chickens a day.
 By comparison, Tyson Foods' U.S. operations can slaughter 39.2 million chickens
 a week, according to industry publication Watt Poultry USA. That amounts to
 about 5.6 million per day.
 Marfrig also plans to acquire a minority stake in DaGranja SA Agroindustrial, a
 pig and poultry producer in Brazil, according to company filings.
 Tyson shares fell 14 cents, or 0.89 percent, to close at $15.67 in Monday
 trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
 This article was published 03/11/2008
 LOAD-DATE: March 11, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2008 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 561
 
                               NewsReleaseWire.com
                              March 10, 2008 Monday
 The Future of Engineered Agriculture
 LENGTH: 1142 words
 The DC-based research and consulting firm Social Technologies recently released
 a series of 12 briefs that shed light on the top areas for technology innovation
 through 2025. The brief on engineered agriculture, by futurist Mark Justman, is
 the tenth trend in the series.
 Engineered agriculture uses the tools of biotechnology to analyze and manipulate
 plant DNA to create varieties with new or enhanced characteristics, Justman
 says. "This allows traits developed in other, incompatible plants or even other
 organisms (e.g., bacteria) to be integrated into the DNA of commercial plant
 varieties."
 Generally, the crops developed through engineered agriculture can be considered
 to have three generations of evolution:
 * First generation. Crops that are modified to resist herbicide treatments or
 infestation by insects.
 * Second generation. Crops that have improved plant characteristics, such as
 better nutritional composition, greater tolerance for heat or cold, or greater
 tolerance for drought or high-salinity conditions.
 * Third generation. Crops modified to create useful molecular compounds, such as
 biopharmaceutical products, complex proteins, bioplastic compounds, or vaccines.
 Challenges ahead
 Today's GM crops have already achieved significant commercial success in global
 agriculture. However, their growth has been paralleled by widespread fears and
 concerns about the safety and efficacy of genetically modifying foods designed
 for human and animal consumption.
 Unless these concerns are addressed, Justman believes public and regulatory
 resistance to new forms of engineered agriculture could be a roadblock for the
 deployment of the more exotic applications of engineered agriculture that will
 emerge in the future:
 * Public fears. Public concerns about modified crops can trigger higher
 regulatory burdens and slow the adoption of GM food products. The US public is
 generally accepting of GM foods, with a 2006 Pew survey finding 34% of US
 consumers believing they were safe, and 29% believing they were unsafe. When
 consumers are told the extent to which GM products are currently present in the
 food supply, the percentage of consumers who feel GM foods are safe increases by
 "However, US consumers are generally ignorant of their consumption of GM foods:
 60% believed that they had not eaten GM foods during 2006. In reality, though,
 Americans are eating modified foods all the time," Justman says, noting that
 estimates suggest that 75% of processed foods in the US contain some genetically
 modified ingredients. In Europe, public opposition is much stronger, with 58% of
 participants in a 2006 Eurobarometer survey saying that GM foods "should not be
 encouraged."
 * Gene deletion. Justman notes that one of the technologies in the report could
 play a role in shifting public perceptions about the safety of GM crops. "Gene
 deletion is a new approach to the genetic modification of plants that allows GM
 traits to be eliminated before the plant matures. In a sense, the modified genes
 will 'uninstall' themselves like a piece of software before plants reach a
 growth stage where GM traits can spread in the environment or before final
 harvest for human consumption."
 For a trait like herbicide resistance, gene deletor technology could allow the
 resistance genes to remain during the critical, early growth phases, but then
 delete them before plant maturation, fruiting, or pollen production. The mature
 plant would not have the genetically modified traits in harvested fruits or
 grains, and the risks of cross-pollination with other plants would be
 dramatically reduced.
 Justman notes that previous attempts to use genetic encoding to keep GM plants
 sterile, such as Monsanto's "terminator gene" technology, met wide widespread
 public condemnation. These criticisms stemmed from the fact that programmed
 genetic controls on plant reproduction would force farmers to purchase new seeds
 every year.
 Gene deletion technology addresses this concern by confining its genetic
 interventions to specific genetically modified plant traits, allowing farmers to
 reuse the seeds, but without the benefit of GM traits. Plants with a gene
 deletor mechanism would produce fertile seeds that could be planted by
 subsistence farmers, but these seeds would not express any of the GM traits.
 According to Justman, "Gene deletor technology would allow a compromise between
 intellectual property protection for GM traits, and subsistence farmers who rely
 on seed storage for next year's crop. It has the potential to be a win-win for
 both agribusiness and small-scale farmers."
 This technology could allow biotech and agricultural companies to have a better
 chance of recouping the R&D costs on GM crops, potentially making it more
 cost-effective to develop new GM crops for niche markets. This could be
 especially important for the second- and third-generation GM crops that will
 offer unique characteristics, but as a result will have smaller potential
 markets for a given plant variety.
 Learn more To talk to Mark Justman about the forecasts and business implications
 surrounding the concept of engineered agriculture, contact Hope Gibbs, Social
 Technologies' leader of corporate communications:
 hope.gibbs@socialtechnologies.com
 Mark Justman ) Futurist Mark Justman joined Social Technologies in 2003 as a
 senior writer/ analyst. His work has focused on tracking and analyzing consumer
 and technology trends in the automotive, retail, and energy industries. A
 professional futurist since receiving his MA in future studies from the
 University of Hawaii in 1999, Mark's primary interest is identifying the
 emerging issues and discontinuities that have the potential to impede,
 accelerate, or modify extrapolative trends. Prior to Social Technologies, Mark
 worked at the Institute for Alternative Futures, where his project work included
 construction of biotechnology scenarios for the UK's Economic and Social
 Research Council (ESRC) and creation of an interactive forecasting tool for
 healthcare on behalf of the World Health Organization. Areas of expertise:
 Energy (green, renewable, oil), the future of US politics, future of technology.
 About ) Social Technologies Social Technologies is a global research and
 consulting firm specializing in the integration of foresight, strategy, and
 innovation. With offices in Washington DC, London, and Shanghai, Social
 Technologies serves the world's leading companies, government agencies, and
 nonprofits. A holistic, long-term perspective combined with actionable business
 solutions helps clients mitigate risk, make the most of opportunities, and
 enrich decision-making. For information visit www.socialtechnologies.com, our
 blog: http://changewaves.socialtechnologies.com, and our newsletter:
 www.socialtechnologies.com/changewaves.
 http://www.ExpertClick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail&ID=2
 LOAD-DATE: March 11, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Reference
                 Copyright 2008 Broadcast Interview Source, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 562
 
                                 University Wire
                              March 10, 2008 Monday
 Rutgers talk highlights human side of medicine
 BYLINE: By Rachel Gillett, Daily Targum; SOURCE: Rutgers
 LENGTH: 445 words
 Discussing the importance of science in people's lives and how they are affected
 was the topic of Noah Feinstein's Rutgers University seminar Thursday, titled
 "Public Engagement With Science -- New Persepective, New Approach."
 Feinstein described his new model for understanding how and why people engage
 with science, based on his six-month study of parents caring for autistic
 children.
 "It's good to think about the science questions you would ask and the social
 questions you would ask and go back and forth between the two," Feinstein said.
 He is a candidate for the joint School of Environmental and Biological
 Sciences/Graduate School of Education faculty position in Earth Science
 Education.
 He proposed that engagement with science involves social and psychological
 attention, focus, emotional involvement and participation.
 It is important to learn how people actually encounter, employ and respond to
 science, Feinstein said. Autism is common, complex and controversial, and most
 questions about the cause and treatment are still unanswered, he said.
 Parents often struggle to understand what it is that makes their children
 different and how to obtain the best available autism services, he said.
 Feinstein's theory also subscribed to the thought that there is a diagnostic
 clash between medical systems based in science and families struggling to
 support their autistic children, he said.
 The medical side is focused on brief contact with children with the sole aim to
 classify and apply general applications, while families aim to validate the
 everyday lives of their children and to find a long-term form of care, he said.
 Tension may cause families to withdraw or to ask questions that can be most
 easily answered by physicians, he said.
 While parents' questions are specific to autism, Feinstein said, the nature of
 their engagement with science offers insight into how and why they think about
 diverse topics, such as climate change or genetically modified foods.
 He said climate change is an apparent paradox, as people see it as an urgent
 issue, though they favor other priorities in their everyday decision-making.
 People do not think in terms of climate change, he said, but climate change
 potentially connects their experience with relevant scientific research.
 But anthropology doctoral candidate Satsuki Takahashi disagrees with Feinstein's
 assertion and said not everyone thinks the same way about climate change.
 "Climate change for fishermen is different than for ninth grade science
 students," she said. "These people already have a question about climate change,
 but what do you do when other people don't have a question?"
 (C) 2008 Daily Targum via U-WIRE
 LOAD-DATE: March 10, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2008 Daily Targum via U-Wire









Document Number: 563
 
                         Bedford Journal (New Hampshire)
   This content, including derivations, may not be stored or distributed in any
   manner, disseminated, published, broadcast, rewritten or reproduced without
                       express, written consent from STPNS
                                  March 7, 2008
 From the Internet to a walk-in site: Bedford's newest store
 BYLINE: Jennifer DePaul special to <a id='byline_link'
 href='http://www.cabinet.com' target='_new'>Bedford Journal</a>
 LENGTH: 525  words
 After years of Internet-based sales, Jack and Sandy Phillips have opened a
 walk-in location where pet lovers can buy all-natural, organic and holistic dog,
 cat, bird and equine pet food and supplements.
 Their products are for everyone who has pets and want them to live long and
 happy lives, Sandy Phillips said.
 The Wholistic Pet has been at 341 Route 101 since October but its owners weren't
 ready to open the doors to the public until several weeks ago. This location is
 also the new Internet headquarters, which was previously based out of
 Manchester.
 As Bedford residents for 27 years, the Phillips' wanted to open a store to the
 public, Jack Phillips said.
 "It is a perfect place to do business along busy Route 101," he said.
 The Wholistic Pet was developed 10 years ago when the couple decided to be more
 proactive about their dogs' declining health. Some contributing factors to this
 problem were the poor quality and chemicals in pet food as well as
 over-vaccination, Sandy Phillips said.
 The Phillips' have been showing dogs for 30 years and now they sponsor six dogs
 shows each year.
 "Dogs are very close to our hearts," Sandy Phillips said. "We want them to live
 forever and not be sickly."
 They started The Wholistic Pet in 1998 and ever since have been dedicated to
 eradicating avoidable health problems for pets by way of good nutrition.
 Originally they sold their products in dog shows worldwide. Their products can
 also be found in pet stores around the country.
 The Phillips' believe organic and holistic products cost consumers less in the
 long run because owners aren't bringing their pets to the veterinarian every
 week.
 "The long-term benefits are so superior," Sandy Phillips said.
 A typical one-pound supplement bag for dogs and cats is $24.95. For a small dog
 a one-pound bag can last up to one year, Sandy Phillips said. A one-pound
 supplement could sustain an average 50-pound dog for several months.
 "Organic is not more expensive," Jack Phillips said. "It's actually less
 expensive. The product is more potent, pure and there is better absorption for
 animals."
 These supplements, which are sprinkled onto the food, are an addition to a pet's
 daily meals. They can also be added to any type of food. Their products are
 created to add valuable nutrients pets need on a daily basis in their diet,
 Sandy Phillips said.
 The Phillips' do not believe the slumping economy will have an effect on
 people's ability to pay for organic pet foods.
 "Either you believe in it or you don't," she said. "You're not going to want to
 give your dog growth hormones or genetically modified foods."
 Sandy and Jack have gone the holistic route and are sold on their untraditional
 methods. They feed their dogs certified organic foods, eliminated harmful
 chemicals in their environment and stopped over-vaccinating them.
 "The holistic approach with animals is similar to children," Sandy Phillips
 said. "We make decisions that are the best for pets. Pets are family members."
 The Wholistic Pet plans to create an exclusive dog and cat food line, she said,
 and hopes to have the store fully stocked by this summer.
 For more information visit www.thewholisticpet.com.
 GEOGRAPHIC: Bedford NEW HAMPSHIRE, USA (79%) New Hampshire UNITED STATES (79%)
 United States
 LOAD-DATE: March 7, 2008
 https://news.smalltownpapers.com/stpns/media-repository/13/7f97d3f8-ef4d-40e3-84
 3a-9893a042ed25_m.jpg
 Jennifer DePaul photo
 The sign on Route 101 announces the site of The Wholistic Pet.
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Small Town Business
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2008 SmallTownPapers, Inc.
                                All Rights Reserved
                              SmallTownPapers, Inc.
             Copyright 2008 Bedford Journal (Bedford, New Hamphsire)









Document Number: 564
 
                                 University Wire
                             March 5, 2008 Wednesday
 U.S. groups urge labels for modified foods
 BYLINE: By Rachel Leamon, The Daily Free Press; SOURCE: Boston U.
 LENGTH: 520 words
 The European Commission's move to label a genetically modified variety of rice
 has some stateside grassroots organizations clamoring for strong government
 regulation for food products that have had their DNA scientifically altered.
 European Union food products containing Chinese rice will require certification
 they were tested for safety beginning April 15. Recent poisonings in Japan
 linked to Chinese-made dumplings containing the genetically modified rice
 prompted the commission to enact the law.
 The Campaign, a U.S.-based political action group said genetically modified
 foods have not been adequately safety tested and companies producing them are
 held to no special standard by the Food and Drug Administration, said Executive
 Director Craig Winters.
 "People who have their own financial interest at heart are the ones interested
 in making genetically modified foods," Winters said. All the European Union
 nations, Japan and Australia require the modified foods to be labeled, he said.
 The FDA does not require genetically modified foods to be tested and labeled in
 the same way as new drugs or additives, but genetically modified products must
 follow the same laws as traditional foods, said FDA spokeswoman Stephanie
 Kwisnek.
 "We regulate genetically modified food just as we regulate conventional food --
 if a food is causing harm to the public we always take action by warning the
 public," she said.
 The United States is one of the world's largest producer of genetically modified
 crops, producing genetically modified corn, soy, canola and cotton. Many
 processed foods contain soy and corn, and about 70 percent of foods in U.S.
 grocery stores contain genetically engineered ingredients, according to The
 Campaign's website.
 Organic Consumers Association National Director Ronnie Cummins said more people
 are turning to organic foods to avoid the dangers of genetically modified foods.
 He said the primary concern with the foods is the health and environmental
 hazards of the "untested technology."
 Greenpeace International genetic engineering campaigner Doreen Stabinsky, a
 global environmental politics professor at the College of the Atlantic, said no
 studies prove genetically modified seeds are free of negative long-term effects.
 She said having a chemical company like DuPont make genetically modified seeds
 is a problem, and having fewer non-modified seeds limits farmers' choices.
 At Boston University, the Slow Food group is pushing dining halls to use organic
 foods and is working to educate people on the effects their food choices have on
 the rest of the world. Slow Food works with BU Dining Services to improve the
 quality and sustainability of the campus food system.
 BU College of Arts and Sciences junior and Vice President of the Organic
 Gardening Club Cordelia Hall said the genetic engineering process for modified
 seeds adds poisonous chemicals that are passed on to the consumer.
 "Genetically modified crops are dangerous because these crops are manipulated to
 meet the demands of an industrial agricultural system, not the needs of human
 beings," she said.
 (C) 2008 The Daily Free Press via U-WIRE
 LOAD-DATE: March 5, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2008 The Daily Free Press via U-Wire









Document Number: 565
 
                         Contra Costa Times (California)
                             February 29, 2008 Friday
 What we don't know about food can hurt
 BYLINE: Contra Costa Times
 SECTION: LOCAL; News; Oakland-Berkeley; Alameda; My Town
 LENGTH: 793 words
 It was 1995 when Arpad Pusztai, a distinguished world expert on food safety, was
 awarded a multimillion-dollar research grant in the United Kingdom to test the
 safety of genetically modified (GMO) foods.
 Pusztai spent the next three years studying the effects of altering the DNA of a
 potato, an alteration that would induce the vegetable to produce its own
 pesticide -- a toxin known as bacillus thuringiensis or bt for short.
 Pusztai had little reason to suspect his findings would be momentous, as biotech
 giant Monsanto, the patent owner of the bt potato, was already in the midst of a
 huge public information campaign touting the benefits of genetically modified
 crops to the European public.
 But when Pusztai did announce his findings in August 1998, he had indeed found
 stunning, unanticipated results. He also found himself out of a job at Britain's
 prestigious Rowett Institute - his research papers seized, his data confiscated
 and he himself, the target of a gag order.
 What had Pusztai discovered that ended a 36-year career as a leading scientist
 at the Institute According to Jeffrey M. Smith, author of the 2003 book, "Seeds
 of Deception":
 "[Pusztai] found that rats which were fed GM potatoes suffered damaged immune
 systems ... Compared to rats fed a non-GMO control diet, some of the GM-fed rats
 had smaller, less developed brains, livers, and testicles. Other rats had
 enlarged tissues, including the pancreas and intestines. Some showed partial
 atrophy of the liver. What's more, significant structural change and a
 proliferation of cells in the stomach and intestines of GM-fed rats may have
 signaled an increased potential for cancer. The rats developed these serious
 health affects after only 10 days."
 Unfortunately for Pusztai's career, his results ran counter to the
 generally-accepted dogma that genetically modified foods were safe. What's more,
 because Pusztai expressed concern over testing procedures to determine the
 long-term safety of GM foods, he was roundly expelled from the scientific
 establishment that had been his home for more than three decades
 Meanwhile in the United States of America . . . the FDA was quietly muffling
 research that pointed to similar deleterious effects from the genetically
 engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH), used to increase milk production in
 dairy cows. This was back in the mid 1990s. Farmers were concerned that the
 experimental use of the hormone caused bacterial infection of the udders,
 forcing them to use massive quantities of antibiotics to treat the infection.
 Although the amount of antibiotics in rbGH-treated milk spiked to exceed
 Federally permissible levels, the FDA quietly changed its criteria, allowing 100
 times more antibiotic than had previously been considered safe.
 Nothing has changed in the intervening years.
 In the United States, the Center for Food Safety has taken on the challenge of
 educating the public about the dangers of GMO foods.
 Today, up to 45 percent of corn and 85 percent of soybeans in the United States
 are genetically modified. It's been further estimated that 70 percent to 75
 percent of processed foods on supermarket shelves - from soda to soup, crackers
 to condiments, and virtually all products containing some form of processed soy
 - contain genetically modified ingredients.
 Aside from concerns over physiological effects, the use of genetic engineering
 in agriculture could lead to uncontrolled biological pollution, threatening
 other plant and animal species with extinction, according to Andrew Kimbrell,
 director of the center.
 "Despite these long-term and wide-ranging risks, Congress has yet to pass a
 single law intended to manage [these crops] responsibly," Kimbrell said.
 "Unsuspecting consumers by the tens of millions are being allowed to purchase
 and consume unlabeled genetically engineered foods. In short, there has been a
 complete abdication of any responsible legislative or regulatory oversight of
 genetically engineered foods."
 If you want to make yourself really smart on the issue, check out the center's
 Web site (www.centerforfoodsafety.org) or beg, borrow, or buy a copy of the
 wonderful film "The Future of Food" (www.thefutureoffood.com).
 Meanwhile, you have one more reason to read labels, avoid packaged foods, and
 eat as though your life depended on it. Because it still does.
 Helayne Waldman, Ed.D., N.E., is the Academic Dean of Bauman College of Holistic
 Nutrition and is the resident nutritionist at the Hills Swim and Tennis Club. In
 addition, Helayne has a private practice in Oakland where she specializes in
 nutritional support for those with cancer and cardiovascular disease and for
 those at risk for them. She can be reached at hwaldman@turning-the-tables.com or
 on the web at http://www.turning-the-tables.com .
 LOAD-DATE: February 29, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2008 Contra Costa Newspapers
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 566
 
                                 University Wire
                             February 29, 2008 Friday
 Cloned meats' impact on market limited
 BYLINE: By Alison Harman & Ranata Reeder, Technician; SOURCE: N.C. State
 LENGTH: 649 words
 It began with Dolly the sheep. Now, more than 10 years later, the Food and Drug
 Administration has approved some cloned animal products for human consumption.
 "After years of detailed study and analysis, the Food and Drug Administration
 has concluded that meat and milk from clones of cattle, swine and goats, and the
 offspring of clones from any species traditionally consumed as food, are as safe
 to eat as food from conventionally bred animals," the FDA said in a press
 release. "There was insufficient information for the agency to reach a
 conclusion on the safety of food from clones of other animal species, such as
 sheep."
 But according to Jorge Piedrahita, a professor of molecular biomedical sciences,
 it is very unlikely meat derived from cloned animals will make its way onto
 grocery store shelves.
 "The chances of you eating a piece of cloned meat or drinking a glass of cloned
 milk from a cow are pretty much close to nil," he said. "The clones are going to
 be used as breeding animals. You're going to be eating products derived from the
 father of the grandfather or the great-grandfather of a clone."
 Farm animals will be cloned not because of a shortage of meat supply, Piedrahita
 said, but because it aids in selective breeding.
 "If you have a bull that's profitable but getting old, you can make copies of
 that bull and use those genes for a long time," he said.
 Piedrahita has performed multiple studies on cloned animals, comparing chemical
 profiles of clones -- and offspring of clones -- to conventional meat.
 "There are no differences that were of any concern whatsoever. There have been
 studies looking at genetics and defects and they are indiscernible from normal
 meat," he said. "There is no risk associated with it."
 But some students, such as Jeanette Paige, a freshman in management, said they
 do not plan on buying or consuming foods derived from cloned animals.
 The FDA, she said, should wait to see how such food affects humans before taking
 it to market.
 "They don't know if there are going to be any prolonged negative effects," she
 said.
 Fear that many experience about consuming meat derived from cloned animals,
 Piedrahita said, probably results from a "mental block."
 "It's most likely an emotional thing," he said. "As of right now, I believe the
 FDA has made the correct decision. The safety of this has been overblown....
 It's perfectly safe."
 Fifteen years ago, Piedrahita said, when the FDA set a voluntary restriction on
 cloning, scientists used a select group of cows to produce "upwards of 50"
 clones. Now, descendants of these cloned animals have once or are roaming
 pastures.
 Cloned meat's impact on the market, Piedrahita said, will be minimal in both the
 safety risk and the amount on the shelf. It will, however, have a major impact
 on the biomedical field.
 Scientists will be able to efficiently research genetics of cloned animals to
 more fully understand diseases such as cancer and diabetes.
 "Five to seven years ago, it would take $100,000 and two years to make a cloned
 animal. And there were fewer than five labs in the country that could do that,"
 he said. "Nowadays, it will take $5,000 to $10,000 and nine months to make a
 cloned animal. A larger amount of labs will be able to do that."
 These genetically modified or manipulated animals, Piedrahita said, are
 different from clones -- and they're not allowed to be introduced into the food
 chain.
 However, Paige said she still remains apprehensive about consuming food from
 cloned animals -- especially since companies will not be required to
 differentiate on labels food from cloned animals and food from conventional
 livestock, according to the press release.
 Paige said all companies should be required to label their products if they come
 from cloned animals.
 "If they have nothing to worry about they should not hesitate on labeling the
 foods or their products," she said.
 (C) 2008 Technician via U-WIRE
 LOAD-DATE: February 29, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2008 Technician via U-Wire









Document Number: 567
 
                             San Antonio Express-News
                           February 27, 2008 Wednesday
                               STATE&METRO Edition
 SECTION: TASTE; Pg. 1F
 LENGTH: 358 words
 Skip the fat
 What's the best tasting reduced-fat peanut butter? The August/September 2007
 issue of Cook's Country weighed in on the subject, testing chunky versions of
 three popular reduced-fat brands, Skippy, Jif and Smart Balance Omega.
 The magazine gave top honors to Skippy Reduced Fat Super Chunk for its
 "well-balanced peanut flavor" and "extra-chunky texture." Tasted side by side
 with Skippy full-fat peanut butter, tasters found the reduced fat version
 slightly grainier and sweeter.
 Hot or cold
 A reader asked whether potatoes should be started in boiling, hot or cold water,
 when cooking them for mashed potatoes. Large vegetables like potatoes should be
 started in cold water, so that the temperature of the inside of the potato heats
 up at the same rate as the outside. If you start a potato in boiling water, the
 outside cooks and the inside remains uncooked.
 Who knew?
 My daughter Emily forwarded me an interesting e-mail from hipmamablog.com that
 explained what those little stickers on produce mean.
 "A four-digit number means it's conventionally grown. A five-digit number
 beginning with 9 means it's organic. A five-digit number beginning with 8 means
 it's genetically modified," according to the e-mail.
 The produce department at Central Market confirmed the first two claims (they
 don't carry genetically modified produce, so they weren't sure about the last
 one). Sunset magazine confirms the third at sunset.com.
 Dining buzz
 --Jimmy John's Gourmet Sandwich Shop has opened at 4700 Broadway at the corner
 of Broadway and Katherine Court. The sandwich shop is open for lunch and dinner
 daily. Call (210) 820-0800.
 --Mimi's Caf at the Rim is offering several seasonal seafood specialties
 through May 21. Priced at $7.99 to $14.99, specials include Shrimp, Artichoke
 and Feta Omelet, Salmon Nicoise Salad and Seafood Fettuccine. During the same
 time period, Mimi's will offer Chicken Chorizo and Egg Enchiladas for breakfast
 and Mimi's S'mores for dessert.
 Food for thought
 "Kids who learn that they can tyrannize Mamma by refusing to eat often carry
 this mechanism into their adult lives."
 ann landers
 "Women's Wicked Wisdom" by Michelle Lovric
 LOAD-DATE: February 29, 2008
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Feature
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                     Copyright 2008 San Antonio Express-News
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 568
 
                        The Virginian-Pilot(Norfolk, VA.)
                            February 26, 2008 Tuesday
                            The Virginian-Pilot Edition
 Biochemist used DNA to make crops healthier
 SECTION: LOCAL; Pg. B9
 LENGTH: 338 words
 By Jeremy Pearce
 The New York Times
 Ray Wu, a biochemist and genetic engineer who helped lead research at Cornell
 University on genetically modifying rice and other crops to better withstand
 environmental stresses, died Feb. 10 in Ithaca, N.Y. He was 79.
 The cause was heart failure, his family said.
 In the 1980s, Wu and other scientists at Cornell began to look at ways to make
 rice more resistant to insects, drought, salt water and extremes in temperature.
 Using genes isolated from bacteria and other sources, the researchers induced
 rice cells to produce certain proteins that improve the plants' strength and
 resistance. For example, a gene isolated from potatoes, proteinase inhibitor II,
 was successfully introduced to produce a protein disruptive to the pink stem
 borer, an insect that can damage rice plants.
 The modified plants, called transgenic rice, have since been grown in
 greenhouses at Cornell, in preparation for field testing in the United States
 and in developing countries where rice is a staple cereal crop. A collaborator
 of Wu's, Ajay K. Garg, a senior research associate in molecular biology and
 genetics at Cornell, said the transgenic rice would eventually be crossed with
 rice strains native to each region, in the hope of creating healthier and
 higher-yielding plants.
 Wu applied similar genetic influences to corn in order to produce kernels with
 higher sugar content.
 The work on genetically modified plants was based in part on Wu's earlier
 studies of DNA sequencing in the 1970s. In 1976, Wu and others spliced genetic
 material into bacteria, demonstrating that it is possible to introduce an
 artificial genetic message into living cells. At the time, he predicted that the
 procedure would one day make it possible to transplant a great range of genetic
 material, using cellular components known as plasmids to carry the messages.
 Wu shared his findings and laboratory techniques through teaching and writing,
 leaving a "legacy in development," said Susan R. McCouch, a professor of
 genetics at Cornell.
 LOAD-DATE: February 26, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2008 Landmark Communications, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 569
 
                                The New York Times
                             February 25, 2008 Monday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Ray Wu, 79, a Genetic Transformer of Crops
 BYLINE: By JEREMY PEARCE
 SECTION: Section B; Column 0; Metropolitan Desk; Pg. 6
 LENGTH: 561 words
 Ray Wu, a biochemist and genetic engineer who helped lead research at Cornell
 University on genetically modifying rice and other crops to better withstand
 environmental stresses, died on Feb. 10 in Ithaca, N.Y. He was 79.
 The cause was heart failure, his family said.
 In the 1980s, Dr. Wu and other scientists at Cornell began to look at ways to
 make rice more resistant to insects, drought, salt water and extremes in
 temperature. Using genes isolated from bacteria and other sources, the
 researchers induced rice cells to produce certain proteins that improve the
 plants' strength and resistance. For example, a gene isolated from potatoes,
 proteinase inhibitor II, was successfully introduced to produce a protein
 disruptive to the pink stem borer, an insect that can damage rice plants.
 The modified plants, called transgenic rice, have since been grown in
 greenhouses at Cornell, in preparation for field testing in the United States
 and in developing countries where rice is a staple cereal crop. A collaborator
 of Dr. Wu's, Ajay K. Garg, a senior research associate in molecular biology and
 genetics at Cornell, said the transgenic rice would eventually be crossed with
 rice strains native to each region, in the hope of creating healthier and
 higher-yielding plants.
 Dr. Wu applied similar genetic influences to corn, in order to produce kernels
 with a higher sugar content.
 The work on genetically modified plants was based in part on Dr. Wu's earlier
 studies of DNA sequencing in the 1970s. In 1976, Dr. Wu and others spliced
 genetic material into bacteria, demonstrating that it is possible to introduce
 an artificial genetic message into living cells. At the time, he predicted that
 the procedure would one day make it possible to transplant a great range of
 genetic material, using cellular components known as plasmids to carry the
 messages.
 Dr. Wu shared his findings and laboratory techniques with many other scientists
 through teaching and writing, leaving a ''legacy in development, the training of
 many leading rice researchers in China, India, Korea and throughout the
 developing world,'' said Susan R. McCouch, a professor of plant breeding and
 genetics at Cornell.
 Ray Jui Wu was born in Peking. He received his undergraduate degree from the
 University of Alabama, where his father, Hsien Wu, was a biochemist. Hsien Wu
 collaborated in developing the Folin-Wu method of analyzing blood sugars. Ray Wu
 earned his doctorate in biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania in
 From 1955 to 1966, Dr. Wu conducted research at the Public Health Research
 Institute of the City of New York. He then joined Cornell as an associate
 professor of biochemistry and molecular biology, before being named a professor
 of biochemistry in 1972. He was chairman of biochemistry, molecular and cell
 biology at Cornell from 1976 to 1978.
 Dr. Wu was an adviser to the Chinese and Taiwanese governments, and supported a
 tradition of Chinese students in the sciences at Cornell. He became an American
 citizen in 1961.
 Dr. Wu is survived by his wife of 52 years, the former Christina Chan; a son,
 Dr. Albert Wu, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins
 University in Baltimore; a daughter, Alice Wu of Ithaca; a brother, Dr. Victor
 Wu of Charlotte, N.C.; a sister, Dr. Christine Wu of Long Beach, Calif.; and
 four grandchildren.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 CATEGORY: Science and Technology
 PERSON: Ray Wu
 LOAD-DATE: February 25, 2008
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Ray Wu (PHOTOGRAPH BY CORNELL UNIVERSITY)
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Obituary (Obit); Biography
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 570
 
                 Sentinel & Enterprise (Fitchburg, Massachusetts)
                             February 25, 2008 Monday
 Consumers may not be able to avoid cloned food
 BYLINE: By Bernadette Tansey
 SECTION: LOCAL; Health
 LENGTH: 965 words
 Less than a dozen years after Dolly the sheep became the world's first cloned
 mammal, grocers and restaurateurs are digesting the fact that milk and meat from
 cloned animals could soon filter into their supply chains.
 The government took major steps toward easing cloned livestock and their
 offspring into the food supply in mid-January, when the Food and Drug
 Administration concluded they're safe to eat.
 The question is, will consumers swallow the new technology? And how will food
 businesses cope if their customers balk?
 Many food merchants are still framing their policies while they warily monitor
 public opinion. The historic commercial debut of cloning comes in an era when a
 significant segment of consumers have rejected other foods the FDA deemed safe,
 such as milk from hormone-treated cows and genetically modified corn.
 Cloning is an attempt to create a new animal using the DNA from an existing
 adult animal. The FDA, while noting that livestock cloning produces many
 malformed or ill newborn animals, said cloned animals that survive for several
 months after birth can be healthy. They can reproduce normally and produce
 healthy young, the FDA said. The agency said it found no signs that food from
 healthy clones is harmful to humans, and predicted that sickly clones would be
 excluded from the food supply.
 Consumer groups, however, have called FDA's positive safety assessment hasty and
 ill-founded. The Center for Food Safety said the FDA based many conclusions on
 small or limited studies, many of them financed by cloning companies. Clones
 that appear healthy can have infections, or abnormalities that could affect food
 quality such as unusual proteins or imbalances between protein and fats, the
 group said. Further studies should be done to evaluate clones and their
 offspring, the organization said.
 Such groups are urging consumers to press their supermarkets and restaurants to
 refuse food from clones. And those businesses are being peppered with inquiries
 like "Will my hamburger meat come from a cloned cow?" and "Are clones kosher?"
 But food merchants, from small shop owners to national supermarket chains, could
 face formidable challenges if they want to guarantee customers the option of
 avoiding all products linked to cloning.
 No public system is in place to alert food sellers when products from animal
 lines that include clones could reach their shelves -- whether in the form of a
 rib-eye steak, a quart of low-fat milk, a can of beef minestrone or a wedge of
 sharp cheddar.
 Consumer groups such as the Center for Food Safety and Consumers Union support
 mandatory labeling of all products linked to cloning, from raw meat to meatball
 sandwiches. They're backing bills proposed in Congress and by a few state
 legislators.
 Without labeling, they argue, any food safety problems that did arise from
 cloning would never be linked to the technology.
 Some retailers, after hearing from customers, are also calling for some form of
 government action. Two supermarket chains, Safeway and Whole Foods Market, say
 the government should oversee a system to track clones through the food supply.
 It should also consider other means, such as food labeling, to ensure that
 consumers can make informed choices about products of cloning, the companies
 said.
 "The lack of effective governmental oversight and tracking could mean consumers
 will lose the ability to choose clone-free products," Whole Foods spokeswoman
 Margaret Wittenberg said.
 The FDA maintains that no labeling or disclosure requirements are necessary to
 protect public health. The agency, after years of study, issued a lengthy report
 Jan. 15 concluding that milk and meat from cloned cattle, pigs and goats are
 safe for consumption. The FDA said it had too little information to assess
 cloned sheep, but it found no food safety problems connected with the progeny of
 clones.
 The offspring of all cloned livestock were immediately cleared as food sources
 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, based on the FDA's findings. Clones
 themselves -- cattle, pigs and goats -- will also enter the food supply. But
 when, and under what regulatory scheme, if any, has not yet been decided.
 The USDA is inviting industry input as it develops a plan to usher cloned
 animals into the market. In the meantime, the agency is asking companies that
 have created or purchased clones to honor a voluntary ban on selling their meat
 or milk for food.
 Even before the FDA's favorable report, a few clone owners admitted in various
 news reports that they had already sold milk or meat from the animals as food.
 As the rules stand now, livestock breeders and milk or meat suppliers have no
 legal obligation to disclose to either food manufacturers or consumers that a
 product came from a cloned animal line. Some vendors plan to keep their products
 clear of cloned lineages, but the FDA may not permit packages to bear a
 voluntary label such as "clone free."
 Safeway Inc. of Pleasanton, one of the nation's largest food retailers, said its
 customers are demanding more information. The company acknowledged that the
 government conducted important studies on food from clones. But to help shoppers
 make informed choices about products tied to cloning, Safeway supports
 additional studies "that would help ensure changes to federal policy are done in
 a manner that maintains consumer confidence and informed decision making."
 Bruce Knight, USDA undersecretary for marketing, said the agency is willing to
 help industry members create a tracking and certification program if they
 request it. The USDA already administers standards and certification of organic
 products. Knight said the USDA would work with companies that want to set up
 voluntary labeling of food from clones.
 (Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.scrippsnews.com.)
 LOAD-DATE: February 25, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
       Copyright 2008 MediaNews Group, Inc. and Mid-States Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 571
 
                            Bangor Daily News (Maine)
                            February 23, 2008 Saturday
                                   All Editions
 GE corn is dangerous
 SECTION: Pg. A10
 LENGTH: 257 words
 Genetically engineered corn should not be grown in Maine or anywhere.
 Why? Because we do not know what harm it will cause and we have every reason to
 believe that it will, eventually, be understood to be harmful both to humans and
 to natural ecosystems.
 We know GE corn is classified as a pesticide because every cell of the GE corn
 plant produces the Bt toxin that kills the corn borer and other insects. We know
 the amount of toxin involved is thousands of times greater than when a
 conventional plant is sprayed.
 We know the toxin-tainted pollen of GE corn ends up in ponds downstream of GE
 corn fields and that caddis flies eat that pollen. In lab tests, caddis flies
 that eat this pollen are exhibiting reduced growth and increased mortality. In
 ponds, fish and amphibians eat caddis flies.
 We also know that corn is pollinated by wind, so people who live or work near GE
 corn fields breathe in the pollen. We have every reason to believe that
 breathing in toxin-bearing pollen will prove to be harmful to us.
 Technology moves quick. Scientific understanding takes much longer to achieve,
 so we have to proceed with caution. It makes sense to dedicate ourselves to the
 development of an agriculture that is respectful of human and ecosystem health,
 and for us to worry about the ecological effect of technologies and remember the
 many severe mistakes human beings have already made in their relationship with
 the land. Let us devote ourselves to an agriculture that is healthy, caring and
 cautious for the good of us all.
 Julie Beckford
 Clifton
 LOAD-DATE: February 25, 2008
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Letter
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                         Copyright 2008 Bangor Daily News









Document Number: 572
 
                     Congressional Documents and Publications
                                February 22, 2008
 News Release (HQ): USDA, EPA and FDA Statement on Genetically Engineered Corn
 "Event 32"
 LENGTH: 573  words
 News for Release: Friday, Feb. 22, 2008
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
 USDA, EPA and FDA Statement on Genetically Engineered Corn "Event 32"
 Contacts: Cindy Ragin, APHIS (301) 734-7280 / cindy.n.ragin@aphis.usda.gov
 Dale Kemery, EPA (202) 564-4355 / kemery.dale@epa.gov
 Stephanie Kwisnek, FDA (301) 436-1408 / stephanie.kwisnek@fda.hhs.gov
 (Washington, D.C. - Feb. 22, 2008) The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal
 and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the U.S. Environmental Protection
 Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are coordinating
 efforts following notification by Dow AgroSciences that the company detected
 extremely low levels of an unregistered genetically engineered (GE) pesticide
 product known as a plant-incorporated protectant (PIP) in 3 of its commercial GE
 hybrid corn seed lines. The unregistered product produces proteins that are
 identical to a registered product. USDA, EPA and FDA have concluded that there
 are no public health, food or feed safety concerns. Additionally, USDA and EPA
 have determined that the unregistered GE corn PIP poses no plant pest or
 environmental concerns.
 The unregistered GE corn PIP, known as Event 32, was found in some HerculexR RW
 and HerculexR XTRA Rootworm Protection products. Seed containing low levels of
 the unregistered Event 32 was inadvertently sold to farmers by Dow's affiliate
 Mycogen Seeds and planted in 2006 and 2007. EPA and USDA previously approved
 HerculexR Rootworm Protection products containing a closely related PIP, Event
 22. These products are also approved for use in several foreign countries.
 Through careful analysis, EPA determined that the introduced proteins produced
 by Event 32 are identical to those approved for Event 22, and therefore they are
 covered by an existing tolerance exemption (EPA food safety clearance). FDA has
 concluded there are no food or feed safety concerns because EPA has determined
 that the introduced proteins in Event 32 are safe and because corn containing
 Event 32 is present in food or feed, if at all, only at low levels. In addition,
 APHIS' scientific analysis concluded that Event 32 poses no plant pest or
 environmental concerns.
 The 2008 U.S. corn crop will not be affected. APHIS took steps to ensure Dow
 recalled all affected seed that was shipped to dealers for the 2008 planting
 season. APHIS and EPA are coordinating on the investigation of potential
 violations under their respective regulatory acts.
 Corn Event 32 was found at extremely low levels-approximately 3 seeds per
 1,000-in affected Herculex seed products. Dow reported that in 2007
 approximately 53,000 acres of the affected products were planted in the United
 States. Total U.S. corn acreage in 2007 was more than 93 million acres. Taking
 into account, the low levels of Event 32 in the Herculex seed products as well
 as the very small proportion of these seeds that were planted, any amount of
 Event 32 in harvested corn would be negligible. It is estimated that no more
 than 0.0002 percent (two ten-thousandths of one percent) of the 2007 corn crop
 may have contained Event 32.
 For more information on the respective roles of USDA APHIS, EPA, and FDA in the
 federal regulation of GE plants, go to the United States Agencies Unified
 Biotechnology Web site at: http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/
 Sent by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
 Washington DC 20460. 202-564-4355 ^^SPLIT^^
 LOAD-DATE: February 25, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Report
            Copyright 2008 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 573
 
                     The San Francisco Chronicle (California)
                             February 18, 2008 Monday
                                  FINAL Edition
 No-clone zone?;
 Labeling up in the air: U.S. says food from cloned animals is safe, but only a
 patchwork of voluntary agreements by stores and producers would tell consumers
 what they're eating
 BYLINE: Bernadette Tansey, Chronicle Staff Writer
 SECTION: Main News; Pg. A1
 LENGTH: 2325 words
 Less than a dozen years after Dolly the sheep became the world's first cloned
 mammal, grocers and restaurateurs are digesting the fact that milk and meat from
 cloned animals could soon filter into their supply chains.
 The government took major steps toward easing cloned livestock and their
 offspring into the food supply in mid-January, when the Food and Drug
 Administration concluded they're safe to eat.
 The question is, will consumers swallow the new technology? And how will food
 businesses cope if their customers balk?
 Many food merchants are still framing their policies while they warily monitor
 public opinion. The historic commercial debut of cloning comes in an era when a
 significant segment of consumers have rejected other foods the FDA deemed safe,
 such as milk from hormone-treated cows and genetically modified corn.
 Cloning is an attempt to create a new animal using the DNA from an existing
 adult animal. The FDA, while noting that livestock cloning produces many
 malformed or ill newborn animals, said cloned animals that survive for several
 months after birth can be healthy. They can reproduce normally and produce
 healthy young, the FDA said. The agency said it found no signs that food from
 healthy clones is harmful to humans, and predicted that sickly clones would be
 excluded from the food supply.
 Consumer groups, however, have called FDA's positive safety assessment hasty and
 ill-founded. The Center for Food Safety said the FDA based many conclusions on
 small or limited studies, many of them financed by cloning companies. Clones
 that appear healthy can have infections, or abnormalities that could affect food
 quality such as unusual proteins or imbalances between protein and fats, the
 group said. Further studies should be done to evaluate clones and their
 offspring, the organization said.
 Such groups are urging consumers to press their supermarkets and restaurants to
 refuse food from clones. And those businesses are being peppered with inquiries
 like "Will my hamburger meat come from a cloned cow?" and "Are clones kosher?"
 Independent grocer Sam Mogannam said he didn't need any calls from his customers
 to know if they'd accept food from cloned lineages. He's sure they won't. And he
 has no intention of stocking any at Bi-Rite Market, which he bills as a mecca
 for organic, sustainable and non-artificial foods in San Francisco's Mission
 District.
 "We believe in allowing nature to take its due course," he said. "I know our
 customers wouldn't support us if they knew we were knowingly accepting products
 from clones or their offspring."
 But food merchants, from small shop owners to national supermarket chains, could
 face formidable challenges if they want to guarantee customers the option of
 avoiding all products linked to cloning.
 No public system is in place to alert food sellers when products from animal
 lines that include clones could reach their shelves - whether in the form of a
 rib-eye steak, a quart of low-fat milk, a can of beef minestrone or a wedge of
 sharp cheddar.
 Consumer groups such as the Center for Food Safety and Consumers Union support
 mandatory labeling of all products linked to cloning, from raw meat to meatball
 sandwiches. They're backing bills proposed in Congress and by a few state
 legislators, including state Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco. Without
 labeling, they argue, any food safety problems that did arise from cloning would
 never be linked to the technology.
 Some retailers, after hearing from customers, are also calling for some form of
 government action. Two supermarket chains with a significant presence in
 Northern California, Safeway and Whole Foods Market, say the government should
 oversee a system to track clones through the food supply. It should also
 consider other means, such as food labeling, to ensure that consumers can make
 informed choices about products of cloning, the companies said.
 "The lack of effective governmental oversight and tracking could mean consumers
 will lose the ability to choose clone-free products," Whole Foods spokeswoman
 Margaret Wittenberg said.
 The FDA maintains that no labeling or disclosure requirements are necessary to
 protect public health. The agency, after years of study, issued a lengthy report
 Jan. 15 concluding that milk and meat from cloned cattle, pigs and goats are
 safe for consumption. The FDA said it had too little information to assess
 cloned sheep, but it found no food safety problems connected with the progeny of
 clones.
 The offspring of all cloned livestock were immediately cleared as food sources
 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, based on the FDA's findings. Clones
 themselves - cattle, pigs and goats - will also enter the food supply. But when,
 and under what regulatory scheme, if any, has not yet been decided.
 The USDA is inviting industry input as it develops a plan to usher cloned
 animals into the market. In the meantime, the agency is asking companies that
 have created or purchased clones to honor a voluntary ban on selling their meat
 or milk for food.
 This means that Ditto, a cloned cow created by a UC Davis researcher, can't be a
 food source just yet because the university honors the temporary ban. But UC
 Davis is now free to sell milk or meat from Ditto's daughter, an unnamed
 Holstein cow conceived by sexual reproduction.
 Even before the FDA's favorable report, a few clone owners admitted in various
 news reports that they had already sold milk or meat from the animals as food.
 As the rules stand now, livestock breeders and milk or meat suppliers have no
 legal obligation to disclose to either food manufacturers or consumers that a
 product came from a cloned animal line. Some vendors plan to keep their products
 clear of cloned lineages, but the FDA may not permit packages to bear a
 voluntary label such as "clone free."
 Safeway Inc. of Pleasanton, one of the nation's largest food retailers, said its
 customers are demanding more information. The company acknowledged that the
 government conducted important studies on food from clones. But to help shoppers
 make informed choices about products tied to cloning, Safeway supports
 additional studies "that would help ensure changes to federal policy are done in
 a manner that maintains consumer confidence and informed decision making."
 The Pleasanton chain, which has 269 stores in Northern California, is asking its
 suppliers to deliver no products from cloned animals while the government mulls
 its options. "Meanwhile, the federal government should exercise its authority
 and expertise to determine an appropriate regulatory framework, including
 traceability and labeling," Safeway said in response to a Chronicle inquiry.
 Safeway declined to say whether it will accept foods from the offspring of
 clones.
 Trader Joe's, a Monrovia Los Angeles County grocery chain that carries many
 organic product lines, did not respond to The Chronicle's query.
 Bruce Knight, USDA undersecretary for marketing, said the agency is willing to
 help industry members create a tracking and certification program if they
 request it. The USDA already administers standards and certification of organic
 products. Knight said the USDA would work with companies that want to set up
 voluntary labeling of food from clones.
 Few food businesses have actively sought to sell products from cloned animal
 lines, but all could be affected by the few U.S. cloning companies in business.
 Their customers are farmers who want replicas of valuable breeding animals -
 clones of a prize bull, for example, whose semen fetches high prices for
 artificial insemination. As breeders, cloned animals could quickly influence the
 gene pool of U.S. livestock. The preserved semen of one bull can be sent
 throughout the country to produce thousands of descendants.
 One healthy cloned calf can cost as much as $20,000. But these expensive animals
 may enter the meat supply when their reproductive lives wane. Their milk will
 also be sold for dairy products.
 At this point, retailers that want to avoid food from clones are relying on
 private agreements with their suppliers, who in turn have to trust their own
 sources. Meat packers may be able to exclude some clones by consulting an
 industry database of cloned animals whose owners volunteer to register them. The
 two major livestock cloning companies, ViaGen Inc. and Trans Ova Genetics, are
 developing the registry with the certification company AgInfoLink. Meatpackers
 would be able to scan or read an animal's ear tag to identify clones, said
 AgInfoLink executive Glenn Smith.
 At this point, AgInfoLink doesn't plan to track the milk, semen or offspring of
 clones. But Smith said that could change if retailers request such services.
 Most food outlets that have taken a stand on cloning have said they will exclude
 clones themselves, but not necessarily food from their progeny.
 Natural foods retailer Whole Foods Market of Austin, Texas, which has 24 stores
 in Northern California, said its products will remain free of both clones and
 their descendants.
 "We are working with our supplier community to develop a chain of custody
 records that trace product breeding stock through multiple generations," said
 Edmund LaMacchia, vice president of purchasing for perishables.
 It's not clear, however, that all USDA-certified organic operations will be
 completely "clone free." Some organic producers say they're not sure yet how
 they can guarantee that their animals have no ties to cloning. That includes
 Albert Straus, president of Straus Family Creamery in Marin County, which
 supplies all the dairy products for Sam Mogannam's Mission District market and
 nearby ice cream store.
 Like most dairy operators, Straus relies on artificial insemination to reproduce
 his herd. Straus wants the government to require semen suppliers to reveal
 whether their products come from a cloned bull or its young. Without such
 certainty, Straus said, dairies might lose their organic certification from the
 USDA's organic standards do rule out clones, but the agency may permit the use
 of a clone's descendants, Knight said. Therefore, consumers who want to avoid
 food from both clones and their offspring may not be able to rely solely on the
 organic label.
 Buying only kosher foods won't insulate consumers from products of cloning at
 all. Rabbi Menachem Genack of the Orthodox Union, which certifies food items as
 kosher, said cloned animals would qualify as long as they belong to a single
 kosher species, such as cattle, sheep and goats.
 At this point, consumer choice rests on a patchwork chain of voluntary
 agreements among suppliers and retailers.
 The first time many Americans take a bite of food from a cloned animal or its
 offspring, they may never know it.
 Cloning's imperfections at center of debate
 Twenty years from now, the eating public may blithely accept food from cloned
 animals. But at this point, consumer groups are aghast at government actions to
 usher cloned livestock and their offspring into the U.S. food supply. To a large
 extent, the resistance stems from the fact that livestock cloning is still an
 imperfect art.
 The Food and Drug Administration found in January that food from healthy clones
 and their progeny is safe. But in the same lengthy report, the FDA also detailed
 snags in the current art of animal cloning that reduce its rate of producing
 healthy clones to less than 10 percent. Many cloned embryos die or develop into
 sickly newborns.
 Among consumer groups, those technical snags have raised questions not only
 about food safety, but also about animal welfare and ethics. They contend that
 further study may reveal health dangers the FDA didn't discover, as new testing
 methods emerge. In the FDA's view, future research will not only confirm the
 safety of food from clones, but will also improve methods of creating them.
 Clones are made by coaxing a single adult cell from the original animal - call
 it a bull named George - to form an embryo that will become George2. The nucleus
 containing George's DNA is swapped into an egg cell from a cow, after the egg's
 nucleus is removed. The hope is that the resulting embryo, implanted in a
 surrogate mother, will be an exact copy of George. But about 90 percent of the
 time, that doesn't happen.
 Clones can be born grossly malformed, and many die within six months. The
 fetuses can grow too large, causing difficult, extended pregnancies ending with
 delivery by cesarean section, the FDA found in a review of scientific studies.
 But the FDA said clones that survive past six months are often healthy and
 fertile. Their offspring have even fewer health problems, the agency said. No
 significant differences appeared in milk or meat from cloned animal lines and
 their non-cloned counterparts, FDA reported.
 The FDA acknowledged that newborn clones are often sick or dying, but said those
 animals would never pass inspection for entry into the food supply.
 Consumer groups aren't convinced that cloning raises no safety concerns. For
 example, they suspect that many young clones will survive only through treatment
 with antibiotics and other drugs. Such animals could enter the food supply and
 affect human health, they contend.
 An ethics board advising the European Food Safety Authority concluded in January
 that cloning for food production cannot be justified at this point because of
 the suffering of both deformed clones and their surrogate mothers, or dams, in
 animal breeding terms.
 On the question of food safety, however, the European Food Safety Authority
 agreed with the FDA. The FDA, whose purview is limited to food safety, did not
 evaluate the ethics of cloning.
 Online resources
          Read the FDA's risk
           assessment of cloning: www.fda.gov/cvm/
          cloning.htm
          Read the Center for Food Safety's critique of FDA's report:
           www.centerforfood safety.org/Policy.cfm
 "The lack of effective governmental oversight and tracking could mean consumers
 will lose the ability to choose clone-free products." "
 Margaret Wittenberg Whole Foods spokeswoman
 COMPANY: Safeway Inc.; Whole Foods Market
 LOAD-DATE: February 18, 2008
 GRAPHIC: Alison Van Eenennaam of UC Davis shows off a Holstein cow that is the
 daughter via sexual reproduction of Ditto, a cloned cow. Lacy Atkins / The
 Chronicle
 Albert Straus of the Straus Family Creamery wants disclosure rules to make it
 easier for him to exclude clones from his organic farm. Lacy Atkins / The
 Chronicle
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2008 San Francisco Chronicle
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 574
 
                           Sacramento Bee (California)
                             February 17, 2008 Sunday
                               Correction Appended
 'Green' rice on menu;
 Davis company is producing a gene-altered variety that cuts use of nitrogen
 fertilizer in half;
 Farmers could profit from carbon offsets
 BYLINE: Jim Downing jdowning@sacbee.com
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. D1
 LENGTH: 1540 words
 The war on global warming has entrepreneurs racing to find new ways to trim the
 carbon emissions linked to everything from wine to washing machines.
 But Eric Rey was the first to see the promise of low-emissions rice.
 In Davis, Rey's Arcadia Biosciences is crafting genetically modified rice that
 thrives on just half the typical dose of nitrogen fertilizer -- a source of
 greenhouse emissions on a par with all the world's passenger vehicles.
 By growing rice that needs less nitrogen, farmers would save money on fertilizer
 and plug into the booming global market in carbon offsets. Rey would be able to
 price his rice seed the same as conventional varieties and make a profit by
 taking a share of the carbon-credit revenue.
 The environmental benefits of the rice would be enough to win over biotech
 skeptics, said Rey, a life member of the Sierra Club. In addition to cutting
 greenhouse gases, the rice has the potential to reduce nitrate pollution, a
 scourge of rivers and aquifers worldwide.
 On the farms in rural China where he hopes to launch the plan and where he is
 focusing his efforts, Rey figures each acre planted with Arcadia's rice could
 yield close to one metric ton of carbon offsets, now trading at $22 a ton on
 European markets and expected to climb in the future. Even at current rates, the
 offsets alone would boost farmers' profits by as much as 25 percent.
 But Rey can't count his money just yet.
 Arcadia's rice is at least five years from commercialization, and unforeseen
 hiccups could make the wait much longer. Farmers and rice processors around the
 world now shun genetically modified rice, fearful of a backlash in export
 markets. In California, the rice industry is so leery of the technology that it
 has forced Arcadia to test-plant its creations in Fresno County, more than 100
 miles from prime rice-growing areas.
 What's more, the future value of the carbon offsets is uncertain. If global
 emissions-cutting efforts fizzle, demand for carbon offsets will evaporate.
 But that isn't enough to deter Rey, for one key reason: The market potential is
 huge. Rice is the planet's third most widely planted crop, grown on roughly 390
 million acres. China grows more rice than any other country.
 "If you win, you win really big," said Andrew Baum, a biotech industry veteran
 who chairs the food and agriculture committee of the Biotechnology Industry
 Organization, a trade group.
 Rey's timing has proved just right. His plan meshes with efforts in California,
 Europe and the rest of the world to cut greenhouse emissions. Those regulations
 are driving a booming trade in carbon credits, now a $5 billion-a-year global
 business.
 Rey's big idea for nitrogen-efficient rice has boosted him onto the
 international media stage: He's been the subject of a front-page feature in the
 Wall Street Journal and scored a spot on a list of "50 people who could save the
 planet" in the United Kingdom's Guardian newspaper.
 Biotech seed giants Monsanto Co. and Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. are also
 working on nitrogen efficiency, but they're focusing on corn. In rice, Arcadia
 is out front: It's the only U.S. company that has progressed to the level of
 outdoor test plantings for nitrogen efficiency, according to U.S. Department of
 Agriculture records.
 Still, while Arcadia's field trials of rice in California and China are
 promising, it has yet to breed the nitrogen-efficiency gene, borrowed from
 barley, into the commercial rice varieties popular in China. At best, Rey hopes
 to have seeds ready by 2013.
 Skeptics say it could take much longer to work out the kinks. "It's unusual for
 a gene to just do one isolated thing in an organism. We can expect that there
 will be some unintended consequences," said Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior
 scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C.
 Even if Arcadia clears the technical hurdles, genetically engineered rice may be
 a hard sell to farmers.
 While genetically engineered corn and soy are now planted widely, virtually no
 such rice is grown commercially because of opposition from key markets in
 Europe, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Keeping buyers in those markets happy is
 especially important to California growers, who frequently export more than one
 half of their rice.
 So Rey is piloting his emissions-reduction plans in north-central China, where
 nitrogen use is especially high and farmers and government officials appear open
 to genetically modified rice.
 There, Arcadia is monitoring the nitrous oxide gas that burbles from fertilized
 rice paddies. The measurements will provide baseline data needed to demonstrate
 that large-scale plantings of Arcadia's rice would actually reduce emissions.
 That's important, because while researchers have estimated the climate impact of
 fertilizer on a global scale, international emissions traders don't yet
 recognize offsets generated by reductions in nitrous oxide emissions from a
 particular farm field.
 "It's one of the harder things to quantify accurately," said Mark Trexler, a
 director with EcoSecurities Group, a leading player in the global carbon market.
 Rey, a fit, ruddy-faced 51-year-old with close-cropped hair, is a veteran of the
 long biotech haul. He spent 17 years with Davis biotech pioneer Calgene,
 starting as a greenhouse manager in 1982 and rising to vice president.
 Calgene shot into world headlines in 1994 when it launched the Flavr Savr
 tomato, the first biotech crop to reach supermarkets. But the Flavr Savr
 flopped, dragged down by low crop yields and a fragile skin. By fall 1996,
 Calgene had lost roughly $150 million on the program. It sold out to Monsanto in
 early 1997.
 Rey didn't work directly on the Flavr Savr, but he says its rise and fall taught
 him, among other things, to place his bets widely.
 "These types of products take a long time to get to the marketplace, and there's
 risk all the way along the line," he said.
 So Arcadia, which employs about 80 people in Davis, Seattle and Phoenix, is
 working on other technologies besides nitrogen efficiency. It is breeding
 salt-tolerant varieties of rice, cotton and tomatoes, has a Department of
 Defense contract to develop vegetables with longer shelf life, and is breeding
 wheat so that it can be tolerated by people on gluten-free diets.
 This summer, fields in the Sacramento Valley are scheduled to bear Arcadia's
 first commercial harvest -- safflower engineered to contain extremely high
 levels of a key omega-6 fatty acid valued as a nutritional supplement. Rey says
 producing the fatty acid with the company's safflower will cut production costs
 roughly 15-fold compared with current sources.
 Rey traces his interest in agriculture and the environment to his childhood.
 Growing up in Oxnard, he often visited his uncle's nearby vegetable and citrus
 farm and spent summers in the Sierra. He came to the University of California,
 Davis, to study plant science.
 Staying afloat through the painstaking process of breeding new plant varieties
 has been one of the most difficult challenges for small biotech companies.
 "It presents a return-rate problem," said David Collier, managing director of
 San Francisco-based CMEA Ventures, an Arcadia investor.
 Rey solved that problem early.
 Arcadia was founded in 2002 with majority backing from billionaire John
 Sperling, the now 86-year-old founder of the University of Phoenix.
 Sperling, also known for his financial support of causes ranging from medical
 marijuana to human cloning, hired Rey as a consultant in 2000. The two began
 talking about business prospects. Sperling, Rey said, was interested in ways to
 turn recent laboratory advances in crop biotechnology into environmentally
 friendly commercial ventures.
 "He said, 'Find me the opportunities,' " Rey said.
 Sperling's backing, said several industry experts, has given Arcadia the freedom
 to innovate.
 Rey "has had the chance to do something off the beaten path because he doesn't
 have to always raise money," said Baum.
 Rey sees Arcadia's work as helping to settle the long-running debate between the
 biotech industry and its critics over the environmental benefits of crop
 biotechnology.
 While the global acreage planted to genetically modified crops reached 282
 million acres last year, resistance to the technology remains strong in many
 countries, including the United States. Critics point out that 80 percent of all
 biotech crops are designed to withstand certain herbicides, a trait that has led
 to herbicide-resistant weeds, in turn prompting farmers to spray more chemicals,
 according to some studies.
 Rey is convinced that the water-quality and greenhouse-gas benefits of Arcadia's
 rice have a shot at winning over critics. Global warming, he reckons, may have
 changed the game.
 "I think the public is looking at the world with a different set of glasses," he
 said.
 Call The Bee's Jim Downing, (916) 321-1065.
 Arcadia Biosciences
 What it does: Using genetic engineering and plant breeding, develops new crops
 that have environmental or health benefits.
 Headquarters: Davis
 President and chief executive: Eric Rey
 Employees: 80
 Founded: 2002
 Notable products: Rice that needs less nitrogen fertilizer; safflower that
 contains high levels of omega-6 fatty acids; wheat for people on gluten-free
 diets; several crops that can grow in saline soil.
 LOAD-DATE: February 25, 2008
 CORRECTION-DATE: February 23, 2008
 CORRECTION:A story on Business Page D1 Sunday about Davis biotech firm Arcadia
 Biosciences stated incorrectly that company founder John Sperling has backed
 human cloning. Sperling has not funded research aimed at cloning humans or human
 cells.
 GRAPHIC: Randy Pench photographs / rpench@sacbee.com
 Arcadia Biosciences researchers Liying Wu, left, and Michelle Medina grade the
 health of rice plants in a greenhouse north of Davis. By using less nitrogen,
 the rice has the potential to reduce nitrate pollution, a scourge of aquifers
 worldwide. At top, Arcadia technician Marta Pinzon transplants pollen from one
 plant to the flower of another.
 Arcadia Biosciences CEO Eric Rey checks out wheat plants at the company's
 nursery. Arcadia is breeding wheat that can be tolerated by people on
 gluten-free diets. It is also trying to give vegetables a longer shelf life.
 Arcadia CEO Eric Rey, with a head of wheat, sees a market in China for his
 genetically modified rice. The company has been doing tests there and is trying
 to develop seeds for China's popular varieties of rice.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2008 McClatchy Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 575
 
                          Omaha World-Herald (Nebraska)
                            February 14, 2008 Thursday
                Iowa; Metro; Midlands; Nebraska; Sunrise Editions
 Biotech ban harmful U.S. farmers ultimately pay for the delay in import of
 crops.
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. 06B
 LENGTH: 284 words
 The patience of U.S. trade representatives and elected officials with the
 European Union is wearing thin, and justifiably so. The EU is still refusing to
 allow the import of most biotech crops, and the organization shows little sign
 of modifying that stance.
 In 2006, a panel for the World Trade Organization -- which adjudicates trade
 disputes among nations -- ruled that the 27-member EU had deliberately slowed
 down the approval of new genetically modified food and crops for years.
 U.S. officials, including Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, ranking member of the
 Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction in this matter, have pressed the issue
 hard. American farmers depend heavily on biotech crops and have suffered
 considerable financial hardship due to their inability to export many
 commodities to European markets.
 Grassley charged that "the failure to approve these products is based on
 politics, not science." The biotech ban continues "although their own scientists
 and others insist that (the products are) perfectly safe."
 Research, including work by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, has indicated
 that biotech crops are equivalent to non-biotech crops.
 Grassley and U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab both suggested that trade
 sanctions might be needed to force the EU to comply with the World Trade
 Organization ruling. Indeed, the Bush administration has begun taking input
 about which EU products might be appropriate targets for trade sanctions if
 compliance isn't forthcoming.
 Hope springs eternal, but practicality and experience suggests that little will
 happen in Europe until the trade sanction hammer is poised to fall. Grassley and
 Schwab need to forge ahead. The cause is worthy.
 JURISDICTION (72%) Agriculture; Farm Economy; Technology
 LOAD-DATE: February 14, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2008 The Omaha World-Herald Company









Document Number: 576
 
                      Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania)
                            February 12, 2008 Tuesday
 SECTION: LOCAL; Pg. B-1
 LENGTH: 450 words
 Nearly four years after it started, a legal drama for a genetics researcher at
 the University of Pittsburgh that at one time involved allegations of
 bioterrorism has finally ended -- with the minimum fine and unsupervised
 probation.
 Dr. Robert E. Ferrell, of Edgewood, was ordered yesterday by a federal judge in
 New York to pay $500 and serve 12 months of unsupervised probation for helping
 an art professor friend obtain biological materials for an exhibit.
 Dr. Ferrell's defense attorney, Efrem M. Grail, said he and his client were
 relieved by the sentence handed down by U.S. District Judge Richard J. Arcara of
 the Western District of New York.
 In exchange for his plea on the reduced charge, Dr. Ferrell must cooperate with
 the case against his friend and former Carnegie Mellon University art professor,
 Steven A. Kurtz.
 Mr. Kurtz, a founding member of the Critical Art Ensemble, which uses art to
 examine the impact of science and technology on consumer culture, asked Dr.
 Ferrell to obtain two biological materials for him in late 2003 and 2004,
 prosecutors contend.
 Dr. Ferrell ordered the material and had it sent to Pitt's human genetics lab,
 and then forwarded it to Mr. Kurtz's home in Buffalo, N.Y.
 Health officials have said the materials posed a low risk of human infection.
 Mr. Kurtz said he planned to use the bacteria as part of an art project
 addressing genetically modified food.
 On May 11, 2004, Mr. Kurtz's wife died at home. He called police, and when they
 arrived, they saw the biological materials. Although Mrs. Kurtz died of heart
 failure, the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force was alerted, and they showed up in
 full biohazard gear to search his home.
 The case against Mr. Kurtz, who now teaches visual studies at the State
 University of New York at Buffalo, is currently on hold until Judge Arcara rules
 on a defense motion to dismiss the charges on the grounds that the government
 has not alleged a crime in the indictment.
 Unlike with Dr. Ferrell, Mr. Kurtz's attorney, Paul J. Cambria Jr., said the
 government has not approached his client with a deal offering a reduced
 misdemeanor charge.
 And even if it did, it's not likely Mr. Kurtz would respond.
 "He's made it clear he doesn't believe he committed a crime, and I agree with
 him," the lawyer said.
 No witnesses were called at Dr. Ferrell's sentencing. Instead, he read a brief
 statement, in which he said he regretted his actions and the situation that got
 him into court.
 He also asked Judge Arcara to help put the case behind him.
 Since the prosecution began, Dr. Ferrell has had three strokes and dealt twice
 with cancer, Mr. Grail said.
 "He's in remission right now," Mr. Grail said. "He's spending some time doing
 science."
 LOAD-DATE: February 12, 2008
 NOTES: Paula Reed Ward can be reached at pward@post-gazette.com or 412-263-2620.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2008 P.G. Publishing Co.









Document Number: 577
 
                     The Evening Sun (Hanover, Pennsylvania)
                            February 9, 2008 Saturday
 Genetically Engineered food: a growing market and growing concern
 BYLINE: By JACOB AUER THE STUDENT SUN
 LENGTH: 403 words
 The purpose of genetically engineering food products is to help improve the
 product in some way to help humans.
 The changes can do anything from help it grow, protect it against pest or simply
 changes its looks and tastes. The reasons why we do this are not in question,
 but rather if we should do this, and what, if any, side effects there could be.
 Genetically engineering food refers to taking a piece of DNA from on object
 (usually a piece that is beneficial) and inserting it into the DNA of something
 else.
 According to the Center for Food Safety, over the past few years studies have
 been conducted that show that genetically engineered foods can have harmful
 attributes such as higher toxicity and potential effects like, more severe
 allergic reactions and antibiotic resistence. These are caused by mutations
 within the substance's DNA. Theses mutations could lead to new antibiotic
 resistence that can not be detected or treated yet, according to
 www.actionbioscience.org, the American Institute of Biological Sciences.
 Marissa Adams, New Oxford High School sophomore, stated, "Genetically engineered
 food can be good, but at the same time be bad. It does help solve some problems
 but I think that it could cause problems as well, I think there needs to be a
 way to regulate this type of food separately from non-engineered food."
 Another issue is, that the government does not require foods to have labels that
 tell whether or not the product is genetically engineered.
 For example, 70 to 75 percent of processed foods on super market shelves contain
 genetically engineered ingredients, and 45 percent of corn is genetically
 engineered some of these products say what they are others do not.
 Mike Topper, Delone Catholic High School sophomore, said, "I think this is a
 good idea but does require a level of restrictions, and supervision by the
 government."
 There are no peer-reviewed clinical studies done on humans and there are very
 few studies done on animals. Currently what is done to test these products is a
 comparison between genetically engineered crops and non-genetically engineered
 crops, if they are the same they are considered safe, according to
 [www.actionbioscience.org.]
 As with most topics, there are arguments on both sides that to some make sense
 and to others do not. No matter which side you believe, there is no denying that
 this is an issue that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.
 LOAD-DATE: February 9, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2008 MediaNews Group, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 578
 
                                The New York Times
                            February 6, 2008 Wednesday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Monsanto Seed Approved By 3 Countries
 BYLINE: By BLOOMBERG NEWS
 SECTION: Section C; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; WORLD BUSINESS BRIEFING
 ASIA; Pg. 4
 LENGTH: 95 words
 The Monsanto Company said Japan, the Philippines and Taiwan had approved imports
 of its first new genetically modified soybeans in more than a decade. The seeds,
 Roundup Ready 2 Yield, increase yields by 7 percent to 11 percent compared with
 the first-generation Roundup Ready soybean seeds that have been sold since 1996,
 Monsanto said. The new plants, which resist Roundup weed killer, won regulatory
 approval in the United States and Canada in July, the company said. The product
 remains under review in the European Union, China and other export markets,
 Monsanto said.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: February 6, 2008
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Brief
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 579
 
                           February 06, 2008 Wednesday
 BYLINE: JAMES E. McWILLIAMS GUEST COLUMNIST
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. B7
 LENGTH: 777 words
 Last month, the Food and Drug Administration gave the green light to food made
 from cloned cows, pigs and goats, with the agency's top food-safety expert, Dr.
 Stephen Sundlof, declaring, "It is beyond our imagination to even have a theory
 for why the food is unsafe." Opponents of biotechnology immediately let out a
 collective groan of disapproval - among them Jerry Greenfield of Ben & Jerry's
 ice cream (who has called cloning "just weird"). Cloning, after all, will now
 join genetically modified crops as yet another threat to organic agriculture. I,
 too, let out a groan, but for a different reason.
 It was because of the tone. "It is beyond our imagination to even find a theory.
 " The hubris here highlights the saddest aspect of our perennial food wars. Like
 abortion and capital punishment, biotechnology inspires knee-jerk rhetorical
 passion rather than rational debate. Sundlof's remark was the equivalent of an
 uppercut to the anti-biotech camp, one offering an open invitation to fight
 back.
 Look at the battle over genetically modified crops starting in the '90s to
 understand how that language undermines the qualified benefits of biotech
 innovation. Without a hint of doubt, pro-biotech forces insisted genetically
 modified crops would end hunger and eliminate the need for pesticides. Genetic
 modification supposedly was a harmless panacea that would save the planet.
 Industry not only promoted this fiction, but it scoffed at the prospects of
 product labeling, insisting that it was the product, not the process, that
 mattered.
 This arrogant attitude spurred the anti-biotech forces to promote their own
 distortions. "Frankenfoods" became the term of choice for genetically modified
 crops. Chemical companies engaged in "biopiracy"; they were killers of monarch
 butterflies, engineers of future "superweeds"; and says Jeremy Rifkin, the
 biotech opponent, monopolizers of an insidious technology that posed "as serious
 a threat to the existence of life on the planet as the bomb itself."
 Lost in this rhetorical battle was a quiet middle ground where the benefits and
 drawbacks of genetically engineered crops were responsibly considered. What
 emerged from this investigation - undertaken by population experts, plant
 biologists, farmers, conservationists, nonprofit foundations and agricultural
 scientists - was cautious optimism for a new technology. The specialists
 recognized that such crops could reduce deforestation by increasing crop yields
 on less land, moderate overuse of synthetic insecticides, decrease dependence on
 irrigation through drought-resistant crops, and greatly reduce soil erosion
 through no-till farming. They also looked at the hundreds of studies finding
 that the technology was relatively safe.
 But the middle ground also confronted the dangers that could arise through
 genetically modified crops. Indeed, it is possible for cross-pollination to
 "contaminate" wild varieties of food, decreasing biodiversity. Likewise, it is
 possible (if very unlikely) that animals fed modified crops could pass genes to
 humans that render antibiotics ineffective.
 That patents of transgenic methods are controlled by a few deep-pocketed
 corporations is also unsettling. One need not be an anti-biotech radical to have
 problems with a "terminator gene" that prevents crops from producing
 second-generation seed. Rather than dismiss those concerns (as Monsanto does) or
 grossly overstate them (as Greenpeace and Rifkin do), such people as Per
 Pinstrup-Andersen, the former director general of the International Food Policy
 Research Institute, have asked a profoundly productive question: What are the
 limits of modern society's precautionary principle? Knowing it is impossible to
 prove a negative, when should a society agree to accept a technology with proven
 benefits and potential dangers?
 Pinstrup-Andersen decided the benefits of modified crops outweigh the drawbacks.
 The public, however, was distracted by the rhetorical crossfire, which had no
 use for this reasoned, necessarily imperfect response to a complex technology.
 I hope the same situation does not play out on cloning. Our collective failure
 to grapple with genetic modification on its own terms has been accompanied by
 the equally unfortunate failure to bring its benefits to cultures that might
 gain the most from it - insect-resistant cassava or drought-tolerant maize could
 be a boon in Africa.
 Cloning technology, too, has many possible benefits. It has the potential to
 produce products that are safer, healthier and tastier. It might seem "just
 weird," but cloning deserves a fair hearing, one in which impassioned language
 yields the floor to responsible discourse.
 LOAD-DATE: February 7, 2008
 NOTES: James E. McWilliams, a history professor at Texas State University at San
 Marcos, is the author of the forthcoming "American Pests: The Losing War on
 Insects from Colonial Times to DDT." Copyright 2008 The New York Times.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer









Document Number: 580
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                            February 6, 2008 Wednesday
 3 nations say OK to biotech soybeans Japan, the Philippines and Taiwan approve
 imports of Monsanto product.
 BYLINE: By Rachel Melcer ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. C2
 LENGTH: 290 words
 Monsanto Co. said Tuesday that its Roundup Ready 2 Yield biotech soybeans
 received import approval by regulators in Japan, the Philippines and Taiwan.
 Japan is the No. 3 market for soybeans grown in the United States.
 These soybeans will boost yield in the range of 7 to 11 percent over Creve
 Coeur-based Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans, the company said. Like
 traditional Roundup Ready crops, Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybeans are genetically
 modified to withstand applications of glyphosate herbicide, making it easier for
 farmers to kill weeds.
 Higher yields "increase the ability of U.S. soybean growers to supply food, feed
 and fuel markets domestically and around the globe," said John Hoffman,
 president of the Creve Coeur-based American Soybean Association, in a news
 release.
 The yield boost also comes at an opportune time for American growers because
 soybean prices are soaring, recently topping $11 per bushel, double the 2005
 price. The trend is driven by increased global demand and decreased planting, as
 farmers switched acres to corn to feed the ethanol boom.
 Monsanto plans a limited product launch for Roundup Ready 2 Yield of 1 million
 to 2 million acres in the United States next year; and a full-scale release for
 5 million to 6 million acres in 2010.
 Regulators in the United States and Canada approved Roundup Ready 2 Yield
 soybeans for planting in July. Monsanto said it is being reviewed for import
 approval by the European Union, China and other key markets.
 China was the top importer of U.S. soybean products last year, buying soybeans
 and oil valued at $2.59 billion, according to data compiled by the American
 Soybean Association. Mexico imported soybeans, oil and meal valued at $1.04
 billion; Japan, $992 million.
 TECHNOLOGY; TRADE; ANNOUNCEMENT; ASIA; Monsanto Co.; BIOTECHNOLOGY; PRODUCT;
 LOAD-DATE: February 6, 2008
  PHOTO - A farmer holds genetically modified soybeans. Monsanto's Roundup Ready
 2 Yield biotech soybeans have received approval for import by regulators in
 Japan, the Philippines and Taiwan.  Monsanto / Bloomberg News
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2008 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 581
 
                       Monterey County Herald (California)
                             February 4, 2008 Monday
 Gardening for the future
 BYLINE: Tom Karwin On Gardening
 SECTION: HOME AND GARDEN; Columnists
 LENGTH: 1009 words
 When we garden, we spend a good part of our time focusing on details: seeds,
 buds, crumbles of soil, tiny insects, blossoms, fruits. In many ways, gardening
 is about those details, some that are profoundly ordinary, others that embody
 nature's miracles.
 We should occasionally step back from those details to contemplate the larger
 scene, and the trends that define our future.
 Society is changing in multiple ways at any given moment, but in this column we
 consider trends in the context of gardening, in which the principal trend is
 toward sustainability.
 Sustainability is really a simple concept. A process or state is sustainable if
 it can be maintained at a certain rate or a certain level. In the example of
 garden soil, we can, through our choices, sustain or improve or worsen its
 original quality.
 Although the concept is easily grasped, the actions that result in
 sustainability or improvement or degradation can become entangled with other
 objectives (e.g., profitability), and consequently more challenging to
 understand.
 The Ecological Farming Association, a Monterey Bay area organization, has a long
 history of working to untangle these concepts. One of its most productive
 projects is an annual conference that promotes sustainable, healthy food. In
 January, the association convened the 28th annual Eco-Farm Conference at the
 Asilomar Conference Center in Pacific Grove.
 The event included more than 60 sessions on many aspects of sustainable
 agriculture, and exhibited the goods and services of dozens of companies and
 organizations. The occasion's buzzwords, in addition to "sustainability,"
 included "organic," "natural" and "healthy." The perceived threats to
 sustainable, natural processes and healthy produce included synthetic chemical
 fertilizers and herbicides, and genetically engineered foods.
 Interestingly, the conference program did not include a single reference to the
 Light Brown Apple Moth or pheromone spraying.
 The conference's keynote speaker was Eric Schlosser, the author of the
 best-selling book "Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All American Meal"
 (2005). He spoke of "sustainability" as it relates to both the individual and
 society in general.
 His thesis was that the fast food mentality represents the enemy of
 sustainability. He noted that a healthy diet is the foundation of good health,
 which is essential to individual sustainability, i.e., longevity. In his view,
 fast food is inherently unhealthy and promotes obesity, diabetes and other
 ailments.
 He also discussed several ways in which the fast-food industry endangers the
 sustainability of society and the environment. For example, Americans consume
 ever-increasing numbers of cows, chickens and pigs, which are grown in huge
 industrial operations. The animals typically are treated inhumanely, like
 commodities rather than sentient beings, and their waste contaminates our
 environment.
 Schlosser traced the emergence of the fast-food mentality, with McDonald's as
 the archetype. He noted that our diet has changed more since the appearance of
 fast food than it had in the previous 30,000 years.
 He observed that this industry is characterized by its emphasis on controlling
 all aspects of the foods it produces and establishing a high degree of
 uniformity in the food products. The industry is now extending this industrial
 approach through genetically engineered foods.
 Schlosser charged that the fast food industry thrives on keeping consumers
 ignorant of the unsustainable character of its products. It does so, he claimed,
 by bombarding the public with a relentless campaign of misinformation about the
 quality of these foods and their long-term effects on our health and longevity.
 To illustrate his point, he reported survey data indicating that a substantial
 majority of American consumers do not want to eat genetically engineered fruits
 and vegetables or meats from cloned animals. At the same time, 74 percent of the
 public is unaware that supermarkets already offer many genetically engineered
 foods. The food industry works diligently to block requirements to label its
 products as genetically engineered.
 Another speaker was Jeffrey Smith, author of two noteworthy books: "Seeds of
 Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the
 Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating" (2003) and "Genetic Roulette: The
 Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods" (2007). For related
 information about these books and Smith's views, visit www.seedsofdeception.com
 Schlosser and Smith presented very similar viewpoints. Briefly, they claimed
 that the quality of our food has declined significantly as food producers have
 adopted industrial practices of efficiency and uniformity. These practices
 allegedly have increased corporate profits while undermining our health and
 damaging the environment.
 At the same time, both speakers expressed optimism that we are within reach of
 achieving sustainability in our farms. They pointed to the Eco-Farm conference's
 success as evidence of growing support for the shift away from industrialized
 food and toward sustainable agriculture. According to Smith, a small increase in
 consumer's resistance to genetically engineered foods would achieve the "tipping
 point" at which supermarkets would lose interest in stocking those products.
 The Eco-Farm conference stimulated its participants' enthusiasm for
 sustainability and certainly encouraged me to think more about both my groceries
 and my gardening. I'm not ready to panic over these issues, but my garden has
 been free of synthetic chemicals for several years and my diet is close to 100
 percent organic. The Eco-Farm Conference has sustained its advocacy of our
 health and longevity for many years, and everyone in the Monterey Bay area
 benefits from its work. Home gardeners can support this vital trend, the
 environment and their own health by maintaining an organic garden and an organic
 diet.
 Tom Karwin is a Santa Cruz resident and a member of the Monterey Bay Master
 Gardeners. He can be reached at gardening@karwin.com .
 LOAD-DATE: February 26, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2008 The Monterey County Herald
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 582
 
                                 The Denver Post
                             February 3, 2008 Sunday
 SECTION: PERSPECTIVE; Pg. E-02
 LENGTH: 1521 words
 Young and old alike need to be involved
 Re: "Retired doesn't mean dead: Go do something," Jan. 27 guest commentary.
 Ellen Sweets' guest commentary ought to be put in the hands of - or read to, if
 necessary - not only every senior, but also every voting-age citizen.
 As Ms. Sweets so eloquently points out, it's the responsibility of every
 American to get involved, not to roll over, not to accept blithe answers to
 complex and challenging questions.
 The quote she includes from Dr. Martin Luther King about cowardice, vanity and
 conscience slices to the quick. Americans love to hurl detractions at our
 office-holders, oftentimes justifiably so. But as it is always the case, when
 one finger is pointing at another, there are three pointing back at the accuser.
 If the two ends of the age spectrum, seniors and youth, step up quantitatively,
 an earth-shaking, fundamental difference will be made in November.
 To use another line from my generation, with regard to Ms. Sweets' article,
 "Right on!" To put it in the vernacular of today's youth, "You rock, girl!"
 Jerry Fabyanic, Georgetown
 Teenagers can't always make adult decisions
 Re: "Regardless of age, punish felony murderers," Jan. 27 letter to the editor.
 After reading his letter I felt compelled to respond to Scott Weiser's opinion
 of Jessica Peck Corry's article ("A teen's crime, a lifetime to pay; New
 sentencing rules won't help 48 offenders," Jan. 20 Perspective article.) It's
 obvious to me that Mr. Weiser never used poor judgment as a teenager, nor did he
 know any teenagers who made dumb decisions in extreme circumstances.
 In the case of Erik Jensen \, he used poor judgment. I'm sure he was in shock at
 what he stumbled upon. Not being an adult, he was unable to assess the situation
 and do what an adult would supposedly do. To determine that he was therefore a
 sociopath, because he made a stupid decision to help his friend, is quite
 presumptuous.
 There have been numerous scientific studies proving that not all teenagers'
 minds are capable of logical thought. That's why calculus and physics aren't
 normally taught until college and only a few kids are able to grasp the concepts
 while in high school. There are even some young people in college who still
 aren't able to grasp these concepts until their late 20s. I hope that it's
 because of these studies that the thinking behind charging kids as adults is
 revisited.
 Susan Plitt, Milliken
 ---------------------------------------- A nuclear battle No energy silver
 bullet
 Re: "The greening of nuclear power," Jan. 27 Perspective article.
 David Harsanyi's article quoted the founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, as now
 endorsing nuclear energy. Bravo for someone in his position who has the courage
 to change their opinion.
 Troubling to me was that Harsanyi took editorial liberties in an otherwise very
 positive article to trash ethanol, solar and wind. He states that these
 alternative energy forms are "economically unfeasible and environmentally
 inconsequential." So it appears that in his myopic vision of the future, it's an
 all-or-nothing game. We either find an alternative energy form that
 singlehandedly cures our oil dependence or it is not worth pursuing.
 The recently adopted energy bill contains a requirement for 36 billion gallons
 of renewable fuels by 2022. Harsanyi berates that as meaningless in the scope of
 things. This all-or-
 nothing mentality is one of the reasons we are where we are today in terms of
 oil dependency.
 There is no energy silver bullet. And despite the narrow view of Mr. Harsanyi,
 36 billion gallons, while certainly not the finish line, is a pretty darn good
 start.
 Michael D. Bryan, Salida
 Less costly, better for land
 Throughout history, emotional appeals have carried far more weight than reason,
 and most Americans know less than nothing about science and technology. I'm an
 engineer, so I can do the math; in fact I have done the math, and nuclear power
 is more cost effective than wind turbines or solar cells.
 I also consider myself a person who is interested in preserving the land, and I
 would rather see one nuclear power station in a non-scenic location than 10,000
 wind turbines littering the landscape. The environmental extremists have been
 the leading fear mongers for years, opposing nuclear power, all forms of
 agricultural chemicals and fertilizers, and genetically modified crops.
 It's encouraging to see that some of the leaders of the environmental movement
 are having a lucid moment and are toning down their rhetoric, so that cooler
 heads may someday prevail.
 Steve Blecher, Littleton
 Nuclear waste dangerous
 In an otherwise reasonable argument for nuclear power generation, David Harsanyi
 neglects to even mention the major drawback to that technology. He tells us that
 "Annual waste from a typical nuclear reactor would fit in the bed of a pickup
 truck." What he doesn't tell us is that that pickup truck would then be unusable
 by humans for the next few millenia.
 The problem with nuclear waste has never been its volume, but rather its highly
 toxic, dangerous character. Long-term storage of nuclear waste is possible with
 reasonable safety, but then the problem becomes political. It seems that no
 state wants a permanent storage facility within its borders, and many don't even
 want the waste passing through.
 Harsanyi should not be so facile in dismissing solar and wind energy, because
 they avoid a type of pollution that even nuclear reactors share with fossil fuel
 plants, namely thermal pollution. That is, wind and solar power generation do
 not dump any heat into the environment that wouldn't get there anyway;
 hydroelectric power is another generation method avoiding thermal pollution.
 Gary Waldman, Aurora
 The writer is a retired physics professor.
 Benefits often ignored
 David Harsanyi's article was the first I have read in a long time that really
 talks straightforward science about renewable energy and about nuclear power. We
 have ignored for years the safety of the nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft
 carriers the U.S. Navy uses daily around the world, as well as our own nuclear
 power plants. We have focused only on the potential for the bad and totally
 ignored all the wonderful benefits available from nuclear power.
 John Gishpert, Denver
 A Faustian bargain
 Since Homer Simpson and Patrick Moore both are on the nuclear industry's
 payroll, David Harsanyi might check with more objective sources on whether
 nuclear power is "green."
 Nuclear energy won't "help the United States overcome its dependence on foreign
 oil" unless we convert our cars, trucks, trains, ships and aircraft to electric
 or hydrogen power. That's not likely, certainly not in time to keep climate
 change in check.
 The nuclear industry has not found a way to dispose of radioactive wastes,
 protect power plants from terrorist attack or ensure that nuclear materials do
 not fall into the hands of enemies who want dirty bombs and nuclear weapons.
 Nuclear power generation already is being curtailed in the Southeast because of
 insufficient cooling water. Twenty-four of the nation's 104 nuclear reactors are
 located in areas experiencing high levels of drought.
 Nuclear power is neither the safest nor the cleanest of major energy
 technologies. That honor belongs to energy efficiency.
 Nuclear power has been heavily subsidized by taxpayers since 1948 and still
 cannot compete in the marketplace without federal largesse.
 Nukes remain a Faustian bargain. Homer Simpson would tell us this if he wasn't
 afraid of getting canned by Mr. Burns.
 William Becker, Executive Director, Presidential Climate Action Project
 Better option on warming
 My hat is off to David Harsanyi for his fine article on nuclear power. I've long
 felt that more use of nuclear power in place of coal-fired power is one of the
 most likely-to-succeed options for combating global warming. None of the other
 options such as use of ethanol, solar or wind power, or increasing the fuel
 efficiency of automobiles, has anywhere near the potential to solve the global
 warming problem.
 Richard Moog, Centennial
 Expensive way to boil HbO
 For the past two decades, Patrick Moore has made a career out of using his
 status as a "founder" of Greenpeace to attack the environmental movement. If
 Moore is to be believed, the Amazon rainforest is perfectly healthy, the Three
 Gorges Dam was the best thing the Chinese could have done for energy, and
 opposition to genetically modified foods is mass murder.
 Assuming that it is true that the waste created by a single person's lifetime
 use of nuclear power could fit in a soda can, that soda can will persist in the
 environment for 250,000 years. That soda can is so toxic that if you were to
 stand within 3 feet of it, it would kill you in less than a minute. Multiply
 that by the number of Americans producing those soda cans, and we begin to see
 the scope of the problem associated with nuclear power.
 Notwithstanding the ignorance propagated by turncoats like Patrick Moore and
 perpetuated by willing dupes like David Harsanyi, nuclear power remains the most
 expensive and dangerous way to boil water that man has invented.
 Sean Gale, Denver
 LOAD-DATE: February 4, 2008
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Letter
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2008 The Denver Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 583
 
                          Anchorage Daily News (Alaska)
                             February 1, 2008 Friday
 Letters from the people
 SECTION: MAT-SU WEEKLY SECTION; Pg. J2
 LENGTH: 290 words
 In long run, you pay more for inexpensive products
 In the last three days I've had a light in our garage, an alarm clock by my bed
 and a shovel I was using to move snow break or quit working. All three were
 purchased within the last year. Guess which country they were all made in.
 I keep hearing what a great deal I am getting because companies use cheap
 overseas labor. Bull! I'm no math genius but twice the time shopping and twice
 the cost does not add up to a savings.
 I know they are hard to find anymore, but look for the label "Made in the USA."
 -- Vincent Doran
 Wasilla
 Organic grown food tops  locally grown products
 In response to Arthur Keyes' Jan. 14 Compass ("Locally produced food is better
 than imported organic"), I would like to applaud the efforts of farmers (it's
 hard work), but also caution that local is not better than organic unless the
 local food is organic.
 Comparing the shipping costs, freshness, climate and access does not equate to
 the quality and composition of the food itself. Buying certified organic food is
 a reliable way to avoid eating harmful pesticides, herbicides, growth hormones,
 antibiotics and genetically modified food organisms. Despite efforts to water
 down the definition of organic, it's still difficult to obtain the
 certification, which to me brings more credence to the label. And I have been
 satisfied with the freshness and selections available organically at local
 grocery stores, augmented with products from Organic Alaska, and Full Circle (a
 certified organic farm near Seattle participating in Community Supported
 Agriculture, or CSA).
 So for me, given a choice between local and organic, I'd choose organic. Locally
 grown organic would be ideal.
 -- Emily Northam
 Palmer
 LOAD-DATE: February 1, 2008
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Commentary
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2008 Anchorage Daily News
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 584
 
                              Tulsa World (Oklahoma)
                             January 29, 2008 Tuesday
                                Final Home Edition
 Good food?
 BYLINE: Staff Reports
 SECTION: Opinion; Pg. A18
 LENGTH: 345 words
 So what are we not being told about genetically modified foods? If they're so
 safe, why have Europe and Japan abandoned their use? And why are fields of
 genetically modified plant foods shunned by wildlife in favor of non-modified
 crops in adjacent fields?
 It begins with weeds. The food conglomerates came up with a solution -- to
 create crops that won't die from the onslaught of weed killers. Thus, you can
 dowse your soybean, corn or other seed crops with weed-killing spray without
 killing other plants. Sounds reasonable, right? However, what works in theory
 doesn't necessarily translate into a process that produces food healthy for
 human consumption.
 While the surviving plants have survived the chemical onslaught, they've
 nonetheless now soaked in those chemicals. Then there's the matter of the gene
 that has been inserted into a foreign organism. In nature, everything is
 connected so you can't change just one gene without causing surprise changes in
 other genes. And, besides the chemical exposure, those changes (or mutations)
 can damage your brain, lungs, liver or skin -- not overnight but over the years,
 especially in children.
 So if we're as wise as our wildlife creatures are we'll learn to shun
 genetically modified foods, too. Since the Food and Drug Administration does not
 regulate genetically modified foods it's up to us to be alert and to not
 purchase such foods. How? Well, organic foods are by definition GMO-free. And
 many products are now labeled "non-GMO." For more information, go to the
 following site: www.responsibletechnology.org.
 John B. Bradley, Tulsa
 Letters to the editor are encouraged. Each letter must be signed and include an
 address and a telephone number where the writer can be reached during business
 hours. Addresses and phone numbers will not be published. Letters should be a
 maximum of 200 words to be considered for publication and may be edited for
 length, style and grammar. Letters should be addressed to Letters to the Editor,
 Tulsa World, Box 1770, Tulsa, Okla., 74102, or send e-mail to
 letters@tulsaworld.com
 (78%); FOOD INDUSTRY (78%); FOOD & BEVERAGE (73%) Opinion
 LOAD-DATE: January 30, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2008 The Tulsa World









Document Number: 585
 
                                 University Wire
                             January 29, 2008 Tuesday
 FDA approves cloned animals safe for human consumption
 BYLINE: by Allison Balthazor, The Poly Post; SOURCE: Cal Poly-Pomona
 LENGTH: 405 words
 DATELINE: POMONA, Calif.
 On Jan. 15 the Food and Drug Administration recognized meat and milk from most
 cloned livestock as safe for humans.
 Meat and milk from cloned cattle, goats and pigs are safe; however, there isn't
 enough information on sheep yet.
 The meat patties on your next double-double from In-N-Out won't be from a
 genetically altered cow, however. Cloned animals are too expensive to slaughter.
 Instead, clones will be used in breeding programs to produce animals that will
 be used for human consumption. The benefit to this program is the offspring of
 clones will have consistently tender meat or high-quality milk.
 Shelton Murinda, a Cal Poly animal science professor who teaches meat science
 and animal applications with biotechnology, pointed out that biotechnology has
 been present in the horticulture industry for many years, without modified
 products being labeled.
 Meat from cloned animals and their offspring is not required to be labeled on
 the package.
 Producers can label meat for consumption as clone-free meat, appealing to
 consumers that desire to know which kind of animal they are eating. Labeling
 clone-free meat would help those trying to avoid meat from cloned offspring for
 moral or religious reasons.
 Murinda also said cloning may be in the best interest of consumers, pointing to
 an advancement in which some cattle were genetically modified to be free of
 bovine spongiform encephalopathy, commonly known as mad cow disease.
 Producers will also be assisted in delivering a quality product more reliably;
 for example, there's a better chance the steak you buy will be just as tender
 and flavorful as the last you had.
 Some students don't seem too bothered by the idea of consuming cloned meat.
 "I don't know much about it, so I wouldn't care if I ate it," said Carly Clarke,
 a third-year fine arts student.
 Jessica Gordon, a third-year animal science student, said if it tastes the same
 and has the same nutrients, she has "no problem eating cloned meat," but she
 hasn't made up her mind because she hasn't had the chance to try it yet.
 Another shortcoming in cloning animals is there a low success rate of producing
 healthy clones. Many cloned animals are born unhealthy and deformed, posing a
 challenge and raising a red flag to animal welfare groups.
 The FDA's decision meant the United States joined Europe, Australia and New
 Zealand in declaring food from cloned animals as fit for consumption.
 (C) 2008 The Poly Post via U-WIRE
 LOAD-DATE: January 29, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                     Copyright 2008 The Poly Post via U-Wire









Document Number: 586
 
                         The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
                             January 28, 2008 Monday
                                   Main Edition
 Extracting answers to organic questions
 BYLINE: LAURA DIAMOND; Staff
 SECTION: GWINNETT NEWS; Pg. 1J
 LENGTH: 387 words
 One counter in the science classroom in the Grayson High School technical
 education program resembled a supermarket. Remnants of papaya, tofu, soy nuts,
 corn flour and blue corn tortilla chips rested on one another.
 Labels described the items as organic, to varying degrees. But were they?
 Teacher Bill Nye (he's a science guy, but not THAT science guy) organized an
 experiment for his students to find out.
 The lesson called on students to detect GM (genetically modified) foods by PCR
 (polymerase chain reaction). Basically, students run an experiment to see if any
 food had its DNA altered.
 "We're putting the labels and food manufacturers to the test," student Brian
 Duke said.
 The experiment covers molecular biology, genetics and advanced scientific
 concepts. The activity is one of several high-level lessons students work on in
 the biotechnology program. The course lets Gwinnett high-schoolers perform
 experiments most students don't work on until junior year of college. Think of
 the course as a classroom version of the television show "CSI."
 The experiment took up two class periods last week. Students extracted DNA
 samples from food. They copied the DNA and added compounds and chemicals to view
 the foods' genetic bands. Foods that have been modified contain a different
 genetic sequence. The students planned to compare the sequences found in their
 foods with control items from genetically modified and non-genetically modified
 food to determine if the test items were altered.
 At one point, the samples looked like blueberry-flavored Jell-O.
 The experiment didn't go as planned. The bands of DNA appeared on only one
 sample, meaning most students couldn't determine whether their food was
 modified.
 Student Julia Christian said she knew the experiment wouldn't work on the first
 try. Duke wondered if he messed up making the solution everyone used.
 Nye refused to let students wallow in self-pity.
 "This is science," he said. "It can be frustrating but sometimes things don't
 always work. We make mistakes, and we learn from it. We don't give up."
 The class planned to try the experiment again today and Tuesday.
 For more information about the biotechnology program at Grayson, go to:
 www.graysonhighschool.org/index.php and click on the tag for "Grayson Technical
 Education Program."
 VOCATIONAL & TECHNICAL TRAINING (89%) metrogwinnettstory
 LOAD-DATE: January 28, 2008
 GRAPHIC: Photo: KIMBERLY SMITH / Staff1: Brian Duke, a student in the
 biotechnology studies program at Grayson High School, puts corn meal samples
 into a well, located in a tray of an agar gel mixture. A test will determine if
 the corn meal sample is truly organic or modified in some manner./ImageData*
 ImageData*
 Photo: KIMBERLY SMITH / Staff2: A view of the pipette up close as it deposits a
 sample of the corn meal./ImageData* ImageData*
 Photo: KIMBERLY SMITH / Staff3: Duke (right) and Michael Bostic attach their
 test samples to a unit that will charge the trays with electricity. Bostic was
 testing organic tortilla chips. Duke was testing corn meal./ImageData*
 ImageData*
 Photo: KIMBERLY SMITH / Staff4: Teacher Bill Nye (left) helps Tanisha Hicks
 flood her sample tray with a bath of blue dye, which will help make the DNA
 samples more easily viewable./ImageData* ImageData*
 Photo: KIMBERLY SMITH / Staff5: Tanisha Hicks rocks a tray containing DNA
 samples saturated in a blue dye bath./ImageData* ImageData*
 Photo: KIMBERLY SMITH / Staff6: Students rinse dye from the tray containing the
 gel and its samples, now a deep blue./ImageData* ImageData*
 Photo: KIMBERLY SMITH / Staff7: Rene Landress (left) and Jack Stasul rinse dye
 from a sample./ImageData* ImageData*
 Photo: KIMBERLY SMITH / Staff8: As Hicks and Olivia Riley (far right) work on
 the experiment, teacher Bill Nye shows Landress the genetic bands from the corn
 meal sample./ImageData* ImageData*
 Photo: KIMBERLY SMITH / Staff9: Nye points to the genetic banding on a corn meal
 sample illuminated for better viewing. It was determined that the corn meal may
 not have been truly organic. The test will be repeated to determine if the
 results are the same or different./ImageData* ImageData*
 Photo: KIMBERLY SMITH / Staff10: This emblem goes on foods that meet USDA
 organic growing standards./ImageData*
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspapers
                 Copyright 2008 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution









Document Number: 587
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                             January 27, 2008 Sunday
 'Agriculture is in new territory' Monsanto is shifting its focus from corn to
 new biotech soybeans.
 BYLINE: By Rachel Melcer St. Louis Post-Dispatch
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. E1
 LENGTH: 1004 words
 A shift is becoming visible in the research labs and executive suites of crop
 giant Monsanto Co.
 After years of focusing on corn, the Creve Coeur-based company is developing new
 biotech soybeans. Monsanto's leaders also are thinking as much about demand from
 China's growing middle class and from heath-conscious Americans as they are
 about feeding biofuel facilities.
 The company's soaring earnings and share price last year largely were attributed
 to growing ethanol use, but other factors are coming into play.
 "Agriculture is in new territory," Hugh Grant, Monsanto's president, chairman
 and chief executive, said in a recent interview.
 "I'm not belittling biofuels, but I think there's a tremendous opportunity
 behind it," Grant said. "There's a larger global factor that's being masked, in
 some ways, by biofuels - and that's the demand curve coming out of Asia."
 Scott Rozelle, an agriculture economist and China expert who teaches at Stanford
 University and the University of California-Davis, said both factors are fueling
 unprecedented global demand for soybeans, corn and other grain.
 "If they were two elephants sitting on a teeter-totter, which one would inch up
 and which one is going to inch down?" he said. Biofuels eventually will be
 outweighed by demand from China, "but they're both going to break the
 teeter-totter."
 Farmers need new technology to help them squeeze greater yield out of every
 acre, Rozelle said. They must supply the world while facing shortages of prime
 cropland and water.
 Monsanto, the world leader in developing genetically modified crops and using
 molecular technology in breeding, is working feverishly to help them.
 The company spends nearly 10 percent of sales each year on research and
 development. In fiscal 2007, its R"...&"...D budget topped $780 million. The
 result is a pipeline of 26 biotech crop products - a dozen in soybeans, nine in
 corn, four in cotton and one in canola.
 The first to hit the market will be Roundup RReady2Yield soybeans, which will
 give farmers a yield increase of between 7 percent and 11 percent beginning in
 2009, the company said. On its heels will be the launch of SmartStax corn, which
 combines eight traits to boost yield and make it easier for farmers to deal with
 weeds and pests.
 Monsanto sees these as platform technologies, upon which it will layer traits
 that consumers value: Soybeans enriched with heart-healthy Omega 3 fatty acids
 or modified to produce inexpensive oil that can match the product of olives in
 dietary benefits.
 Also in the pipeline are crops that can survive with less water and nitrogen
 fertilizer. They are valued by growers because they are more dependable and
 cheaper to grow.
 Consumers also appreciate these improvements because they make agriculture more
 sustainable and easier on the environment, said Robb Fraley, the company's chief
 technology officer. "You don't have to be a farmer to understand what 'drought'
 means," he said.
 Drought-tolerant seeds "resonate with consumers," he said, and, along with
 soybeans that contribute to healthier diets, should help overcome lingering
 opposition to genetically modified crops in many circles.
 Food companies, which resisted commercialization of biotech potatoes and wheat,
 are anxious for improvements in soybean oil, Fraley said.
 Many consumer foods already include oil from herbicide-tolerant Roundup Ready
 soybeans, which are grown in more than 90 percent of the U.S. crop.
 Nevertheless, there are vocal proponents of organic agriculture and consumers
 who believe genetically modified crops pose a threat to human health and
 biodiversity.
 The Roundup Ready trait, commercialized in 1986, is the only one Monsanto has on
 the market for soybeans. Growers are anxious for new technology, said John
 Hoffman, president of the Creve Coeur-based American Soybean Association and a
 farmer in Waterloo, Iowa.
 "We're excited about these products. There's a lot of buzz out in the
 countryside, even though they're a few years off," he said.
 In a few years, soybeans with dietary traits for consumers will help growers
 differentiate their crops from commodity varieties grown in Brazil and Argentina
 and fetch higher prices, Hoffman said. More immediately, growers are looking
 forward to the yield bump from Roundup RReady2Yield varieties.
 "Global demand is tremendous for more soybeans," driven by the expansion of
 biodiesel as well as the booming population in Asia, Hoffman said. "So this new
 technology will arrive just in time...".... Farmers are going to readily want to
 adopt it."
 Henry Nguyen, director of the National Center for Soybean Biotechnology at the
 University of Missouri-Columbia, said soybeans have been "on the back burner" as
 growers and agriculture companies focused on corn-based ethanol opportunities.
 However, researchers believe ethanol eventually will be made more efficiently
 from cellulosic materials, such as switch grass and corn stalks, and that demand
 will subside.
 Soybeans, on the other hand, are approaching a peak, he said.
 Monsanto hasn't deliberately neglected soybean innovations. Rather, it refined
 its strategy a few years ago to focus solely on corn, soybeans, cotton and
 technology - dropping development of biotech wheat, rice and forestry, Grant
 said. Once that decision was made, the company began addressing opportunities in
 the four row crops and corn came first.
 Monsanto began ramping up investment in soybeans about four years ago, he said.
 It takes about seven years for the company to develop hybrids using genetic
 marker technology, and eight to 10 years to get a biotech crop to market.
 Academic researchers, foreign governments and competitors see the same
 opportunities and needs as Monsanto, and also are developing biotech crop
 technologies.
 "But I think Monsanto outspends most foreign countries in terms of research, so
 they're going to be a very important player," Rozelle said.
 "Their technology program is very, very innovative and they'll have some great
 products coming out" to meet demand that can't be accommodated in any other way.
 LOAD-DATE: January 27, 2008
 NOTES:  Monsanto Co. CEO Hugh Grant:
  PHOTO - Grant
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2008 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 588
 
                            Bangor Daily News (Maine)
                            January 23, 2008 Wednesday
                                   All Editions
 GE seed target of federal lawsuit
 SECTION: Pg. A5
 LENGTH: 450 words
 Organic farmers Jim and Megan Gerritsen of Wood Prairie Farm plant a wide
 variety of crops - carrots, potatoes, onions, beets and parsnips. They also have
 a thriving Internet site that offers organic seeds - seeds which the Gerritsens
 must guarantee and be confident are purely organic.
 But because of some new planting regulations allowed in a valley in Oregon, Jim
 Gerritsen, farmers and conservation groups are worried that their organic seed
 will become cross-pollinated by genetically engineered crops.
 Gerritsen is the national president of the Organic Seed Alliance, one of a
 number of organizations that filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday in San Francisco
 against the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
 The suit is challenging the deregulation of herbicide-tolerant Roundup Ready,
 wind-pollinated sugar beets. Those participating in the suit include the Organic
 Seed Alliance, the Sierra Club, High Mowing Organic Seeds and the Center for
 Food Safety.
 According to Gerritsen, the deregulation's impact on Maine farmers will be
 great. "The seed that is grown primarily in Oregon is very important for the
 crops grown by Maine's organic farmers," he said Tuesday. He said Oregon's
 Willamette Valley is one of the nation's most important seed-growing areas. Seed
 there is grown for sugar beets, organic chard and table beet crops.
 "The economic impact of contamination affects not only these seed farmers, but
 the beet and chard farmers who rely on the integrity of their varieties," said
 Matthew Dillon of the Organic Seed Alliance.
 The suit is demanding that mandated assessments of environmental, health and
 associated economic effects take place before the deregulation is allowed.
 "The government cannot simply ignore the fact that deregulation will harm
 organic farmers and consumers and exacerbate the growing epidemic of
 herbicide-resistant weeds," Greg Loarie of Earthjustice said in a prepared
 statement.
 The Sierra Club has weighed into the suit because of the effect on consumers.
 The sugar produced by these beets may be included in products ranging from candy
 to breakfast cereal to bread. Planting is expected to begin in the western U.S.
 this spring.
 "As a consumer, I'm very concerned about genetically engineering sugar making
 its way into the products I eat, as well as genetic contamination of
 conventional and organically-grown varieties of table beets and chard," Neil
 Carman of the Sierra Club said. "It's unacceptable for consumers to be exposed
 to untested genetically engineered ingredients in foods that aren't labeled. At
 a time when consumers are facing multiple food safety challenges, we don't need
 more corporations messing with our food supply."
 bdnpittsfield@verizon.net
 LOAD-DATE: January 23, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                         Copyright 2008 Bangor Daily News









Document Number: 589
 
                                 University Wire
                            January 23, 2008 Wednesday
 FDA's approval of cloned animal meat alarming
 BYLINE: By Jordan Salisbury, Oklahoma Daily; SOURCE: U. Oklahoma
 LENGTH: 678 words
 DATELINE: NORMAN, Okla.
 If you were eating cloned animals, wouldn't you want to know?
 According to a BBC article from last week, "The FDA will not require food
 derived from cloned animals to be labeled as such."
 This line warrants your attention. The FDA's decision that eating cloned animals
 is safe is concerning, but the notion that we will lose the right to know if we
 are even eating cloned animals should draw out a strong reaction from those it
 will affect. The exclusion of this labeling requirement reeks of being in the
 interest of the meat industry while failing to protect consumers.
 The FDA only spent six years before concluding that foods from cloned animals
 are safe for Americans to eat. No amount of science, however, will ever prove
 the food completely safe. The best the FDA can do is find no reason to think the
 food is dangerous.
 Additionally, a population of animals with identical genes will be particularly
 susceptible to spreading infections, potentially requiring additional
 antibiotics. Meanwhile, we have millions of years of practice indicating that
 eating animals bred the traditional way is safe for humans.
 Twelve years after the very first sheep was cloned, we will be eating our first
 cloned animal. I want the option to remain with the tried and trusted form of
 animals.
 I am concerned the FDA's decision on labeling requirements will mean cloned and
 normal meat will not need to be kept separately, because it will be sold as the
 same product. It follows that cloned animals and normal animals will also be
 integrated. Allowing the animals and products to mix freely seems an effective
 cost-saving measure for the meat industry, by eliminating the added costs of
 keeping track of cloned animals and meat.
 I am suspicious about this decision coming after only six years. New problems
 could arise from eating 10th-generation cloned animals that are not present
 today. The FDA has determined a food is safe that doesn't even exist yet.
 I understand the FDA has to decide that food is safe for Americans, but do six
 years indicate that there is no reason to even keep track of which meat is
 coming from which animals?
 The United States has not been able to prevent the genes of genetically modified
 crops from spreading into Mexican farms where genetically modified crops are
 illegal. The FDA cannot be sure of our ability to segregate the posterity of
 cloned animals when there will be no requirement to label the final product with
 an indication of its origin.
 Animals eat other animals. Farms will not know whether their cows are eating
 meat from cloned or normal pigs. The line will quickly fade between animals with
 cloned ancestry and those without. Our science today says cloned animals are
 safe to eat, but there is no telling whether our grandchildren's science will
 agree. If we do not separate cloned animals today, we will not be able to in the
 future.
 Some consumers are opposed on ethical grounds to supporting the cloning of
 animals. There is no reason why we should lack the right to know what we are
 eating. The only people that benefit from the exclusion of meat's origin are
 those selling it.
 For consumers, this will have the effect of increasing the cost of traditional
 meat, by making it a luxury item like organic meat today. We will have to pay
 premium to buy food that we can now get anywhere.
 I am arguing for principles, for standing up for the people of this country who,
 for their own reasons, wish to know what they are eating.
 If we do not insist today on keeping track of which meat is from cloned animals,
 we will lose our ability to do so in the future.
 If this concerns you, go out and support an organization working to protect
 consumer's rights. Write to a politician asking to get legislation passed in
 your state enforcing the accurate labeling of food. Make a Facebook group.
 Our generation will be eating this food. It will be sold on the University of
 Oklahoma's campus to our younger siblings. Ensuring that we have the right to
 opt out of eating food from cloned animals is too important not to care.
 (C) 2008 Oklahoma Daily via U-WIRE
 LOAD-DATE: January 23, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                     Copyright 2008 Oklahoma Daily via U-Wire









Document Number: 590
 
                                The New York Times
                            January 16, 2008 Wednesday
                               Late Edition - Final
 War on Allergies
 SECTION: Section F; Column 0; Dining, Dining Out/Cultural Desk; LETTERS; Pg. 6
 LENGTH: 388 words
 To the Editor:
 Re ''Food Allergies Stir a Mother to Action,'' (Jan. 9):
 I think you missed the point with your article on Robyn O'Brien of AllergyKids.
 Rather than spending your limited words making her sound like a crazed
 conspiracy theorist, you could have spent those precious paragraphs talking
 about the things she is trying to help educate other mothers about: soy baby
 formula (which is banned in many other countries), the toxins in our food
 supply, what genetically modified foods really are, why we should eat organic
 foods.
 Robyn is determined, and she will use whatever she can to help her cause.
 Doesn't everyone do that in their personal and professional lives? She's  trying
 to make positive changes.
 Meredith Lischer Bradford
 Louisville, Ky.
 To the Editor:
 Robyn O'Brien is on to something. The question is not, do these food additives
 and processing methods cause allergies in the general population?  But the far
 more sophisticated and meaningful question, is there a subset of the population
 that is vulnerable and reactive to them? The answer is a resounding ''yes.'' You
 are not going to find a perfect relationship between cause and effect when
 looking at millions of people. But are there those who for various reasons of
 biochemical individuality, metabolic uniqueness, specific vulnerability, liver
 enzyme idiosyncrasy and the like simply cannot handle these substances? You bet
 there are.Food companies  can claim innocence all they like, but parents are
 often the first to know, and their observations should not be dismissed out of
 hand simply because they can't perform a publishable study ''proving'' what they
 see.
 Jonny Bowden
 Woodland Hills, Calif.
 The writer is a nutrition specialist.
 To the Editor:
 Robyn O'Brien's crusade against supposedly allergy-inducing foods -- nonorganic,
 processed foods -- is misleading and potentially dangerous. An organic peanut is
 just as allergenic as one grown by high-tech means -- indeed it may eventually
 be more so. Bioengineered peanuts that lack the allergenic proteins are under
 development; their use would allow parents to relax about allergic children
 consuming peanut butter. Unless, of course, those parents follow Ms. O'Brien's
 advice and use only organic foods, which may not be produced with this modern
 technology.  RUTH Kava
 New York
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: January 16, 2008
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Letter
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 591
 
                            The Philadelphia Inquirer
                            January 16, 2008 Wednesday
                                  CITY-D Edition
 Editorial: Cloned Food;
 What's the beef?
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; P-com Opinion; Pg. A14
 LENGTH: 451 words
 Is America ready to eat beef from cloned animals?
 The Food and Drug Administration thinks so. The agency ruled this week that it's
 safe for meat and dairy manufacturers to use such animals as sources for food
 products.
 Not to worry: Nothing like Dolly the sheep will be showing up in the Acme for a
 few years yet.
 Before that happens, the FDA needs to take a few more steps. Such as: Require
 any manufacturer using cloned animals to label products clearly and
 unambiguously and track and test those products as they move through the food
 chain.
 The FDA's new ruling lacks these requirements, which is a concern. And testing
 should continue on the safety of any foods made from cloned animals.
 The FDA needs to go slow. The agency already has a big job, and its track record
 is mixed of late. The food industry wields major influence in Washington and
 needs to be watched closely.
 Self-monitoring and -testing by companies isn't good enough. Even if companies
 agree to self-monitor and share the results, they're to be taken with a shoulder
 of pork. The few tracking programs that do exist don't inspire confidence.
 Up to now, the FDA has been unable or unwilling to monitor the production and
 distribution of food in this country. However, there is next to no evidence that
 food from cloned animals poses a risk, indeed poses anything special, to
 consumers.
 True, safety testing of foods is complicated and time-consuming. It's hard to
 follow cloned-source food as people eat it over a long period of time. All the
 more reason for the FDA and the food industry to keep a careful eye on these
 foods once they hit the markets.
 Consumers are wary of the idea of cloned food. But advocacy groups opposed to
 the use of cloned-source food haven't come up with a strong reason to stop it.
 To make sure there isn't one, any company using cloned animals should label
 clearly - and monitor what happens as its products go out into the world.
 Responsible drug companies, toy companies, all sorts of manufacturers do this.
 The same - if not more - tracking and testing should be required here.
 There's no evidence that cloned food should be prohibited. After all, humans
 have been eating genetically altered organisms for 10,000 years plus. Wheat, for
 example, was once a wild grass, cloned and cultivated over hundreds of human
 generations. Livestock breeding is just low-tech genetic modification. Cows are
 designer meat and milk factories.
 U.S. consumers have been eating industrially genetically modified food for about
 10 years already. That's different in degree from the old, slower way but not in
 kind. Cloned food may ultimately boost production and keep a lid on costs. But
 the first rule remains: Do no harm.
 LOAD-DATE: January 16, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2008 Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 592
 
                      Deseret Morning News (Salt Lake City)
                             January 15, 2008 Tuesday
 Modified carrot may help bones
 BYLINE: Beth Jinks Bloomberg News
 LENGTH: 408 words
 A carrot genetically modified to contain more calcium could help prevent bone
 deterioration caused by osteoporosis, using a method that could be applied to
 other fruits and vegetables, scientists say.
 The calcium-fortified carrots contain double the calcium of ordinary carrots,
 according to a study by Texas A&M University released today by the Proceedings
 of the National Academy of Sciences. Extra calcium through genetic tweaking
 could also "improve plant productivity and extend product shelf life,"
 researchers said.
 "When applied to a wide variety of fruits and vegetables, this strategy could
 lead to more calcium consumption in the diet," researchers said. "In the U.S.,
 dietary calcium intake has decreased, such that 90 percent of adolescent girls
 and 50 percent of adolescent boys consume less than the optimal amount of
 calcium."
 In the U.S., more than 8 million women and 2 million men have osteoporosis, a
 bone-thinning disorder that increases the risk of fractures. Scientists blame
 the disease on inadequate calcium intake that could be improved with fortified
 food. Still, opponents of genetically modified food argue the health effects and
 risk to the ecosystem are unknown.
 By eating 100 grams of the modified carrots -- which contain about 60 milligrams
 of calcium -- women absorbed 45.9 percent more calcium, and men took in 38.7
 percent more than by eating the same amount of regular carrots, containing 30
 milligrams of calcium, scientists found.
 Still, the body absorbed a smaller percentage of the additional calcium by
 eating fortified carrots, the study found. People absorb about 52 percent of the
 calcium in normal carrots, but only 42 percent in the altered version, Jay
 Morris, one of the lead researchers and study co-author, said in an e-mail
 response to questions.
 "Forty-two percent of 60 milligrams is much greater than 52 percent of 30
 milligrams," said Morris, who researches children's nutrition at the
 university's Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.
 For the study, scientists fed modified and normal carrots to 30 healthy adults
 aged between 21 and 30 years and measured absorption.
 "A fraction of the modified carrot calcium is not absorbed," said Kendal
 Hirschi, study co-author and a lead researcher said in an e-mail response to
 questions. "However, the vast quantity of the modified carrots' increased
 calcium is absorbed, meaning more calcium even if the fraction of the total
 absorbed is slightly lower."
 LOAD-DATE: January 15, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2008 The Deseret News Publishing Co.









Document Number: 593
 
                            Journal of Commerce Online
                             January 15, 2008 Tuesday
 U.S. delays EU GMO complaint
 SECTION: TRADE; Pg. WP
 LENGTH: 213  words
 The United States has suspended its complaint against European Union rules on
 the import of genetically modified foods, U.S. trade officials said Monday.
 Washington will indefinitely halt proceedings to penalize the EU over its import
 restrictions in an effort to give Brussels more time to bring its practices into
 line with World Trade Organization rules, the office of the U.S. Trade
 Representative said in a statement.
 But USTR spokeswoman Gretchen Hamel said, "The United States remains very
 concerned with EU treatment of agricultural biotech products. Our goal is to
 normalize trade in biotech products, not to impose trade sanctions on EU goods."
 She said that it was up to Brussels to "demonstrate meaningful progress on the
 approval of biotech products."
 In 2006, a WTO panel ruled that some members of the EU broke WTO rules by
 banning imports of genetically modified foods. The United States, Canada and
 Argentina then responded by complaining to the WTO that there was no scientific
 evidence to justify the ban and that it constituted an unfair barrier to
 producers from those countries who wanted to export to Europe.
 Hamel said U.S. seed companies, farmers, and exporters continue to experience
 "significant commercial losses" as a result of the EU actions.
 -- Alan Field
 LOAD-DATE: January 16, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Magazine
                    Copyright 2008 Commonwealth Business Media
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 594
 
                             San Antonio Express-News
                             January 15, 2008 Tuesday
                               STATE&METRO Edition
 Researchers succeed in giving carrots a boost of calcium
 BYLINE: Cindy Tumiel, EXPRESS-NEWS STAFF WRITER
 SECTION: METRO AND STATE NEWS; Pg. 3B
 LENGTH: 539 words
 Scientists at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas A&M University have figured
 out how to get more calcium into carrots and then how to get the vital mineral
 out of the popular vegetable and into the bloodstream of people.
 The amount of calcium in the genetically modified carrots still pales in
 comparison to the quantity in milk. But the work demonstrates that
 laboratory-engineered fruits and vegetables can contribute more of the important
 nutrient, researchers said.
 Lots of small increases could add up to a big nutritional punch, said Jay
 Morris, a scientist at the Children's Nutrition Research Center at Baylor and a
 lead author in the study.
 "Increases across the board in many different fruits and vegetables in a diet
 could have a significant impact in the amount of calcium in a diet," said
 Morris, a San Antonio native.
 Dietary calcium is considered vital for bone health. The U.S. Department of
 Agriculture recommends adults consume 1,000 milligrams of it daily. Milk, one of
 the richest sources of calcium, contains about 300 milligrams per 8-ounce
 serving.
 Inadequate dietary calcium is an issue in many parts of the world, particularly
 in societies that don't have access to dairy products.
 "They rely on fruits and vegetables, but fruits and vegetables are overall poor
 sources of calcium," Morris said. "So this is one possible way to increase the
 level of calcium in fruits and vegetables across the board."
 Morris and colleagues earlier showed that they could double the calcium content
 of carrots by manipulating a plant calcium transporter called sCAX1. The latest
 study, published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of
 Sciences, showed that laboratory mice and humans who ate the carrots were able
 to absorb the nutrient.
 In their experiments, the scientists marked the calcium with a tracer and used
 urine to calculate how much of the nutrient was absorbed. Thirty adult
 volunteers -- half of them men, half of them women -- each came to the
 laboratory on two days to partake of a breakfast of carrots. One meal was of
 regular carrots and the other of the genetically modified version with double
 the calcium.
 Comparisons showed that a 100-gram serving of the genetically modified carrots
 provided study volunteers with 25 to 28 milligrams of calcium, 41 percent more
 than they got from the regular carrots, Morris said.
 Hector Flores, dean of the College of Sciences at Texas State University, noted
 that scientists not only increased the vegetable's calcium content, but also
 improved its availability to humans.
 He said the work "is another potential and novel alternative" to improve the
 bioavailability of nutrients in food.
 Genetically modified foods, though, remain controversial in many corners, as
 people question whether there will be long-term health effects from such
 manipulations.
 Morris admitted that he struggles to understand the fears. "It's something that
 is just going to take a little bit of time (for scientists) to continue showing
 that genetically modified organisms are safe for consumption," he said.
 "Every day, people eat products that have genes in them," Morris said. "Here,
 we've modified something; this was a plant gene that was put in a plant."
 ctumiel@express-news.net
 LOAD-DATE: January 15, 2008
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: News - Local
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                     Copyright 2008 San Antonio Express-News
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 595
 
                         Lincoln Journal Star (Nebraska)
                             January 13, 2008 Sunday
                                   CITY Edition
 Concern sprouts over corn seed deal
 SECTION: F; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 966 words
 Giving farmers who plant Monsanto seed corn a break on crop insurance raises
 eyebrows.
 The U.S. Department of Agriculture has struck an arrangement with agribusiness
 giant Monsanto Co. that gives dryland corn farmers in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa
 and Minnesota a break on federal crop insurance premiums if they plant certain
 Monsanto-brand seed corn this spring.
 The arrangement has raised some eyebrows, particularly among organic farm groups
 that argue the government agency should not be promoting bioengineered corn such
 as Monsanto's.
 The deal is legal, note USDA officials who point out that arrangements like this
 were encouraged for producers of all kinds of commodities in a 2000 crop
 insurance law. The idea is to give producers a break on their insurance premiums
 if they use corn seeds engineered to resist threats to yields like insects and
 drought.
 USDA officials said they are aware of the appearance of favoritism toward one of
 the nation's largest ag companies.
 "We knew it would look that way," said Shirley Pugh, a spokeswoman for USDA's
 Risk Management Agency, which administers federal crop insurance. "But other
 companies can come and do the same thing. We are making the discount available
 because the corn has shown the traits necessary to reduce the risk."
 Pugh said the arrangement benefits not just farmers, but also taxpayers, since
 USDA pays a portion of each farmer's crop insurance premium.
 Farm groups said the timing of the USDA-Monsanto agreement will help farmers who
 face higher crop insurance premiums because of elevated corn prices.
 "We're very supportive of the concept," said Ron Litterer, president of the
 National Corn Growers Association, and a farmer in Greene, Iowa. "Not only for
 Monsanto but for any biotechnology company that can make the case that by using
 those products, it lowers the risk of providing a corn crop."
 The insurance premium benefit to dryland farmers who plant the bioengineered
 seed, according to USDA, will be about $2 per acre.
 Crop insurance prices have skyrocketed for farmers as corn prices have reached
 near-record highs in recent months. Today, corn trades at about $4 a bushel,
 double the price of about two years ago.
 Those prices have continued to stay high because of increased demand from the
 ethanol industry, which uses the grain to make fuel, as well as increased corn
 exports and demands from cattle-feeding businesses.
 Crop insurance rates can be as high as $50 an acre, according to Kurt Koester, a
 vice president and co-owner at AgriSource Inc., a crop insurance agency in West
 Des Moines, Iowa, involved in the pilot program. Several years ago, Koester said
 premiums were about $15 to $20 an acre.
 "Farmers are going to face some really tough decisions here," Koester said.
 'They've got this high-value corn sitting out in their fields. When you take the
 cost of this crop insurance, even with government subsidies, there's going to be
 sticker shock."
 The pilot program with Monsanto covers non-irrigated acres planted in corn seed
 that contains YieldGard Plus with Roundup Ready Corn 2 or YieldGard VT Triple
 technology from Monsanto, the company said.
 The corn grown is generally used as cattle feed and as raw material for ethanol
 plants.
 Monsanto won the BYE designation by providing three years' worth of research
 that convinced the USDA's Federal Crop Insurance Corporation board that its
 triple-stack corn variety reduces risks of yield loss to difficult conditions,
 including weeds, drought and corn borer.
 "It really bore out what we've heard from our farmers, saying over and over
 again that these triple-stack technologies in the corn plant help protect
 against weeds and rootworms," said Darren Wallis, a Monsanto spokesman. "What
 this does is reduce the risk for the farmers."
 The deal with St. Louis-based Monsanto occurred under a provision called the
 Biotech Yield Endorsement program, part of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act
 of 2000.
 Monsanto did years of research and showed empirical evidence to the federal crop
 insurance board of directors that satisfied them that this product could lower
 the risk of low yields, said Pugh.   "We're not concerned with increasing yield,
 we're decreasing risk," she said.   "These seeds are less likely to have very
 low yields.  Any other company that comes to the board can do this."
 Others, in fact, have done so.  Companies and organizations have taken advantage
 of the program by submitting insurance products for approval by the USDA's crop
 insurance board to cover risk in growing avocadoes, lambs, pumpkins, clams and
 oysters, Pugh said.
 Monsanto, however, has earned the wrath of organic agriculture and environmental
 groups, mostly for promoting the growth of genetically altered crops.
 Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association,
 characterized the USDA-Monsanto BYE arrangement as one of many examples in which
 the department has sided with big agribusinesses instead of smaller farmers and
 farm groups. He said the BYE program will leave farmers with little choice but
 to buy Monsanto seed.
 The McClatchy Tribune News Service and Journal Star reporter Richard Piersol
 contributed to this report.
 The question arose why the crop-insurance break for using some Monsanto seeds is
 being used only in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and Minnesota.
 Darren Wallis, a Monsanto spokesman, explained that this is a pilot program, a
 common method of testing.
 "This is for non-irrigated corn," he said. "So when you look at that as a major
 consideration it draws a sharper line why those four states.
 "It's conceivable, and Monsanto's hope is to expand it elsewhere," Wallis said.
 "Our farmers had told us for some time, these technologies helped reduce risk.
 Clearly our hope is that this pilot will go well and expand for all our
 growers."
 LOAD-DATE: January 15, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2008 Lincoln Journal Star,
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 596
 
                                The New York Times
                            January 12, 2008 Saturday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Food From Cloned Animals Seems Safe, a Panel Finds
 BYLINE: By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL; James Kanter contributed reporting from Paris.
 SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 7
 LENGTH: 690 words
 Meat and milk from cloned animals seem to pose no special health risks, said a
 draft report released Friday by the European Food Safety Agency. It was a first
 step toward the eventual sale of such products within the European Union.
 ''It is very unlikely that any difference exists in terms of food safety between
 food products originating from clones and their progeny compared with those
 derived from conventionally bred animals,'' the report said.
 It acknowledged that cloned animals were prone to more diseases than
 conventionally bred animals, but it added that humans would not suffer because
 unhealthy clones would be excluded from the food chain as is the case with
 conventionally bred animals.
 The decision prompted an immediate outcry from environmental groups, which
 already were at odds with the agency over its conclusion that there was ''no
 evidence'' that genetically modified crops posed a health or environmental risk.
 Helen Holder of Friends of the Earth International, an environmental group, said
 from Brussels that Friday's decision was ''weak and unsatisfactory.''  She
 continued: ''They clearly acknowledge that these animals have more diseases and
 that there is only limited data about the environmental impact. And then they go
 on to conclude that meat and products from cloned animal products are O.K. for
 Europeans to eat. It makes no sense.''
 The European Food Safety Agency is a scientific body that advises the European
 Commission, which asked for its opinion on cloned animal products early in 2007.
 Its ruling is not binding and does not take into account the ethical aspects of
 cloning, which will be reviewed separately by the European Group on Ethics in
 Science and New Technologies, an advisory panel.
 The decision also does not take into account European public opinion, which
 strongly favors natural foods. ''So now we feed our animals with genetically
 modified plants. And the animals will be clones,'' Ms. Holder said. The European
 public ''doesn't want these things.''
 Based on the expert panels' opinions, the European Commission will decide
 whether to allow the sale of such products on the Continent. But under
 international trade law, it is difficult for the commission to exclude unpopular
 products that its scientific advisers say are safe.
 Last year, the World Trade Organization concluded that European efforts to ban
 genetically modified crops constituted an unfair trade barrier. The commission
 is under threat of penalties if member states do not open their markets to such
 products. Many areas, including large parts of Greece, Italy and Austria, have
 refused.
 Friday's decision was particularly important because the United States Food and
 Drug Administration is also expected to rule this month on the safety of
 products from cloned animals. It, too, is expected to conclude that the products
 are safe. That could allow commercial production of such products to move
 forward. There is currently a moratorium, although a fledgling agricultural
 cloning industry in the United States is waiting for a green light.
 The possibility that meat and dairy products from cloned animals could soon
 arrive on Europe's doorstep prompted the European Commission to action.
 ''As the technology has developed, so does the possibility that such products
 will come on the market, which is why E.F.S.A.'s scientific advice on the matter
 is important,'' said Karen Talbot, a spokeswoman for the agency, which is based
 in Parma, Italy.
 While cloning animals is still a young and inefficient technology, scientists
 expect it will improve greatly in the coming years. Using the process, the genes
 from an animal with desirable characteristics are inserted into an unfertilized
 egg. The egg can then grow into an exact duplicate of the ''parent'' animal.
 In theory, the procedure can produce meatier cows or pigs that are better able
 to resist diseases.
 In practice, the process produces a relatively high proportion of deformed
 animals that cannot survive, although scientists with the European Food Safety
 Agency said such rates were likely to decline as the technology improved.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: January 12, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 597
 
                            January 12, 2008 Saturday
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A3
 LENGTH: 558 words
 Taiwanese voted Saturday on a new 113-seat Legislature, a contest widely seen as
 a referendum on President Chen Shui-bian's efforts to carve out a non-Chinese
 identity for the self-governing island. The election could end years of
 political deadlock and stabilize the island's rocky relations with neighbor
 China, which considers Taiwan a part of its territory and has threatened war if
 Taiwan tries to make its de facto independence formal.
 Analysts were united in predicting a decisive win for the main opposition
 Nationalists, who lean toward eventual unification. Chen's Democratic
 Progressive Party has acknowledged its target of 50 seats seems out of reach.
 Election monitors from U.S. and Britain barred
 Serbia has barred observers from the United States and Britain from monitoring
 its presidential election later this month because they have backed Kosovo
 independence. The United States and most European Union nations have supported
 independence for Kosovo, a southern Serbian province that has been run by the
 United Nations since 1999, when a NATO air war forced Belgrade to end a
 crackdown against Kosovo separatists.
 The election commission, which made the decision late Thursday, said it decided
 to allow 23 monitors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
 Europe and three from Russia to observe the Jan. 20 vote.
 Hunger strike ends after modified corn is shelved
 Militant French farmer Jose Bove and about 15 supporters called off their hunger
 strike in its eighth day after the government ordered the suspension of the use
 of genetically modified corn Friday.
 France will suspend cultivation of MON810, the seed for the only type of
 genetically modified corn now allowed in the country, until a European Union
 review is conducted.
 The move was based on a recommendation this week by a government-appointed panel
 calling for "the need for additional analyses on the health and environmental
 effects of the genetically modified product MON810 in the long term."
 2 more escape attempts at S.F. zoo raise safety fears
 Revelations that a polar bear and a snow leopard came close to escaping from
 their enclosures at the San Francisco Zoo over the past week renewed questions
 Friday about zoo safety.
 A female polar bear nearly scaled the wall of her enclosure Jan. 3, several
 zookeepers told The San Francisco Chronicle, almost escaping and prompting the
 zoo to raise the height of the exhibit wall the next day. A week later, on
 Thursday, a snow leopard chewed through a temporary enclosure, a zoo spokesman
 said.
 The zookeepers said the incidents made them fearful for their safety and called
 into question whether visitors are safe.
 Ex-grad student gets
 2 years in killing of teen
 A former Harvard graduate student was sentenced to two years in prison Friday
 after he pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter for stabbing to death a
 teenager who made fun of him. Alexander Pring-Wilson, 29, changed his plea as
 part of a deal with prosecutors that let him avoid a third trial in the death of
 18-year-old Michael Colono.
 The case attracted widespread media attention because of long-standing tensions
 between Ivy Leaguers and working-class Cambridge residents. Pring-Wilson was
 studying for his master's degree in Russian and Eurasian studies. Colono, a high
 school dropout, had fathered a child at 15.
 LOAD-DATE: January 14, 2008
 GRAPHIC: Photos, (1) ITSUO INOUYE/AP: JAPAN -- Well-wishers use wooden tubs to
 splash cold waters on themselves Saturday during an annual cold-endurance
 festival at the Kanda Myojin Shinto shrine in Tokyo.; (2) DADO GALDIERI/AP: CUBA
 -- Francisco Acosta Rey works Friday at his tobacco plantation in the Vinales
 Valley in Pinar del Rio. Cuba is internationally known for the quality of its
 tobacco production and holds an annual cigar festival every February.; (3) HADI
 MIZBAN/AP: IRAQ -- Men warm themselves by a fire in central Baghdad on Friday
 after the city's residents awoke to something they hadn't seen in memory - snow
 in the capital. This week has been unusually cold and blustery, with overnight
 temperatures more than 10 degrees below normal. Related story on A4.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer









Document Number: 598
 
                                The New York Times
                            January 9, 2008 Wednesday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Sarkozy Says Press Is Free to Ignore His Personal Life
 BYLINE: By ELAINE SCIOLINO
 SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 7
 LENGTH: 744 words
 President Nicolas Sarkozy refused to use the M word.
 Asked at a news conference on Tuesday whether he was going to marry
 model-turned-pop-singer Carla Bruni, he twice called their relationship
 ''serious'' but said that the news media probably would be the last to know.
 ''There's a strong chance you'll learn about it after it's already happened,''
 Mr. Sarkozy said. He added: ''It's an answer. It's not a threat.''
 Brimming with emotion, Mr. Sarkozy defended himself as the first French leader
 with nothing to hide and urged journalists to ignore his personal life if they
 had had enough of it.
 ''I didn't want to lie,'' Mr. Sarkozy said of his romance with Ms. Bruni. ''And
 I am breaking with a deplorable tradition in our political life -- that of
 hypocrisy, that of lies.''
 Without mentioning   former President Francois Mitterrand by name, Mr. Sarkozy
 accused journalists of hypocrisy for knowing but not disclosing years ago the
 existence of a predecessor's secret double life with a mistress and a daughter
 who was born out of wedlock. Mr. Mitterand died in 1996.
 ''Really, truly, and it is very satisfying for me, France is moving forward,''
 he said, his words tumbling out in incomplete sentences. ''What was hidden under
 a mantle of secrecy for one of my predecessors -- whom I will not judge --
 everyone must live as he sees fit. Life is so difficult and so painful.''
 The two-hour news conference was dominated by Mr. Sarkozy's high-spirited praise
 for the first eight months of his presidency and his vision for what he called
 ''the politics of civilization'' for 2008.
 He proposed an advertising ban on France's public television channels, promised
 to press forward at record speed with economic reforms and hinted that he might
 ban genetically modified foods from France. He defended his warm welcome last
 month of the Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, vowed to protect French
 corporations from foreign predators and pledged changes in the country's
 outmoded educational system.
 Appearing unfazed by a steep decline in his approval ratings in the last month,
 Mr. Sarkozy seemed to swagger as he addressed hundreds of journalists gathered
 before him in the Elysee Palace's grand reception room. He twisted his body and
 shrugged his shoulders, punched the air with his fists, tapped his temples,
 pointed his fingers at the crowd and raised his arms above his head in a
 demonstration of exuberance and restlessness.
 ''I have the passion to act; I want to act!'' he exclaimed at one point.
 But it was the subject of Mr. Sarkozy's private life that was most revelatory.
 Gone were his flashes of anger when journalists pressed him about his failed
 marriage with his wife of 11 years, Cecilia.
 He denied using his romance with Ms. Bruni to divert attention from France's
 weak economy and criticized those who had accused him of flaunting his private
 life for political ends.
 ''To all those who say I do too much from this perspective, I would like to say
 that I have never given instructions to any media to send a force of reporters,
 of cameras,'' he said.
 Lacing his comments with sarcasm, he urged editors not to cover his private life
 if they felt used. ''If you are afraid of being manipulated, don't send
 photographers,'' he said, referring to the couple's much publicized tour of
 Egypt's great pyramids.
 He took another swipe at Mr. Mitterrand, alluding to his  vacation trips on a
 French government plane to Aswan in Egypt, traveling at least once with his
 mistress and their daughter.
 His romantic life with Ms. Bruni, he insisted, was different. ''We do not want
 to be manipulative about our relationship in any way, but we did not want to
 hide,'' he said. ''I did not want a picture of me taken in the early morning.
 Sordid. I did not want a picture of me taken at night. I did not want you to
 describe the same hypocrisy under a cloak.''
 Mr. Sarkozy became philosophical about what it means to be president of France,
 saying that the job did not come with ''the right to happiness,'' not more or
 less than anyone else.
 He described his divorce in October as ''not the happiest moment in my life,''
 portraying himself as just like any other Frenchman when it comes to love. ''The
 life of a president, on these essential matters that are those of love, is like
 the life of anybody else,'' he said. ''I am going to make a confession: I get up
 in the morning, I go to bed at night, like millions of French people.''
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: January 9, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 599
 
                     Chattanooga Times Free Press (Tennessee)
                             January 8, 2008 Tuesday
 Monsanto wins case over seed reuse
 SECTION: WIRE - FINANCIAL; Pg. c2
 LENGTH: 519 words
 Monsanto wins case over seed reuse
 WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday let stand, without comment, a lower
 court ruling that punished a Mississippi farmer for re-using Monsanto Co.'s
 patented, genetically modified soybeans.
 Monsanto sued Homan McFarling in 1999 for violating its patents by planting
 biotech seeds that he saved from a previous year's crop. The company won
 $375,000 in damages, which McFarling's lawyers also challenged as excessive.
 Since the late 1990s, Monsanto has pursued similar lawsuits against almost 100
 farmers, according to the Center for Food Safety, which opposes the suits and
 urged the court to take McFarling's case.
 Chrysler's global sales jump 15%
 DETROIT -- Chrysler LLC on Monday reported record sales outside North America in
 2007, rising 15 percent over 2006 figures.
 The private company sold 238,218 vehicles abroad, up from 206,925 in 2006.
 "We feel that the international business showed the potential that we have in
 front of us," Vice Chairman and President Jim Press told reporters on a
 conference call.
 Still, international sales represented only 9 percent of the company's business,
 and it's only a fraction of the international sales of its U.S.-based
 competitors, Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corp.
 CNBC, Times sign video, news deal
 NEW YORK -- CNBC and The New York Times will share business, technology and
 financial news and video online as part of an agreement announced Monday.
 Both news organizations are gearing up for a surge of competition from Rupert
 Murdoch's News Corp., which is making a major push into business news with its
 recent purchase of Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal, and
 the launch of the Fox Business Network cable channel.
 The agreement calls for the Times to receive video and other online features
 from CNBC's Web site CNBC.com, while CNBC will get access to business and
 economics coverage from the Times' newspaper and Web site NYTimes.com.
 Xerox unveils logo for wider goals
 HARTFORD, Conn. -- Xerox Corp. unveiled a new logo Monday intended to scuttle
 its old image as a photocopier manufacturer and highlight its software, color
 printers and other technologically updated products.
 "There has been a perception gap in the marketplace," said Richard Wergan, vice
 president of worldwide brand marketing and advertising at the Norwalk-based
 office equipment manufacturer. "Xerox is still perceived incorrectly as a copier
 company. We do not make copiers."
 The all-capitalized corporate name in red, which has been in service in
 different versions for 14 years, has been replaced with a lowercase version. It
 also sports a red sphere marked by a white "X" laced with silver stripes.
 In addition to the new logo, Xerox will use a variety of colors in marketing
 across numerous media, from print and Web to broadcast and interactive
 presentations.
 Official concerned about energy costs
 BASEL, Switzerland -- The president of the European Central Bank struck an
 optimistic but guarded tone about the global economy Monday.
 But Jean-Claude Trichet warned that higher prices for oil and food were
 unsettling.
 The Associated Press
 LOAD-DATE: January 8, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2008 Chattanooga Publishing Company









Document Number: 600
 
                           Sacramento Bee (California)
                              January 6, 2008 Sunday
 They see ...;
 Local experts tell us what to expect in their industries in the year ahead
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. D1
 LENGTH: 2766 words
 Forecaster: David Lyons, labor market consultant at the state Employment
 Development Department. He has been analyzing the Sacramento market for EDD
 since August 1994.
 The economic slowdown will translate into a weak labor market in the Sacramento
 region, with overall job losses outweighing those sectors still hiring. The
 regional economy is in for a very slow start to the year.
 The region generated a net gain in jobs in 2007, but the growth rate slowed to a
 crawl by year's end. As of November, the region had added just 6,600 net jobs in
 the past 12 months -- a gain of 0.7 percent. It marked the first time the annual
 growth rate was below 1 percent since 1993.
 And 2008 is looking bleaker. It's very likely we're going to be in negative
 territory.
 Unemployment in November was 5.6 percent, a full percentage point higher than
 the year before.
 In 2008, construction payrolls will probably continue to shrink. The financial
 sector will likely stabilize but won't grow. And state government, a major
 source of new jobs in 2007, probably will slow down as the state wrestles with a
 projected deficit of as much as $14 billion.
 Given the state budget situation, we can't count on state government to be a big
 growth area. Many departments will likely rely on attrition to slim down or curb
 their growth.
 The area's likely growth areas will be education, health and some of the
 professional services industries, which includes such wide-ranging categories as
 temp services, engineering and the like.
 Forecaster: Dean Wehrli, vice president of the Sullivan Group Real Estate
 Advisors in Elk Grove. Wehrli has analyzed economic, housing and demographic
 trends for home builders for six years in Sacramento, the Bay Area, the Central
 Valley and northern Nevada.
 Foreclosures soar; buyers wait; credit tightens. The picture for Sacramento's
 residential market in 2008 doesn't look good.
 But all bad? Builders will sell around 7,500 homes next year, and owning a home
 of your own is still built into the American fabric.
 Confidence is key. Just as the hot market was fueled by absurd assumptions and
 false expectations, this frigid market is clamped down in part by fear.
 Mainly, though, prices are still too high for potential buyers. Consequently,
 prices will continue to regress in the second half of this decade to the place
 they should have been had we not been so frenzied in the first place.
 If we are waiting for equilibrium -- when buyers hold as much "power" as sellers
 -- then we will still be waiting by the end of 2008. Builders will hunker down,
 and lenders will try to figure how bad things are, while buyers -- if they can
 get a loan -- will rejoice.
 Forecaster: Don Little, senior vice president of Opus West Corp. in Northern
 California. He has guided retail developments such as Broadstone Plaza in Folsom
 and Sacramento Gateway in Natomas, and office projects such as the
 230,000-square-foot Rocklin Corporate Center.
 The commercial real estate industry is anticipating a continued slowdown into
 Debt market risk and pricing uncertainty will affect investment levels and new
 construction. Underwriting will be more conservative, with less reliance on
 future rent growth.
 Class A properties will do the best in terms of holding value, new construction
 starts, occupancy and investor interest, as these assets will still be viewed
 with long-term value in mind.
 Lower-quality properties will have difficulty securing capital for new tenant
 occupancy costs, refinancing and sales. Land prices will soften from 2007.
 In Sacramento, we do not foresee a retreat from development, just a cooling from
 robust levels.
 Corporate earnings are solid. Vacancy rates should trend lower by the end of
 2008. The last few years have essentially pulled normal annual demand forward
 from future years, so a falloff is not surprising.
 The region's diverse economy, skilled labor pool, West Coast synergy and quality
 of life bode well for a stable Sacramento in 2008. Interest rates will remain
 low with more focus on credit. The key indicator to watch will be employment
 growth.
 Forecaster: Carol Hauck, president and chief executive officer of First U.S.
 Community Credit Union. She has been a member of the institution's senior
 executive team for 20 years.
 Everyone is wondering how long the real estate slowdown will last. A number of
 institutions in my industry are unable to accurately estimate the impact of
 losses this year.
 They hold option adjustable-rate mortgages and other creative financing packages
 that will reset, and the borrowers will not be able to make payments under the
 new terms.
 Some subprime lenders will face foreclosures as forfeitures and losses mount,
 and business dries up due to a lack of capital for new financing.
 Meanwhile, housing values continue to fall, making financing a challenge for the
 institutions that remain.
 Refinancing to pay off other debt has stopped for many who have no equity to
 borrow. People who financed at the top of the market may owe more than their
 home is currently worth.
 All lenders should be doing whatever they can to help their account holders --
 owners, in the case of credit unions -- get through this period. Traditional
 solutions may not be enough, and new ideas are needed to help borrowers while
 also protecting the viability of the institution.
 Forecaster: Rick Niello, president of The Niello Co. of Sacramento. The company
 operates a dozen auto dealerships in Northern California known for carrying
 high-end, foreign-made cars.
 The overall 2008 car market will not be as robust as 2007 or 2006, and ...
 that's primarily a result of the market being impacted for all the obvious
 reasons -- the housing slump and tight credit making it very tough on many
 consumers. And ... the cost of fuel cannot be overlooked as far as impacting the
 market.
 Two things are going to happen in the car business: The cost of gas will
 progressively increase over the next five years, and cars will get smaller.
 The large, inefficient cars in the domestic segment, big pickups and SUVs, are
 going to be less attractive, because the public is going to want smaller, more
 fuel-efficient cars. The domestics (automakers) know this, and they're going to
 produce smaller, more fuel-efficient cars, and that's what they should do.
 It's like any other business. The people who recognize the changes and conform
 to the new market and adapt will do well. Those who don't will struggle.
 Forecaster: Marian Mulkey, senior program officer for the California HealthCare
 Foundation, a nonprofit research group. For more than eight years, she has
 analyzed trends in the health insurance market and health policy areas.
 Health care costs will continue to rise and exceed the overall inflation rate by
 a significant margin. Employers will continue to struggle to find affordable
 options, and some will decide to opt out of offering coverage.
 Those that do continue to offer benefits will offer benefits that are a little
 more restrictive or require their employees to contribute more.
 Employers are going to face difficult decisions. Is health insurance valued
 enough to pay the costs? The efforts to invest more into prevention and wellness
 to try to get employees better engaged in their health have some marginal
 benefits in terms of moderating -- but not reducing -- health care costs.
 One of the unique features driving health care rates in the next few years is
 the pressure for seismic retrofitting in California. Hospitals will have to put
 up a lot of capital to rebuild or retrofit facilities. I would expect the
 nursing shortage and the strikes that have been affecting hospital care in the
 past year to continue.
 Forecaster: Dan Lankford, managing director of Wavepoint Ventures, an early
 stage investment company with offices in El Dorado Hills and Menlo Park. Prior
 to his career in venture capital, Lankford was CEO of an energy startup company
 that went public and a senior executive with AT&T and Bell Labs.
 Most economists agree that the U.S. economy will slow in 2008. The Sacramento
 region will likely feel a more pronounced tapering off, given the boom of the
 last several years and the large role that real estate plays in the local
 economy.
 For startups, this means less money available from angel investors and fewer
 entrepreneurs willing to leave stable jobs to start a new company. This will
 likely result in a slowing of new investment opportunities for venture capital
 funds.
 The slowing economy will also reduce the number of early stage companies
 acquired by larger firms, as they tend to conserve cash during economic
 downturns. Despite the slowdown, we would expect to see a couple of acquisitions
 of local venture-backed firms over the next year because several are at an
 attractive stage.
 Since the tech bubble burst, mergers and acquisitions have been the primary form
 of exit for investors in startups, and we would expect that to continue for the
 next several years. Having said that, there seems to be a slow recovery in the
 IPO market, and companies with several quarters of strong performance in
 attractive sectors will increasingly see this as a viable alternative.
 It would not surprise me to see at least one local firm take advantage this year
 of the London Stock Exchange Alternative Investment Market, which allows smaller
 companies to issue shares under a more flexible regulatory system than offered
 by the Nasdaq Stock Market.
 Look for continued growth in clean tech (energy and environmental technologies),
 particularly important to the Sacramento area given the wealth of resources in
 the region such as UC Davis and SARTA-CleanStart.
 Solar technology, in particular, will continue to be hot, and we would expect
 the cost to decline in the next year as new poly-silicon capacity (the raw
 material for solar cells) comes on line.
 Forecaster: Rekhi Singh, chairman of R Systems International Ltd., an El Dorado
 Hills company that specializes in contract software development. It has more
 than 1,000 workers worldwide and its clients include Fortune 100 companies.
 Computer system design and scientific research and development have been
 critical to job growth in the Sacramento region for the last few years.
 A decline in job growth over the last few quarters in the computer/software
 segment has been balanced by slight growth in areas such as alternative energy
 and biotechnology.
 We anticipate that the watch-and-wait attitude that has characterized
 decision-making in the industry will lead to a temporary freeze in job growth in
 the software area. This, however, will be offset by growth in hiring in the
 areas I have cited. This is likely to lead to flat growth lines, especially in
 the first two quarters of 2008.
 The situation will become less murky once the dust settles in the subprime
 lending market.
 Flat or marginal job growth in the overall economy would help chase away the
 specter of a recession and improve the overall confidence of information
 technology executives. If this happens, we could see an improvement in the local
 tech picture.
 The Sacramento region continues to be attractive because of its proximity to
 Silicon Valley, the leader in new job growth in the software industry,
 significant activity in the renewable energy segment, and the presence of so
 many government offices.
 Forecaster: Bob Spengler, recently retired as president and chief operating
 officer of Save Mart Supermarkets. The privately held Modesto-based chain
 operates 248 grocery stores in Northern California and northern Nevada.
 With the accelerated foreclosure rate, record oil prices and upcoming
 presidential elections, I expect customer visits to increase as people eat at
 home more often but the basket size to decrease as they pare down purchases.
 This trend will place greater demands on us to deliver simple meal solutions in
 the form of quick recipes and ready-to-go meals that will fit into any budget.
 Consumers will continue their focus on natural and organic foods. In part, this
 is driven by the increased visibility of a number of food recalls, causing
 consumer confidence to wane.
 I have been in the food business my whole life, and my sincere belief is the
 quality of our food supply is as good or even better than it was 50 years ago.
 The difference now is we have more knowledge of food-borne diseases and far
 better practices for detecting them. The majority of food-borne illness is
 preventable, so consumers need to remain vigilant in their food preparation
 practices.
 Forecaster: Former Sacramento King Chris Webber owns a basketball-inspired
 restaurant in Natomas, Center Court with C-Webb, that he opened in 2006.
 This past year was a challenging time for many of us in the restaurant industry.
 A significant amount of people, either by choice or necessity, are watching
 closely how they spend their money.
 Even as times improve, consumers remain cautious about how they spend their
 leisure dollars.
 For 2008, we are poised to accept an increased responsibility in enhancing each
 customer's experience. As a business leader, I know that I cannot assume that
 something will work in the future merely because it worked in the past. We can't
 blame fluctuating sales solely on the housing market or economy. The bottom line
 is people work hard, earn more and deserve more.
 We must continue to be innovative in how we promote our restaurant and bring new
 customers through the doors while improving our existing relationships. We have
 to prove to our guests they are getting the best for their dollars -- the best
 service, food and atmosphere.
 Our vendors will need to prove to us that we are getting the best products at a
 solid value so that we can enhance the customers' dining experience and help
 customers stretch their dollars.
 Forecaster: Eric Rey, president and CEO of Davis-based Arcadia Biosciences,
 which is developing genetically modified food crops that grow with less
 fertilizer and water than current varieties. He has more than two decades of
 experience in the agricultural biotechnology field, including 17 years with
 Davis-based industry pioneer Calgene.
 I'm hugely optimistic because environmental issues are getting much more
 attention than they did even a year ago. I think change happens when the public
 at large becomes more aware.
 I'm doubly excited because that's the space we're in, and I think there are
 great opportunities. For example, our business with the nitrogen-use-efficient
 plants. Nitrogen fertilizer is a huge source of greenhouse gases and water
 pollution, and I think we can make a difference.
 There are debates that go on about whether it's OK to use biotechnology to
 address one problem or another. But a question about the appropriateness of a
 particular technology like ours isn't just about what's happening in a crop or
 on a field; it's about what's happening on a global scale, and it's about taking
 a set of tools and using those tools as part of making intelligent choices.
 If somebody wants to have a debate on whether to deploy our technology, my
 question is: Tell me how you're going to deal with the global warming issue,
 tell me how you're going to deal with the water pollution issue.
 Forecaster: Doug Youngdahl, chief executive officer of Sacramento's Blue Diamond
 Growers. A food-industry executive since 1985, he has headed the world's largest
 tree-nut processor for seven years.
 The current situation in agriculture has been the best of times right across the
 board for most commodities. The weak dollar has been very advantageous for
 American agriculture internationally, and the ethanol boom clearly has raised
 prices for many crops.
 If there's any concern, it's the rapid increase in the cost of operations.
 Obviously, petroleum is the big one, and fertilizers are very high. So there are
 some underlying signs of inflation that may well squeeze margins. If inflation
 causes a reallocation of the way consumer dollars are spent and it starts to
 erode demand, then obviously supplies can start to accumulate and prices soften.
 That's a concern.
 Now, however, it's clearly the best of times. In 2007, we've had another
 all-time record almond crop in California of 1.4 billion pounds. We've also set
 shipment records each month since August, so there's strong global demand.
 Consumer demand for our Blue Diamond brands is up 22 percent from last year.
 Staff writer Dale Kasler interviewed David Lyons and paraphrased his comments on
 the overall economy. All other forecasters submitted their predictions to the
 Bee business staff.
 LOAD-DATE: February 3, 2008
 GRAPHIC: Jay Mather / Sacramento Bee file, 2005
 Biotechnology: Eric Rey, CEO of Davis-based Arcadia Biosciences, is optimistic
 that rising environmental concerns will bring opportunities to the agricultural
 biotechnology field.
 Renee C. Byer / Sacramento Bee file, 2006 Restaurants: Natomas restaurant owner
 and former Sacramento Kings forward Chris Webber says it will be important in
 2008 to prove to customers they are getting the best for their dollars.
 Jay Mather / Sacramento Bee file, 2003 Retail Automotive: Rick Niello, president
 of The Niello Co. auto dealerships, expects business to slow down this year. He
 says rising gas costs will drive the industry in the next five years to make
 smaller vehicles.
 Michael Allen Jones / Sacramento Bee file, 2004 Technology: Rekhi Singh,
 chairman of R Systems International Ltd., an El Dorado Hills firm that
 specializes in contract software development, sees a temporary freeze in job
 growth in the software area.
 Sacramento Bee file photos, illustration by Robert Dorrell / rdorrell@sacbee.com
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2008 McClatchy Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 601
 
                         Lincoln Journal Star (Nebraska)
                             December 31, 2007 Monday
                                   City Edition
 Letters to the Editor
 SECTION: B; Pg. 5
 LENGTH: 1136 words
 OK, so Nebraska is a big ag state. I read the newspaper and watch the news every
 day.  I have yet to see any coverage of an issue I would think everyone, most
 especially people in an agriculturally based state, would be up in arms about:
 the patenting of our food.
 People, do you realize that this very minute, biotech companies are suing
 farmers for saving their own seeds, and not buying the companies' genetically
 modified seeds.
 In Canada, farmer Percy Schmeiser was sued by Monsanto for planting patented
 seed after Monsanto's genetically modified canola seeds blew into his field. And
 Monsanto won.
 In North Dakota, Nelson Farms was sued because Monsanto accused them of growing
 their genetically modified soybeans. They hadn't.
 As the patent laws stand now, if a farmer's non-genetically modified crops cross
 with Monsanto's genetically modified plants, and that farmer saves his seeds.
 The next generation of crops, any plants that have the patented gene, belong to
 Monsanto. Do you realize what this means for agriculture?
 In addition to genetically modified plants, Monsanto is actively patenting
 non-GM plants. The only requirement is that the plant has never been patented
 before. Do you realize what that means for the world's food supply?  It means
 that one company can own and control who grows food and who does not.
 I find it unbelievable that this issue is being completely ignored by the media.
 Folks, I guess it's up to us to do something. The patent laws must be changed to
 exclude anything living, plants, animals or seeds. The future of farming, and
 the basic right to grow food, is what's at stake.
 Janet Snider, Raymond
 As I read Wayne Simpson's letter stating "Bush on the right path" (LJS, Dec.
 23), I could not help but wonder how much right-wing talk radio Simpson listens
 to each day. My goodness, let us, indeed, take a look at just the two examples
 Simpson cites.
 Deficit spending: Yes, the Democratic party has fought for a 7 percent increase
 in the federal budget. They ask for increases for children's health insurance,
 education, social programs that help the poor and aged and other increases in
 programs that will help lower-income and middle-class people in the United
 States.
 The reason they fight is for the funds to assist those who are in need and
 suffering because of the unconscionable Bush administration tax cuts that gave
 extremely deep cuts to the super wealthy in our nation.
 The disparity between rich and poor has never been greater, and it is because of
 the Bush administration's deference to the wealthy at the risk of all others.
 As to the war in Iraq, this nation, as continuing reports reveal, was misled
 into a war that has taken 3,900 American lives (whose caskets we cannot honor
 and see returned) and countless thousands of Iraqis. To what end? It seems it is
 to control oil and to manipulate governments. This is not who we as Americans
 ought to be.
 Yes, we were attacked by terrorists. Most were from Saudi Arabia whose leader's
 hand George Bush held as they walked into his home in Texas. Osama bin Laden (if
 alive) or his cohorts have sanctuary in Pakistan whose leader George Bush and
 Dick Cheney support.
 And perhaps the saddest revelation of Simpson's diatribe is that there is no
 mention that the reason Saddam Hussein (who was an enemy of bin Laden and not
 one who funded terrorists against the United States) was in power is because
 Ronald Reagan, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and other neocons wanted him there.
 If Bush is on the right path, I hope he comes to a fork in the road soon and
 remembers that his legacy will be forever tarnished because the path he has
 chosen is one of self-delusion, myopia and bull-headedness.
 Kenneth G. Leischner, Columbus
 As a taxpayer I am concerned that our state government uses its revenue in the
 most effective way. That's why I was heartened to read that the New Jersey
 legislature voted this month to end the death penalty in their state.
 The New Jersey vote came after a thorough review of the use of the death
 penalty. Their Death Penalty Study Commission included representatives of law
 enforcement, prosecutors and victims' family members.
 They found the death penalty to be a failed policy that is exorbitantly
 expensive. Not only is it costly, but despite countless reform efforts the use
 of the death penalty remains arbitrary, full of errors, hard on murder victims'
 families and fails to deter those who would commit this horrific crime.
 I'm pleased to read that the Nebraska Legislature will be considering following
 New Jersey's example. The money spent on pursuing death sentences would better
 be used for tax relief or supporting victims' services and effective crime
 prevention measures.
 Mark Weddleton, Lincoln
 My wife and I are avid Husker volleyball fans.  With that aside, the recent
 Lincoln Journal Star story on four volleyball players living together in the
 same house illustrates a common problem in the city of Lincoln.
 The area where the four volleyball players live is zoned as an R-3 residential
 area.  R-3 zoned areas permit single-family dwellings, which is a dwelling
 having accommodations for and occupied by one family (Lincoln Municipal Code
 27.03.190).  A family is defined as one or more persons immediately related by
 blood, marriage or adoption and living as a single housekeeping unit in a
 dwelling (LMC 27.03.220).  However, a family may not include, in addition to the
 family members, more than two more persons who are unrelated (LMC 27.03.220).
 This means that no more than three unrelated persons can live in the same
 dwelling unit, so the four volleyball players are in violation of the city
 zoning ordinances.
 The problem is one of density.  The article even pointed out the obviousness of
 other college students living on the same block as evident by all of the cars
 parked along the street.
 The new housing division referred to in the article is dealing with the effects
 of new homes rented to four or more nonrelated tenants.  Cars are parked too
 close to or block driveways, sidewalks and mailboxes.  In addition to vehicular
 problems, yards are partially planted, overgrown with weeds and not maintained.
 Erosion from rain water leaves mud and dirt covering sidewalks.  Sidewalks are
 not cleared of snow.
 While I enjoyed reading the story on the four volleyball players whom I have
 tremendous respect for, the Lincoln Journal Star should publish an article about
 how property owners are ruining a new housing division by spreading rental units
 throughout the neighborhood and knowingly violating city ordinances, thereby
 further draining already depleted city resources.
 Go Huskers, roof, roof, roof!
 Brian Nehe, Lincoln, President, Stone Bridge Creek Home Owner's Association
 LOAD-DATE: May 16, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2007 Lincoln Journal Star,
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 602
 
                                   The Forward
                                December 28, 2007
 The Continental Divide Isn't So Wide;
 The Continental Divide
 Eric Frey is managing editor of the Vienna daily Der Standard.
 SECTION: Forward Forum; Pg. A7
 LENGTH: 893 words
 In most of Europe, the days  when cigarette smoke was  part of every dining
 experience  are gone. Smoking bans are  spreading all over the continent;  on
 January 1, even France and  Germany will join the crowd, banning  tobacco in
 virtually all public  entertainment facilities. Britain,  Ireland, Italy and a
 score of other  countries have already done so  over the past few years, and the
 few  remaining smoker havens  which  unfortunately includes my home  country of
 Austria  are expected  to give way soon.
 That trend is not only good news  for the health of Europeans, smok-
 ers and non-smokers alike. It also  tells us something about the state  of
 transatlantic relations: In key cultural  and social areas, America and  Europe
 are not  contrary to common  wisdom  drifting apart.
 Banning cigarettes in the public  sphere is very much an American  invention.
 For years, Europeans  pooh-poohed the strict American  anti-smoking laws as just
 another  sign of puritanism gone awry.  Europeans, myself included,  drew bitter
 comparisons to the  Prohibition era in the 1920s and  1930s and the various
 restrictions  on nudity  remember Janet  Jackson's Nipplegate?  and  lascivious
 behavior.
 Sure, many of us argued here,  smoking is harmful, but isn't it  also a sign of
 a free society that  people are free to hurt themselves?  And isn't it enough to
 provide  smoke-free areas to those who  want to avoid passive smoke?  Why stop
 everyone from smoking  everywhere?
 As it turned out, Americans won  the argument hands down. Within  the course of
 just a few years, the  European approach to smoking has  moved from tolerance to
 rigidity.  Rules vary from country to country,  but smoking is banned in most
 work places and public buildings,  as well as on airplanes and trains.  The last
 battlefields are cafes, pubs  and restaurants, and even there, the  argument
 that employees have to  be protected from the harms associated  with second-hand
 smoke is  carrying the day.
 So what does this have to do with  international politics? A lot.
 Starting in the 1990s, after the  Soviet Union collapsed and friction  grew
 between the United States and  its European partners, it became  fashionable to
 offer pessimistic  commentary on the future of  transatlantic relations.
 Europeans  and Americans not only differ on  specific questions like Middle East
 policy or international trade, it was  heard often, they no longer share  the
 same values and basic concepts  of what a good society should look  like.
 Europeans care about the environment  and climate change,  while Americans are
 committed  to religion and public morality  but will do nothing to save the
 planet. Europeans regard capital  punishment as murder, many  Americans say the
 same about  abortion. Europeans are afraid of  war, Americans are aggressors who
 go unchecked. Europeans restrict  handguns, Americans cling to the  Second
 Amendment. Europeans  would not touch genetically modified  food and
 hormone-treated  beef, while Americans go berserk  because of a bit of cigarette
 smoke.
 All these trends, said the pundits,  would alienate Europeans  and Americans
 from each other  and make it much harder to reach  agreement on global problems,
 be they fighting against climate  change of preventing nuclear proliferation.
 Other experts pointed  to demographic trends: Thanks  to immigration, fewer
 Americans  identify with Europe as the land  of their ancestors, while diverging
 birth rates would make the United  States a young and dynamic society  compared
 to aging Europe.
 All these tendencies do indeed  exist, but it's become clear that  transatlantic
 relations in the 21st  century are more about convergence  than about
 divergence. As  Europeans enforce smoking bans,  they are adopting a very modern
 aspect of the American way of life   one that interferes much more  with
 personal habits than watching  American soap operas or munching  popcorn in the
 movie theaters.
 Families are moving from the cities  to the suburbs, just like their  American
 counterparts have done  for a generation or two. While  climate change is all
 the rage in  Europe, the sale of gas-guzzling  SUVs is booming, forcing the
 European Commission to adopt  fuel-efficiency standards similar to  America's
 Corporate Average Fuel  Economy rules.
 Meanwhile, Americans are becoming  more European, or at least so  it appears.
 Even outside Arnold  Schwarzenegger's California,  the commitment to fight
 climate  change is strengthening (though  perhaps not in the White House).
 Americans are rediscovering their  cities. More and more pedestrian  zones and
 bike paths, things quintessentially  European, are being  demarcated.
 Religion remains a major force in  the United States, but social tolerance  is
 also growing. Gay marriage  is debated pretty much the same  way on both sides
 of the Atlantic.  And large swaths of American society  are turning away from
 capital  punishment and the free availability  of guns.
 The real fissure, it seems, runs  not across the Atlantic, but across  America
 between urban and  rural spheres, between the red and  blue states. Sure, there
 will still be  plenty of political disagreements  and cultural misunderstandings
 between Europeans and Americans,  but those who argue that the transatlantic
 alliance is irreversibly drifting  apart are doing little more than  blowing
 smoke.
 LOAD-DATE: January 10, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
               Copyright 2007 The Forward Association, Incorporated
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 603
 
                        The Virginian-Pilot(Norfolk, VA.)
                             December 28, 2007 Friday
                            The Virginian-Pilot Edition
 Seeds planted for debate over corn strain
 SECTION: FRONTFRONT; Pg. AA8
 LENGTH: 401 words
 By Elisabeth Rosenthal
 The New York Times
 BRUSSELS, Belgium
 A proposal that Europe's top environment official made last month, to ban the
 planting of a genetically modified corn strain, sets up a bitter war within the
 European Union, where politicians have done their best to dance around the
 issue.
 The environmental commissioner, Stavros Dimas, said he had based his decision on
 scientific studies suggesting that long-term uncertainties and risks remain in
 planting the so-called Bt corn.
 But when the full European Commission takes up the matter in the next couple of
 months, commissioners will have to decide what mix of science, politics and
 trade to apply. And they will face the ambiguous limits of science when it is
 applied to public policy.
 For a decade, the European Union has maintained itself as the last big swath of
 land that is mostly free of genetically modified organisms, largely by
 sidestepping tough questions.
 It kept a moratorium on the planting of crops made from genetically altered
 seeds while making promises of further scientific studies.
 But Europe has been under increasing pressure from the World Trade Organization
 and the United States, which contend that there is plenty of research to show
 such products do not harm the environment. Therefore, they insist, normal trade
 rules must apply.
 Science does not provide a definitive answer to the question of safety, experts
 say, just as science could not determine beyond a doubt how computer clocks
 would fare at the turn of the millennium.
 "Science is being utterly abused by all sides for nonscientific purposes," said
 Benedikt Haerlin, head of Save Our Seeds, an environmental group in Berlin and a
 former member of the European Parliament.
 "The illusion that science will answer this overburdens it completely."
 He added, "It would be helpful if all sides could be frank about their social,
 political and economic agendas."
 Dimas, a lawyer and the minister from Greece, looked at the advice provided by
 the European Union's scientific advisory body - which found that the corn was
 "unlikely" to pose a risk - but he decided there were nevertheless too many
 doubts to permit the modified corn.
 "Commissioner Dimas has the utmost faith in science," said Barbara Helfferich,
 spokeswoman for the environment department.
 "But there are times when diverging scientific views are on the table." She
 added that Dimas was acting as a "risk manager."
 LOAD-DATE: December 28, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2007 Landmark Communications, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 604
 
                                The New York Times
                           December 26, 2007 Wednesday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Both Sides Cite Science To Address Altered Corn
 BYLINE: By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
 SECTION: Section C; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 1549 words
 A proposal that Europe's top environment official made last month, to ban the
 planting of a genetically modified corn strain, sets up a bitter war within the
 European Union, where politicians have done their best to dance around the
 issue.
 The environmental commissioner, Stavros Dimas, said he had based his decision
 squarely on scientific studies suggesting that long-term uncertainties and risks
 remain in planting the so-called Bt corn. But when the full European Commission
 takes up the matter in the next couple of months, commissioners will have to
 decide what mix of science, politics and trade to apply. And they will face the
 ambiguous limits of science when it is applied to public policy.
 For a decade, the European Union has maintained itself as the last big swath of
 land  that is mostly free of genetically modified organisms, largely by
 sidestepping tough questions. It kept a moratorium on the planting of crops made
 from genetically altered seeds while making promises of further scientific
 studies.
 But Europe has been under increasing pressure from the World Trade Organization
 and the United States, which contend that there is plenty of research to show
 such products do not harm the environment. Therefore, they insist, normal trade
 rules must apply.
 Science does not provide a definitive answer to the question of safety, experts
 say, just as science could not determine beyond a doubt how computer clocks
 would fare at the turn of the millennium.
 ''Science is being utterly abused by all sides for nonscientific purposes,''
 said Benedikt Haerlin, head of Save Our Seeds, an environmental group in Berlin
 and a former member of the European Parliament. ''The illusion that science will
 answer this overburdens it completely.'' He added, ''It would be helpful if all
 sides could be frank about their social, political and economic agendas.''
 Mr. Dimas, a lawyer and the minister from Greece, looked at the advice provided
 by the European Union's scientific advisory body  --  which found that the corn
 was ''unlikely'' to pose a risk  --  but he decided there were nevertheless too
 many doubts to permit the modified corn.
 ''Commissioner Dimas has the utmost faith in science,'' said Barbara Helfferich,
 spokeswoman for the environment department. ''But there are times when diverging
 scientific views are on the table.'' She added that Mr. Dimas was acting as a
 ''risk manager.''
 Within the European scientific community, there are passionate divisions about
 how to apply the growing body of research concerning genetically modified crops,
 and in particular Bt corn. That strain is based on the naturally occurring soil
 bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis and mimics its production of a toxin to kill
 pests. The vast majority of research into such crops is conducted by, or
 financed by, the companies that make seeds for genetically modified organisms.
 ''Where everything gets polarized is the interpretation of results and how they
 might translate into different scenarios for the future,'' said Angelika
 Hilbeck, an ecologist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich,
 whose skeptical scientific work on Bt corn was cited by Mr. Dimas. ''Is the
 glass half-empty or half-full?'' she asked.
 Ms. Hilbeck says that company-financed studies do not devote adequate attention
 to broad ripple effects that modified plants might cause, like changes to bird
 species or the effect of all farmers planting a single biotechnology crop. She
 said producers of modified organisms, like Syngenta and Monsanto, have rejected
 repeated requests to release seeds to researchers like herself to conduct
 independent studies on their effect on the environment.
 In his decision, Mr. Dimas cited a dozen scientific papers in finding potential
 hazards in the Bt corn to butterflies and other insects.
 But the European Federation of Biotechnology, an industry group, contends that
 the great majority of these papers show that Bt corn does not pose any
 environmental risk.
 Many plant researchers say that Mr. Dimas ignored scientific conclusions,
 including those of several researchers who advised the European Union that the
 new corn was safe.
 ''We are seeing 'advice-resistant' politicians pursuing their own agendas,''
 said one researcher, who like others asked not to be identified because of his
 advisory role.
 But Karen S. Oberhauser, a leading specialist on monarch butterflies at the
 University of Minnesota, said that debate and further study of Bt corn was
 appropriate, particularly for Europe.
 ''We don't really know for sure if it's having an effect'' on ecosystems in the
 United States, she said, and it is hard to predict future problems. About 40
 percent of  corn in the United States is now the Bt variety, and it has been
 planted for about a decade.
 ''Whether Bt corn is a problem depends totally on the ecosystem  --  what plants
 are near the corn field and what insects feed on them,'' Ms. Oberhauser said.
 ''So it's really, really important to have careful studies.''
 Bt crops produce a toxin that kills pests but is also toxic to related insects,
 notably monarch butterflies  and a number of water insects. The butterflies do
 not feed on corn itself, but they might feed nearby, on plants like milkweed.
 Because corn pollen is carried in the wind, such plants can become coated with
 Bt pollen.
 Ms. Oberhauser said she had been worried about the effect of Bt corn on monarch
 butterflies in the United States after her studies showed that populations of
 the insect dipped from 2002 to 2004. But they have rebounded in the last three
 years, and she has concluded that, in the American Corn Belt, Bt corn has
 probably not hurt monarch butterflies.
 Still, she said there was disagreement about that as well as broader causes for
 worry.  Monarch butterflies may have been saved in the United States, she said,
 by a fluke of local farming practices. Year by year, farmers alternate Bt corn
 with a genetically modified soy seed that requires the use of a weed killer.
 That weed killer, Monsanto's Roundup, eliminated milkweed  --  the monarch's
 favored meal  --  in and around corn fields, so the butterflies went elsewhere
 and were no longer exposed to Bt.
 ''It's a problem for milkweed, but it made the risk for monarchs very small,''
 she said.
 Still, she said, other effects could emerge with time and in farming regions
 with other practices. For example, Bt toxin slows the maturation of butterfly
 caterpillars, which leaves them exposed to predators for longer periods.
 ''Sure, time will give you answers on these questions  --  and maybe show you
 mistakes that you should have thought about earlier,'' she said.
 For ecologists and entomologists, a major concern is that insects could quickly
 become resistant to the toxin built into the corn if all farmers in a region
 used that corn, just as microbes affecting humans become resistant to
 antibiotics that are prescribed often. The pests that are killed by modified
 corn are only a sporadic problem and could be treated by other means.
 Scientists also worry about collateral damage because Bt toxin is in wind-borne
 pollen. Most pollens ''are highly nutritious, as they are designed to attract,''
 Ms. Hilbeck said, wondering how a toxic pollen would affect bees, for example.
 Having reviewed the science, insurance companies have been unwilling to insure
 Bt planting because the risks to people and the environment are too uncertain,
 said Duncan Currie, an international lawyer in Christchurch, New Zealand, who
 studies the subject.
 In the United States, where almost all crops are nowgenetically modified, the
 debate is largely closed.
 ''I'm not saying there are no more questions to pursue, but whether it's good or
 bad to plant Bt corn  -- I think we're beyond that,'' said Richard L. Hellmich,
 a plant scientist with the Agriculture Department who is based at Iowa State
 University. He noted that hundreds of studies had been done and that Bt corn
 could help ''feed the world.''
 But the scientific equation may look different in Europe, with its increasing
 green consciousness and strong agricultural traditions.
 ''Science doesn't say on its own what to do,'' said Catherine Geslain-Laneelle,
 executive director of the European Food Safety Authority. She noted that while
 her agency had advised Mr. Dimas that Bt corn was ''unlikely'' to cause harm, it
 was still working to improve its assessment of the long-term risk to the
 environment.
 Part of the reason that science is central to the current debate is that
 European law and World Trade Organization rules make it much easier for a
 country or a region to exclude genetically modified seeds if new scientific
 evidence indicates a risk. Lacking that kind of justification, a move to bar the
 plants would be regarded as an unfair barrier to trade, leaving the European
 Union open to penalties.
 But the science probably will not be clear-cut enough to let the European
 ministers avoid that risk.
 Simon Butler at the University of Reading in Britain is using computer models to
 predict the long-term effect of altered crops on birds and other species. But
 should the ministers reject Bt and other genetically modified corn?
 ''My work is not to judge whether G.M. is right or wrong,'' he said. ''It's just
 to get the data out there.''
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: December 26, 2007
 GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: Science advisers told the European official Stavros Dimas that
 Bt corn was ''unlikely'' to pose a risk. He suggested banning it. (PHOTOGRAPH BY
  In France and the rest of the European Union, farmers would not be allowed to
 plant a type of corn altered to produce insecticide. (PHOTOGRAPH BY OLIVIER
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 605
 
                            Bangor Daily News (Maine)
                            December 20, 2007 Thursday
                                   All Editions
 Support Bt corn
 SECTION: Pg. A8
 LENGTH: 260 words
 In her OpEd column, "Bt corn: Rights and responsibilities" (BDN, Dec. 13), Logan
 Perkins calls for tight restrictions on the planting of the genetically
 modified, insect-resistant Bt corn recently approved by the Board of Pesticides
 Control. What she doesn't say is that farmers have been planting other varieties
 of genetically modified corn in Maine responsibly for nearly 10 years. The Maine
 Department of Agriculture has a formal policy of coexistence that encourages
 farmers using different technologies to resolve any conflict in crop selection.
 The policy is working. There have been no complaints lodged with the department.
 Nearly 70 percent of the corn now planted in the U.S. is genetically modified.
 Maine farmers testified before the BPC that they were falling behind because
 they couldn't plant the higher producing Bt varieties in this state. Because
 science and 10 years of experience were squarely on the side of Bt corn, the BPC
 unanimously approved the corn in July. (One board member abstained.)
 Now, opponents of the technology are pressuring the BPC to enact rules for
 planting Bt corn with all kinds of restrictions. It is a transparent attempt to
 gain through regulations what they could not stop in the approval process.
 The BPC was right to approve Bt corn. Now, they should enact reasonable rules
 that also reflect science and the fact that farmers planting organic,
 conventional and genetically modified crops have peacefully coexisted in Maine
 for nearly 10 years.
 Douglas R. Johnson, Ph.D.
 Maine Biotechnology Information Bureau
 Stonington
 LOAD-DATE: December 20, 2007
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Letter
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                         Copyright 2007 Bangor Daily News









Document Number: 606
 
                           The Philadelphia Daily News
                             December 14, 2007 Friday
                                  4STAR Edition
 Joe Sixpack | Frankenbeer: Up in arms over GMOnster mash
 SECTION: FEATURES; Joe Sixpack; Pg. 83
 LENGTH: 800 words
 WHAT IF science could make a better beer through genetic engineering?
 A faster-fermenting Yuengling. A Guinness Stout with a bigger, foamier head. A
 Heineken that required less grain. A Budweiser that produced no hangover, no
 matter how much you drank.
 In fact, scientists are already tinkering with the genetic makeup of beer
 ingredients - and even as Americans seem largely unconcerned about so-called
 genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Europeans are gearing up to fight
 so-called Frankenbeer.
 In a remarkable show of opposition, about a third of Germany's 1,200-plus
 breweries have signed a petition to amend the 500-year-old Reinheitsgebot
 (Germany's beer purity law) to ban the use of genetically modified ingredients.
 The law - the hallmark of Germany's world-renowned beer industry - states that
 German beer may be made only with malt, hops, yeast and water. It was
 established in 1516 to restrict the use of potentially dangerous ingredients
 (tree bark, poisonous mushrooms) that often found their way into beer. Over the
 years, Germany's proud brewers have cited the law, and its ban on cheaper
 adjunct ingredients such as rice and corn, as a symbol of their superior
 products.
 Now, GMO opponents say that if German beer is going to remain pure, the law
 shouldn't permit ingredients that have been artificially enhanced in
 laboratories.
 "It's against natural creation," said Thomas Weiss, quality manager of
 Neumarkter Lammsbrau in Bavaria. "Farmers don't want it. Beer drinkers don't
 want it. The only people who want GMOs is big industry."
 (Disclosure: I learned about the anti-GMO petition during a tour of German
 breweries and hops producers that was sponsored in part by the Bavarian Brewers
 Association.)
 Lammsbrau is Germany's oldest organic beer maker, so it's not surprising it
 would take a stance against genetically modified ingredients. What's surprising
 is that so many others would join. Many of the breweries backing the petition
 are old-fashioned operations where the only thing green is their bottles. Even
 Warsteiner, Germany's third-largest brewer, has signed on, said Weiss.
 What's so bad about better beer through science?
 Supporters of GMO crops say they can be more pest-resistant, withstand harsher
 environmental conditions and have a longer shelf life. They say that, through
 DNA technology, we can feed more of the world's population.
 In America, GMOs are hardly a blip in the public consciousness. When Greenpeace
 earlier this year charged that Anheuser-Busch was using genetically modified
 rice in Budweiser, for example, it generated few news reports. (A-B called the
 charge "false and defamatory," and said its rice strain was approved by federal
 regulators.)
 In Germany, meanwhile, Greenpeace's allegations were widely reported, partly
 because of an earlier scare over cross-pollination with domestic crops.
 There's also a huge political aspect to the debate. To opponents in Europe, GMOs
 translate to big, bad American capitalism trying to make more money from acres
 of crops.
 "We see all these American companies like Monsanto - which was a big supporter
 of George Bush - changing the entire agricultural system," Weiss said.
 For example, Weiss said, since genetically modified plants are patented, farmers
 must pay annual fees to corporations instead of using naturally produced seeds
 to grow new crops. There also are questions about long-term health consequences,
 he said.
 Whether the brewers association amends the Reinheitsgebot is still up in the
 air. Opponents of the change say it is unneeded because the law already ensures
 the use of pure ingredients. An association statement on GMOs cries, "Bavarian
 brewers will have none of this!"
 The question is how long breweries - especially the big ones - will be able to
 resist the lure of potentially cheaper and better ingredients.
 About 10 years ago, when genetic researchers announced they were experimenting
 with faster-fermenting "turbo" yeast, one of Germany's largest newspapers
 launched a "Hands Off Our Beer" campaign. The brewers association quickly
 insisted it had no reason to use genetically modified beer ingredients.
 Today?
 Germany is just emerging from a hops crisis brought on by increasing demand and
 bad weather. What if genetic scientists could develop hardier, more abundant
 hops vines?
 "It's important to use every technique to guarantee enough food and crops for
 everyone in the world," said Johann Pichlmaier, president of the Association of
 German Hop Growers.
 Then, straddling the fence, he added, "As long as consumers continue to oppose
 GMOs, no, we won't use them. . . . But I don't know if we can say 'no' forever."
 "Joe Sixpack" by Don Russell appears weekly in Big Fat Friday. For more on the
 beer scene in Philly and beyond, visit www.joesixpack.net. Send e-mail to
 joesixpack@phillynews.com.
 LOAD-DATE: December 14, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2007 Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 607
 
                Agriculture Department Documents and Publications
                                December 13, 2007
 Monsanto Company; Availability of Petition and Environmental Assessment for
 Determination of Nonregulated Status for Corn Genetically Engineered for Insect
 Resistance;
 Federal Register Extracts
 LENGTH: 1734  words
 SUMMARY: We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
 Service has received a petition from the Monsanto Company seeking a
 determination of nonregulated status for insect-resistant corn derived from a
 transformation event designated as MON 89034. The petition has been submitted in
 accordance with our regulations concerning the introduction of certain
 genetically engineered organisms and products. In accordance with those
 regulations, we are soliciting comments on whether this genetically engineered
 corn is or could be a plant pest. We are also making available for public
 comment a draft environmental assessment for the proposed determination of
 nonregulated status.
 DATES: We will consider all comments we receive on or before February 11, 2008.
 ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
 * Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov, select "Animal
 and Plant Health Inspection Service" from the agency drop-down menu, then click
 "Submit." In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2007-0030 to submit or view
 public comments and to view supporting and related materials available
 electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for
 accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close
 of the comment period, is available through the site's "User Tips" link.
 * Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies of your comment (an
 original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0030, Regulatory Analysis
 and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118,
 Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No.
 Reading Room: You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our
 reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South
 Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal
 reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
 holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817
 before coming.
 Other Information: Additional information about APHIS and its programs is
 available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Robyn Rose, Biotechnology Regulatory
 Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301)
 734-0489, e-mail: robyn.i.rose@aphis.usda.gov To obtain copies of the petition
 or the environmental assessment, contact Ms. Cindy Eck at (301) 734-0667,
 e-mail: cynthia.a.eck@aphis.usda.gov The petition and the environmental
 assessment are also available on the Internet at
 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/06_29801p.pdf and
 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/06_29801p_ea.pdf.
 Background
 The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, "Introduction of Organisms and Products
 Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which
 There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests," regulate, among other things, the
 introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment)
 of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that
 are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such
 genetically engineered organisms and products are considered "regulated
 articles."
 The regulations in SEC 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to
 the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination
 that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and
 (c) of SEC 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of
 nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the
 petition.
 On October 26, 2006, APHIS received a petition seeking a determination of
 nonregulated status (APHIS No. 06-298-01p) from the Monsanto Company (Monsanto)
 of St. Louis, MO, for corn (Zea mays L.) designated as transformation event MON
 89034, which has been genetically engineered for resistance to European corn
 borer (ECB) and other lepidopteran pests, stating that corn line MON 89034 does
 not present a plant pest risk and, therefore, should not be a regulated article
 under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340. Monsanto responded to APHIS'
 subsequent request for additional information and clarification and submitted an
 addendum to their petition on January 23, 2007. The petition is available for
 public review and comment.
 Analysis
 As described in the petition, corn transformation event MON 89034 has been
 genetically engineered to express the transgenes cry1A.105 and cry2Ab2, both of
 which were derived from a well-characterized gene sequence from Bacillus
 thuringiensis, and encode insect control proteins. The neomycin
 phosphotransferase II (nptII) gene was used as a selectable marker, but was
 eliminated by traditional breeding methods in the later stages of development of
 MON 89034. Thus, MON 89034 contains only the cry1A.105 and cry2Ab2 expression
 cassettes. Expression of the transgenes by corn plants renders the corn line
 resistant to European corn borer, as well as other lepidopteran pests.
 Regulatory elements for the transgenes were obtained from Agrobacterium
 tumefaciens. These regulatory sequences are not transcribed and do not encode
 proteins. The DNA was introduced into corn cells using Agrobacterium -mediated
 transformation methodology with the T-DNA binary transformation vector
 designated PV-ZMIR245.
 Transformation event MON 89034 has been considered a regulated article under the
 regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because it contains gene sequences from plant
 pathogens. MON 89034 corn has been field tested in the United States since 2001
 under notifications and permits authorized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
 (USDA). APHIS has presented two alternatives in the draft environmental
 assessment (EA) based on its analyses of data submitted by Monsanto, a review of
 other scientific data, and field tests conducted under APHIS oversight. APHIS
 may: (1) Take no action (MON 89034 remains a regulated article), or (2)
 deregulate MON 89034.
 In SEC 403 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), "plant pest" is
 defined as any living stage of any of the following that can directly or
 indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plant or plant
 product: a protozoan, a nonhuman animal, a parasitic plant, a bacterium, a
 fungus, a virus or viroid, an infectious agent or other pathogen, or any article
 similar to or allied with any of the foregoing. APHIS views this definition
 broadly to cover direct or indirect injury, disease, or damage not just to
 agricultural crops, but also to other plants, for example, native species, as
 well as to plant parts and plant products whether natural, manufactured, or
 processed.
 MON 89034 corn is subject to regulation by other Federal agencies. The U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for the regulation of
 pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
 (FIFRA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.). FIFRA requires that all pesticides,
 including herbicides, be registered prior to distribution or sale, unless exempt
 from EPA regulation. In cases in which genetically engineered plants allow for a
 new use of a pesticide or involve a different use pattern for the pesticide, EPA
 must approve the new or different use. On July 17, 2006, the EPA announced a
 temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the
 Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1A.105 protein and the genetic material necessary for
 its production in corn on field corn, sweet corn, and popcorn when applied/used
 as a plant-incorporated protectant (PIP). The temporary tolerance exemption will
 expire on June 30, 2009 (71 FR 40427-40431). On July 17, 2006, EPA announced a
 temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the
 Bacillus thuringiensis Cry2Ab2 protein and the genetic material necessary for
 its production in corn on field corn, sweet corn, and popcorn when applied/used
 as a PIP. The temporary tolerance exemption will expire on June 30, 2009 (71 FR
 40431-40436). Pursuant to its authority under the Federal Food, Drug, and
 Cosmetic Act (FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), EPA conducted a comprehensive
 assessment of the Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 proteins and the genetic material
 necessary for their production in corn concluding that there was a reasonable
 certainty of no harm from consumption of the protein, as it is digestible in
 gastric fluid and not considered an allergen.
 Under the FFDCA, pesticides added to (or contained in) raw agricultural
 commodities generally are considered to be unsafe unless a tolerance or
 exemption from tolerance has been established. Residue tolerances for pesticides
 are established by EPA under the FFDCA and the Food and Drug Administration
 (FDA) enforces tolerances set by EPA under the FFDCA.
 FDA's policy statement concerning regulation of products derived from new plant
 varieties, including those genetically engineered, was published in the Federal
 Register on May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22984-23005). Under this policy, FDA uses what
 is termed a consultation process to ensure that human and animal feed safety
 issues or other regulatory issues (e.g., labeling) are resolved prior to
 commercial distribution of a bioengineered food. Monsanto submitted a summary of
 their safety assessment to the FDA on October 13, 2006. The FDA consultation for
 MON 89034 corn as food and feed is currently underway.
 National Environmental Policy Act
 A draft EA has been prepared to provide the APHIS decisionmaker with a review
 and analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed
 determination of nonregulated status for MON 89034. The draft EA was prepared in
 accordance with (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as
 amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on
 Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR
 parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and
 (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).
 --This is a summary of a Federal Register article originally published on the
 page number listed below--
 Notice.
 Citation: "72 FR 70817"
 Federal Register Page Number: "70817"
 "Notices"
 LOAD-DATE: December 13, 2007
            Copyright 2007 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 608
 
                                 University Wire
                             December 3, 2007 Monday
 The culture where corn is king
 BYLINE: By Brian Stewart, The Daily Iowan; SOURCE: U. Iowa
 LENGTH: 524 words
 DATELINE: IOWA CITY, Iowa
 **** out of *****
 Three years ago, two friends realized they were going to die and decided to make
 a movie about it. Actually, they realized we're all going to die - and maybe
 sooner than expected -- primarily because of what we're eating.
 While King Corn is at times a guilt-inducing documentary for nearly every
 American eater (I felt like Satan just sipping on my corn-syrup infused Coke
 during the showing), its subtle Iowa farmer humor and ethically challenging
 analysis of the American food system provides a platform for a political message
 -- we're harvesting more corn, but of lower quality, than ever before.
 The film centers on Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney -- two Yale friends set out to
 grow their own acre of genetically modified corn in Greene, Iowa. In the
 process, the two delve into the corn-based food industry America so cheaply
 maintains. And the film banks on its low-cost appeal, too, with creative
 farm-toy animation scenes and graphs played out with colorful markers on
 sketchbook pages.
 Although King Corn appeals to anyone who has eaten American cuisine in the last
 30 years, the movie is a must-see for Iowa residents, who hold so much of this
 Fast Food Nation burden on our shoulders. Director Aaron Woolf, a UI alum,
 showcases the effect Iowa's 14.3 million acres of corn have on the country's
 deteriorating food supply by weaving in interviews with Iowa State University
 scientists and professors, food-industry experts, and of course, corn farmers.
 This deep-fried and double-breaded culture has created one of the cheapest food
 supplies in the world -- "America's best kept secret," as one interviewee dubs
 it -- where hamburgers fly off the counters at just $1 a pop. "When you're at
 McDonald's, you're eating Iowa food," said local- and sustainable-food advocate
 and author Michael Pollan. He pointed out the oddity that an Iowa farmer can no
 longer feed himself with his own crop -- everything is grown to be shipped off
 to large food manufacturers.
 Honesty and humorous narratives from Iowa farmers offset the film's negative
 perception of the corn-growing profession. AS little more than 100 miles from
 Iowa City, the farmers in Greene serve as educators on the evolution of the corn
 industry, from personal reasons for farming corn to the U.S. government's policy
 to offer bigger subsidies to farmers with higher yields. Experts' opinions in
 the film also criticize the program, contending that the government subsidizes
 Happy Meals but not the healthy meals, attesting to the economical reasoning
 behind growing subsidized yellow grain.
 If one thing is certain, King Corn's visual representation of the agricultural
 product is evidence there is an over-abundance of the corn. Overflowing grain
 elevators and temporary heaps several stories high showcase America's largest
 corn crop in history from more than 2 trillion plants in the Corn Belt.
 A paradigm documentary that succeeds in attempting to accurately personify our
 grossly corn-based American culinary culture, King Corn is a required view for
 anyone with an appetite who wants to avoid the age-old saying: we are what we
 eat.
 (C) 2007 The Daily Iowan via U-WIRE
 LOAD-DATE: December 3, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2007 The Daily Iowan via U-Wire









Document Number: 609
 
                           Times-Picayune (New Orleans)
                             December 2, 2007 Sunday
 The Louisiana rice industry is rebounding nicely from a difficult year, but it's
 not all good news
 BYLINE: By Pam Radtke Russell, Business writer
 SECTION: MONEY; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 1481 words
 Despite climbing fuel prices, the lingering effects of Hurricane Rita, and a
 fiasco last year in which strains of rice developed in Louisiana were found to
 be genetically tainted, the state's rice industry is poised to post record yield
 this fall.
 "We're recovering well. We're probably having our strongest market in the last
 three or four years," said John Morgan, vice president of the Louisiana Rice
 Mill, the state's largest miller.
 Last year, genetically modified strains of rice that were developed at Louisiana
 State University's Ag Center but never approved for human consumption found
 their way into the food supply, prompting some international markets  --
 Mexico, Japan and the European Union among them  --  to stop accepting shipments
 of U.S. rice.
 The contamination prompted a nationwide effort to step up testing and eradicate
 the tainted rice. That effort has led to most markets being reopened.
 "It's the most significant issue that has affected the U.S. rice industry in its
 history," said David Coia, a spokesman for the U.S. Rice Federation, an industry
 trade group.
 At the same time, Louisiana farmers have been struggling to recover from the
 aftereffects of Hurricane Rita, which bathed much of the state's rice acreage in
 salt. And like many other industries, they've also been coping with rising fuel
 prices.
 Still, Louisiana rice farmers have rebounded this year, with a record crop yield
 of 6,250 pounds per acre, thanks to a strong second crop that was recently
 harvested.
 But the future for the state's industry isn't all bright, as the number of
 farmers continues to drop and the price of fuel and fertilizer continues to
 rise.
 "Even though the market has recovered and is doing well, it gets more and more
 expensive to grow the crop," Morgan said.
 Cutting off exports
 The problem with the genetically modified rice became known late last year, when
 random testing of long-grain rice in France found it had a gene that wasn't
 supposed to be there. While the modified rice gene was safe, it had never been
 approved for production or consumption.
 As a result, countries that don't want any genetically modified food shut down
 their markets to U.S. long-grain rice. At one point last year, about 60 percent
 of U.S. rice exports were affected by the contamination for a short time. The
 United States exports about half of its rice crop, about $1 billion worth.
 Today, about five percent of the exports remain affected.
 The genetically altered rice was traced back to two types of long-grain rice,
 Cheniere and Clearfield 131, both of which were developed at LSU's rice research
 station in Crowley. Nearby, LSU was also growing a genetically modified rice for
 Bayer CropScience that was intended to be resistant to an herbicide.
 Somehow the rice seeds from Cheniere and Clearfield 131, which were ultimately
 planted in rice fields across the country, were contaminated by the modified
 genes being used on the rice for Bayer. The United States Department of
 Agriculture investigated the contamination and in October said that there was no
 way to pinpoint the exact cause of the contamination.
 In the aftermath, the Louisiana rice industry essentially has started from
 scratch in about 25 percent of its long-grain fields, where those two types of
 rice were grown, said Steve Linscombe, director of the rice research station at
 Crowley.
 Neither Cheniere nor Clearfield 131 were planted in the United States this year,
 and researchers are in the process of starting over and developing fresh batches
 of those strains.
 Still, seeds that have been in the ground since last year still may sprout up as
 volunteers this year, or stray grains might remain in mills or on barges.
 Millers are also testing the rice they receive from farms. Morgan said that the
 Louisiana Rice Mill has found no traces of the modified gene in the rice it has
 received.
 The industry will continue to test the rice for the trait through next year.
 But despite the industry's best efforts, rice with modified genes is still
 popping up around the world.
 Earlier this month, Greenpeace tested 10 samples of U.S. rice bought in China
 and found one of them contained a modified gene. China bans genetically modified
 food for human consumption.
 Lots of rice grown here
 Louisiana remains the third-largest rice-producing state in the nation, topped
 only by Arkansas and California.
 Most Louisiana rice is grown in the coastal prairie in the southwestern portion
 of the state. Historically, about 600,000 acres of rice have been planted each
 year in the state, Linscombe said.
 But Hurricane Rita, which flooded much of the rice land with saltwater and left
 it unusable for farming, brought the state's rice acreage down to 347,000 in
 2006. This year, the amount has increased somewhat to 373,000 acres. But whether
 that amount will increase in 2008 will depend largely on fuel prices.
 Rice is the United States' most fuel-intensive crop, according to the USDA,
 because diesel-powered pumps are used to irrigate the rice fields. Additionally,
 the crop uses a lot of fertilizer, the cost of which is driven by natural gas
 prices.
 "This whole industry is very dependent on fuel prices," Linscombe said. So even
 though much of the salt left by Rita has washed away, farmers are holding off on
 deciding how much rice to plant next season until they find out what happens
 with fuel prices, he said.
 High fuel prices, and Rita's impact, already have driven many Louisiana farmers
 out of business. The number of farmers growing rice in the state dropped from
 1,496 in 2004 to 1,181 in 2006, according to the Ag Center.
 Prices are back up
 In addition to being a nationwide headache for rice farmers, the tainted rice
 depressed prices last year, said Jackie Loewer, a rice farmer in Branch and
 chairman of the Louisiana Rice Producers' Group.
 But there is good news for rice farmers. The price of the commodity has risen in
 the past year, from about $16 to $19 a barrel, which is 162 pounds.
 That price might be even higher if the few remaining markets were opened to U.S.
 long-grain rice.
 Some, like the European Union, will take the rice, but only if they can test it
 when it arrives. And if that rice is found to have even a small amount of the
 modified gene, it is rejected. "It's kind of onerous," Coia said of the testing
 requirement.
 Farmers are testing their rice in the United States and finding it to be free of
 the trait. But when it reaches Europe, another portion of the rice might be
 tested and found to have a trace amount of the gene.
 Rather than face that risk, U.S. rice farmers are shipping rice to Europe only
 in small amounts they can control, Morgan said.
 Europe accounts for only about 5 percent of the U.S. rice exports, but it's an
 important market because it tends to demand higher-quality rice that commands a
 higher price, said Bob Cummings, vice president of the U.S. Rice Federation.
 "We're focused right now on the situation in Europe where we hope  --  between
 now and the end of the year  --  the European Commission will relax its
 stringent requirement that all long-grain rice must be tested at its
 destination. That's really a deal killer for commercial trade," Cummings said.
 Still, even though Europe is still taking a cautious approach to U.S. rice, most
 other international markets have reopened after being assured that American rice
 is safe. Trade to Mexico, Japan and Iraq, the largest importers of U.S. rice,
 have resumed, though some, such as Iraq, won't allow more than 1 percent of the
 genetically modified material. Russia, which imports only a small percent of its
 rice from the U.S., still has a ban in place.
 Tighter guidelines urged
 The Union of Concerned Scientists says it's not overly worried about the one
 cross-contamination event in Louisiana but it is fearful that it might happen
 again. The group believes U.S. guidelines on genetically altered crops must be
 tightened.
 "I appreciate and sympathize with the rice industry with their work to clean up
 the rice," said David Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist at the Union of
 Concerned Scientists. "It's a burden that should have never been put upon them.
 It's a weak regulatory system."
 At the LSU rice research station, Linscombe met and often exceeded the
 requirements laid out by the USDA.
 "I think the (Louisiana situation) is a bit of an anomaly, with a gene that had
 gone through safety testing," Gurian-Sherman said. "It's important to remember
 that there are hundreds of genes that are put in field trials" that haven't gone
 through that same level of testing.
 "We're very concerned that this could happen again," he said.
 Rice farmers are concerned as well.
 "We'd hope at this point that we would always be diligent," Coia said. "We as an
 industry didn't intend to grow a genetically engineered crop. It's not something
 that we would have done."
 Pam Radtke Russell can be reached at prussell@timespicayune.com or (504)
 LOAD-DATE: December 2, 2007
 Louisiana's rice farmers are recovering from the damage done by Hurricane Rita.
 But rising fuel and fertilizer prices are pushing some producers out of the
 business. "Even though the market has recovered and is doing well, it gets more
 and more expensive to grow the crop," said John Morgan, vice president of the
 Louisiana Rice Mill. [3698346]
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
               Copyright 2007 The Times-Picayune Publishing Company









Document Number: 610
 
                            December 01, 2007 Saturday
                               Correction Appended
 BYLINE: REBEKAH DENN AND KRISTIN DIZON P-I reporters
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A1
 LENGTH: 1396 words
 There are no Wheat Thins at PCC Natural Markets, no boxes of Kellogg's Raisin
 Bran, not even any Sara Lee whole grain bagels or Oroweat cracked-wheat hot dog
 buns.
 What customers will find is almost unheard of: a supermarket free of products
 containing high-fructose corn syrup.
 After years of winnowing out the ubiquitous sweetener, the eight-store natural
 foods co-op announced this week that the rout was complete. While the science
 behind the move is still the subject of hot debate, the scope is unquestioned.
 "The next frontier is here," said Bob Vosburgh, health and wellness editor for
 the trade publication Supermarket News, who called Seattle-based PCC an industry
 leader in such controversial topics. PCC apparently is the second significant
 organization nationally to take on the issue.
 And its customers seem to appreciate the ban.
 "I'm completely happy about that," said Karen Hunt, 42, when told of PCC's
 decision. She said it makes it easier to pick out healthier cookies and chips
 for her two young children.
 Like many PCC shoppers, Hunt is an avid label reader. She avoids all artificial
 sweeteners and trans fats as well as hormones in milk, and she steers clear of
 high-fructose corn syrup.
 "I try hard not to add that to my family's diet," said Hunt. "I just don't think
 we need to do that. I'm sure there's a lot of arguments on both sides, but I
 just sort of feel intuitively that it's better not to."
 After public outcry over health issues such as trans fats in food, high-fructose
 corn syrup is taking shape as "the newest health villain," according to
 Datamonitor, a business industry analyst. The sweetener has been targeted on two
 grounds in the nation's obesity epidemic. One argument suggests its cheapness
 and versatility have encouraged manufacturers to insinuate a tasty but
 unhealthful load of empty calories into goods such as packaged bread. The other,
 more controversial, argument is that the biological effects of HFCS are
 different from those of more natural sweeteners, particularly that it interferes
 with the body's ability to alert the brain when it's time to stop eating.
 "Healthier alternatives exist," said Trudy Bialic, director of public affairs
 for PCC, or Puget Consumers Co-op. "Part of what we try to do is push back to
 the manufacturer what consumers are saying they want, saying, `This is what
 people are concerned about, and this is what they would like to see.'"
 Datamonitor reported in September that 146 new products were advertised as
 HFCS-free so far in 2007, triple the number released in all of 2006, with
 mass-market manufacturers such as Kraft and Dannon starting to join in.
 What's tricky, PCC administrators said, is that producers sometimes try to
 disguise the sweetener under other names, or rework recipes without notifying
 buyers.
 Another question entirely is whether the ban will do any good. Some scientists
 say research suggests a link to problems, or that HFCS does have significant
 differences from other sweeteners. Others, including consumer advocates such as
 the Center for Science in the Public Interest, believe the problem is the amount
 of sugar Americans eat, not the type. Swapping out HFCS for other sweeteners,
 they believe, is no more beneficial than the 1990s craze for fat-free (but still
 calorie-laden) snacks whose fat-free labels gave consumers a false sense that
 they could overindulge without harm.
 A ban "sounds silly to me," said Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, food
 studies and public health at New York University and a top authority on the
 intersection of nutrition, science, politics and business.
 "Why not ban all products with sugars (also silly) ?" she said in an e-mail. "It
 will be replaced with sucrose (table sugar) or honey or organic cane juice, all
 of which are basically the same as HFCS, or artificial sweeteners."
 While the body does process fructose differently, Nestle said, HFCS is 55
 percent fructose. Table sugar, which does not inspire the same outcry, is 50
 percent fructose.
 "I don't think the differences are worth fussing about," she said, "but that's
 just me."
 Others disagree.
 Though she hasn't read in depth on HFCS, Debra Boyer tries to avoid it.
 "I'm not terribly radical about it, but I'm paying more attention to it," said
 Boyer. Reading labels in the snack food aisle at PCC in Fremont on Friday
 afternoon, she said it's hard at other stores to find pasta sauce or breads that
 are free of high-fructose corn syrup.
 Dan Gunderson also shuns it, but not for health reasons. He's concerned about
 the environmental effects of genetically modified foods, particular corn and its
 byproducts. Like many others, he hasn't combed the scientific research in depth,
 but is still wary of HFCS.
 "My understanding is that it's a worse sugar than other sugars, but I don't know
 if that's true," said Gunderson.
 Earth Fare, a North Carolina-based chain of 13 natural foods markets, banned
 HFCS from its shelves in 2004, but no other retailers of significant size had
 followed since, until PCC.
 "Even back then, there was a buzz about high fructose corn syrup as possibly
 being correlated with the rise in obesity and the onset of diabetes in our
 culture," said Troy DeGroff, director of sales and marketing for Earth Fare.
 "You look at that, you look at how pervasive it is, then you start asking
 yourself, `How is this stuff produced, anyway?' It's not in keeping with natural
 processes or the tenets of a healthy store. It's our obligation to remove this."
 He applauded PCC's move.
 "We need more retailers who are willing to take a stand, to look out for
 people's well being and not just wanting to make money at the expense of health
 and quality of life."
 Whole Foods Markets, which is known for product standards and has banned trans
 fat-containing hydrogenated oils, has not banned HFCS, but products with it are
 "the exception rather than the norm as in conventional markets," a spokeswoman
 said. The company's brand name sodas are made with cane sugar rather than HFCS,
 she noted.
 Seattle's Madison Market co-op, with a similar bent, has an HFCS-free deli and
 is currently evaluating an overall ban.
 A ban is difficult, but possible, for specialty retailers that cater to a core
 market. It's less feasible for the Krogers and Safeways of the world, said
 Vosburgh, of Supermarket News. While most large chains now think about these
 issues and even have dietitians on staff, they tend to leave it up to the
 consumer whether they want to buy what's available.
 "For all the talk of better living and healthier living," he said, "a lot of
 people still like their Coke and Pepsi and frozen dinners and everything that
 goes along with it."
 Still, the moves by smaller retailers inevitably influence the larger
 marketplace, he said, such as the creation of special aisles for products free
 of a given substance.
 The HFCS ban is the latest in a series of hard-line commitments PCC has made in
 the past year on environmental and health issues. It has banned trans fats, it
 does not carry dairy products from cows treated with recombinant bovine growth
 hormones, and it recently announced it would no longer supply plastic bags to
 customers, relying instead on paper bags or customers' cloth totes.
 "The market is coming this way," said Bialic. "It's not hurting us in any way,
 is the point. You can do right, and do well."
 P-I food writer Rebekah Denn can be reached at 206-448-8117 or
 rebekahdenn@seattlepi.com
 Sweet relief for consumers?
 This chart shows how much sugar, mostly in the form of high-fructose corn syrup,
 is in these products.The U.S. Department of Agriculture recommends no more than
 10 to 12 teaspoons of added sugars a day.
 HELPFUL HINT: To figure out how much sugar is in a serving, check the nutrition
 label for sugars. Divide the number of grams by 4 to determine how many
 teaspoons of sugar are in a serving.
 Coca-Cola
 20 ounces
 16 teaspoons of sugar
 Kellogg's Nutri-Grain strawberry cereal bars
 1 bar
 3.25 teaspoons of sugar
 Dannon all natural coffee yogurt
 6 ounces
 6 teaspoons of sugar
 Nabisco Wheat Thins
 9 crackers
 1 teaspoon of sugar
 Smuckers red raspberry preserves
 1 tablespoon
 3 teaspoons of sugar
 Oroweat 100% whole wheat bread
 One slice
 .75 teaspoon of sugar
 Heinz ketchup
 1 tablespoon
 1 teaspoon of sugar
 Snapple peach iced tea
 20 ounces
 15 teaspoons of sugar
 Nabisco Honey Maid Grahams
 8 crackers
 2 teaspoons of sugar
 Source: P-I reporting
 Source: USDA Economic Research Service SEATTLE P-I
 LOAD-DATE: December 12, 2007
 CORRECTION-DATE: Saturday, December 1, 2007
 CORRECTION:Twenty-ounce bottles of Coca-Cola and Snapple contain about 17 and
 15 teaspoons of sugars, respectively. An informational graphic on Page One
 Saturday misstated the amounts.
 GRAPHIC: Color Chart
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer









Document Number: 611
 
                           Grand Rapid Press (Michigan)
                           November 28, 2007 Wednesday
 How sweet it is;
 Modified beet saves growers time, money
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. C4
 LENGTH: 581 words
 Each growing season, like many other sugar beet farmers bedeviled by weeds,
 Robert Green repeatedly and painstakingly applies herbicides in a process he
 compares to treating cancer with chemotherapy.
 "You give small doses of products that might harm the crop, but it harms the
 weeds a little more," said Green, who grows about 900 acres of beets in St.
 Thomas, N.D.
 But next spring, for the first time, Green intends to plant beets genetically
 engineered to withstand Monsanto's powerful Roundup herbicide.
 The Roundup will destroy the weeds but leave his crop unscathed, potentially
 saving him thousands of dollars in tractor fuel and labor.
 For Green and many other beet farmers, it is technology too long delayed.
 Seven years ago, beet breeders were on the verge of introducing
 Roundup-resistant seeds. But they had to pull back after sugar-using food
 companies such as Hershey and Mars, fearing consumer resistance, balked at the
 idea of biotech beets.
 Now, though, sensing those concerns have subsided, many processors have cleared
 their growers to plant the Roundup-resistant beets next spring.
 It would be the first new type of genetically engineered food crop to be widely
 grown since the 1990s, when bio-engineered soybeans and corn entered the market.
 And it could pave the way for the eventual planting of other biotech crops such
 as wheat, rice and potatoes, which also were stalled on the launching pad.
 So far, it is sounding like the quietest of revolutions.
 "Basically, we have not run into resistance," said David Berg, president of
 American Crystal Sugar, the nation's largest sugar beet processor. "We really
 think that consumer attitudes have come to accept food from biotechnology."
 No objections from Kellogg
 A Kellogg spokeswoman, Kris Charles, said her company "would not have any
 issues" buying such sugar for products sold in the United States, where she said
 "most consumers are not concerned about biotech."
 If some other big food companies now are open to genetically modified sugar,
 though, they are not talking about it. Both Hershey and Mars declined to
 comment.
 "There's just nothing we have to say on the topic," a Mars spokeswoman said.
 About 10,000 American farmers grow sugar beets on about 1.3 million acres,
 mainly in northern states from Oregon to Michigan.
 That makes the beets a minor crop compared with corn, at about 90 million acres,
 and soybeans, at almost 70 million.
 Beets account for about half the nation's sugar supply, with the rest coming
 from sugar cane.
 The sugar from beets and cane generally is considered interchangeable.
 Seeds more expensive
 The seeds will be most attractive to those with the biggest weed problems.
 Because of a technology fee of $106 per 100,000 seeds that is paid to Monsanto,
 the Roundup Ready seeds, as they are known, will cost at least twice as much as
 conventional seeds.
 That translates to about $50 to $65 in extra seed costs per acre.
 Duane Grant, who grows about 5,000 acres of sugar beets in Rupert, Idaho, said
 the extra seed outlays would be offset by other savings.
 He said his annual herbicide costs would drop to $35 an acre, from $70, and he
 would no longer have to hire migrant workers to pull weeds by hand, at a cost of
 $35 to $150 an acre.
 Grant, who was designated by the national beet growers' association as its
 spokesman on this issue, also said Roundup would have to be sprayed only two or
 three times during the spring-to-fall growing season, while the existing
 herbicides must be sprayed five times or more.
 VEGETABLES (91%) Agriculture
 LOAD-DATE: November 29, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: grp
                        Copyright 2007 Grand Rapids Press
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 612
 
                        St. Paul Pioneer Press (Minnesota)
                           November 28, 2007 Wednesday
 Corn seeds spur protest
 BYLINE: Pioneer Press
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Intl Biz Briefing
 LENGTH: 355 words
 Greenpeace appealed to European Union officials Wednesday not to approve the use
 of two genetically modified corn crops. The environmental group staged a protest
 at EU headquarters, arguing the crops pose a major risk to insects such as
 butterflies and could damage local ecosystems. Under heavy pressure from both
 industry and environmental groups, the EU's executive office is deliberating on
 whether to approve license applications for two biotech seeds for cultivation.
 The products are the Bt-11 corn seed made by Switzerland's Syngenta AG and the
 corn 1507 product made by the U.S.-based Pioneer Hi-Bred and Dow Agrosciences.
 Both varieties offer resistance to insects, including corn borers and certain
 butterfly species, and were deemed safe by the EU's food safety authority in
 2005. Chocolate-bar makers in price-fixing probe
 Regulators have launched an investigation into allegations that the Canadian
 divisions of Nestle, Cadbury, Hershey and others have teamed up in a
 price-fixing scheme in the multibillion-dollar Canadian business of chocolate
 bars, company officials confirmed Wednesday. Canada's Competition Bureau served
 search warrants on several major bar makers this week, requiring them to turn
 over reams of documents on their pricing arrangements, investigators told the
 Globe and Mail of Toronto.
 Canada's Bombardier Inc. said Wednesday it had named Pierre Beaudoin as its new
 CEO, taking over from his father, Laurent, who will remain chairman of the
 global plane and train maker. ... Ravelston Corp., the Toronto-based holding
 company that served as the nerve center of media mogul Conrad Black's newspaper
 empire, was fined $7 million Wednesday and ordered to pay $6 million in
 restitution for its part in a massive shareholder fraud. Black, 63, and three
 other men are to be sentenced Dec. 10 for their roles in a sweeping fraud scheme
 that the government says cost shareholders in media giant Hollinger
 International Inc. $32.5 million. ... Japanese retail sales climbed 0.8 percent
 in October from a year ago, buoyed by automobile and fuel sales, the government
 said Wednesday.
 - From wire reports
 LOAD-DATE: November 28, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2007 St. Paul Pioneer Press
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 613
 
                                The New York Times
                            November 27, 2007 Tuesday
                               Late Edition - Final
 European Official Faults Ban on Genetically Altered Feed
 BYLINE: By JAMES KANTER
 SECTION: Section C; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 4
 LENGTH: 449 words
 DATELINE: PARIS, Nov. 26
 The European agriculture commissioner, Mariann Fischer Boel, warned farm
 ministers on Monday that Europe's resistance to importing genetically modified
 products like livestock feed was contributing to the rising cost of raising pigs
 and chickens and could pose a threat to the meat industry.
 Her warning, made during a closed-door lunch in Brussels, highlighted renewed
 debate over whether Europe could afford to impose tougher rules on genetically
 modified products than other parts of the world.
 Some European officials say the region should maintain its skeptical stance
 toward the technology on safety grounds, while others argue for a more pragmatic
 approach to enhance the region's competitiveness and help the agricultural
 sector.
 Michael Mann, a spokesman for Ms. Fischer Boel, said Monday that the European
 Union's zero-tolerance policy toward genetically modified foods comes at
 ''potential major cost.''
 One reason European policies toward genetically modified feed raise costs is
 that ships bound for Europe must be thoroughly cleaned so feed for Europe is not
 mixed with feed grown from seeds that have not been approved for use in the
 European Union.
 At the lunch, Ms. Fischer Boel did not explicitly recommend relaxing the rules,
 according to one official from a European Union member that broadly opposes
 genetically modified products. But she seemed to be stepping up pressure for a
 modification of the policy, said the official, who asked not to be identified.
 Germany's agriculture minister, Horst Seehofer, called on Monday for the
 European Union to suspend its approval procedure for new genetically modified
 crops and seeds, demanding that governments review how such products can be used
 in Europe.
 Before the meeting, he said that this system ''should be stopped, and we should
 check: can the procedures stay as they are?''
 Mr. Seehofer called the current system, which has been criticized by several
 European Union nations, ''highly unsatisfactory.''
 Environmental groups that oppose easing the rules on imports of genetically
 modified products say many of the arguments for relaxing the policy on modified
 feed are specious.
 Helen Holder, an  expert on genetically modified food with Friends of the Earth
 Europe in Brussels, said prices were rising because more farmers in the United
 States and elsewhere were growing crops for biofuels as demand was rising for
 crops to feed livestock.
 Rather than relaxing its import rules, Ms. Holder said, the European Union
 should drop proposals to require more use of biofuels and change rules so
 farmers can use more home-grown feeds.
 ''The E.U. needs to stand firm and defend its biosafety rules,'' she said.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: November 27, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 614
 
                                The New York Times
                            November 27, 2007 Tuesday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Round 2 for Biotech Beets
 BYLINE: By ANDREW POLLACK
 SECTION: Section C; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 1663 words
 Each growing season, like many other sugar beet farmers bedeviled by weeds,
 Robert Green repeatedly and painstakingly applies herbicides in a process he
 compares to treating cancer with chemotherapy.
 ''You give small doses of products that might harm the crop, but it harms the
 weeds a little more,'' said Mr. Green, who plants about 900 acres in beets in
 St. Thomas, N.D.
 But next spring, for the first time, Mr. Green intends to plant beets
 genetically engineered to withstand Monsanto's powerful Roundup herbicide. The
 Roundup will destroy the weeds but leave his crop unscathed, potentially saving
 him thousands of dollars in tractor fuel and labor.
 For Mr. Green and many other beet farmers, it is technology too long delayed.
 And the engineered beets could pave the way for the eventual planting of other
 biotech crops like wheat, rice and potatoes, which were also stalled on the
 launching pad.
 Seven years ago, beet breeders were on the verge of introducing
 Roundup-resistant seeds. But they had to pull back after sugar-using food
 companies like Hershey and Mars, fearing consumer resistance, balked at the idea
 of biotech beets. Now, though, sensing that those concerns have subsided, many
 processors have cleared their growers to plant the Roundup-resistant beets next
 spring.
 It would be the first new type of genetically engineered food crop widely grown
 since the 1990s, when biotech soybeans, corn and a few other crops entered the
 market.
 ''Basically, we have not run into resistance,'' said David Berg, president of
 American Crystal Sugar, the nation's largest sugar beet processor. ''We really
 think that consumer attitudes have come to accept food from biotechnology.''
 A Kellogg spokeswoman, Kris Charles, said her company ''would not have any
 issues'' buying such sugar for products sold in the United States, where she
 said ''most consumers are not concerned about biotech.''
 If some other big food companies are now open to genetically modified sugar,
 though, they are not talking about it. Both Hershey and Mars declined to
 comment. ''There's just nothing we have to say on the topic,'' a Mars
 spokeswoman said.
 Many sugar refiners and seed developers also refused to comment, hewing to an
 industrywide plan to coordinate the introduction of the genetically engineered
 beets and carefully control what is said about them.
 When it comes to genetically modified crops, there is a reason to keep one's
 corporate head low -- to avoid protests. Some opponents of biotechnology are
 only now getting wind that the sugar beets have been resurrected.
 ''When I first saw this I said, 'No, it can't be,''' said Ronnie Cummins,
 national director of the Organic Consumers Association. ''I thought we had
 already dealt with this.''
 His organization issued a call to arms and  thousands of identical e-mail
 messages were sent to Mr. Berg at American Crystal Sugar warning that ''profit
 margins of your company and its supporting farmers'' would be hurt by consumer
 resistance.
 Mr. Berg said he received 681 messages in a 24-hour period before having the
 e-mail blocked. He said he still believed that most consumers would accept
 biotech crops. Mr. Cummins, however, said he would next try to persuade
 consumers to pressure food companies to boycott the sugar. ''I don't think
 companies like Hershey are going to want any more hassles than they already
 have,'' he said, referring to recent earnings pressure and management turmoil at
 the chocolate company.
 About 10,000 American farmers grow sugar beets on about 1.3 million acres,
 mainly in Northern states from Oregon to Michigan. That makes the beets a minor
 crop compared with corn, at about 90 million acres, and soybeans, at almost 70
 million.
 And yet beets account for about half the nation's sugar supply, with the rest
 coming from sugar cane. The sugar from beets and cane, generally considered
 interchangeable, is used in candies, cereals, cakes and numerous other products,
 although some food manufacturers have switched to high-fructose corn syrup,
 which is cheaper.
 When genetically engineered versions of soybeans and corn -- as well as cotton
 and canola -- were introduced in the mid-1990s, farmers quickly adopted them.
 But opposition to genetically engineered crops then took hold, particularly in
 Europe. Food companies, fearing protests or loss of customers, pressured farmers
 not to grow the crops.
 Sugar was not the only crop affected. Insect-resistant potatoes developed by
 Monsanto were withdrawn from the market in 2001 after fast-food companies
 resisted them. Monsanto gave up on developing Roundup-resistant wheat in 2004,
 in part because American wheat farmers feared losing exports. The rice industry,
 also heavily dependent on exports, has never grown herbicide-tolerant varieties.
 Even if the situation has now changed for sugar, however, other crops might
 still meet resistance. For one thing, sugar is a refined product that contains
 no DNA or proteins, just the chemical sucrose. ''While the sugar beet is
 genetically different, the sugar is the same,'' said Luther Markwart, executive
 vice president of the American Sugarbeet Growers Association and co-chairman of
 the Sugar Industry Biotech Council.
 By contrast, the foreign DNA and proteins in genetically modified wheat, rice or
 potatoes can be eaten by consumers, which at least theoretically raises food
 safety questions.
 Moreover, only about 3 percent of American sugar is exported, Mr. Markwart said,
 compared with about half of wheat and rice.
 The sugar industry's organizational structure also helps. Virtually all sugar
 processors -- the companies that buy the beets from farmers and then extract the
 sugar and sell it -- are owned by the farmers themselves. That makes them more
 likely to accept the biotech crops than an independent processor might be.
 Among farmers, demand for the Roundup Ready beets, as they are known, is
 expected to be strong. ''The sugar beet growers are going to adopt this
 technology immediately,'' said Alan G. Dexter, the extension sugar beet
 specialist at North Dakota State University and the University of Minnesota. In
 a survey he conducted, 57 percent of beet growers cited weeds as their biggest
 problem, with diseases the distant runner-up at 16 percent.
 The seeds will be most attractive to those with the biggest weed problems. With
 a technology fee of a little more than $100 per 100,000 seeds paid to Monsanto,
 the genetically engineered seeds will cost at least twice as much as
 conventional seeds. That translates to about $50 to $65 in extra seed costs per
 acre.
 But Duane Grant, who grows about 5,000 acres of sugar beets in Rupert, Idaho,
 said the extra seed outlays would be offset by other savings. He said his annual
 herbicide costs would drop to $35 an acre, from $70, and he would no longer have
 to hire migrant workers to pull weeds by hand, at a cost of $35 to $150 an acre.
 Mr. Grant, who was designated by the national beet growers' association as its
 spokesman on this issue, also said Roundup would have to be sprayed only two or
 three times during the spring-to-fall growing season, while the existing
 herbicides must be sprayed five times or more. The existing herbicides are
 decades old and some weeds have developed resistance to them, Mr. Grant said.
 Some weed experts say there are also some weeds resistant to Roundup and its
 generic equivalent, glyphosate, as a consequence of the heavy use of the
 herbicide spurred by the proliferation of Roundup Ready crops. But such weeds
 are not found in beet fields, Mr. Grant said.
 He said that with conventional beets, Roundup can be used only before the
 seedlings emerge from the ground, because after that the Roundup would kill
 them.
 Bringing back the biotech beets took a long, coordinated effort involving
 Monsanto, seed companies, growers, processors and trade groups under the
 auspices of the Sugar Industry Biotech Council.
 Rival seed companies all agreed to use seeds descended from a single genetic
 transformation done by Monsanto and KWS, a German seed company. That meant the
 industry had to win federal approval only once. The new genetically engineered
 sugar beet was reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration in 2004 and approved
 for unrestricted growing by the Agriculture Department in early 2005.
 And before planting the beets, farmers have waited for approvals in other
 important markets. Just last month Europe approved the beets for food and feed
 use, although not for planting.
 Because such foods would have to be labeled in Europe as containing genetically
 engineered ingredients, some American food companies might use cane sugar, which
 is not genetically modified, for products they export to Europe. But in the
 United States, foods containing sugar made from biotech beets would not have to
 be labeled.
 The sugar beet industry conducted field trials in Idaho last year and Michigan
 this year. Mr. Grant, who was part of the Idaho test, said the biotech seeds
 actually had slightly higher yields and sugar output than very similar
 conventional varieties.
 Some environmentalists say the use of Roundup on sugar beets could contribute to
 the growing problem of Roundup-resistant weeds. But the Agriculture Department
 said it expected little, if any, environmental effect from growing the beets.
 One factor that could help keep the trait from spreading is that beets produce
 seeds only in their second year, after passing through a winter. So beets grown
 in most parts of the country never produce seeds, because farmers harvest beets
 every fall and plant new seeds the next spring.
 But in California, beets stay in the ground through the winter and there are
 weeds that can mate with sugar beets. So growers there may be more cautious
 about the Roundup revolution.
 ''We have to make sure we don't cause ourselves more problems than we're
 curing,'' said Ben Goodwin, executive manager of the California Beet Growers
 Association.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: November 27, 2007
 GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: In his right hand, Duane Grant holds a genetically engineered
 sugar beet, next to a conventional beet. Once refined, the sugar from each would
 be the same, sucrose. (PHOTOGRAPH BY CHAD CASE FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES) (pg.C1)
  Robert Green will plant the modified sugar beets on his farm in North Dakota
 next spring. (PHOTOGRAPH BY ERIC HYLDEN FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES) (pg.C2)
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 615
 
                                The New York Times
                             November 23, 2007 Friday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Today in Business
 SECTION: Section C; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; TODAY IN BUSINESS; Pg. 2
 LENGTH: 584 words
 A STORM'S LINGERING COST After 15 years, the visible damage of Hurricane Andrew
 has largely disappeared, but homeowners nationwide are still feeling the effect
 of the storm, one of the worst of the century, in their pocketbooks.
 QUITTING AMERICA Many Japanese investors are moving away from American
 investments, altering global capital flows and helping to weaken the dollar.
 WANING ENTHUSIASM FOR WIND A gleaming new wind park in Sweden testifies to the
 remarkable rise of wind energy as a mainstream power source used in 26 nations,
 including the United States. But wind energy is coming under sharper scrutiny
 from energy experts who question its reliability as a source of power. [C1.]
 BOND INSURER GETS A LIFT Shareholders of the French bank Natixis will take over
 its bond insurance unit, CIFG Guaranty, in a $1.5 billion rescue to preserve its
 top credit rating. [C2.]
 TURNING THE TABLES ON RISK In the turmoil of asset-based securities, some of
 Wall Street's safest institutions have turned out not to be, while some
 perceived as risky are so far sailing through. What brought the party to an end
 was not giant loans to buyout clients but the subterranean world of
 mortgage-related debt. Insider. [C1.]
 PITCHING EUROSTAR Rail Europe, which sells tickets in the United States for
 Eurostar's high-speed train service between Paris and London, has a new
 advertising campaign that it hopes will excite Americans enough about European
 tourism that they can put aside any concerns about exchange rates. Advertising.
 THREAT OF GENE-MODIFIED CORNEuropean Union environmental officials have
 determined that two kinds of genetically modified corn could harm butterflies,
 affect food chains and disturb life in rivers and streams, and they have
 proposed a ban on the sale of the seeds. [C3.]
 $300 BILLION LOSS SEEN Losses in the distressed mortgage sector of the United
 States could reach $300 billion, only a portion of which has so far been
 accounted for by write-offs at major banks, according to a study released on
 Thursday by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. [C3.]
 CHINA'S CURRENCY LEAKS A Chinese businesswoman has been arrested and accused of
 supervising currency transactions worth more than $500 million, spotlighting the
 extent of illegal currency flows out of China into Hong Kong. [C5.]
 ENI LINKS WITH GAZPROM  Eni of Italy has agreed to form a 50-50 joint venture
 with the Russian gas export monopoly Gazprom to operate a new gas export
 pipeline to south Europe costing at least $14 billion. [C5.]
 STOCKS REBOUND IN EUROPE European stocks rebounded, led by drug makers and
 utilities, whose profits are less vulnerable to an economic slowdown. The Topix
 index in Japan extended its drop from a February peak to 21 percent, making
 Japan the first of the world's 10 biggest stock markets to enter a bear market
 this year. [C6.]
 COMPANIES WARY OF AUDITORS A conflict is growing between auditors and their
 corporate clients, amid pressure on both sides to do more to root out corporate
 wrongdoing and fraud. Companies are increasingly concerned that auditors could
 be required to turn over confidential records to outsiders, exposing
 corporations and executives to lawsuits from shareholders or whistle-blowers and
 unwanted scrutiny by regulators. [C4.]
 CHINESE CARS FOR MEXICO The Chinese automaker First Automobile Works Group will
 begin exporting cars to Mexico by year's end, looking to tap into the domestic
 market for inexpensive cars. [C2.]
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: November 23, 2007
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Summary
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 616
 
                                The New York Times
                             November 23, 2007 Friday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Proposed Ban on Genetically Modified Corn in Europe
 BYLINE: By JAMES KANTER
 SECTION: Section C; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 3
 LENGTH: 813 words
 DATELINE: PARIS, Nov. 22
 European Union environmental officials have determined that two kinds of
 genetically modified corn could harm butterflies, affect food chains and disturb
 life in rivers and streams, and they have proposed a ban on the sale of the
 seeds, which are made by DuPont Pioneer, Dow Agrosciences and Syngenta.
 The preliminary decisions are circulating within the European Commission, which
 has the final say. Some officials there are skeptical of a ban that would upset
 the powerful biotechnology industry and could exacerbate tensions with important
 trading partners like the United States. The seeds are not available on the
 European market for cultivation.
 In the decisions, the environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, contends that the
 genetically modified corn, or maize could affect certain butterfly species,
 specifically the monarch, and other beneficial insects. For instance, research
 this year indicates that larvae of the monarch butterfly exposed to the
 genetically modified corn ''behave differently than other larvae.''
 In the decision concerning the corn seeds produced by Dow and Pioneer, Mr. Dimas
 calls ''potential damage on the environment irreversible.'' In the decision on
 Syngenta's corn, he says that ''the level of risk generated by the cultivation
 of this product for the environment is unacceptable.''
 A decision by the European Union to bar cultivation of the genetically modified
 crops would be the first of its kind in the trade bloc, and would intensify  the
 continuing battle over genetically modified corn.
 Since 1998, the commission has not approved any applications for the cultivation
 of genetically modified crops,  but it has not actively rejected any
 applications, either, as would be the case with the genetically modified corn
 products.
 Banning the applications for corn crops also would mark a bold new step for
 European environmental authorities, who are already aggressively pursuing
 regulations on emissions from cars and aircraft, setting it at odds with the
 United States and angering industries.
 ''These products have been grown in the U.S. and other countries for years,''
 said Stephen Norton, a spokesman for the United States trade representative.
 ''We are not aware of any other case when a product has been rejected after
 having been reviewed and determined safe'' by European food safety authorities,
 he said.
 In 2005, the European Food Safety Authority, a European agency based in Parma,
 Italy, that operates independently of the European Union, ruled that the
 products were unlikely to harm human and animal health or the environment. But
 in the draft decision, Mr. Dimas said that other studies had since come to light
 on the potential effects of the seeds and that further investigation was needed.
 Barbara Helfferich, a spokeswoman for Mr. Dimas, declined to comment on the
 specifics of the procedure because commissioners had not yet made a final
 decision. But she said that the European Union was within its rights to make
 decisions based on the ''precautionary principle'' even when scientists had
 found no definitive evidence proving products can cause harm.
 ''The commission has the authority to be a risk manager when it comes to the
 safety and science of genetically modified crops,'' Ms. Helfferich said.
 She said that the decisions by Mr. Dimas could go before the commission within a
 few weeks, but she said that no date had  been set.
 In the decisions, Mr. Dimas cited recent research showing that consumption of
 genetically modified ''corn byproducts reduced growth and increased mortality of
 nontarget stream insects'' and that these insects ''are important prey for
 aquatic and riparian predators'' and that this could have ''unexpected
 ecosystem-scale consequences.''
 Although still preliminary, his decisions could drastically tilt the  policy
 against future approvals of genetically modified crops, said Nathalie Moll, a
 spokeswoman for Europabio, an industry group with 80 members including Syngenta,
 Pioneer and Dow.
 The decisions ''would be setting a precedent for E.U. officials to reject
 products based on nonverified scientific data,'' Ms. Moll said.
 Europabio says that the crops grown using the genetically modified corn are
 already imported into several European countries, including France and Germany,
 where they are used to feed animals like cows and chickens.
 Rob Gianfranceschi, spokesman at the United States mission to the  European
 Union in Brussels, said it was too early to comment on a decision that had not
 yet been formalized. But he made clear that the United States remained
 frustrated with European policies on genetically modified crops.
 ''The United States has consistently stated that the E.U. continues to lack a
 predictable, workable process for approving these products in a way that
 reflects scientific rather than political factors,'' Mr. Gianfranceschi said.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: November 23, 2007
 GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: A protest in August against genetically modified crops in
 France. The modified corn that would be banned has been grown in America for
 years. (PHOTOHGRAPH BY MICHEL GANGNE/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE -- GETTY IMAGES)
  A study says exposure to the corn can affect the larvae of the  monarch
 butterfly. (PHOTOGRAPH BY THAD ALLENDER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES)
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 617
 
                                The New York Times
                             November 23, 2007 Friday
                               Late Edition - Final
 SECTION: Section C; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; TODAY IN BUSINESS; Pg. 2
 LENGTH: 585 words
 A STORM'S LINGERING COST After 15 years, the visible damage of Hurricane Andrew
 has largely disappeared, but homeowners nationwide are still feeling the effect
 of the storm, one of the worst of the century, in their pocketbooks. [Page C1.]
 QUITTING AMERICAMany Japanese investors are moving away from American
 investments, altering global capital flows and helping to weaken the dollar.
 WANING ENTHUSIASM FOR WIND A gleaming new wind park in Sweden testifies to the
 remarkable rise of wind energy as a mainstream power source used in 26 nations,
 including the United States. But wind energy is coming under sharper scrutiny
 from energy experts who question its reliability as a source of power. [C1.]
 BOND INSURER GETS A LIFT Shareholders of the French bank Natixis will take over
 its bond insurance unit, CIFG Guaranty, in a $1.5 billion rescue to preserve its
 top credit rating. [C2.]
 TURNING THE TABLES ON RISK In the turmoil of asset-based securities, some of
 Wall Street's safest institutions have turned out not to be, while some
 perceived as risky are so far sailing through. What brought the party to an end
 was not giant loans to buyout clients but the subterranean world of
 mortgage-related debt. Insider. [C1.]
 PITCHING EUROSTAR Rail Europe, which sells tickets in the United States for
 Eurostar's high-speed train service between Paris and London, has a new
 advertising campaign that it hopes will excite Americans enough about European
 tourism that they can put aside any concerns about exchange rates. Advertising.
 THREAT OF GENE-MODIFIED CORN European Union environmental officials have
 determined that two kinds of genetically modified corn could harm butterflies,
 affect food chains and disturb life in rivers and streams, and they have
 proposed a ban on the sale of the seeds. [C3.]
 $300 BILLION LOSS SEEN Losses in the distressed mortgage sector of the United
 States could reach $300 billion, only a portion of which has so far been
 accounted for by write-offs at major banks, according to a study released on
 Thursday by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. [C3.]
 CHINA'S CURRENCY LEAKS A Chinese businesswoman has been arrested and accused of
 supervising currency transactions worth more than $500 million, spotlighting the
 extent of illegal currency flows out of China into Hong Kong. [C5.]
 ENI LINKS WITH GAZPROM Eni of Italy has agreed to form a 50-50 joint venture
 with the Russian gas export monopoly Gazprom to operate a new gas export
 pipeline to south Europe costing at least $14 billion. [C5.]
 STOCKS REBOUND IN EUROPE European stocks rebounded, led by drug makers and
 utilities, whose profits are less vulnerable to an economic slowdown. The Topix
 index in Japan extended its drop from a February peak to 21 percent, making
 Japan the first of the world's 10 biggest stock markets to enter a bear market
 this year. [C6.]
 COMPANIES WARY OF AUDITORS A conflict is growing between auditors and their
 corporate clients, amid pressure on both sides to do more to root out corporate
 wrongdoing and fraud. Companies are increasingly concerned that auditors could
 be required to turn over confidential records to outsiders, exposing
 corporations and executives to lawsuits from shareholders or whistle-blowers and
 unwanted scrutiny by regulators. [C4.]
 CHINESE CARS FOR MEXICO The Chinese automaker First Automobile Works Group will
 begin exporting cars to Mexico by year's end, looking to tap into the domestic
 market for inexpensive cars. [C2.]
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: July 1, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 618
 
                        San Jose Mercury News (California)
                             November 23, 2007 Friday
 World news in brief
 BYLINE: Mercury News Wire Services
 SECTION: WORLD; News
 LENGTH: 550 words
 Pakistan
 Supreme Court backs
 Musharraf's 2nd term
 Pakistan's Supreme Court, stacked with appointees loyal to Gen. Pervez
 Musharraf, dismissed the last legal challenge to his re-election as president
 Thursday, paving the way for his swearing-in to a second five-year term.
 Presidential aides said Musharraf would now abide by his pledge to step down as
 head of the army and become a civilian president when he takes the oath of
 office, which is expected in coming days.
 The court decision was the final step in a series of maneuvers devised by
 Musharraf, including the imposition of emergency rule nearly three weeks ago, to
 ensure his continuation in power.
 Japan
 Japanese investors
 divert funds from U.S.
 Many in Japan are starting to speak of "quitting America," but they are not
 talking about a rise in anti-American political fervor. Rather, they mean a move
 away from American investments that is altering global capital flows and helping
 to weaken the dollar.
 Japan's legions of individual investors have emerged as a global financial
 force, directing almost half a trillion dollars of their nation's $14 trillion
 in personal savings overseas in search of higher returns. Until recently, much
 of this huge outflow of cash, known as the yen-carry trade, had gone into U.S.
 stocks, bonds or currency, propping up the dollar's value.
 Now, however, Japanese individuals are diverting more and more of that money
 away from the United States and the dollar and into higher-yielding global
 investments, ranging from high-interest Australian government bonds to shares in
 fast-growing Indian construction companies.
 Recent figures on mutual fund purchases suggest this trend has accelerated since
 August, when subprime problems shook Wall Street - and faith in the U.S.
 economy.
 France
 EU to consider ban
 on modified seeds
 European Union environmental officials have determined that two kinds of
 genetically modified corn could harm butterflies, affect food chains and disturb
 life in rivers and streams, and they have proposed a ban on the sale of the
 seeds, which are made by DuPont Pioneer, Dow Agrosciences and Syngenta.
 The preliminary decisions are circulating within the European Commission, which
 has the final say. Some officials there are skeptical of a ban that would upset
 the powerful biotech industry and could exacerbate tensions with important
 trading partners like the United States. The seeds are not available on the
 European market.
 Czech Republic
 Meth epidemic grows
 to crisis proportions
 The methamphetamine epidemic is not just a scourge of the American heartland. It
 has a powerful foothold in the heart of Central Europe. Home meth labs are
 sprouting up all over the Czech Republic to produce this cheap, potent drug
 using the pseudoephedrine found in common cold medications.
 In 2000, Czech police raided 19 cooking labs. By last year that number had grown
 to 416 - in a country of just 10.2 million people.
 The appetite for methamphetamine in the Czech drug scene grew out of the strange
 ingenuity fostered among users once cut off by the Iron Curtain from imported
 highs. Now the consumption of this strongly addictive, often injected stimulant
 appears to be spreading from the Czech Republic to the rest of Europe.
 From Mercury News staff and wire services
 From Mercury News staff and wire services
 LOAD-DATE: November 26, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2007 San Jose Mercury News
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 619
 
                     Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock)
                           November 21, 2007 Wednesday
 Rice co-op reports its sales up 5.4% over previous year
 LENGTH: 637 words
 STUTTGART - Producers Rice Mill Inc. on Tuesday reported sales of $337 million
 for the fiscal year that ended July 31, up 5.4 percent from a year ago.
 Speaking during the farmer-owned cooperative's 64th annual membership meeting,
 President and Chief Executive Officer Keith Glover said price prospects for the
 2007 and 2008 rice crops are promising despite the challenging marketplace.
 "We're living in an environment where there's tremendous change that has taken
 place over the last couple of years," beginning in 2005 with hurricanes Katrina
 and Rita, Glover said.
 Runaway energy prices, shipping problems, high fertilizer prices and
 contamination of U.S. rice supplies by an unapproved, genetically engineered
 rice variety have buffeted rice farmers, he said.
 The industry has done a particularly good job, Glover said, of handling the
 transgenic rice issue, which has adversely affected both the demand for and
 price of U.S. long-grain rice. Last year roughly 32 percent of rice tested
 positive for the presence of transgenic rice, but this year the number dropped
 to about 1 percent, he said.
 "The big difference is last year's test was conducted on a 0.1 level; this
 year's test was conducted on a 0.01 level. That means we're testing at 10 times
 greater sensitivity," Glover said. "Obviously we've made huge strides towards
 getting a handle on this." The two U.S. rice export markets most affected by the
 problem have been Europe and the Philippines, he said. About half of all U.S.
 rice is exported.
 Glover said other positive indicators for future rice prices include: U.S.
 long-grain export sales that are running 40 percent higher than a year ago,
 tight world rice supplies, and extremely low world grain stocks, which will
 continue to support world and U.S. rice prices.
 Producers Rice Mill received 48 million bushels of rice during the 2006-07
 marketing year from its approximately 2,900 members in Arkansas, Louisiana,
 Mississippi and Missouri, down 13 percent from a record 2005 crop.
 The co-op's long-grain settlement price in its seasonal marketing pool averaged
 $4.38 per bushel, while the long-grain pricing pool, where sales are booked day
 by day, averaged $4.28 per bushel. The settlement price for medium-grain rice,
 which represents only 2 percent to 3 percent of Producers' rice volume, came to
 $5.10 per bushel.
 Producers returned $4.2 million in equity to members during fiscal 2007,
 representing a portion of their investments in the cooperative.
 The cooperative operates two rice mills in Stuttgart and two mills in
 Greenville, Miss., producing white and parboiled rice at each. The co-op also
 operates 10 receiving locations, where rice can be dried and stored, and owns a
 50 percent interest in a rice flour mill in Stuttgart.
 Arkansas' 2007 rice crop varied dramatically according to when it was harvested,
 Glover said.
 "Prior to the eight days of rain that began Sept. 4, field yields and milling
 quality were very good, but once we came back after the rains, field yields and
 milling quality especially started going down," he said.
 Arkansas produces about half of all U.S. rice. In 2006, the crop was the state's
 most valuable row crop, worth $892 million. An estimated 1.3 million acres of
 rice were harvested in the state this year. Average yield is expected to be
 7,200 pounds per acre, a state record.
 Glover said a tug of war for acreage among Arkansas' major grain crop likely
 will recur in 2008. If the relative prices for rice, soybeans, cotton, corn and
 grain sorghum do not change, "I think it will be a struggle to maintain the rice
 acres that we had this past year," he said.
 "We are concerned, but we also have faith in the market" and believe that prices
 will encourage the appropriate number of acres, Glover said. "That's the
 function of a market."
 This article was published 11/21/2007
 LOAD-DATE: November 21, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2007 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 620
 
                          Brattleboro Reformer (Vermont)
                            November 20, 2007 Tuesday
 Board members sought for GE action group
 BYLINE: Reformer.com
 LENGTH: 190 words
 BRATTLEBORO -- The Windham County Genetic Engineering Action Group (GEAG) is
 seeking new members for its working board of directors.
 The GEAG board is an all-volunteer collaboration of residents and activists who
 are educating children and adults about the importance to their health of
 choosing non-genetically engineered foods.
 Since 2000, GEAG have successfully spearheaded grassroots efforts to shine the
 spotlight on the ever-increasing production of genetically engineered seeds and
 foods in our country, the health and environmental dangers these foods can cause
 and the lack of required labeling of GE products so consumers can know what they
 are purchasing and eating.
 This spotlight continues to bring these issues to the forefront of popular and
 political discussion and action through outreach, education, and legislation.
 Their work started in Brattleboro, spread to Windham County, expanded throughout
 Vermont, resulted in 82 towns and the Vermont legislature taking political
 action, and has earned support from citizens throughout America and around the
 world.
 For more information, contact integra7@comcast.com or call 802-251-0577.
 LOAD-DATE: November 20, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
    Copyright 2007 MediaNews Group, Inc. and New England Newspaper Group Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 621
 
                                The New York Times
                            November 20, 2007 Tuesday
                               Correction Appended
                               Late Edition - Final
 Are Scientists Playing God? It Depends on Your Religion
 BYLINE: By JOHN TIERNEY
 SECTION: Section F; Column 0; Science Desk; FINDINGS; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 1378 words
 Now that biologists in Oregon have reported using cloning to produce a monkey
 embryo and extract stem cells, it looks more plausible than before that a human
 embryo will be cloned and that, some day, a cloned human will be born. But not
 necessarily on this side of the Pacific.
 American and European researchers have made most of the progress so far in
 biotechnology. Yet they still face one very large obstacle -- God, as defined by
 some Western religions.
 While critics on the right and the left fret about the morality of stem-cell
 research  and genetic engineering, prominent Western scientists have been going
 to Asia, like the geneticists  Nancy Jenkins and Neal Copeland, who left the
 National Cancer Institute  and moved last year to Singapore.
 Asia offers researchers new labs, fewer restrictions and a different view of
 divinity and the afterlife. In South Korea, when Hwang Woo Suk  reported
 creating human embryonic stem cells through cloning, he did not apologize for
 offending religious taboos. He justified cloning by citing his Buddhist belief
 in recycling life through reincarnation.
 When Dr. Hwang's claim was exposed as a fraud, his research was supported by the
 head of South Korea's largest Buddhist order, the Rev. Ji Kwan. The monk said
 research with embryos was in accord with Buddha's precepts and urged Korean
 scientists  not to be guided by Western ethics.
 ''Asian religions worry less than Western religions that biotechnology is about
 'playing God,''' says Cynthia Fox, the author of ''Cell of Cells,'' a book about
 the global race among stem-cell researchers. ''Therapeutic cloning in particular
 jibes well with the Buddhist and Hindu ideas of reincarnation.''
 You can see this East-West divide in maps drawn up by Lee M. Silver, a molecular
 biologist at Princeton. Dr. Silver, who analyzes clashes of spirituality and
 science in his book ''Challenging Nature,'' has been charting biotechnology
 policies around the world and trying to make spiritual sense of who's afraid of
 what.
 Most of southern and eastern Asia displays relatively little opposition to
 either cloned embryonic stem-cell research or genetically modified crops. China,
 India, Singapore and other countries have enacted laws supporting embryo cloning
 for medical research (sometimes called therapeutic cloning, as opposed to
 reproductive cloning intended to recreate an entire human being). Genetically
 modified crops are grown in China, India and elsewhere.
 In Europe, though, genetically modified crops are taboo. Cloning human embryos
 for research has been legally supported in England and several other countries,
 but it is banned in more than a dozen others, including France and Germany.
 In North and South America, genetically altered crops are widely used. But
 embryo cloning for research has been banned in most countries, including Brazil,
 Canada and Mexico. It has not been banned nationally in the United States, but
 the research is ineligible for federal financing, and some states have outlawed
 it.
 Dr. Silver explains these patterns by dividing spiritual believers into three
 broad categories. The first, traditional Christians, predominate in the Western
 Hemisphere and some European countries. The second, which he calls
 post-Christians, are concentrated in other European countries and parts of North
 America, especially along the coasts. The third group are followers of Eastern
 religions.
 ''Most people in Hindu and Buddhist countries,'' Dr. Silver says, ''have a root
 tradition in which there is no single creator God. Instead, there may be no gods
 or many gods, and there is no master plan for the universe. Instead, spirits are
 eternal and individual virtue -- karma -- determines what happens to your spirit
 in your next life. With some exceptions, this view generally allows the
 acceptance of both embryo research to support life and genetically modified
 crops.''
 By contrast, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, God is  the master creator who
 gives out new souls to each individual human being and gives humans ''dominion''
 over soul-less plants and animals. To traditional Christians who consider an
 embryo to be a human being with a soul, it is wrong for scientists to use
 cloning to create human embryos or to destroy embryos in the course of research.
 But there is no such taboo against humans' applying cloning and genetic
 engineering to ''lower'' animals and plants. As a result, Dr. Silver says,
 cloned animals and genetically modified crops have not become a source of major
 controversy for traditional Christians. Post-Christians are more worried about
 the flora and fauna.
 ''Many Europeans, as well as leftists in America,'' Dr. Silver says, ''have
 rejected the traditional Christian God and replaced it with a post-Christian
 goddess of Mother Nature and a modified Christian eschatology. It isn't a
 coherent belief system. It might or might not incorporate New Age thinking. But
 deep down,  there's a view that humans shouldn't be tampering with the natural
 world.''
 Hence the opposition to genetically modified food.
 Because post-Christians do not necessarily share the biblical view of an
 omnipotent deity with the sole power to create souls, Dr. Silver says, they are
 less worried about scientists ''playing God'' in the laboratory with embryos. In
 places like California, residents have voted not only to allow embryo cloning
 for research, but also to finance it.
 But sometimes the reverence for the natural world extends to embryos, leading to
 unlikely alliances. When conservative intellectuals like Francis Fukyama
 campaigned for Congress to ban embryo cloning, some environmental activists like
 Jeremy Rifkin joined them. A Green Party leader in Germany, Voker Beck, referred
 to cloned embryonic stem-cell research as ''veiled cannibalism.''
 Of course, many critics of biotechnology do not explicitly use religious dogma
 to justify their opposition. Countries like the United States, after all, are
 supposed to be guided  by secular constitutions, not sectarian creeds. So
 opponents of genetically modified foods focus on the possible dangers to
 ecosystems and human health, and committees of scientists try to resolve the
 debate by conducting risk analysis.
 The outcome hinges more on beliefs than on scientific data. A study finding that
 genetically modified foods are safe might reassure traditional Christians in
 Kansas, but it won't stop post-Christians in Stockholm from worrying about
 ''Frankenfood.''
 Similarly, some leading opponents of embryo research for cloning,  like Leon
 Kass,  say they are defending not Judeo-Christian  beliefs, but ''human
 dignity.''  Dr. Kass, former chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics,
 says the special status of humans described in the Book of Genesis should be
 heeded not because of the Bible's authority, but because the message reflects a
 ''cosmological truth.''
 It is not so easy, though, to defend supposedly self-evident truths about human
 nature that are not evident to a large portion of humanity. Conservatives in the
 House of Representatives managed to pass a bill banning Americans from going
 overseas for stem-cell treatments derived through embryo cloning. But the bill
 didn't pass the Senate.
 It is by no means certain that this type of  stem-cell research will ever yield
 treatments for diseases like Parkinson's, but should that happen, it is hard to
 see how any Congress -- or any law -- could stop people from seeking cures.
 The prospect of cloning children is much more distant, particularly now that
 researchers are becoming optimistic about obtaining stem cells without using
 embryos. For now, scientists throughout the world say they do not even want to
 contemplate reproductive cloning because of the risks to the child. And
 public-opinion polls do not show much support for it anywhere.
 Even if human cloning becomes safe, there may never be much demand for it,
 because most people will prefer having children the old-fashioned way.
 But some people may desperately want a cloned child -- perhaps to replace one
 who died or to provide lifesaving bone marrow for a sibling -- and won't be
 dissuaded, no matter how many Christians or post-Christians try to stop them. To
 reach this frontier, they may just go east.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: November 20, 2007
 CORRECTION-DATE: November 23, 2007
 CORRECTION:The Findings column in Science Times on Tuesday, about the different
 views of biotechnology in Eastern and Western religions, misspelled the surname
 of a political economist and author who has lobbied Congress to ban embryo
 cloning. He is Francis Fukuyama, not Fukyama.
 GRAPHIC: PHOTOS (PHOTOGRAPHS BY VIKTOR KOEN (pg. F1
  F2) MAP: LAWS ON CLONING: A molecular biologist at Princeton has mapped
 biotechnology policies around the world. Many countries with Christian
 traditions ban the cloning of human embryos for scientific research, while there
 is less opposition in Asian countries with Hindu or Buddhist traditions.
 (Source: Lee M. Silver) (pg. F2)
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 622
 
                             November 16, 2007 Friday
 Lake silt isn't good for gardens
 BYLINE: Howard Garrett, home@dallasnews.com
 SECTION: HOME; ORGANIC ANSWERS; Pg. 3G
 LENGTH: 571 words
 We drained our neighborhood lake, and I was wondering whether the dirt from it
 would be good for a new azalea bed.
 M.F., Fort Worth
 Silt from ponds and lakes does not make good garden soil because it drains
 poorly. It would be especially bad for raised planters and azaleas. Azaleas need
 beds of 100-percent-organic materials that are light, fluffy and drain well. I
 use a mixture of compost, coconut fiber and fine-textured cedar as the base,
 with organic amendments added.
 How can we be sure that the corn used in corn gluten meal and other products is
 organically grown and not genetically engineered? If we can't know, might we be
 introducing unknown problems into our soil?
 R.L., Irving
 The only reasonable confidence comes from using organically grown corn, and it
 is hard to find. I'm afraid the genetically engineered genie is out of the
 bottle. I don't think any farmers or cornmeal producers can guarantee their
 products to be free of genetically engineered ingredients.
 What are your thoughts on root barriers? I have a 30-foot-tall red oak that is
 about 15 feet from the house. I want to remove wax-leaf ligustrums that are
 close to the house and replace them with junipers. I'm thinking of adding a root
 barrier in front of the house as part of this shrub project.
 A.P., Bellaire
 I'm not a fan of root barriers. They often cause more problems than they solve.
 A sound foundation normally works well as a root barrier for trees and shrubs. A
 foundation company that I think understands tree roots is Perma-Pier
 (permapier.com or 214-637-1444).
 I have a fig tree that is producing figs, but the leaves are starting to turn
 brown. What can be done?
 D.J., Sherman
 Nothing. My fig trees look the same way, and the fruit is gone. Hot weather
 started the foliage damage, and cool weather has started the annual defoliation
 process.
 Why am I finding lots of rotten pecans in my harvest? I don't see worm holes in
 them. I have not sprayed the trees, but I release trichogramma wasps each spring
 to control caterpillars. Also, I have 150 peach trees in my orchard. Late this
 summer, the trees lost a lot of leaves on the lower limbs. Should I be
 concerned? I spray every two weeks during the growing season with Garrett Juice.
 D.W., Weatherford
 Unusually heavy rains in the early part of the year followed by summer heat are
 the culprits. Many pecan trees experienced a shuck fungus, and foliage damage
 was common to many fruit and ornamental trees.
 Apply a 1/2-inch layer of compost beneath the trees now, and continue your
 organic program.
 How can I get rid of sprouts that grow from the root systems of trees such as
 possumhaws and wax myrtles? I have dug them out for years, but the sprouts have
 become too big and numerous. Did you once recommend spraying the sprouts with
 strong vinegar so they would die without harming the mother tree?
 D.D., Plano
 To be honest, some root and basal sprouts are impossible to eliminate. On the
 other hand, two things will help. First, expose the tree's root flare. Trees and
 shrubs that are planted too deep have a greater tendency to produce sprouts. My
 Sick Tree Treatment also will help, especially if a lot of compost is applied to
 the tree's root zone. A vinegar mixture can be used to burn back young sprouts.
 ONLINE: www.dirtdoctor.com for free organic-program handouts
 RADIO: KSKY-AM (660), Saturday 11 a.m.-noon and Sunday 8-11 a.m. www.ksky.com.
 MAIL: P.O. Box 140650, Dallas, TX 75214
 LOAD-DATE: November 16, 2007
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO(S): 1. Azaleas thrive in beds that drain well, so lake silt is
 not a good option. 2. (FILE 2006/Staff photo) If your pecans don't look good, it
 may be due to the wet, hot summer.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2007 THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS









Document Number: 623
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                             November 16, 2007 Friday
 BYLINE: Sarah Bryan Miller, Joe Williams, Calvin Wilson
 SECTION: SCREENS; Pg. E6
 LENGTH: 800 words
 An American Opera (USA): Among the horrors of post-Katrina New Orleans was the
 plight of the thousands of animals left behind, often by official fiat. Local
 authorities failed to react, battled volunteer rescuers over turf and, in the
 case of some police officers, shot the animals. Tom McPhee's film traces the
 crisis, talks to rescue leaders and ends on a high note. The film has some
 horrible images here, and it is badly in need of editing and tightening, but
 it's an important story. (7:30 p.m. today at Webster University.) (Sarah Bryan
 Miller)
 * Chicago 10 (USA): Once upon a time, an unpopular war in Asia produced a
 people's uprising. Today, a different war is producing nostalgia for the heady
 days of democratic dissent. This riotously entertaining documentary provides a
 primer on the '60s by depicting the trial of the protesters arrested in Chicago
 in 1968 as a cartoon - literally. Innovative documentarian Brett Morgen ("The
 Kid Stays in the Picture") dusts off some priceless film footage of the protest
 preparations before animating the transcripts of the farcical show trial, in
 which several of the hippie defendants were bound and gagged. But the way that
 their peacemaking principles speak to us almost 40 years later is far out. (4:45
 p.m. Saturday at Plaza Frontenac.) (Joe Williams)
 * Manual of Love (Italy): Boy meets girl, boy gets girl, different boy loses
 different girl. It's very simple, actually, as four stories of love, loosely
 connected by readings from a book of advice for the lovelorn, progress through
 various stages of relationships. The opening romance, featuring Silvio Muccino
 as Tommaso and Jasmine Trinca as Giulia, is particularly sweet, as is the way
 the final tale ties up the story in a hopeful ribbon. (9:45 tonight and 7:15
 p.m. Saturday at Plaza Frontenac) (Gail Pennington)
 Strange Culture (USA): Hours after Hope Kurtz, the wife of avant-garde artist
 Steve Kurtz, died in her sleep at age 45, Steve was arrested - not for murder,
 but for the contents of their Buffalo home, where he stored the bacteria he used
 in politically controversial art installations about genetically modified food.
 As Steve Kurtz awaits trial, this hybrid doc and re-enactment uses actors
 (including Thomas Jay Ryan and Tilda Swinton) to explore issues of free speech
 in post-9/11 America. Inevitably, we don't learn enough about the legal issues
 and, surprisingly, we don't learn enough about the art, but we do learn about
 the expanding possibilities of documentary filmmaking. (Director Lynn Hirschman
 Leeson will be honored at the screening, 6 p.m. Saturday at Washington
 University's Steinberg Hall.) (JW)
 * Taxi to the Dark Side (USA): While so many dramas and documentaries are warily
 circling the wars in the Middle East, this one careens deep into the darkness.
 Director Alex Gibney ("Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room") uses the true
 story of an Afghan cabdriver who was falsely (and fatally) imprisoned to
 investigate whether American soldiers were systematically engaging in torture.
 You'll see images from Abu Ghraib that you never saw on TV. It's profoundly
 disturbing, but it's a ride we all are morally obligated to take. (Gibney will
 be honored at the screening, 8:15 p.m. Saturday at Washington University's
 Steinberg Hall.) (JW)
 * Twisted (USA): Every hobby has its hard-core fanatics, and this disarming
 documentary blows the lid off the twisted world of balloon art. From birthday
 bashes to international conventions, we meet the legends of latex - such as an
 evangelist who uses balloon animals to save souls, and a party planner who uses
 them to buy a big house in Las Vegas. Their stories, as well as elaborate
 sculptures such as a life-size motorcycle and a Trojan horse, show that there's
 so much more to this handicraft than inflatable dachshunds. (Directors Naomi
 Greenfield and Sara Taksler, graduates of Washington University, will attend the
 screening, 7 p.m. Saturday at the St. Louis Art Museum.) (JW)
 * The Walker (USA): On "Cheers," Woody Harrelson played an affable but somewhat
 nave bartender. In his subsequent career on the big screen, Harrelson has
 rarely strayed far from that persona. But in "The Walker," the latest film from
 director Paul Schrader, the actor stretches himself with splendid success.
 Harrelson is thoroughly convincing as Carter Page III, gay escort to well-heeled
 ladies whose husbands couldn't care less about opera or other cultural pursuits.
 Set in Washington, the film involves a murder and could be considered an
 unofficial sequel to Schrader's "American Gigolo." Its first-rate cast includes
 Kristin Scott Thomas, Lily Tomlin and Lauren Bacall, but Harrelson is the
 standout. (7 p.m. today and 9:30 p.m. Saturday at Plaza Frontenac.) (Calvin
 Wilson)
 * RecommendeD
 Festival Info www.cinemastlouis.org/fest.html
 LOAD-DATE: November 17, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2007 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 624
 
                       The Star-Ledger (Newark, New Jersey)
                            November 15, 2007 Thursday
 SECTION: MIDDLESEX/AROUND THE TOWNS; Pg. 26
 LENGTH: 1245 words
 Sayreville band wins major title The Sayreville War Memorial High School
 marching unit drummed its way to a major title last weekend.
 On Sunday, the band competed at the USSBA Northern State Championships in
 Allentown, Pa., and was crowned the Northern State Champions for Group 1
 marching units.
 Twenty-one bands took part in Sunday's competition, and Sayreville's performance
 earned a score of 91.6 out of 100 points. The Sayreville marching unit is now
 focusing on its next competition, which will pit the marchers against some of
 the best in the nation at the national marching unit championship, which will
 take place in Baltimore this weekend.
 S. Plainfield students
 headed for model U.N.
 South Plainfield High School students are ready to take on the world at their
 first Model U.N. conference.
 At 3 p.m. today, the newly formed South Plainfield High School Model United
 Nations Club will attend the Rutgers Model United Nations conference in New
 Brunswick. The group of 13 students will be accompanied by teacher Frances
 Flannery and Miten Shah, a social studies teacher and the group's adviser.
 During the four-day conference, the students will debate with 1,100 high
 schoolers on global issues such as genetically modified foods, women in politics
 and orphans with HIV/AIDS. In their debate, the students represent countries
 that are members of the United Nations and those nations' perspectives on the
 topics; South Plainfield High School students will represent Ireland.
 Shah said the students have enthusiastically dedicated themselves to the club,
 paying for the experience with their own funds and perseverance. They researched
 the nation of Ireland, as well as their individual topics, and wrote research
 papers on Ireland's perspective on each subject. They also learned rules of
 debate and met after school each week to debate among themselves and write
 resolutions on the significant global topics.
 Computer training
 offered for adults
 Adults feeling left in the dark when it comes to technology may see a flicker of
 light in a program offered by Churchill Junior High School.
 The school is offering free computer training to East Brunswick adults. As part
 of this community service program, attendees may receive one-on-one PC training
 from the Churchill Junior High School Computer Club. The course will teach
 participants how to use Windows, MS Word, MS Excel and the Internet.
 The first class will be held 9 to 11 a.m. this Saturday at the junior high
 school, 18 Norton Road in East Brunswick. Classes will be held each month
 throughout the school year.
 Enrollment is limited. Those interested may sign up by calling the Churchill
 Computer Club at (732) 613-6800, voicemail ext. 4346. Callers should provide
 their full name and phone number, including the area code.
 Authors and hoopsters
 at Family Reading Night
 A school in Sayreville is going beyond the words and bringing literature to life
 with a workshop for the whole family.
 Local authors Daniel-Gary Holderman and Genevieve Petrillo will join the Harlem
 Wizards for the third Family Reading Night today at 7 p.m. at the Samsel Upper
 Elementary School. The event highlights the school's American Education Week
 celebration.
 The event aims to bring students, parents and siblings together to experience
 new ways to explore literature. Preschool students and their families are
 included this year as new residents of the upper elementary school.
 The third Family Reading Night is planned by the faculty and supported by the
 UES PTO and the Sayreville Education Association's Pride in Our Schools
 campaign. Families will be welcomed to the Samsel UES gymnasium and given an
 itinerary to "Fall Into Reading" as they change activities every 20 minutes.
 One activity will feature the Harlem Wizards, a basketball show-team
 organization. The group, which has adopted the school in a yearlong initiative
 for character education, will be reading and sharing children's books at the
 event.
 After two workshop sessions, authors will be available to sign their books and
 take pictures with the students. Students will swap books for another activity,
 exchanging a "gently used" book of their own for one they haven't read from
 those brought in by other students.
 Informational session
 at Wardlaw-Hartridge
 The Wardlaw-Hartridge School in Edison is giving parents and students an inside
 look before they enroll. Located at 1295 Inman Ave., the private co-ed
 preparatory school will host its next Admission Information Session for
 prospective students this Saturday at 9:30 a.m.
 Charlotte Davis, director of admission, said the event will allow families to
 spend time with teachers and students and tour the facility.
 Gerard Gonnella, associate director of admission and a 1989 graduate of
 Wardlaw-Hartridge, will join Davis in guiding prospective families and students
 through the admission process with the best interest of their child in mind.
 Wardlaw-Hartridge has classes from pre-kindergarten through grade 12. For more
 information, or to attend the admission session, call (908) 754-1882, ext. 110,
 or e-mail cdavis@whschool.org
 St. Joseph's to feed
 the poor for holiday
 The student body and staff at Saint Joseph High School in Metuchen has a
 tradition of giving. The entire school plays a part, whether it's through the
 community service requirement for each freshman and sophomore, monthly
 dress-downs and Good Samaritan collections for local agencies, or the senior
 elective, Social Action, which gives students real-life classroom experiences
 helping others.
 In line with that giving spirit, every holiday season the private school unites
 for the annual Thanksgiving food drive conducted by the St. Joe's student
 council. Its ultimate goal and purpose is to collect $15,000 to cover the cost
 to feed 500 underprivileged families on Thanksgiving Day.
 From mid-October through this week, envelopes were sent to each first-period
 classroom three days per week, and students donated money. This infectious
 sentiment spread as several areas of the school put out decorated boxes and jars
 to collect spare change from staff and students.
 Tomorrow, students are scheduled to pack more than 500 bags with soup, fruit
 cocktail, yams, mashed potatoes, cranberry sauce, green beans, corn, carrots,
 gravy, stuffing, assorted cookies and a 12-pound turkey. Alumnus Bill Donohoe, a
 Foodtown executive, helped the group obtain the ingredients for the hearty
 holiday meals.
 On Saturday morning, student council volunteers will load trucks and vans
 heading to groups as local as Woodbridge and Fords and as far away as Perth
 Amboy and Trenton.
 The theme of "giving thanks" will continue as students gather on campus for
 Cardboard City on Tuesday. During this overnight event, students will sleep
 outside in cardboard boxes to experience homelessness and encourage sensitivity
 to those without luxuries that are sometimes taken for granted.
 Another highlight of the season is "Christmas on Campus," a program designed to
 offer underprivileged children gifts during the Christmas season. Hosted by more
 than 100 students, kids from the area are invited to an afternoon of games, arts
 and crafts and storytime, culminating with a visit with Santa where they each
 receive a gift.
 The St. Joe's family also participates monthly in Good Samaritan collections,
 where items are donated to benefit the troops serving overseas and baby items
 are delivered to area shelters.
 Photo Credit: 1. MICHELLE H. LePOIDEVIN OF LINDEN
 LOAD-DATE: November 15, 2007
 GRAPHIC: 1. Students of distinction: The Edison Rotary Club singled out several
 special seniors from the Wardlaw-Hartridge School and named each ``Senior of the
 Month." Pictured in the new main lobby of the school, they include, from left,
 Michelle Liu, Will Vogt, Kirti Kewalramani, Hope Gallagher, Cameron Rogers,
 Latisha DiVenuto, Alex Clarke and Jordan Neuhauser. Azim Sonawalla is not
 pictured.
  2.      Marching to a major victory: Demonstrating their winning skills on
 percussion, above, are Sayreville High School seniors Edd Duran, left, and Nick
 D'Arcangelis. Dralle Fung, Sayreville High School drum major, salutes the crowd
 after his unit performed a first-place victory show on home turf in Sayreville
 last month in the USSBA Northern State Championships in Allentown, Pa.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: nsl
                     Copyright 2007 Newark Morning Ledger Co.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 625
 
                            Bangor Daily News (Maine)
                           November 14, 2007 Wednesday
                                   All Editions
 State board to address concerns with Bt corn
 SECTION: Pg. B1
 LENGTH: 610 words
 A hearing this week on proposed rules for growing Bt corn, a type of genetically
 modified corn, could raise as many questions as it provides answers.
 The Maine Board of Pesticides Control is due to discuss proposed rules for the
 product - how it could be grown, training required, and what it could be used
 for - at a Friday hearing, but the issue has become further complicated with the
 recent release in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of a new
 Bt toxin study.
 The report raises concerns about the effect of toxins in genetically engineered
 crops on stream and brook ecosystems. Yet, on the heels of its release, a group
 of equally concerned scientists is challenging the report's validity.
 Bacillus Thuringiensis corn could be grown for the first time in Maine next year
 after approval was granted by the Maine Board of Pesticides Control last July.
 Maine was the last state to allow genetically-modified corn.
 Bt corn has been hailed by farmers to help increase their yields because it is
 resistant to damage by insects. Yet, it is panned by organic farmers as a source
 of potential crop contamination in their certified fields. Still others have
 questioned the health ramifications of GE food.
 Logan Perkins of Protect Maine Farmers, a group consistently opposed to GE
 crops, said Tuesday that the study shows conclusively that "there are things we
 still don't know" about GE crops. "We need to use the cautionary principle and
 take a slower approach."
 Perkins said the study indicates there is still a lot of research on the issue
 that is still undone. "This should give the board pause as they proceed. They
 should look at this study. It is important, significant and valuable."
 A group of 11 international scientists, however, from the U.S., the Netherlands,
 India, Italy, Great Britain, Thailand, and Canada, have publicly invalidated the
 study.
 In a letter to PNAS, the scientists wrote the "caddis fly study" contains
 "egregious methodological flaws and omissions, and presents conclusions not
 supported by the data."
 They call the study "sloppy experimental design and interpretation that should
 have been detected by even a cursory peer review."
 Dr. Doug Gurian-Sherman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, echoes Perkins'
 concerns and said the letter was not unbiased.
 "Virtually all of the scientists [who criticized the PNAS study] are
 long-standing outspoken supporters of GE, and their positions often include
 vitriolic criticism of GE critics," Gurian-Sherman stated in a prepared release.
 "The question is, in part, whether to take a precautionary approach, or go ahead
 with planting in Maine, and find the answers later. One difference between Maine
 and other parts of the country is that farmers are not already planting this."
 Perkins said Bt corn now accounts for approximately 35 percent of corn acreage
 in the United States and its use is increasing.
 Dr. Douglas Johnson of the Maine Biotechnology Information Bureau, said the
 study and its validity or lack of validity, should not affect the board's
 decisions.
 "You can't make scientific policy on recent studies," Johnson said. "In the case
 of Bt corn, it has been studied for 10 years or more and the number of studies
 are huge. The body of evidence strongly states there is no human health or
 environmental effects."
 Johnson said he hopes that Friday's discussions do not center on the caddis fly
 study or prompt the BPC to withdraw its approval or enact "burdensome rules that
 would tie farmers' hands in bureaucratic red tape."
 The public hearing will be at 9:30 a.m. Friday, Nov. 16, at the Hampton Inn in
 Waterville. Written comments will be accepted by the BPC until Nov. 30.
 LOAD-DATE: November 14, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                         Copyright 2007 Bangor Daily News









Document Number: 626
 
                         The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon)
                           November 14, 2007 Wednesday
                                 Sunrise Edition
 Science lectures and notes
 BYLINE: Richard L. Hill, The Oregonian
 SECTION: Science; Pg. F02
 LENGTH: 415 words
 Genomic trailblazer
 will describe his work
 J. Craig Venter, a pioneer in the field of genomic research, will speak Thursday
 in Portland about his work.
 Venter will give a presentation titled "Decoding Life: The Next Phase of
 Discovery" at 7 p.m. in the Arlene Schnitzer Concert Hall. A 6 p.m. reception
 will be in the hall.
 In September, a Venter-led team published the first genome sequence of an
 individual: his. Some experts say the new version of the genome may be better
 than the human genome published by a government-financed consortium in 2003.
 Venter's autobiography, "A Life Decoded," was released last month. He was a Navy
 medic in Vietnam before receiving a bachelor's degree in biochemistry and a
 doctoral degree in physiology and pharmacology from the University of California
 at San Diego.
 In 1984, he worked as a researcher at the National Institutes of Health, where
 he introduced novel techniques for gene discovery. He is the former president
 and founder of Celera Genomics and is president of the J. Craig Venter
 Institute.
 His presentation is the third of six lectures in the Science, Technology and
 Society Lecture Series, sponsored by the Institute for Science, Engineering and
 Public Policy.
 For information or season tickets, go to www.isepp.org or call 503-232-2300.
 Individual tickets are available at Ticketmaster outlets, at
 www.ticketmaster.com, at the Portland Center for the Performing Arts, 1111 S.W.
 Broadway, or by calling 503-224-4400.
 Professor will discuss
 food biotechnology
 Gary Marchant, an Arizona State University professor, will discuss the legal
 implications of genetically modified foods at 7 p.m. Thursday at Oregon State
 University.
 His free presentation, titled "The Role and Rule of Law in the Global
 Development of Food Biotechnology," will be in the LaSells Stewart Center. It is
 open to the public.
 Marchant is the Lincoln Professor of Emerging Technologies, Law and Ethics at
 the Arizona State law school. He's also a professor of life sciences and
 executive director of the ASU Center for the Study of Law, Science and
 Technology.
 Marchant teaches environment, food, genetic and drug laws and has studied the
 legal aspects of risk assessment, biotechnology and nanotechnology.
 The lecture is part of OSU's 2007-08 Horning Endowment and Outreach in
 Biotechnology lecture series. For information, go to
 http://oregonstate.edu/cla/history/lectures/horning/07_08.php or call
 -- Richard L. Hill
 ILLUSTRATION: Venter Will talk about
 "Decoding Life"
 LOAD-DATE: November 20, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                           Copyright 2007 The Oregonian
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 627
 
                               Chicago Daily Herald
                             November 9, 2007 Friday
                     F1 Edition; F2 Edition; McHenry Edition
 SECTION: NEWS; Fence Post; Pg. 21
 LENGTH: 897 words
 This dictator with nukes our friend?
 Once again, the U.S. will continue to give large amounts of military aid to a
 dictatorial regime in Pakistan as it brutally cracks down on its own population.
 We will pay lip service to how we don't approve, but follow the money. You will
 see that we don't give a hoot about democracy.
 The U.S.A. is governed by corporate interests that only care about power. The
 dictator of Pakistan, who definitely has a large number of weapons of mass
 destruction (30), will continue to get U.S. military support. If he slaughters
 or imprisons thousands of his own countrymen, it won't be a problem for the
 powers that be here.
 Just remember next time the president talks about fighting to protect democracy
 and freedom, that is not the case in Pakistan. Being run by a dictator and
 having nuclear weapons should make Pakistan part of the Axis of Evil.
 Hypocrisy.
 Len Lempa
 Elgin
 Eating shouldn't be this hazardous to us
 E-coli warnings were rare until after World War II, when a few companies found
 ways to control food and its delivery systems in post-war America, from seed to
 produce and meat.
 Now it is common to hear a food is contaminated and threatening the public.
 Obviously, the tightly monopolized mega-agribusiness is collapsing or its
 ability to provide safe food is dangerously compromised.
 Studies indicate eating grass beef is healthy, but eating beef fed genetically
 modified corn is not. Feeding modified corn and soybeans to animals increases
 their need for antibiotics and changes the flora of their stomachs, creating an
 environment ripe for passing e-coli and other diseases on to consumers.
 Conversely, grazing animals do not appear susceptible to mad cow or the other
 diseases that affect animals eating modified grains. Yesterday's farmer knew
 this.
 Where did we go wrong? It is apparent processed foods, primarily controlled by
 mega- agribusinesses such as Cargill Inc. and Monsanto, are not a healthy choice
 even though they take up most of the space on grocery shelves.
 Real food is good for our children, the environment and us. It is obvious the
 government cannot protect us. The farm bill supports mega-agribusinesses to the
 detriment of smaller farmers. Only the individual can be responsible for feeding
 themselves and their families in healthy ways.
 A good resource is at www.slowfoods.com. To find local farmers producing real
 food locally, go to www.foodroutes.com. Many farmers deliver into Chicago and
 its neighborhoods.
 Good books with many resources are "The Real Food Revival," by Sherri Vinton and
 Ann Espuelas, and "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle" by Barbara Kingsolver.
 Gail Talbot
 Huntley
 Thanks for helping cat rescue efforts
 I would like to direct this letter to all of the wonderful people for being part
 of our work of love with kindness and support that brings new life to the
 animals we are watching over.
 These people are truly God's angels here on Earth. The work we do is supported
 through donations from generous hearts, allowing us to assure these animals will
 never be alone, hungry, sick, afraid or in pain.
 We are a local nonprofit organization that consists of a small group of people
 who volunteer time and money because they believe animals deserve protection
 against the wrongs of abandonment, starvation, disease and cruelty. This is a
 tragic reality for countless innocent creatures. We have found this an
 overwhelming and heart-wrenching task. There just never seems to be any end to
 the long line of homeless cats and kittens out there, living under someone's
 back porch, or in an abandoned car or building or in someone's garage.
 This is why spaying and neutering is the only answer to overpopulation and the
 suffering it causes. We are working toward a day when there will be no more
 homeless pets, a place where every life will be treated with the respect and
 value it deserves. Thank you for your help in this compassionate mission.
 Carol Schultz, founder
 Guardian Angels Feline Rescue
 South Elgin
 U.S. has too many energy 'no' votes
 We need energy to live in our society. Yet when the power company wanted to put
 lines along Randall Road, people and signs said, "No." Ted Kennedy put a stop to
 wind farms along his beautiful Cape Cod coast. And closer to home, we have signs
 west on Route 64 saying "No!" to wind farms. We have environmentalists saying no
 to oil shale and oil drilling anywhere in the U.S. And no to offshore drilling.
 Florida passed a law that prohibits offshore drilling.
 What is the rest of the world doing for energy? Russia and China have made
 claims to the oil under the North Pole and have made agreements with countries
 in Africa and South America for oil rights.
 Most recently, China is reported to have given Cuba a billion dollars to start
 drilling in the continental shelf off the cost of Cuba, 20 miles from Miami, and
 there is nothing Florida can do to stop them.
 We will not trade with Cuba, but soon we will be buying oil from them for
 $100-plus a barrel. We could be harvesting the oil from the continental shelf
 ourselves if we had leadership.
 Until we have a viable alternate energy source, we need to drill for and mine
 our resources. If we did, we probably could have $50 a barrel oil. I look
 forward to the day when other countries will have high-speed monorails and
 plenty of heat and electricity, and we will lead the way to energy independence
 in our horse and buggy.
 Robert Chmela
 Elgin
 LOAD-DATE: February 11, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2007 Paddock Publications, Inc.









Document Number: 628
 
                          Brattleboro Reformer (Vermont)
                            November 8, 2007 Thursday
 Health Risks in Childrens' Foods
 BYLINE: Bellows Falls Town Crier
 LENGTH: 777 words
 Join us for free showings of two must see films. On Tuesday, Nov. 13, the
 Windham County Genetic Engineering Action Group (GEAG) will host the first film,
 free of charge, at Brooks Memorial Library (top floor meeting room) from 7:30 to
 9 p.m. entitled "Hidden Dangers in Kids' Meals: Genetically Engineered Foods."
 This film discusses "Why Remove Genetically Engineered Foods from Schools?" and
 "The Impact of Healthy Food on Learning and Behavior at a Wisconsin School." The
 film presents the potential dangers to the health of children, because children
 are still developing and therefore are more sensitive to their environment and
 the foods they eat. Much of the evidence presented will be relevant to adults as
 well - especially those with chronic illnesses and/or allergies. Handouts will
 be provided and a discussion will follow.
 Research results and warnings from eminent scientists explain why genetically
 engineered foods can be dangerous and should be removed from kids' meals,
 because children are still developing and therefore are more sensitive to the
 foods they eat. Also witness the dramatic story of how student behavior in a
 Wisconsin school was transformed with a healthy diet.
 On Wednesday, Nov. 14, GEAG will host the second film, free of charge, at the
 Brattleboro Savings & Loan (come to the back door and down the stairs) from noon
 to 2 p.m. entitled "The Future of Food." This film lays out a detailed case
 against genetically engineered crops. Most people do not realize that
 genetically engineered foods have quietly slipped into much of the American food
 supply, mostly through corn, soy, and canola crops. Ingredients from these crops
 are now estimated to be in at least 70% percent of all processed foods in
 America - like cereal, chips, sodas, and much more. This is a concern because of
 the potential harmful effects to children, adults with heart disease or cancer,
 and everybody else. Handouts will be provided and a discussion will follow.
 The director and producer of this film, Debra Koons-Garcia, stated: "My goal was
 to make a film that gave the average person a clear understanding of how genetic
 engineering works, from the cellular level to the global level...Once you see it
 you'll feel compelled to act, even if that means just changing the kind of food
 you eat."
 Research results and warnings from eminent scientists explain why genetically
 engineered foods can be dangerous and should be removed from kids' meals. Why?
 Because children are still developing and therefore are more sensitive to the
 foods they eat. Also witness the dramatic story of how student behavior in a
 Wisconsin school was transformed with a healthy diet.
 What is genetic engineering (GE)? Briefly, GE allows technicians to alter living
 things by transferring a gene from one organism which has a specific trait into
 the DNA of another organism. Example: GE technology has produced corn plants
 that have a bacterial gene and a promoter gene that provides their own
 insecticide within each corn plant, which we in turn can ingest when we eat that
 corn. So basically we could be eating a pesticide, depending on where in that
 corn seed the bacterial gene was placed.
 GE technology has also produced strawberries with a fish gene that makes them
 impervious to cold snaps. And there are many more examples. While these
 industrial creations have proved profitable for the corporations that
 manufacture them, the potential effects on human health, family farms, and the
 environment are not so positive.
 For the last seven years GEAG has focused on the importance of GE-free seeds and
 crops in Vermont. This is because farmers who choose to grow conventional
 (non-genetically engineered) and organic food crops are constantly at risk of
 losing their market if their crops are contaminated by GE pollen. You see, just
 as pollen travels from flower to flower, the pollen from genetically engineered
 crops are alive and free to spread over a vast area.
 Mounting evidence now makes it clear that GE technology is no longer just a farm
 issue, or just an environmental issue - it is a human health issue. And since
 genetically engineered ingredients are now in at least 70% of all processed
 foods in this country, it is important that people know the potential risks from
 eating them, how to identify foods that come from genetically engineered plants,
 and how to choose healthy alternatives.
 All those interested in learning more about the dangers of GE foods, and what
 you can do about them, are encouraged to attend this film showing. For
 additional information about the event and to learn more about GEAG, call
 251-0577 or send an email to: integra7@comcast.net .
 LOAD-DATE: November 9, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
    Copyright 2007 MediaNews Group, Inc. and New England Newspaper Group Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 629
 
                              LA Weekly (California)
                                 November 8, 2007
 LENGTH: 207  words
 STRANGE CULTURE Artist and professor Steve Kurtz's nightmare only began when his
 wife died in their bed of a heart attack. The cops who responded to his 911 call
 didn't like the look of his work materials, which included Internet-bought
 bacteria for a project on genetically modified foods that Kurtz worked on with
 geneticist Robert Ferrell. Soon his apartment was swarming with zealous FBI
 agents in Hazmat suits looking for evidence of "bioterrorism." One can only
 imagine the scale of Kurtz's suffering as he awaits trial and copes with his
 private grief, while both freedom-of-expression and civil rights issues loom
 large over the whole affair. But the twin images of American paranoia and
 philistinism rolled into one sit up and beg for a little low comedy. In Strange
 Culture, filmmaker and video artist Lynn Hershman Leeson (Teknolust) divides the
 testimony between the real-life injured parties and actors - an attempt to match
 arty style with substance that seems obvious, fussy and not a little smug. The
 famously lovely mug of Tilda Swinton (cast as Kurtz's wife) merely distracts,
 and I couldn't help feeling that this potent story would have been far better
 served by a straight-ahead documentary. (Grande 4-Plex) (Ella Taylor)
 LOAD-DATE: November 9, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                           Copyright 2007 LA Weekly, LP
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 630
 
                           Sacramento Bee (California)
                             November 4, 2007 Sunday
 Sowing a storm;
 North Sacramento-based Ventria says its altered rice will save lives, but
 critics see danger
 BYLINE: Jim Downing jdowning@sacbee.com
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. D1
 LENGTH: 1498 words
 In a little town in Kansas, Sacramento's Ventria Bioscience is about to turn one
 of the biotechnology industry's long-held dreams -- and one of its critics'
 nightmares -- into reality.
 For 14 years, Ventria has inched toward its vision of growing fields of
 genetically modified rice plants that would serve as cheap factories for
 medicine.
 Next year, promises Chief Executive Scott Deeter, Ventria finally will release a
 mass-market product: an over-the-counter rehydration solution fortified with two
 anti-bacterial ingredients of human breast milk that grow in the company's
 proprietary rice.
 The drink is meant to help children recover from diarrhea more quickly. It would
 be the first genetically engineered "medical food" ever commercialized.
 But as the company moves toward the launch, the controversy that has followed it
 for years is intensifying.
 Consumer groups say the product is untested and potentially dangerous. The rice
 and food processing industries worry Ventria's medicine-rice will get mixed up
 in the food supply, leading to costly recalls.
 Deeter says he plans to sell the rehydration solution to customers ranging from
 drugstore shoppers to the U.S. Army to international health groups. But he's
 vague on the details, saying everything from the brand name to marketing to a
 distribution strategy has yet to be determined. Meanwhile, the company has yet
 to win over the aid organizations it hopes will become buyers.
 Still, federal regulators have given Ventria a tacit go-ahead to sell the rice
 drink, and the company is ramping up production at a newly built facility.
 After being essentially chased out of California by rice farmers in 2004 and
 then stumbling in Missouri the following year, Ventria has found a home in
 Junction City, Kan. The company planted more than 200 acres of rice near the
 town in the spring, and in the summer opened a processing plant to make the
 drink. Its headquarters and laboratory remain in an office park in North
 Sacramento.
 In interviews, Deeter, a tall, solidly built native of Kansas who has led
 Ventria since 2001, returns often to what he says is the company's humanitarian
 purpose: saving the lives of some of the nearly 2 million children, nearly all
 in poor countries, who die of diarrheal diseases each year.
 "If we could make a difference there, that would make it all worthwhile," he
 said. "It'd be hard to argue with it."
 Ventria's critics, though, believe the company's progress has been reckless.
 The rice industry and major food processors say the potential value of Ventria's
 product is swamped by the risk that the rice will get mixed up with the general
 food supply, leading to recalls and lost export sales. They want the U.S.
 Department of Agriculture to tighten restrictions on plantings of new
 genetically modified crops.
 Since 2006, genetically engineered strains of rice have been found three times
 in Southern rice stores. The industry says that has cost farmers and processors
 untold millions in lost export sales. A USDA investigation failed to identify
 the source of the contamination.
 While most corn and soy planted in the United States is genetically engineered,
 virtually no genetically modified rice is grown for food anywhere in the world
 because of strong opposition in European and Asian markets.
 Junction City, 65 miles west of Topeka, is hundreds of miles from the nearest
 rice field. But Steve Hensley, director of regulatory affairs for the industry
 group USA Rice, said a few fertile grains of Ventria's rice might still be
 transported to commercial fields via birds, a flood or tornado, or by a mix-up
 in transportation.
 "It's obvious from immediate past history that the regulatory controls have not
 worked," Hensley said. "We feel it's just too risky to trust the same industry
 again."
 Consumer groups have another concern: safety. They say the special proteins in
 Ventria's rice -- lactoferrin and lysozyme -- differ in subtle but potentially
 important ways from the mother's milk originals. The rice-grown proteins, they
 argue, haven't been tested adequately on humans and could prompt dangerous
 immune reactions.
 "In terms of risk assessment, it's really a very new area," said Doug
 Gurian-Sherman, a molecular biologist with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
 "It's hard to predict when and where these effects are going to occur."
 The groups want the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to force the company to
 conduct clinical trials before releasing the proteins to the market.
 "They're drugs. They're potent. They're bioactive," said Bill Freese, senior
 policy analyst with the Center for Food Safety. "They haven't been approved by
 any regulatory authority, so they shouldn't be out there in an uncontrolled
 way."
 Deeter says Ventria's rehydration solution will be as safe as breast milk or
 rice.
 So far, federal regulators haven't challenged Ventria's position, backed by an
 expert panel, that its product is not a pharmaceutical but rather a "food" that
 meets federal standards exempting it from the clinical testing required for new
 drugs.
 That means Ventria is free, for now, to market its product. It risks a future
 recall, but Marc Scheineson, a Washington, D.C., food and drug attorney with
 Alston & Bird LLP, said the odds are probably in Ventria's favor.
 It's another question whether Ventria will be able to sell its product to the
 aid organizations that work in the world's poor countries, and which could be
 significant customers.
 Miriam Aschkenasy, a children's health expert with Oxfam America, said more
 testing is needed to evaluate the drink's effectiveness. While she encourages
 innovation, Aschkenasy said the scope for saving lives with a new product is
 limited.
 "The problem with current oral rehydration solutions is not effectiveness," she
 said. "It is mainly a problem of access" -- getting people to health facilities
 where they can learn about and obtain the solutions.
 The promise of Ventria's technology has attracted some of the biggest names in
 biotechnology and agribusiness. The company's board members include Bill Rutter
 and Pablo Valenzuela, co-founders of Chiron, which developed the first blood
 tests for hepatitis C, and Tom Urban, who for many years headed seed giant
 Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc.
 Ventria is privately held; its board has provided more than 85 percent of the
 company's financing, Deeter said.
 That backing has allowed Ventria to survive a long and rocky gestation marked by
 several public setbacks.
 By the time Deeter took over as chief executive, Ventria was already the target
 of Greenpeace campaigners. In a theatrical protest in 2004, anti-biotechnology
 activists drove to Ventria's headquarters in a moving van to present an
 "eviction notice," demanding it leave the state.
 Probably more damaging was the opposition from within the rice industry, with
 Sacramento Valley farmers growing anxious that Ventria's rice would mingle with
 theirs and shut down exports to touchy markets in East Asia.
 In 2004, Ventria abandoned plans to plant its rice in California. In late 2005,
 it gave up on Missouri after a subsidy package fell through. Earlier, rice
 farmers and Anheuser-Busch Co., which uses Missouri rice in its breweries, had
 protested the company's planting plans.
 Ventria's odyssey has drawn international media attention. But in Sacramento,
 the 30-employee company keeps a low profile. It did not allow a Bee photographer
 into its building and would not supply a photograph of Deeter.
 In Junction City, population 16,000, Ventria's goals, its high-powered board of
 directors and Deeter himself all inspired confidence in local leaders. Eager to
 diversify an economy long dependent on nearby Fort Riley, an Army base, Junction
 City welcomed Ventria with a $5.5 million loan package. The loans will convert
 to grants if the company meets planting, hiring and growth targets.
 Adrian Polansky, Kansas' secretary of agriculture, said Ventria has promised
 farmers a premium for growing its rice -- a return of $150 an acre on top of
 what they would have received for their usual corn or soybeans.
 "We got convinced by the (Ventria) leadership pretty quick that this would be a
 good investment," said Josh McKim, who heads the Junction City-Geary County
 Economic Development Commission.
 Tracy Taylor, president of the Topeka-based Kansas Technology Enterprise Corp.,
 which has invested $500,000 in Ventria, was confident the rice drink ultimately
 will yield profits.
 "It's a good product. It's a safe product," he said. "The world needs it."
 VENTRIA BIOSCIENCE Founded: 1993, by Ray Rodriguez, professor of molecular and
 cellular biology at the University of California, Davis Product: An
 anti-diarrheal drink made from rice genetically modified to produce lactoferrin
 and lysozyme, two anti-bacterial proteins found in human breast milk
 Headquarters: North Sacramento Employees: 30 Field operations: Kansas, North
 Carolina, Chile Ownership: Privately held, funded primarily by the company's
 board of directors
 Call the Bee's Jim Downing at (916) 321-1065.
 LOAD-DATE: May 27, 2008
 GRAPHIC: Sharon Okada / sokada@sacbee.com
 Here's how it works 1. The DNA of Ventria's rice contains extra genetic material
 to generate copies of human breast milk proteins in the rice grain.
 2. These new genes cause the plant to produce rice grains that contain the
 proteins lactoferrin and lysozyme. These antibacterial proteins, found naturally
 in human breast milk, help to fight infection.
 3. Ventria grows its rice in North Carolina, Kansas and Chile. Lactoferrin and
 lysozyme can also be produced in a laboratory or pharmaceutical plant, but
 Ventria says it is far cheaper to grow the proteins in a rice field.
 4. The rice is then harvested, with specialized equipment not used on other
 fields, and shipped to Ventria's processing plant in Junction City, Kan. It is
 milled and ground into a powder, then mixed with water or electrolytes.
 Rice harvester
 Rice-based rehydration drink used to treat diarrhea in children.
 * Junction City Map data: ESRI, TeleAtlas, USGS
 Sources: Ventria Bioscience, Bee research Jim Downing/jdowning@sacbee.com
 Chief Executive: Scott Deeter
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2007 McClatchy Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 631
 
                     Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock)
                             November 2, 2007 Friday
 Riceland: Fiscal '07 income up 12.3% Co-op's net profit hits $549 million
 LENGTH: 644 words
 JONESBORO - Riceland Foods announced on Thursday a 12.3 percent increase in net
 income for the fiscal year, when the rice industry was plagued by the discovery
 of traces of an unapproved, genetically engineered rice in U.S. long-grain rice
 supplies.
 Net income was $549 million for the year ending July 31 and revenue was $947
 million, an increase of 1.1 percent from $937 million the previous year,
 President and Chief Executive Officer Danny Kennedy said at the cooperative's
 87th annual membership meeting in Riceland Hall at Arkansas State University's
 Fowler Center.
 The transgenic-rice problem suppressed exports and led to the filing of hundreds
 of lawsuits. Kennedy said Riceland would vigorously defend itself against
 several suits in which the cooperative has been named as a defendant.
 "We're confident that when all the facts are known everyone will realize that
 Riceland was not responsible for the genetically engineered rice situation," he
 said.
 "The rice industry took unprecedented steps to improve the marketability of the
 2007 crop" through careful monitoring and testing of the seed supply, Kennedy
 said.
 Riceland, the country's largest rice miller and marketer, met three performance
 goals that had been established in 2004, Kennedy said. Those goals - offering
 competitive crop returns, protecting the coop's assets and providing quality
 service - have been replaced with four new targets: continued operational
 improvement, enhanced pricing strategies, the formation of organizational work
 teams and improved communication with its 7,500 members.
 Riceland markets rice, soybeans and wheat grown by its farmer-members. More than
 98 percent of the co-op's earnings were returned to those members as seasonal
 pool settlements or cash payments for grain, Kennedy said.
 Riceland's 2006-07 marketing pools returned $4.38 per bushel for long-grain rice
 and $5.28 per bushel for medium-grain rice, he said. The return for the coop's
 soybean pool was $6.85 per bushel and for wheat $3.74 per bushel.
 Scott Gower, vice president for commodity operations, said Riceland received
 115.9 million bushels of grain during the last fiscal year at the co-op's 30
 receiving locations, four dedicated storage sites and 108 truck dumps. The
 company expects to handle 118.8 million bushels during the current fiscal year,
 he said.
 Carl Brothers, senior vice president for international rice, said exports have
 been concentrated in Mexico and the Caribbean.
 Arkansas, the No. 1 rice-producing state, harvests about half of all U.S. rice.
 About half of that rice is exported, with the European Union traditionally
 buying about 10 percent of all exports. Because of the genetically engineered
 rice problem, however, U.S. rice exports to the 27 member nations of the EU have
 been severely depressed.
 "We're having some success getting rice into the [European] community," Brothers
 said. U.S. exporters hope that the Europeans ultimately will accept "origin
 testing," thus making it feasible for exporters to renew rice shipments to the
 EU, he said.
 Jerry Delatte, senior vice president for domestic food sales, said futures
 markets for grains have become extremely volatile as a result of "a massive
 influx of money into the commodity markets." Freight markets too have been
 volatile, he said.
 "Demand for barges was unprecedented in fiscal 2007 as elevators moved massive
 amounts of product to the Gulf in anticipation of the huge corn crop to be
 harvested this summer," Delatte said. "Values for barges alone topped
 post-Hurricane Katrina levels and caused extremely wide basis to be posted at
 country elevators." Delatte said Riceland introduced two new value-added
 products: a parboiled brown rice that cooks twice as fast as regular brown rice
 and a yellow rice mix that foodservice chefs can use to create a variety of
 international dishes.
 This article was published 11/02/2007
 LOAD-DATE: November 2, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2007 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 632
 
                                 University Wire
                             November 2, 2007 Friday
 Vote for science in the 2008 election
 BYLINE: By Josh Levitz, The Eagle; SOURCE: American U.
 LENGTH: 649 words
 It is striking to observe the narrow scope of debate in presidential politics.
 Even more disheartening is the lack of reference to vital science-based issues.
 This isn't entirely surprising, especially on the Republican side, where three
 candidates openly dispute evolution. However, it's still frightening given how
 overarching a role science plays.
 Some candidates have begun to address important subjects like universal health
 care and poverty, but there are fundamental concerns such as nuclear disarmament
 and science education that politicians are afraid to touch. I'm certainly
 interested in science topics such as space exploration and particle
 accelerators, but there are some underlying matters that must be addressed in
 order to, literally, protect humanity.
 Religion in our public schools threatens to create a generation of
 scientifically illiterate children without the ability to reason or value
 factual knowledge. Other than useless death and destruction, nothing can be
 accomplished without a multitude of scientific, creative, and altruistic minds;
 allowing religion to mold the minds of children simply does not accomplish this.
 Despite this, the candidates are too terrified to appear at odds with religion,
 specifically Christianity, to take a stand on the need for the separation of
 church and state. Religion may have a place in our society, but that place is
 not the public sphere. Teaching the Bible as a literal, historical document is
 abusive, and it undermines science. The government must recognize this is a
 secular society that should no longer be dominated by the church.
 While Republicans hardly feign interest, Democrats have attempted to toss around
 some vague points about their commitment to the environment. However, I am not
 convinced that anyone, other than outsider Dennis Kucinich, understands the
 level of action that must be taken to combat global warming.
 In light of recent findings that greenhouse gas levels are accelerating, drastic
 change needs to come now. This is the time for the U.S. to join the world in
 limiting emissions, creating awareness and funding legitimate research into
 alternative energy, conservation and ecology. I hardly believe corporate-allied
 politicians are willing to be the ones to initiate these changes in U.S. policy.
 Perhaps an issue that is most criminally overlooked is the enormous stockpile of
 nuclear weapons the United States has, plus the billions spent annually on their
 upkeep. According to the Nov. 1 edition of Scientific American, the U.S.
 currently possesses 9,900 nuclear weapons, of which 5,700 are ready to be
 deployed. Why do we need these? Politicians are not willing to address the need
 to reduce our stockpile for fear of being weak.
 Barack Obama and John Edwards have called for stricter policy toward Russia and
 its stockpile to prevent nuclear material getting into the hands of terrorists.
 This epitomizes U.S. hypocrisy when it comes to nuclear weapons. Scientists have
 explained the irrational basis of nuclear arsenals, yet we're ready to destroy
 the earth on short notice. If candidates are really for peace, not just an end
 to one war, nuclear disarmament needs to be a central issue.
 Other than the aforementioned topics, there are numerous issues that should be
 at the heart of debate, including stem cells, genetically modified foods and
 information technology. The failed war in Iraq, and immigration are important,
 but candidates argue about minor issues like abortion, gay marriage and
 "leadership skills," while urgent issues are ignored. The U.S. desperately needs
 leaders that will protect the environment without taking advantage of voters. At
 this point, no candidates have explicitly come out on the side of science. As we
 emerge from the dark days of the Bush regime, we must unite with the planet and
 utilize the wealth of knowledge science has given us.
 (C) 2007 The Eagle via U-WIRE
 LOAD-DATE: November 2, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2007 The Eagle via U-Wire









Document Number: 633
 
                                  Seattle Weekly
                            October 31, 2007 Wednesday
 Macklemore's Not-So-Famous Chicken Pasta With Butter;
 What you get when eating with the band.
 LENGTH: 454  words
 This recipe is one that was handed down by nobody, for if they did make it, they
 wouldn't have lived long enough to hand it down. This is a first-generation
 dish.
 Ingredients: 2 frozen chicken breasts (I buy frozen breasts in bulk because the
 store is going to bop you on thawed organic, healthy chicken. It's better to get
 frozen breasts filled with genetically modified meat because you're probably
 going to die shortly after eating this anyway due to a heart attack, so it
 really doesn't matter.)
 Penne noodles (Again, the cheaper the better. This is not Top Chef.)
 1/2 of 1/2 stick of butter (I guess that'd be 1/4 stick, but I cheated in math
 from sixth grade on, so I'm not gonna make assumptions.)
 A little vegetable oil
 Lawry's seasoning
 Salt
 Pepper
 Garlic powder
 Preparation:
 1. Put your chicken in a plastic bag and defrost with warm water. Make sure the
 water isn't too hot, or the chicken will start cooking and that gets weird.
 After the chicken is defrosted, place the breasts on a plate. Season your
 chicken with the Lawry's, salt, pepper, and garlic powder on both sides to your
 liking. I tend to use a good amount of seasoning to give it that extra "I'm
 gonna die anyway" flavor.
 2. Grab a pot, put some water in that pot, and bring that bad boy to a boil.
 3. Now, take a skillet, put a very thin layer of vegetable oil in it, and
 sprinkle in some salt. Turn your burner on to medium and let it warm up for a
 minute.
 4. Put your penne noodles in the pot of hot water around the same time that you
 put your chicken in the skillet. Both should be on medium flame. Now, turn on
 your favorite TV show. Note that if you watch Drew Carey's The Price Is Right,
 your food will be cursed by Bob Barker and all the pets he neutered over the
 past 40 years. (Another note: Don't bring up neutered dogs while cooking because
 it throws off one's appetite.)
 5. Flip the chicken and stir the pasta every couple of minutes.
 6. I like to cut my chicken in half at about six minutes into it to observe the
 pink/white ratio and ensure that I don't die before I get to eat it. Test the
 noodles at about six to seven minutes as well to see how they're doing.
 7. Drain the pasta and dump it into a bowl. Cut up your chicken into small
 bite-sized pieces and throw it on top of the noodles. Now, here comes the
 sauce...butter. Cut your quarter-stick of butter in half and put it into the
 mix. Stir it all up while singing your favorite David Bowie song from the
 Labyrinth soundtrack. Put some more salt and pepper on your amazing creation
 and-bam!-you have "Macklemore's Not-So-Famous Chicken Pasta With Butter." Enjoy!
 Are you a musician? Do you have a favorite recipe? Send it to
 apecknold@seattleweekly.com, and if we like it, we might just print it.
 LOAD-DATE: November 1, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: sew
                        Copyright 2007 Seattle Weekly LLC
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 634
 
                         Lincoln Journal Star (Nebraska)
                            October 20, 2007 Saturday
                                   City Edition
 Wheat bumping up against a biotechnology blockade
 SECTION: A; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 868 words
 Unlike corn or soybeans, genetically modified wheat hasn't gained acceptance.
 You could call it a conundrum.
 At wheat-planting time in Southeast Nebraska, the price per bushel is at record
 levels. But early indications are that Wilber farmer Mark Tachovsky and his
 fellow wheat producers are planting about the same number of acres as last year.
 One reason: The fields they harvested in July were ravaged by a range of
 humidity-induced disease problems, including scab, rust and fusarium head
 blight.
 And here's the kicker: Companies using biotechnology to make wheat resistant to
 disease are still running into marketing resistance from farmers, bread makers
 and other vested interests that would stand to gain from their research.
 That's because wheat is almost always raised for direct human consumption, and
 public uneasiness about the mysteries of genetic modifications is believed to
 run much deeper than for corn and soybeans, typically fed to livestock.
 Estimates of genetically engineered varieties in corn and soybean fields run
 about 85 percent  and higher. For wheat, it's zero.
 It's all about the perceptions of changing the makeup of what we eat, Tachovsky
 said. "Bioengineered - which I guess I don't feel is such a bad thing, but a lot
 of people do. . . . Part of it is people not being informed."
 Steve Baenziger, a professor of agronomy at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
 is so concerned that environmental vigilantes might vandalize area test plots
 that he doesn't like to disclose the locations where he and other UNL wheat
 breeders are employing biotechnology.
 "It sometimes puts you in the bull's-eye of people who don't like what you're
 doing," Baenziger said.
 Why such extreme feelings?
 "The bottom line," Baenziger said, "is that when we say the Lord's Prayer, it's
 'Give us this day our daily bread.' That's a bit of a stretch from feeding
 soybeans to animals."
 Royce Schaneman, executive director of the Nebraska Wheat Board, knows a
 conundrum when he sees one.
 "There really is no GMO (genetically modified organism) wheat out there," said
 Schaneman, who's based in Lincoln. "I guess what I would say is that there are a
 couple of companies that have researched it, put a lot of time, money and effort
 into it.
 "But based on consumer concerns, not only here but with foreign customers,
 producers have asked those companies to hold off on releasing any GMO wheat. And
 those companies have done that."
 A self-imposed biotechnology blockade is not the only braking influence on wheat
 planting. Another reason prices have been high is simply because world wheat
 supplies are low.
 It's probable that Kansas and such far-off places as Australia and Europe will
 have a better crop in 2008 and that the price available at Southeast Nebraska
 grain elevators will fall rapidly.
 But the biotechnology snag is real enough, said Anne Burt, based in Washington,
 D.C., and speaking for Syngenta Crop Protection.
 Burt said Swiss-owned Syngenta "has been doing quite a bit of work in the
 research and development arena with wheat to withstand fungal attacks."
 At this stage, "we're very pleased with the initial results. We have reason to
 believe that this technology is a very good product. But market acceptance is a
 very key question, and we are not, at this point, moving forward on a commercial
 path."
 Under those circumstances, Baenziger remains worried that human resistance to
 using biotechnology to endow wheat with disease resistance will cause the crop
 to lose planting space to corn and beans.
 After all, if corn and beans are much less likely to run into yield-reducing
 diseases, their income reputation will remain much more solid.
 "If we're not careful," Baenziger said, "we will no longer see wheat be able to
 compete, because it won't have access."
 And if consumers are unwilling to embrace what he and many others see as safe
 biotechnology practices, they must accept the price run-ups that go with much
 more uncertain wheat supplies.
 Here's his question for all those who shy away from biotechnology breakthroughs,
 including those arriving at grocery store cash registers: "Are you willing to
 pay $10 (per bushel) for wheat, because you don't want GMOs, when you could
 produce it for $6 otherwise?"
 Not everybody buys that rationale.
 Dennis Olson, a senior policy analyst with the Institute for Agriculture and
 Trade Policy in Minneapolis, says he has concerns about what he sees as a lack
 of proper scrutiny of gene manipulation.
 He faults the federal Food and Drug Administration, among others, for not doing
 its own research.
 Whenever such companies as Monsanto or Syngenta usher a new biotechnology
 breakthrough toward the marketplace, "there are no independent, peer-reviewed
 studies of the potential health impacts of that," Olson said.
 He is not appeased by suggestions that there have been no wide-spread health
 issues traced to biotech crops already in the food pipeline. Without the basic
 research that he sees as lacking outside agribusiness circles, there's no way to
 know if there's a connection to allergic reactions and other unexplained
 illnesses.
 "I think the current U.S. system is inadequate," he said, "and frankly, it's
 appalling."
 Reach Art Hovey at (402) 523-4949 or ahovey@alltel.net
 LOAD-DATE: October 23, 2007
 GRAPHIC: color graph of record wheat prices. CHAD GILLILAND/Lincoln Journal Star
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2007 Lincoln Journal Star,
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 635
 
                               The Washington Post
                             October 19, 2007 Friday
                                 Regional Edition
 Giving Yellow Journalism a Good Name
 BYLINE: Ann Hornaday; Washington Post Staff Writer
 SECTION: STYLE; Pg. C05
 LENGTH: 654 words
 Joining a noble  tradition of fine muckraking documentaries about where cheap
 stuff comes from, "King Corn" pulls the husk off the scandal of modern food
 production, specifically the industrialized, subsidized, largely mythologized
 world of American corn.
 As "King Corn" opens, recent Yale graduates Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis are
 visiting an isotope lab, where a friendly analyst examines strands of their hair
 and reveals that carbon dating suggests they originated from corn. Bemused, the
 two decide to travel to Iowa, find a farmer willing to lease them a portion of
 his land and find out "how an acre of corn could get from a field in Iowa to our
 hair."
 With what turns out to be signature wit and pith, the two land in the town of
 Greene (pop. 1,015), where, in a wild coincidence,  both their
 great-grandfathers once lived. As Cheney and Ellis proceed to rent, sow, tend
 and finally harvest their little acre, their education about how technological
 progress, government grants and consumer demand for cheap food have redefined
 Iowa's agriculture dovetails with a fascinating journey back to their own roots.
 Directed by Aaron Woolf and narrated by Cheney and Ellis in alternating
 voice-overs, "King Corn" recalls such groundbreaking documentaries as "Super
 Size Me" and "Darwin's Nightmare," along with Richard Linklater's fictionalized
 "Fast Food Nation,"  in its indictment of a food production system gone horribly
 awry.
 After they bemusedly collect an installment on their $28-per-acre government
 subsidy, they proceed to set 31,000 genetically modified corn kernels into their
 plot, then spray it with herbicide to get rid of weeds. ("The first weed we
 found was -- weed!" they recall, as one of them holds up a marijuana plant.)
 After waiting patiently for  months, they finally taste the fruits of their
 labor, only to discover that what they've planted is inedible. Their corn --
 like most of Iowa's harvest -- isn't intended to be slathered with butter and
 devoured, but more likely will be used to produce ethanol, cattle feed and
 high-fructose corn syrup.
 Inspired by "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan (who shows up for
 incisive commentaries), "King Corn" traces the statistically likely path that an
 ear of Iowa corn might take, from the cow confinement operations of  eastern
 Colorado to a bottle of soda pop in Brooklyn, where Type 2 diabetes is epidemic.
 Gorgeously filmed in digital video and Super-8, using clever stop-motion corn
 kernel animation and a lyrical score by the "anti-folk" band the WoWz, "King
 Corn" takes what could be a tiresome agri-civics lesson and  delivers a lively,
 funny, sad and even poetic treatise on the reality behind America's  cherished
 self-image as the breadbasket of the world.
 In large part, "King Corn" succeeds because Cheney and Ellis  are such engaging
 guides on an odyssey that takes them from the Midwest at its small-town best to
 the ulcerated stomach of a corn-fed cow (they're genetically designed to eat
 grass). When they track down Earl Butz, the Nixon-era architect of the current
 government subsidy system, they go gently, allowing him to remind viewers that
 Americans now spend 16 percent of their income on food, a figure his
 Depression-era family would have envied.
 Still, "King Corn" dares to ask whether low prices come at too exorbitant a cost
 -- environmentally, socially and to our public health. We might be better fed as
 a nation, but we're less well nourished. As one expert opines of contemporary
 farm bills, "We subsidize the Happy Meals, we don't subsidize the healthy ones."
 All of these points, as well as several more subtle ones, are made in "King
 Corn" by way of a terrific story and superb production values. It should be
 required viewing before going into a supermarket, McDonald's or your very own
 refrigerator.
 King Corn (88 minutes, at Landmark's E Street Cinema) is not rated. It contains
 a graphic image of that cow's stomach.
 LOAD-DATE: October 19, 2007
 DISTRIBUTION: Maryland
 GRAPHIC: IMAGE; By Sam Cullman; In their documentary "King Corn," Curt Ellis and
 Ian Cheney dig into a food production system gone awry.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2007 The Washington Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 636
 
                                 University Wire
                            October 17, 2007 Wednesday
 Ohio State U. profs present energy finding to governor
 BYLINE: By Natalia Mitsui, The Lantern; SOURCE: Ohio State U.
 LENGTH: 361 words
 DATELINE: COLUMBUS, Ohio
 Gov. Ted Strickland paid a visit to Ohio State on Tuesday to learn how to help
 the state produce renewable energy sources and advanced energy technology.
 OSU researchers presented information on ways to improve solar power,
 hydrogen-powered vehicles and the use of genetically modified soy beans to
 produce industrial products.
 "Ohio is uniquely positioned," Strickland said after the presentation in the
 Riffe Building. "First of all, we have the research capabilities. Second, we
 have the natural resources. Also, we are a huge consumer of energy. This
 (research) has special relevance to Ohio's energy needs."
 The appearance was part of the governor's Energy, Jobs and Progress plan, which
 is designed to "ensure predictability of affordable energy prices and serve as a
 catalyst to enhance energy industries in Ohio," according to Strickland's Web
 site.
 Strickland said his plan requires 25 percent of energy in Ohio be generated from
 renewable sources or from advanced technology by 2025.
 Stephen Myers, an Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center and Ohio
 Beef Industry Center professor, presented soybean research and said the state
 can be in the forefront of energy research.
 "Ohio can lead the way, with a race to the moon mentality," Myers said.
 OSU President E. Gordon Gee was at the event and sat next to Strickland as six
 university researchers presented their findings.
 One briefing was about the improvement of photovoltaic cells, which convert
 sunlight into energy. Another showed how soybeans can be used to produce paint,
 insulation and plastic. Also presented was the development of a hydrogen-powered
 car, the Buckeye Bullet 2, which broke the record for hydrogen vehicles by going
 225 mph - they hope to reach 350 mph by next August.
 "What is being shown today is the possibility for renewable sources and advanced
 technology," Strickland said, adding he hopes his plan to generate renewable
 energy will lead to more jobs for Ohio.
 The governor has traveled to other universities to hear about the research being
 done. He has already visited the University of Cincinnati, the University of
 Akron and Ohio University.
 (C) 2007 The Lantern via U-WIRE
 LOAD-DATE: October 17, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2007 The Lantern via U-Wire









Document Number: 637
 
                                 The New York Sun
                             October 12, 2007 Friday
 Let It Grow
 SECTION: ARTS AND LETTERS; Pg. 16
 LENGTH: 393 words
 College pals Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis moved from Boston to Greene, Iowa, to
 grow an acre of corn after an isotope geochemistry lab at the University of
 Virginia found that the carbon in their own bodies actually originated from
 corn. During the year that followed, they learned their harvest was worth so
 little in the marketplace that American farmers could not survive without
 government subsidies. The pair set out to follow their crop through the food
 production system to see where it would wind up, only to discover that the
 genetically modified corn they grew wasn't readily edible and it could
 eventually become sulfur, cow feed, or the high-fructose corn syrup found in a
 variety of processed foods.
 Chronicling their experience, the documentary "King Corn" exposes the
 never-ending vicious circle of food production. Government subsidies encourage
 quantity over quality, so farmers grow more corn than is consumable. As a
 result, the excess finds its way into the American diet in processed,
 non-nutritious forms of ground beef and corn syrup. While its findings are
 certainly alarming, the film isn't as aggressive or persuasive as "Super Size
 Me" or "Fast Food Nation" in presenting the issue as a polemic. You won't likely
 swear off junk food as a result of watching "King Corn," even though you're sort
 of expecting it to have that effect.
 Although the film has that unmistakable PBS voice-over narration (it will air on
 the public broadcaster next year), it resembles reality television and blurs the
 definition of documentary. Clearly inspired by the likes of Ross McElwee and
 Morgan Spurlock, director Aaron Woolf artificially staged a scenario that serves
 as the launching pad for the film. "King Corn" isn't a first-person account, but
 one can still interpret it as such given that Messrs. Woolf and Ellis are
 cousins. The filmmaker also inserts himself into the frame with a dangling boom
 mic here and a tripod there.
 Mr. Cheney and Mr. Ellis's genealogical search for relatives of their Iowan
 great-grandfathers initially seems tangential but ultimately turns out to be the
 most rewarding aspect of the film. Faded photos in family albums and oral
 accounts from long-lost relatives add both a historical perspective on the
 devolution of the American farming industry and an unexpected poignancy that
 expands the scope and relevance of the film.
 LOAD-DATE: October 12, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2007 The New York Sun, Two SL, LLC
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 638
 
                                The New York Times
                            October 11, 2007 Thursday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Monsanto Reports a Wider Loss and Lowers Its Outlook
 BYLINE: By REUTERS
 SECTION: Section C; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 6
 LENGTH: 315 words
 The agricultural company Monsanto posted a wider quarterly loss yesterday and
 forecast fiscal 2008 earnings below Wall Street estimates, partly because of
 weakness in its selective herbicide business and a higher interest expense and
 tax rate.
 But the growth rate for Monsanto's core business of genetically modified corn,
 soy and cotton seeds, and its history of exceeding its earnings guidance,
 encouraged investors, and its shares recouped most of an earlier sell-off.
 ''At Monsanto they view their projections as a commitment, not an aspiration,''
 said Frank Mitsch, a BB&T Capital Markets analyst, adding that the company had
 significantly beaten its earnings growth target for the last three years.
 Monsanto shares closed down 74 cents, or 0.8 percent, at $88.78 on the New York
 Stock Exchange, after declining 4.4 percent just after the market's open.
 Monsanto said its net loss widened to $210 million, or 39 cents a share, in the
 fourth quarter, which ended Aug. 31, from $144 million, or 27 cents a share, a
 year earlier.
 The results included a $186 million in-process research and development charge
 at its Delta and Pine Land cotton business.
 On an ongoing basis, the company, based in St. Louis, said its loss was 18 cents
 a share, missing analysts' average estimate by a penny, excluding items,
 according to Reuters Estimates.
 Net sales rose to $1.57 billion, from $1.39 billion, helped by a strong end to
 the corn season in the United States and higher corn seed revenue from Argentina
 and Brazil.
 One area of business that is not doing well is the company's selective herbicide
 business, which is declining as farmers switch to Monsanto's Roundup, in
 combination with crop plants that tolerate the broad-spectrum weedkiller.
 Monsanto said it expected fiscal 2008 earnings of $2.20 to $2.40 a share.
 Analysts on average had forecast $2.50, according to Reuters Estimates.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: October 11, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 639
 
                          Deming Headlight (New Mexico)
                              October 8, 2007 Monday
 Animal caregivers vs. animal activists
 BYLINE: By Baxter Black, DVM
 LENGTH: 485 words
 To: Directors of HSUS, PETA, and the Farm Sanctuary
 The first step in engaging an issue is to have the ability to understand your
 opponent's point of view. I have watched your criticisms as we in animal
 agriculture have become more productive.
 Your criticisms range from a distaste of raising chickens in cages to promoting
 a vegan lifestyle and degrees in between. I have visited with each of you on the
 telephone and I can't paint you all with the same brush, but I can include you
 in the same picture.
 It appears to me you have a distrust for modern agricultural methods;
 genetically modified foods, hog confinement sheds, beef feedlots, farmed salmon
 and chemical fertilizer. You mourn the loss of a bucolic family-farm lifestyle
 that no longer exists. You assume, I guess, that animals were treated more
 humanely 50 years ago. You abhor growth stimulants, veal barns, hog gestation
 crates. You use buzzwords like chemicals, factory farming, corporate farms,
 antibiotics and hormones with the intent to demean. And you spend considerable
 amounts of money to impede our efforts to produce livestock.
 So it behooves me to try and understand how and why you are so prejudiced
 against what we think of as a noble calling. Four contributing factors:
 1) You are vegetarians. In itself, not a root cause but certainly a bias ... you
 would be unable to relate to a juicy steak, spareribs, sushi or ice cream.
 2) You evaluate "animal cruelty" on your feelings of how you think a human would
 react to a procedure or condition, as opposed to our less subjective methods
 including egg production, pounds of milk, and average daily gain.
 3) As best I can tell, none of you have any first-hand knowledge or experience
 making a living in animal agriculture.
 4) You all favor more expensive, less efficient means of livestock production
 even though you realize they will not allow us to meet the demands of the
 majority of consumers.
 Reciprocally, it would be nice if you understood why we work in a business that
 is so physically and financially risky:
 1) We love it. The animals, the land, the family and the lifestyle is worth all
 the sacrifice. Obviously, because it is us who are taking care of them, not you.
 2) We take seriously our responsibility to meet the public's demand for the
 essential commodity; food. Thus our continuing search for the right balance of
 the animal's well-being and her productivity.
 3) We do not believe animals have rights, but that man was given dominion over
 them and is obligated to care for them properly.
 In conclusion, you label us as food terrorists and we call you animal rights
 lunatics. But I'll concede we have a few lunatics on our side, too!
 Baxter Black is a former New Mexico resident who spent most of his working days
 tormenting cows. He now resides in Arizona and spends most of his free time
 tormenting cowboys and the sorts. His columns appear in the Deming Headlight
 every Tuesday.
 LOAD-DATE: July 18, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
           Copyright 2007 Deming Headlight, a MediaNews Group Newspaper
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 640
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                              October 8, 2007 Monday
 Student's research earns her $5,000 prize
 BYLINE: By Michelle B. Mueller SPECIAL TO THE POST-DISPATCH
 SECTION: METRO; Pg. B4
 LENGTH: 469 words
 What started as a project for a genetics class last spring ended up this summer
 as an international presentation to geneticists and science professors and a
 $5,000 prize for Aubrey Koehler, a senior at St. Joseph's Academy.
 Aubrey won first prize from the American Society of Agricultural and Biological
 Engineers with her essay and presentation on how people's lives are different
 today as a result of the last 100 years of agricultural, food and biological
 systems engineering. She was one of three high school finalists who attended the
 society's national conference in June to present her research.
 Aubrey's research showed how advances in farming equipment have made the soil,
 air and water healthier over the last 100 years as well as how genetic
 engineering has helped prevent diseases in crops and made them more resilient to
 severe weather. She said she also learned how advances in biological engineering
 have helped clean oil spills by adding enzymes to a polluted area.
 All five of Missouri's semifinalists in the competition were from St. Joseph's.
 Aubrey competed against two other national finalists from Illinois.
 Although Aubrey says she felt prepared for the presentation at the conference in
 Minneapolis, the impromptu questions by the judges at the end of her
 presentation made her squirm.
 "They were critical-thinking questions that weren't about my presentation," said
 Aubrey. "One of the situations was how I would solve an argument between someone
 who only liked organic foods and another who liked genetically modified food.
 There was no right or wrong answer."
 Susan Nolkemper, Aubrey's genetics teacher, said Aubrey was extremely poised
 during her presentation in Minneapolis and in answering the judges' questions.
 "She was really good at thinking on her feet," said Nolkemper.
 Aubrey says she put her $5,000 prize into a savings account for college.
 Although she says she doesn't see a future as a professional who works in a
 laboratory, she may consider a career in a science-related field.
 At school, Aubrey is the captain of the golf team and is a member of the
 National Honor Society and Angel Outreach, a service club.
 Aubrey, 17, has started her senior year with a cumulative grade-point average of
 about 3.9. She lives in Lake Saint Louis with her parents, Chuck and Patty
 Koehler.
 Here's more about Aubrey:
 What are you most proud of? "We won state in golf my sophomore year. I'm also
 proud of my independence."
 What's the most important lesson you've learned in high school? "How important
 good friends are."
 What's the best book you've read? "Harry Potter" by J.K. Rowling
 If you could spend an hour with anyone in the world, whom would you choose? "An
 old friend of mine, Allison. We were really good friends but then went to
 different high schools. I would really like to spend time with her."
 STUDENT; PROFILE; Aubrey Koehler
 LOAD-DATE: October 8, 2007
 NOTES:  SPOTLIGHT ON EDUCATION o St. Joseph's Academy
  PHOTO - Aubrey
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2007 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 641
 
                     Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock)
                             October 6, 2007 Saturday
 USDA report: Rice tainting a mystery
 LENGTH: 1048 words
 More than 14 months after the U.S. Department of Agriculture began investigating
 how traces of an unapproved genetically engineered rice entered the U.S.
 commercial long-grain rice supply, the government has concluded that it cannot
 explain how the contamination occurred and has no plans to take any enforcement
 actions.
 Cindy Smith, the administrator of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
 Service, said Friday that the agency is considering some changes, including a
 requirement for better record keeping by researchers and developers.
 That was hardly enough to satisfy the industry, members of which roundly
 condemned the effort.
 "Once again USDA has let the American farmer down," said Ray Vester, a Stuttgart
 rice farmer who served on the State Plant Board last winter when the agency
 banned the planting this year of the two rice varieties - Cheniere and
 Clearfield 131 - that tested positive for trace amounts of the protein that
 makes Bayer CropScience's LibertyLink rice resistant to the herbicide Liberty,
 also known as glufosinate.
 "They didn't have the protocols in place to keep this from happening or to find
 out how it happened," Vester said.
 "It appears to me they just whitewashed over [the problem] and went on," he
 said.
 "They spent all these months trying to find reasons not to blame anybody or make
 a decision, and I think that's what they accomplished," Vester said.
 Darryl Little, director of the State Plant Board, said, "They really didn't tell
 us a whole lot." Preventing future transgenic contamination is the most
 important point to keep in mind, said Kenneth Graves, president of the Arkansas
 Rice Growers Association.
 "We obviously need more stringent regulations with some tough penalties and
 accountability," Graves said.
 Both U.S. rice industry trade groups, USA Rice Federation in Washington and US
 Rice Producers Association in Houston, Texas, expressed disappointment with the
 results of the USDA investigation.
 Although the USDA and the Food and Drug Administration have said that Bayer
 Crop- Science's LibertyLink rices pose no health, food safety or environmental
 risks, many foreign countries shun all genetically engineered foods.
 Because about half of all U.S. rice is exported, news last year of the
 contamination negatively affected almost half of all U.S. rice export markets.
 U.S. rice sales to the 27 member nations of the European Union have nearly
 halted, while increased testing of U.S. rice shipments has been required
 elsewhere.
 The fallout from the LibertyLink problem has been particularly acute in
 Arkansas. The state's farmers produce about half of all U.S. rice. In 2006,
 Arkansas' rice harvest was worth $892 million, making it the state's single most
 valuable crop.
 Friday's report "underscores the extreme importance to us here in Arkansas of
 keeping our right to further regulate something that is as potentially damaging
 to our No. 1 cash crop," said John Alter, a DeWitt rice farmer and member of the
 Arkansas Rice Research and Promotion Board.
 The State Plant Board and the USA Rice Federation took leading roles in trying
 to restore the competitiveness and marketability of U.S. long-grain rice in
 export markets around the world, particularly the European Union. The Plant
 Board banned the 2007 planting of the two rice varieties - Cheniere and
 Clearfield 131.
 USA Rice Federation said in a prepared statement that the lack of significant
 findings indicates the need for increased corporate responsibility and
 stewardship by the biotechnology industry.
 "Imagine if we had waited for the [Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service]
 report before taking decisive action," USA Rice Federation Chairman Al Montna
 said.
 USA Rice Federation said last week that a comprehensive investigative report by
 the USDA was essential for the U.S. rice industry to be able to renew exports to
 the European Union.
 Smith said Rebecca Bech, deputy administrator for biotechnology regulatory
 services, was in Brussels on Friday "briefing representatives from the European
 Commission about the investigation and what we learned." US Rice Producers said
 in a prepared statement that it lamented that "current recordkeeping and related
 regulatory requirements did not provide investigators the tools they needed to
 reconstruct the complete picture of what caused this expensive episode.
 "But most of all, we are concerned about the lack of corporate responsibility
 demonstrated by certain industry players throughout this entire episode. Their
 irresponsibility and determination to avoid any liability for their actions has
 - and continues to - cost U.S. rice farmers hundreds of millions of dollars,"
 the association said.
 INVESTIGATION RESULTS Smith said the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
 Service's 8,500-hour investigation, which began Aug. 1, 2006, determined that
 the Cheniere rice variety had been contaminated by only LibertyLink 601 or
 LLRICE601, while Clearfield 131 had been contaminated by only LLRICE604.
 "We had hoped to identify how each [genetically engineered] rice line entered
 the commercial rice supply, but the exact mechanism for introduction could not
 be determined in either instance," she said.
 The one common denominator in both cases was Louisiana State University
 AgCenter's Rice Research Station near Crowley, Smith said. From 1999 to 2001,
 LLRICE601 and Cheniere were both grown at the same time at the LSU station,
 "which was working under a Bayer Crop-Science contract," she said. In addition,
 LLRICE604 and Clearfield 131 were also grown at the station, but they were not
 grown at the same time.
 "This means ... that the most likely entry point for LLRICE604 into Clearfield
 131 was through a means other than direct cross-pollination," leaving only
 mixing or other means, Smith said.
 Ruling out cross-pollination as the source of the contamination in the case of
 Clearfield 131 the only real news in the report, said Little, the Plant Board
 director.
 More information is available at the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
 Service's Web site - www.aphis.usda.gov - where two documents are posted. One is
 an eight-page document, "Report of LibertyLink Rice Incidents," the other is a
 four-page document, "Lessons learned and revisions under consideration for
 APHIS' Biotechnology Framework."
 This article was published 10/06/2007
 LOAD-DATE: October 8, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2007 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 642
 
                                The New York Times
                             October 6, 2007 Saturday
                               Late Edition - Final
 No U.S. Penalties For Tainted Rice
 BYLINE: By BLOOMBERG NEWS
 SECTION: Section C; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 3
 LENGTH: 189 words
 The United States government will not take action against the German company
 Bayer for unintentionally allowing unapproved, genetically engineered rice to
 contaminate two commercial varieties of the grain, the Department of Agriculture
 said yesterday.
 Bayer, a chemical and pharmaceutical company that is also the world's
 seventh-largest seed maker, tested the modified rice in fields from 1998 to
 2001, and it tainted the 2005 crop, the department said. Officials said that
 they did not have enough evidence to penalize Bayer, but were considering
 tightening record-keeping requirements.
 The release of genetically modified rice into commercial American supplies has
 harmed rice exports, especially to the European Union, said Matt Herrick,
 spokesman for the department's Foreign Agricultural Service. Exports to Europe
 fell to 19,931 tons this year through July, down 64 percent from a year earlier,
 department data shows.
 Bayer CropScience, an American unit of Bayer, said it was pleased with the
 department's decision, a spokesman, Greg Coffey, said in an e-mailed statement.
 He called the investigation ''thorough and diligent.''
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: October 6, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 643
 
                Agriculture Department Documents and Publications
                                 October 5, 2007
 Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.; Availability of Petition and Environmental
 Assessment for Determination of Nonregulated Status for Soybean Genetically
 Engineered for Tolerance to Glyphosate and Acetolactate Synthase-Inhibiting
 Herbicides;
 Federal Register Extracts
 LENGTH: 1775  words
 SUMMARY: We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
 Service has received a petition from Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.,
 seeking a determination of nonregulated status for soybean designated as
 transformation event 356043, which has been genetically engineered for tolerance
 to glyphosate and acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides. The petition has
 been submitted in accordance with our regulations concerning the introduction of
 certain genetically engineered organisms and products. In accordance with those
 regulations, we are soliciting comments on whether this genetically engineered
 soybean is or could be a plant pest. We are also making available for public
 comment an environmental assessment for the proposed determination of
 nonregulated status.
 DATES: We will consider all comments we receive on or before December 4, 2007.
 ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
 * Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov, select "Animal
 and Plant Health Inspection Service" from the agency drop-down menu, then click
 "Submit." In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2007-0019 to submit or view
 public comments and to view supporting and related materials available
 electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for
 accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close
 of the comment period, is available through the site's "User Tips" link.
 * Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies of your comment (an
 original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0019, Regulatory Analysis
 and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118,
 Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No.
 Reading Room: You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our
 reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South
 Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal
 reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
 holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817
 before coming.
 Other Information: Additional information about APHIS and its programs is
 available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Cordts, Biotechnology Regulatory
 Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301)
 734-5531, john.m.cordts@aphis.usda.gov To obtain copies of the petition or
 environmental assessment (EA), contact Ms. Cynthia Eck at (301) 734-0667;
 cynthia.a.eck@aphis.usda.gov The petition and EA may be viewed on the Internet
 at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/06_27101p.pdf and
 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/06_27101p_ea.pdf.
 Background
 The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, "Introduction of Organisms and Products
 Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which
 There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests," regulate, among other things, the
 introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment)
 of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that
 are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such
 genetically engineered organisms and products are considered "regulated
 articles."
 The regulations in SEC 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to
 the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination
 that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and
 (c) of SEC 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of
 nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the
 petition.
 On September 28, 2006, APHIS received a petition seeking a determination of
 nonregulated status (APHIS Petition Number 06-271-01p) from Pioneer Hi-Bred
 International, Inc., of Johnston, IA (Pioneer), for soybean (Glycine max L.)
 designated as transformation event 356043, which has been genetically engineered
 for tolerance to glyphosate and acetolactate synthase (ALS)-inhibiting
 herbicides, stating that soybean line 356043 does not present a plant pest risk
 and, therefore, should not be a regulated article under APHIS' regulations in 7
 CFR part 340.
 As described in the petition, 356043 soybean plants have been genetically
 engineered to express modified glyphosate acetyltransferase (GAT 4601) and
 acetolactate synthase (ALS) proteins, which confers tolerance to glyphosate and
 acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides. The gat4601 gene is derived from
 gat genes from Bacillus licheniformis, a common soil bacterium. Expression of
 the gat4601 gene is driven by a synthetic constitutive promoter (SCP1). The gene
 that confers tolerance to ALS-inhibiting herbicides is gm-hra and is a modified
 soybean ALS gene. Expression of the gm-hra gene is driven by a constitutive
 soybean S-adenosyl-L-methionine synthetase (SAMS) promoter. A single copy of
 these genes and their regulatory sequences were introduced into soybean somatic
 embryos using microprojectile bombardment.
 Pioneer's 356043 soybean plants have been considered regulated articles under
 the regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because they contain gene sequences from plant
 pathogens. Pioneer's 356043 soybean plants have been field tested in the United
 States since 2003 under permits issued by APHIS. In the process of reviewing the
 permits for field trials of the subject soybean plants, APHIS determined that
 the vectors and other elements used to introduce the new genes were disarmed and
 that the trials, which were conducted under conditions of reproductive and
 physical confinement or isolation, would not present a risk of plant pest
 introduction or dissemination.
 APHIS has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) in which it presents two
 alternatives based on its analyses of data submitted by Pioneer, a review of
 other scientific data, and field tests conducted under APHIS oversight. APHIS
 may: (1) Take no action, i.e., APHIS would not change the regulatory status of
 356043 soybeans and they would continue to be regulated articles, or (2)
 deregulate 356043 soybeans in whole.
 In SEC 403 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), "plant pest" is
 defined as any living stage of any of the following that can directly or
 indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plant or plant
 product: A protozoan, a nonhuman animal, a parasitic plant, a bacterium, a
 fungus, a virus or viroid, an infectious agent or other pathogen, or any article
 similar to or allied with any of the foregoing. APHIS views this definition
 broadly to cover direct or indirect injury, disease, or damage not just to
 agricultural crops, but also to other plants, for example, native species, as
 well as organisms that may be beneficial to plants, such as honeybees.
 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for the regulation
 of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
 (FIFRA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.). FIFRA requires that all pesticides,
 including herbicides, be registered prior to distribution or sale, unless exempt
 from EPA regulation. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as
 amended (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), pesticides added to (or contained in) raw
 agricultural commodities generally are considered to be unsafe unless a
 tolerance or exemption from tolerance has been established. Residue tolerances
 for pesticides are established by the EPA under the FFDCA, and the Food and Drug
 Administration (FDA) enforces tolerances set by the EPA. Pioneer submitted the
 appropriate regulatory package to the EPA for registering the use of glyphosate
 herbicide on 356043 soybeans.
 The FDA's policy statement concerning regulation of products derived from new
 plant varieties, including those genetically engineered, was published in the
 Federal Register on May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22984-23005). Under this policy, FDA
 uses what is termed a consultation process to ensure that human and animal feed
 safety issues or other regulatory issues (e.g., labeling) are resolved prior to
 commercial distribution of a bioengineered food. Pioneer submitted a food and
 feed safety and nutritional assessment summary to the FDA for 356043 soybeans. A
 final FDA decision is pending.
 National Environmental Policy Act
 To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of any
 potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed determination of
 nonregulated status for 356043 soybeans, an EA has been prepared. The EA was
 prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on
 Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR
 parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and
 (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).
 In accordance with SEC 340.6(d) of the regulations, we are publishing this
 notice to inform the public that APHIS will accept written comments regarding
 the petition for a determination of nonregulated status from interested or
 affected persons for a period of 60 days from the date of this notice. During
 the same comment period, we are also soliciting written comments from interested
 or affected persons on the EA prepared to examine any environmental impacts of
 the proposed deregulation determination for the subject soybean event. The
 petition and the EA and any comments we receive are available for public review,
 and copies of the petition and the EA are available as indicated in the FOR
 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.
 After the comment period closes, APHIS will review the data submitted by the
 petitioner, all written comments received during the comment period, and any
 other relevant information. After reviewing and evaluating the comments on the
 petition and the EA and other data and information, APHIS will furnish a
 response to the petitioner, either approving the petition in whole or in part,
 or denying the petition. APHIS will then publish a notice in the Federal
 Register announcing the regulatory status of Pioneer's glyphosate and
 ALS-inhibiting, herbicide-tolerant soybean and the availability of APHIS'
 written decision.
 --This is a summary of a Federal Register article originally published on the
 page number listed below--
 Notice.
 Citation: "72 FR 56981"
 Federal Register Page Number: "56981"
 "Notices"
 LOAD-DATE: October 5, 2007
            Copyright 2007 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 644
 
                                The New York Times
                              October 5, 2007 Friday
                               Late Edition - Final
 BYLINE: By STEPHEN HOLDEN
 SECTION: Section E; Column 0; Movies, Performing Arts/Weekend Desk; FILM IN
 REVIEW; Pg. 10
 LENGTH: 1164 words
 Opens today in Manhattan
 Directed by Alan White
 97 minutes
 It isn't by chance that the troubled protagonists of ''Broken'' have the
 portentous names of Hope and Will. Before it's over, the story of Hope (Heather
 Graham), an aspiring singer-songwriter from Cleveland whose life comes apart
 while under the sway of her heroin-addicted boyfriend, Will (Jeremy Sisto),
 becomes an allegory in which, according to the movie's production notes, she
 ''is navigating through her own version of the seven deadly sins.''
 That translates into a depiction of alternative outcomes to Hope's story as she
 interacts with the denizens of the all-night diner where she works as a
 waitress. Each of these hustlers and lowlifes points her in a different ominous
 direction; one woman is a disheveled, ruined facsimile of what she might become.
 If the concept sounds intriguing, it muddies and complicates the tale of a
 beautiful, doe-eyed musician of dubious talent praised by everyone, who
 unaccountably hooks up with Mr. Wrong. Why a young woman with any sense would
 fall in love with Will, an obvious nut case who picks her up on a beach, is a
 mystery only the movie's screenwriter, Drew Pillsbury, can answer. From the
 moment Will appears with his paranoid eyes, sick smile and hostile manner, he
 is clearly the kind of loser from whom only another crazy person would not
 instantly recoil. And until he turns Hope into a heroin-crazed zombie, there are
 no signs that she is crazy; a little naive, perhaps, but not a fool.
 If ''Broken,'' directed by Alan White, defies basic credibility, it is at least
 well acted. Mr. Sisto, in particular, gets inside the skin of his miserable
 character, and the final scene, in which he goes ballistic in the diner, is a
 tour de force of nastiness and snarling self-pity. If you recall Billy
 Chenowith, Mr. Sisto's mentally unstable character in ''Six Feet Under,''
 imagine a much less intelligent version of the same guy in the throes of his
 worst psychotic episode.
 ''Broken'' is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian).
 It has violence, profanity and sexual situations.STEPHEN HOLDEN
 Opens today in New York, Hartford and Columbus, Ohio
 Directed by Lynn Hershman Leeson
 75 minutes; not rated
 Somewhere between documentary and dramatization, fact and impression, ''Strange
 Culture'' molds one man's tragedy into an engrossing narrative experiment that
 defies categorization.
 In 2004 Steve Kurtz (played with gentle charm by Thomas Jay Ryan), an associate
 professor of art at the State University of New York, Buffalo, was preparing an
 exhibition on genetically modified food for the Massachusetts Museum of
 Contemporary Art when his wife, Hope (Tilda Swinton), died in her sleep of heart
 failure. But when paramedics noticed petri dishes and other scientific
 paraphernalia in the home, they alerted the F.B.I.; within hours Mr. Kurtz found
 himself suspected of bioterrorism, his home quarantined and his wife's body
 removed for autopsy.
 Cleverly dodging the legal restrictions of a pending case, the writer and
 director Lynn Hershman Leeson bends the nonfiction form to her own
 unconventional will. Her actors fall in and out of character, discuss their
 interpretations with the real Mr. Kurtz (who also appears in the film) and even
 speak to us directly. The result is a fascinating collage of re-enactments, news
 clips and interviews, illuminating not only the implications of corporate
 meddling in the food chain but the ease with which innocent civilian behavior --
 like using tinfoil as a window shade -- can become a suspicious act.
 Alternately teasing and terrifying, ''Strange Culture'' is a near-perfect
 alignment of subject and form. In its creative assessment of our current
 judicial climate, the need for artistic freedom has seldom seemed so urgent.
 A Prehistoric Adventure
 Opens today at Imax theaters nationwide
 Directed by Sean Phillips
 40 minutes; not rated
 In some ways the phrase ''3-D Imax documentary'' is an oxymoron. No matter how
 conscientiously filmmakers try to pack each frame with enlightening data, much
 of it doesn't register because the Imax format is distractingly spectacular. The
 movies are like classroom lectures during which the teacher hurls giant props at
 the students.
 But  in Imax films the giant props are the show -- and in the new National
 Geographic documentary, ''Sea Monsters: A Prehistoric Adventure,'' they're as
 spectacular as one could wish.
 At least half the movie's 40 minutes are  devoted to efficient but bland
 re-enactments of 20th-century archaeologists unearthing fossils from the
 Cretaceous period in the once-submerged Central Plains of the United States. But
 these pale beside the film's true raison d'etre: digitally recreated prehistoric
 sea beasts that seem as real as whales and sharks.
 ''Sea Monsters'' is a parade of special-effects money shots with academic
 credentials: a snake-necked styxosaurus gorging on schools of fish; families of
 flippered, long-nosed dolichorhynchops (a k a dollies) gliding through indigo
 water clogged with particulate matter; a 40-foot-long tylosaurus clamping its
 jaws around prey, bursting through the surface and soaring into the air like an
 immense, razor-toothed dolphin. Step right up. MATT ZOLLER SEITZ
 Opens today nationwide
 Directed by David L. Cunningham
 98 minutes
 The forces of Light and Dark are at it again in ''The Seeker,'' David L.
 Cunningham's stilted fantasy about a pubescent lad charged with defeating evil
 and earning millions of dollars for an American movie studio. Let's all try to
 recall where we've heard that before.
 On the eve of his 14th birthday, everything changes for Will Stanton (Alexander
 Ludwig), an American living in Britain with his extremely large family.
 (Naturally, Will is the seventh son of a seventh son, so the
 old-woman-who-lived-in-a-shoe vibe is essential, if distracting.) When darkening
 skies and a masked horseman (Christopher Eccleston) get between Will and his
 crush (Amelia Warner), he is dismayed to learn that he is really a warrior who
 must find six signs and release the Light. From where is anybody's guess.
 Feebly assisted by a bunch of dodderers known appropriately as the Old Ones,
 Will braves a Viking war and 1,000 slithering snakes. Yet despite the creepiness
 of a scene featuring a pair of morphing mall security guards, John Hodge's
 screenplay is frequently dreary and overly literal. Will's Googling of ''the
 light and the dark'' is only the most risible example.
 Based on ''The Dark Is Rising'' series of books by Susan Cooper (who has claimed
 ''enormous'' differences between her work and the screenplay), ''The Seeker''
 feels passe and lacks a charismatic lead. Too bad Daniel Radcliffe is an only
 child.
 ''The Seeker'' is rated PG (Parental guidance suggested). It has rabid ravens,
 writhing pythons and lots and lots of floodwater.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: October 5, 2007
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO: The tylosaurus is among the extinct species revisited in ''Sea
 Monsters: A Prehistoric Adventure.'' (PHOTOGRAPH BY  NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC FILM)
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Review
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 645
 
                                     BestWire
                                 October 03, 2007
 LENGTH: 681 words
 GENEVA (BestWire) - Nanotechnology, touted in some circles as the next big
 scientific breakthrough, presents insurers with a classic dilemma in its lack of
 both an underwriting record and reliable clues as to its potential dangers.
 This view was offered by Annabelle R. Hett, head of emerging risk management for
 Swiss Re, to the 2007 Forum of the Federation of European Risk Management
 Associations.
 To us, emerging risk is anything which is associated with novelty or change,
 Hett told a workshop on emerging risks and insurability.
 To insurers, the key word is uncertainty, Hett said.
 These uncertainties are concerna about a technology or a substance of which too
 little is known, she noted.
 It may be 10 years before a reliable risk profile on a new product emerges.
 Nanotechnology is a very good example of an emerging risk, she said.
 Dealing with an emerging risk can be a delicate balancing act, however. For the
 risk manager, an over-cautious approach to emerging risks carries its own
 problems.
 Thierry Van Santen, director of risk management for food manufacturer Groupe
 Danone of France, said an appearance of too much caution can hurt a risk
 manager. Those who see risk everywhere, new risk everywhere, Van Santen told the
 audience, risk losing credibility within their organizations.
 Hett pointed to what she said were major miscalculations of past emerging risks
 ranging from asbestos to mad cow disease. Asbestos was flagged as a potential
 hazard as far back as 1906 without triggering the necessary protective response
 from the insurance industry, Hett said. Mad cow disease, or BSE, was mistakenly
 regarded on the European continent as a threat only to the United Kingdom and
 only to cows, she said. It went on to infect cats and humans.
 It is not necessary to be either a physician or a veterinarian, said Hett, who
 is herself a veterinarian, to know that a virus that jumps one species will do
 so again.
 Even worse, she said, surgical instruments exposed to BSE have shown themselves
 to be resistant to standard hospital sterilization procedures. One contaminated
 device can infect three people, she said.
 Nanotechnology, whose name derives from the Greek word for dwarf, can use any
 material that can be broken down into a very small size and then built into
 powerful structures, Hett said.
 One problem is the possible release of tiny particles into the environment at a
 time when testing procedures are still not fully developed. We dont know what
 those particles will do to people and the environment, Hett said.
 The cleanliness of rooftop solar cells, Hett said, is a result of the ability of
 cells to free themselves of dust and dirt by means of a chemical reaction. The
 question is: what are the potential environmental and health effects of this
 process?
 Hett questioned the use of nano particles as an inexpensive way to clean
 agricultural soil in the United States. Not only are the long-term effects of
 these particles unknown, Hett said, but it will be extremely hard to get them
 out.
 There is also evidence that particles used in anti-sun creams can be absorbed
 through the skin and into the brain. It is not known whether these particles
 will be eliminated or accumulate in the body, Hett said.
 Perception can guide an insurers evaluation of potential risk, Hett said, noting
 that the lack of any deaths associated with genetically modified food has not
 prevented substantial claims from being lodged against insurers.
 This is not just an objective business, she said.
 When underwriting emerging risks on a global basis, Hett said, insurers should
 use a global team of experts. What looks risky in one country may not be
 similarly regarded in another.
 People see things differently, she said. And people see things depending on
 their education and background.
 Those performing risk assessment must think out of the box to free themselves
 from seeing only what they want to see and to allow them to understand how
 quickly things can change, Hett said.
 (By Robert O'Connor, London editor)
 COMPANY: None DANONE(82%);SCHWEIZERISCHE RUECKVERSICHERUNGS-GES(72%);
 LOAD-DATE: October 3, 2007
                      Copyright 2007 A.M. Best Company, Inc.









Document Number: 646
 
                         The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon)
                            October 3, 2007 Wednesday
                                 Sunrise Edition
 Science Lectures
 BYLINE: Richard L. Hill, Stuart Tomlinson, The Oregonian
 SECTION: Science; Pg. B03
 LENGTH: 457 words
 OMSI extends hours
 for 'Body Worlds 3'
 The Oregon Museum of Science and Industry will be open continuously from 9 a.m.
 Friday through midnight Sunday to accommodate visitor demand for its "Body
 Worlds 3" exhibit.
 Nancy Stueber, OMSI president, said the unprecedented hours will allow more
 people to see the exhibit.
 "Body Worlds 3" displays more than 200 human specimens, including 23 preserved
 and posed bodies that have been drained of bodily fluids and replaced with
 plastic.
 Visitors are being encouraged to buy tickets beforehand. They can be purchased
 in advance online at www.omsi.edu or by calling 503-797-4486.
 Neurologist to give
 talk on restless legs
 Dr. Scott Fromherz, a neurologist and medical director of the West Side Sleep
 Center in Tigard, will discuss restless legs syndrome in a presentation 2 p.m.
 Saturday in the Wistar Morris Conference Room at Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital
 and Medical Center, 1015 N.W. 22nd Ave.
 His free talk is sponsored by the Portland RLS Education and Support Group. It's
 open to the public.
 For information, call Newt Hagar at 503-646-8925.
 Dinosaur reproduction
 topic of OSU lecture
 A paleontologist who made one of the most significant discoveries of the past
 decade will present the 2007 Condon Lecture at Oregon State University tonight.
 Luis Chiappe will speak in OSU's La Sells Stewart Center at 8 p.m. His free
 public lecture is titled "An Intimate Look at the Reproductive Behavior of Giant
 Dinosaurs."
 Chiappe and his team found thousands of dinosaur eggs in Argentina, some
 containing fossilized embryos. One of the dinosaur eggs that contains an embryo
 is a pterosaur, the giant flying reptile.
 Chiappe is the director of the Dinosaur Institute at the Natural History Museum
 of Los Angeles County.
 Scientists report on the latest discoveries at the annual Condon Lecture, named
 for early Oregon geologist Thomas Condon. The lecture has been presented at OSU
 for more than 60 years.
 Author gives talk on
 DNA-modified food
 Jeffrey M. Smith will discuss genetically engineered foods in a lecture at 6:30
 p.m. tonight in the Great Hall at the National College of Natural Medicine, 049
 S.W. Porter St.
 Smith is author of "Seeds of Deception," a book that contends genetically
 modified foods are unsafe.
 Admission is $10, and $5 for students.
 Forecasters ready
 to answer questions
 Ever wonder how Doppler radar works, what an occluded front is or how to check
 the water level on your favorite river?
 Forecasters with the National Weather Service and the Northwest River Forecast
 Center, 5241 N.E. 122nd Ave., will answer those questions and more in an open
 house 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Saturday.
 For information, call Tyree Wilde at 503-326-2340, ext. 223, or go to
 www.wrh.noaa.gov/pqr.
 -- Richard L. Hill, Stuart Tomlinson
 LOAD-DATE: October 4, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                           Copyright 2007 The Oregonian
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 647
 
                               Daily Deal/The Deal
                            September 28, 2007 Friday
 VCs plant $75M in Ceres
 BYLINE: by Clifford Carlsen
 LENGTH: 732 words
 HIGHLIGHT:The genetic agriculture tech rides a wave of interest in biofuel.
 After a decade of plant biotechnology development primarily in food and feed
 crops, Ceres Inc. has taken advantage of a surge in interest in biofuels to
 raise its largest investment round to date, landing $75 million in a deal led by
 New York-based Warburg Pincus.
 The new funding will allow the Thousand Oaks, Calif.-based company to expand
 research in genetically modified and selectively bred plant crops, particularly
 in the development of specialized cellulosic crops, including switchgrass,
 sorghum, miscanthus, energycane and woody species for transportation fuels.
 The deal brings total investment in Ceres to about $175 million, and CEO Richard
 Hamilton said the round was positioned as the company's final round of private
 capital before reaching positive cash flow, though he declined to project a
 timeline for profitability.
 Ceres began fundraising for the new investment early this summer, working with
 Morgan Stanley managing director Carla Harris. Hamilton would not disclose a
 valuation for the company but said the round won multiple term sheets and was
 closed at an "attractive" price.
 Previous investors Ambergate Trust, Artal Luxembourg SA, GIMV NV,H&Q Capital
 Management, KBC Bank & Insurance Group, Oppenheimer International Growth Fund,
 QuestMark Partners LP and Soros Private Equity Partners also participated in the
 round. Hamilton said the company most recently raised money in April 2002, when
 it closed a small but undisclosed equity investment from St. Louis, Mo.-based
 Monsanto Co. when it signed a partnership agreement with the agriculture and
 chemical giant.
 Hamilton said Ceres is Monsanto's largest external supplier of plant
 biotechnology and that it has the world's largest collection of plant gene
 intellectual property. The company was formed in 1997 to apply technology honed
 in studies of the human genome to plants, and the company has focused primarily
 on crops for food and animal feed.
 Developments over the past decade have transformed what used to be the
 agricultural chemicals industry into a thriving agricultural biotechnology
 business, creating huge opportunities for incumbent players and startups such as
 Ceres. Industry leaders Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences LLC and the DuPont
 Agriculture & Nutrition division of E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. in the U.S.
 as well as Syngenta AG, the Bayer CropScience AG division of Bayer AG and BASF
 AG in Europe have thrown their weight fully behind new genetic technologies for
 creating pest- and disease-resistant crops, virtually abandoning the development
 of new agricultural chemicals.
 There has been some resistance on the part of environmentalists to use of
 genetically modified organisms in food crops, but GMOs now dominate animal feed
 crops such as corn and soybeans, and there has been little opposition to their
 use in fuel crops. Indeed, Capricorn Capitalof Palo Alto, Calif., which is
 perhaps best known for financing Al Gore's global warming movie, "An
 Inconvenient Truth," in February led a $22.3 million venture investment in plant
 gene technology developer Targeted Growth Inc.
 Hamilton said Ceres was built on improving yield and reducing the need for
 pesticides and fertilizers in food and feed crops but that by the time the
 company raised its most recent institutional investment round in April 2001, it
 had already begun to focus on energy.
 "We saw the progress being made in cellulose and got interested in dedicated
 energy crops," Hamilton said. "Sucrose is a good source of energy, and the U.S.
 has traditionally grown a lot of starch, but far and away the largest amount of
 carbohydrates is in cellulose, and even though it is relatively early technology
 in cellulose, that is what we have concentrated on."
 Hamilton said Ceres will continue to develop biotech traits for corn and other
 row crops, and it will license to other businesses outside of energy, including
 fine chemicals for fiber. He said that he expects that the burgeoning cellulosic
 energy industry will produce a variety of new polymers just as the petrochemical
 industry has.
 Warburg Pincus managing director Chansoo Joung said the firm was drawn to the
 promise of cellulosic biofuels for transportation and that Ceres' research
 background and history of licensing agreements position it well for leadership
 in the industry.
 Ceres had legal work on closing the round from Danielle Carbone ofShearman &
 Sterling LLP in New York.
 URL: http://www.TheDeal.com
 NEMOURS & CO (83%); CERES TERMINALS INC (91%) Ceres Inc.; Warburg Pincus;
 Ambergate Trust
 (55%) EnergyOilMiningGas; Agriculture
 (94%); LUXEMBOURG (55%); EUROPE (70%) US - Southern California
 LOAD-DATE: September 28, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
                         Copyright 2007 The Deal, L.L.C.









Document Number: 648
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                            September 28, 2007 Friday
 Sigma-Aldrich invests in biotech Unit of the St. Louis-based company spends $20
 million on a pair of facilities.
 BYLINE: By Rachel Melcer ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. B4
 LENGTH: 643 words
 Sigma-Aldrich Corp. is taking a $20 million leap onto the cutting edge of
 biotech drug development.
 That's how much the St. Louis-based company's custom manufacturing unit, SAFC,
 recently spent to build a pair of facilities for the extraction and purification
 of protein-based active pharmaceutical ingredients that are grown in plant and
 animal cells.
 The facilities, which opened in June, are the largest of their kind in the
 industry, the company said. They enable SAFC to make quantities of drugs
 sufficient for market sales, rather than just the small amounts needed for
 clinical trials - assuming an array of promising, but still experimental,
 biologic drugs prove effective and gain regulatory approvals.
 The facilities can be used to extract therapeutic protein compounds from plants
 and animals, whether they were added through genetic modifications, or are
 naturally occurring.
 "This is still early technology," said Tom Gelineau, director of new business
 development. "Until you get products on the market, it's still science."
 SAFC is positioning itself to help, he said. Both cash-strapped biotech firms
 and big pharmaceutical companies can contract for manufacturing in SAFC's new
 facilities, rather than build their own. They also can draw on Sigma's years of
 experience in handling and producing biologic active ingredients - injectable,
 protein-based drugs such as insulin and human growth hormone.
 Demand for such services is increasing, said SAFC President Frank Wicks in a
 statement.
 Already, the facilities have led to "tens of millions" of dollars in sales,
 Gelineau said. SAFC is working with biotech drug makers, some of which he
 declined to identify, to develop an array of innovative products:
 oA protein, extracted from human blood, that is given to patients receiving stem
 cell therapies. This protein blocks processes in the pancreas and liver that
 would otherwise filter out the stem cells before they reach their target site.
 oTrypZean, an insulin grown in genetically modified corn.
 oVaccines for allergies to common plants such as ragweed and grass, made by
 extracting and purifying antigens that naturally occur in these plants.
 Gelineau said SAFC also is negotiating with Framingham, Mass.-based GTC
 Biotherapeutics Inc., a biotech company that developed ATryn, an anti-clotting
 agent produced in the milk of genetically modified goats. ATryn has been
 approved for use by the European Commission and is in late-stage human clinical
 trials in the United States.
 The technologies used to create some of these drugs - genetically modifying
 plants and animals - is controversial. Opponents fear plant-based proteins will
 find their way into the food supply through cross-pollination or post-harvest
 handling mistakes. Similar fears surround the use of animals and their milk to
 make drugs.
 But the technology could dramatically decrease the production cost of biologic
 drugs, which now are grown using expensive and labor-intensive mechanical
 equipment. Many patients cannot afford life-saving treatments that can cost
 thousands of dollars per dose.
 "If we show we can make drugs cheap enough for everyone, you'll see consumer
 opinion turn" toward the technology, Gelineau said. "Because then you'll be
 saving lives."
 The facilities are a relatively small part of Sigma-Aldrich, which had $1
 billion in sales in the first half of this year. But they help the company to
 round out its offerings to pharmaceutical industry customers - biotech startups
 as well as drug makers that have purchased Sigma-Aldrich's chemistry expertise
 and products for decades, Gelineau said.
 "Now we can go in to any drug maker and there's almost always something of value
 that we can offer. We've really broadened our portfolio," he said. "We're always
 looking for the next technology that's coming ... and we expect to bring
 (others) on board in the next few years."
 BIOTECH; FACILITY; COST; MULTIPLE; SigmaAldrich
 LOAD-DATE: September 28, 2007
 NOTES:  Innovation
  PHOTO - Supervisor Damon Talley does quality control testing at SAFC,
 Sigma-Aldrich Corp.'s custom manufacturing unit. Photo courtesy Sigma Aldrich
 Corp.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2007 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 649
 
                     Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock)
                           September 27, 2007 Thursday
 Rice tests find no transgenic traces
 LENGTH: 855 words
 Early test results reveal no traces of genetically engineered rice in this
 year's U.S. long-grain rice crop, according to the USA Rice Federation.
 More than 13 months after the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that an
 unapproved, transgenic rice had been detected in U.S. long-grain rice supplies,
 the industry trade group on Wednesday reported preliminary findings about this
 year's crop.
 "We've taken a lot of actions as an industry to restore our competitiveness and
 marketability of long-grain rice, and we're beginning to see some positive
 results," said Senior Vice President Bob Cummings. "We're getting some very
 positive and favorable results from our testing of the 2007 long-grain crop," he
 said.
 The federation has estimated that about 50 percent of all U.S. long-grain rice
 exports were negatively affected as a result of contamination by several Bayer
 CropScience LibertyLink varieties. "That ranges from the Europeans, where we
 lost that market [of 275,000-300,000 tons annually], to countries like Iraq or
 Japan, where we're having to test, which incurs additional expenses," Cummings
 said.
 Test results thus far from Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas indicate that mandatory
 seed-testing programs have been effective in purging LibertyLink traits from
 this year's long-grain rice crop, Cummings said. Arkansas took the lead by
 banning the 2007 planting of two rice varieties that had tested positive for the
 "adventitious presence," or unintentional commingling, of trace amounts of the
 protein that makes LibertyLink rice varieties resistant to the herbicide
 Liberty, also known as glufosinate.
 As of Sunday, an estimated 58 percent of Arkansas' rice crop had been harvested,
 according to USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service. The state is
 expected to harvest 1,325,000 acres of rice this year, approximately 89 percent
 of it long-grain and 11 percent medium-grain.
 Rice was Arkansas' most valuable crop in 2006, worth $892 million. The state
 produces almost half of all U.S. rice, and about half of all U.S. rice is
 exported.
 Almost all U.S. long-grain rice is produced in five Southern states - Arkansas,
 Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas - while California produces almost
 exclusively medium- and short-grain rice.
 Testing results like those announced Wednesday should help the United States
 resume exports of long-grain rice to the 27 member nations of the European
 Union, which shun genetically engineered food, Cummings said.
 "We were just over in Europe last week, talking to the Europeans about our
 efforts to meet their regulatory requirements and to meet the demands of their
 consumers for rice that does not contain LibertyLink traits, and we think we're
 making progress there," he said.
 But Al Montna, USA Rice Federation chairman and a California rice producer,
 expressed frustration with the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
 Service, which has yet to release a comprehensive investigative report
 explaining how traces of an unapproved transgenic long-grain rice entered
 commercial grain supplies.
 "The European community continually requests this information," Montna said. "We
 need the results of this investigation right away, because the European
 community's meeting Oct. 10 to open Europe for U.S. rice, most of which comes
 from Arkansas," he said.
 Some progress has been made in other export markets, Cummings said.
 On Sept. 21, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency announced the suspension of its
 program to monitor U.S. long-grain rice imports for LibertyLink traces, while
 still encouraging importers to continue testing until the end of the 2007 rice
 harvest.
 The Philippines is seeking rice purchases under the U.S. "Food for Peace"
 program, Cummings said. "We believe that LibertyLink is not an obstacle," he
 said.
 Arkansas' two major rice milling cooperatives - Riceland Foods Inc. and
 Producers Rice Mill Inc. - "are testing every bit of green rice that comes into
 their receiving points," Cummings said.
 "The laboratories are issuing certificates to the mills ... those certificates
 are being forwarded to the rice federation, and we're collating that
 information," Cummings said. "As of earlier this week, we had gotten test
 results on about 960,000 metric tons of green rice ... and all of those test
 results are coming back negative, that is, showing no presence of LibertyLink,"
 he said. "Our expectation is that that will go on." The United States is
 expected to produce about 6.3 million metric tons of long-grain rice this year,
 so the test results to date represent about 15 percent of the anticipated crop.
 "We're confident, particularly when we're looking at the European market, that
 we will have tested well above 50 percent, probably above 75 percent, of the
 rough rice that's going to eventually make its way to Europe," Cummings said.
 Many smaller mills, like Cormier Rice Milling Co. Inc. in DeWitt, export very
 little rice, so their testing is far less comprehensive.
 "We're not doing extensive testing," Cormier plant manager Larry Thompson said,
 because the mill only exports rice to Canada about four times a year.
 This article was published 09/27/2007
 LOAD-DATE: September 27, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2007 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 650
 
                 The Berkshire Eagle (Pittsfield, Massachusetts)
                            September 25, 2007 Tuesday
 Author to give omnivore lecture
 BYLINE: Community
 LENGTH: 308 words
 WILLIAMSTOWN -- Author Michael Pollan will deliver a free lecture, "The
 Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals," on Thursday, Oct. 11, at 8
 p.m. on the main stage of the Williams College '62 Center.
 A book signing will follow.
 Pollan, the Knight professor of journalism at the University of California,
 Berkeley, where he directs the Knight Program in Science and Environmental
 Journalism, will discuss the ways in which Americans produce their food and make
 their meals and the twin dilemmas of food production and consumption, the
 subjects of his 2006 best-selling book.
 The New York Times best-selling "Omnivore's Dilemma" has earned many honors
 since it was published in 2006. One of the 10 best books of 2006, according to
 The New York Times and The Washington Post, it won the California Book Award,
 the Northern California Book Award and the James Beard Award for best food
 writing. It was also a finalist for the National Book Critics' Circle Award.
 Pollan has written extensively on the places where the human and natural worlds
 meet, focusing on food, agriculture, gardens, drugs and architecture. "The
 Botany of Desire: A Plant's-Eye View of the World" was a New York Times best
 seller. This year, his articles "Unhappy Meals" and "You Are What You Grow" were
 published in the New York Times Magazine, where he has been a contributing
 editor since 1987.
 The Class of 1960 Scholars Program in Environmental Studies sponsors this and
 other lectures that address environmental topics.
 In conjunction with Pollan's lecture, the college will screen Deborah Koons
 Garcia's film, "The Future of Food," on Sunday, Oct. 7, at 3 p.m. in the Paresky
 Performance Space. The film investigates the production methods of the
 unlabeled, patented and genetically modified foods that have made their way into
 America's pantries.
 Published Sept. 25, 2007
 LOAD-DATE: September 25, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
    Copyright 2007 MediaNews Group, Inc. and New England Newspaper Group Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 651
 
                                 University Wire
                            September 25, 2007 Tuesday
 Agriculture firm genetically engineers resilient corn
 BYLINE: By Kayla Kelley, The Daily Iowan; SOURCE: U. Iowa
 LENGTH: 620 words
 DATELINE: IOWA CITY, Iowa
 Genetically engineered corn will gain five more genes to become SmartStaxTM, a
 new corn hybrid made up of eight genes to protect crops.
 Monsanto Co., an agricultural giant, and Dow AgroSciences will work together to
 create the new breed of corn by combining their marketed traits.
 Garry Hamlin, a Dow AgroSciences LLC spokesman, said the companies have not yet
 decided the price of the product, which should hit the market in 2010.
 "We have had corn plants in the lab to make sure they work," he said. "[The
 project] has been in development for more than a year."
 The two companies have had an ongoing, competitive relationship that has
 resulted in legal issues, he said.
 After those issues were resolved, around two years ago, Hamlin said, the
 partnership between Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences just "made sense" because of
 their importance in the corn industry. Monsanto controls 40 percent of the corn
 market, Dow AgroSciences 3 percent.
 Dow AgroSciences will benefit from the partnership because his company will sell
 more of the crop with Monsanto's name attached, Hamlin.
 Current genetically engineered corn hybrids on the market only contain three
 stacked genes. Hamlin said one obstacle that corn-growers face is that plants
 become herbicide-resistant.
 With the new eight-stacked genes, the culprits will most likely not be resistant
 to both kinds of herbicides.
 Hamlin said that Monsanto's traits control European corn borers and corn
 earworm, while Herculex, Dow AgroSciences' insecticide, fights the Western bean
 cutworm and the black cutworm.
 SmartStaxTM will protect corn in three areas: above-ground insect control,
 below-ground insect control, and weed control.
 But one local woman said she feels this move could have serious consequences.
 Theresa Carbrey, the education and member services coordinator for the New
 Pioneer Food Co-op, 22 S. Van Buren St., said the production of the new corn
 risks losing the international market, creating super weeds with the power to
 resist herbicides, and causing health problems.
 "If it is a mistake, there is no retrieving it," she said.
 Still, the demand for corn is growing with demand for ethanol, said Rodney
 Williamson, the director of research and development for the Iowa Corn Growers
 Association.
 "Biotechnology has played a significant role so far to protect against insects
 that damage the crop," he said.
 Williamson said that insects have caused farmers to lose up to 60 bushels per
 acre of their harvest in the past.
 Darrel McAlexander, who has farmed near Sidney, Iowa, for approximately 41
 years, said he is starting to see insect pressure to use new technology in his
 yellow corn crop.
 He said he uses herbicides, but he may look into using Herculex in the future to
 alleviate this problem. His crop is mostly made up of white corn for the flour
 and tortilla market, so he doesn't use the genetically engineered corn for that
 type, but still feels that this is a positive move for the corn market.
 "The new technology will be more tools in our toolbox to produce more corn," he
 said.
 As for using the new variety of corn, McAlexander said he will do so on one
 condition.
 "I will use the eight-stacked genes if it has full Japanese approval, so I know
 if it has a market," he said, noting that Japan is the No. 1 buyer of Iowa corn.
 Besides Japan, Hamlin said Korea and Taiwan are the other top importers of corn.
 The companies will have to receive international approval before they are able
 to market the new corn to these countries.
 Still, Williamson feels that this is a step in the right direction and will help
 future corn growers.
 "There is a lot of opportunity to increase crops and benefit the farmer
 somewhere down the road," he said.
 (C) 2007 The Daily Iowan via U-WIRE
 LOAD-DATE: September 25, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2007 The Daily Iowan via U-Wire









Document Number: 652
 
                     Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock)
                            September 21, 2007 Friday
 Destructive mite found in Arkansas rice crops
 LENGTH: 533 words
 The presence of a rice pest new to Arkansas has been confirmed, members of the
 state Plant Board learned Thursday.
 Terry Walker, director of the board's plant industry division, said the panicle
 rice mite, Steneotarsonemus spinki Smiley, has been confirmed near Stuttgart -
 in the greenhouses of the Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center and in two
 breeder seed fields at the University of Arkansas' Rice Research and Extension
 Center. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has quarantined the greenhouses, said
 Anna McClung, director of the Dale Bumpers center.
 "It's an evolving story just how we will manage this pest," McClung said.
 The university, meanwhile, intends to abandon the infested rice fields, rice
 breeder Karen Moldenhauer said.
 The mite was confirmed in late July at RiceTec Inc.'s facilities in Alvin,
 Texas, and has since been reported in Louisiana, New York and Ohio. The tropical
 pest has caused yield losses from 5 percent to 90 percent in the rice-growing
 regions of Asia. During the past decade, the mite has established itself in the
 Caribbean and Central America. The extent of damage that the microscopic pest
 might cause in Arkansas' temperate climate is unclear, because the invasive
 species is unlikely to be able to winter here.
 Walker said the Plant Board is working with the USDA Animal and Plant Health
 Inspection Service to take plant samples and test for further evidence of the
 mite in Arkansas.
 In other business, after a public hearing on the matter, Plant Board members
 voted unanimously to update Arkansas' noxious weed list, correcting the
 scientific name of "curly indigo" to Aeschynomene indica and adding the tropical
 soda apple or Solanum viarum.
 Plant Board members voted unanimously to schedule a Dec. 18 public hearing to
 consider a proposed increase in the annual pesticide registration fee from $150
 per product to $200 in 2008 and $250 in 2009 and thereafter. The board will vote
 on the fee increase, which would apply to approximately 11,000 products
 annually, after the public hearing. The board also voted unanimously to schedule
 a Dec. 18 public hearing to consider updating Arkansas' seed regulations to
 require all rice seed used for planting in 2008 in Arkansas be tested before
 April 1, 2008. The testing would be a continuation of the nationwide effort
 begun this year to rid the U.S. rice industry of traces of genetically
 engineered rice. Any seed that fails such testing must either be destroyed or
 properly identified as containing transgenic characteristics and then sold as
 grain. The board will vote on the updated regulations after the public hearing.
 The board approved settlement agreements with five aerial applicators who
 allegedly sprayed 2,4-D in 2006 without keeping proper records. The five
 companies and their fines are as follows: Craft Flying Service of Weiner,
 $2,500; Burnette Flying Service of Hickory Ridge, $2,000; AAC Flying Service of
 Alicia, $300; C&C Flying Service of Weiner, $300; and Forrest Flying Service of
 Cash, $300.
 The Plant Board's officers - chairman George Tidwell, vice chairman Donna
 Pittman-King and secretary Otis Howe - were re-elected to serve for the coming
 year.
 This article was published 09/21/2007
 LOAD-DATE: September 21, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2007 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 653
 
                            September 14, 2007 Friday
 SECTION: WHAT'S HAPPENING; Pg. 6
 LENGTH: 753 words
 Pauline Kael once famously described this 1953 tragic romance in one word -
 "perfection" - and a poll of international film critics in the '80s voted it the
 15th greatest film of all time. Directed by Max Ophuls and set in Parisian high
 society of the Belle Epoque, it's the round-robin story of a pair of earrings
 pawned by a shallow countess (Danielle Darrieux) to pay a gambling debt, only to
 be redeemed by her unknowing husband (Charles Boyer), who gives them to his
 mistress (Lia de Lea), who sells them to an Italian diplomat (Vittorio De Sica),
 who gives them to his lover, their original owner - thus revealing her
 infidelity to the husband. But this breezy, coincidence-heavy plot line gives
 little hint of the film's thrilling camerawork, its sensuous re-creation of a
 lost world, its ensemble of nuanced movie-star performances or its poignant
 evocation of how a woman can be both ennobled and destroyed by the inexorable
 force of passion. (William Arnold)
 At the SIFF Cinema through Thursday. 105 minutes. In French with English
 subtitles. Unrated.
 Director Lynn Hershman Leeson, herself an artist, brings an insider's
 perspective to this real-life horror story. Conceptual artist Steve Kurtz,
 working on an exhibit about genetically modified foods, is accused of
 bioterrorism after a legal and easily obtainable bacteria is found in the
 artist's house during a routine investigation of his wife's death. Filmed in the
 midst of the experience, the work is without resolution, with Kurtz still
 awaiting trial two years after his arrest. His case is a chilling example of how
 an average person's liberties can be curtailed in the era of the Patriot Act. It
 also shows how the country's cultural institutions are put at risk when faced
 with an FBI that knows nothing of the art world. Leeson adds a layer of social
 satire to the film by using newspaper cartoons to show the way the media
 followed the case. She also does an excellent job with actors Thomas Jay Ryan
 and Tilda Swinton as Steve and Hope Kurtz in the dramatized segments, which are
 seamlessly blended with the documentary footage. Longtime avant-garde musicians
 The Residents turn in a subtle yet creepy score. (Bill White)
 Grade B
 At the Northwest Film Forum today through Wednesday. 75 minutes. Unrated
 Of the 90 kids at Wisconsin's Swift Nature Camp, directors Bradley Beesley
 ("Fearless Freaks") and Sarah Price ("American Movie") find their two extremes
 in Cameron, an overweight outcast who cries for mommy each night, and Holly, a
 sweet introvert who has withdrawn into a world of chickadee appreciation after
 the death of her father. When not focusing on these personalities, their
 documentary fights a losing battle to be hip. Even The Flaming Lips' quirky
 songs fail to impose any irony upon the random activities of a summer camp. For
 those who enjoyed the camping experience as a youth, the movie, with its
 marshmallow roasts, canoe rides and talent shows, offers a bit of nostalgia.
 Others may find the whole thing a little pointless. Some of the more interesting
 bits, including a boy who gets a hook in his eye while fishing, aren't given
 enough screen time. There is also a briefly interesting discussion on the
 medication of troubled kids (can an 8-year-old be diagnosed as bipolar?).
 Mostly, though, "Summercamp!" shows us a bunch of clumsy kids, caught between
 the dewy dawns and pretty sunsets, trying to find their place in a temporary
 social system. (Bill White)
 Grade C+
 At the Northwest Film Forum today through Thursday. 85 minutes. Unrated.
 Sketch-comedy actors and high school teachers Mike Akel and Chris Mass combine
 their careers for this latest addition to the rapidly growing mockumentary
 genre, a comic portrait of three young teachers and a newly promoted assistant
 principal through a year at an anonymous high school. Their best intentions are
 better realized than their filmmaking ambitions. Their affection for their
 characters, even Mass' self-absorbed history teacher campaigning for "Teacher of
 the Year" (he cautions students to "try not to know as much as me"), is
 unforced. But behind even the most comic figure is a person who wants to
 connect, to get through to students, to make a difference before the bell rings.
 Under the awkward humor and haphazard filmmaking is an illustration of just how
 hard, important and undervalued teaching really is. (Sean Axmaker)
 Grade: C+
 At Varsity today through Thursday. 85 minutes. PG-13 for some language.
 LOAD-DATE: September 15, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer









Document Number: 654
 
                      Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania)
                           September 13, 2007 Thursday
 SECTION: ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT; FILM REVIEW; Pg. W-39
 LENGTH: 573 words
 One day in May 2004 Steve Kurtz, associate professor of art at SUNY/Buffalo and
 founding member of the activist artist collective Critical Art Ensemble, stepped
 through the wrong door and entered a parallel universe.
 He wasn't aware of that when he awakened May 11 and found that his wife, Hope,
 had died in her sleep.
 He wasn't aware of it when, torn with grief and shock, he called 9-1-1.
 He didn't even become aware of it when the responders to his call noticed
 biological materials in his house -- part of an art project addressing
 genetically modified food scheduled to open within days at the Massachusetts
 Museum of Contemporary Art -- and called the FBI, suspecting bioterrorism. Nor
 when a HazMat team arrived and, in full gear, searched his house and impounded
 his research materials, books, computers, cat and Hope's body.
 Though life had certainly taken a surreal turn, Kurtz did understand the
 jumpiness of a post-9/11 world and the concern of authorities unfamiliar with
 commonplace contemporary art practices. But he was confident that they'd soon
 realize that he was no threat.
 That things weren't square began to enter his mind when, as he left the house to
 make funeral arrangements for Hope, six cars occupied by FBI agents swooped down
 on him and took him to a hotel room where he was confined for 22 hours.
 "Strange Culture," a film written and directed by Lynn Hershman Leeson
 ("Conceiving Ada," "Teknolust") that premiered at the 2007 Sundance Film
 Festival and begins a run at Pittsburgh Filmmakers' Regent Square Theater
 Sunday, tells Kurtz's story to date in a style that's part documentary, part art
 film.
 It could be labeled over-the-top fiction by a paranoid filmmaker obsessed with
 potential abuse of government power -- except that it happened.
 Kurtz, a former CMU professor, is far from the end of the tunnel. A trial date
 has yet to be set for him and longtime collaborator and codefendant Robert
 Ferrell, former chairman of the Genetics Department at the University of
 Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health. Lacking evidence of terrorist
 activity, they have instead been charged with two counts of wire fraud and two
 counts of mail fraud, which carry a potential sentence of 20 years.
 Kurtz, incredulous, explains that he's a pretty average American. He grew up in
 the suburbs, his mother a homemaker and his father a DuPont executive.
 These things don't happen.
 Or do they?
 Hershman Leeson commendably captures the story's collision of reality and
 nightmare through a mix of news footage, interviews, animation and, most
 brilliantly, actors who play Hope (Tilda Swinton) and Steve Kurtz (Thomas Jay
 Ryan). Aside from blurring the line between actual and fanciful, actor Steve is
 able to dramatize details of the case that professor Steve is not allowed to
 discuss publicly. Kurtz also plays himself.
 At one time, I'd have resigned myself to the thought that the film's
 academic/indie filmmaker tone would restrict its venues and audience. But with
 the success of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," there is hope that "Strange
 Culture" will find distribution to the broad public that should be made aware of
 not only Kurtz's dilemma but implications for the art, scientific and research
 communities at large.
 "Strange Culture" opens Friday at Regent Square.
 'Strange Culture'
 Critic's call: * * * 1/2
 Featuring: Thomas Jay Ryan; Tilda Swinton, Peter Coyote, Steve Kurtz.
 Director: Lynn Hershman-Leeson.
 Rating: Unrated.
 LOAD-DATE: September 15, 2007
 NOTES: WEEKEND MAG/ Post-Gazette art critic Mary Thomas may be reached at
 mthomas@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1925.
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Tilda Swinton plays the late Hope Kurtz in the film "Strange
 Culture."
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2007 P.G. Publishing Co.









Document Number: 655
 
                                  Seattle Weekly
                           September 12, 2007 Wednesday
 Strange Culture: WMDs Found in Artist's Attic
 BYLINE: Brian Miller
 LENGTH: 228  words
 If art can be made of piss, poop, and blood, why not DNA? At least that was the
 impulse of Buffalo artist/professor Steve Kurtz back in 2004, when he bought
 some benign bacterium over the Internet for a show intended to critique
 genetically modified foodstuffs.
 Before he could complete his project, however, his wife died in her sleep of a
 heart attack. The cops called the feds when they discovered Kurtz's home
 laboratory, and soon he was arrested, interrogated, and held without a warrant.
 (To date, his federal case is still pending; the bioterror charges having been
 reduced to wire fraud for the bacterium purchase.) Kurtz and his ordeal have
 already been well documented in the press, and director Lynn Hershman Leeson
 relies heavily on prior reporting (including Keith Olbermann on MSNBC). She also
 borrows extensively-with hardly any attribution-from a comic by Timothy Stock
 and Warren Heise in the anthology Suspect. What's new here? Not very much.
 Hershman Leeson deploys art-crit mumbo jumbo like "biological discourse,"
 doubles the documentary subjects with actors (chiefly Thomas J. Ryan and Tilda
 Swinton), and even frames them in mirrors. Self-reflexive! Kurtz himself,
 friends, and supporters take the usual shots at Bush and the Patriot Act, but
 their complaints-like the whole of Hershman Leeson's stale enterprise-feel
 locked inside a petri dish.
 LOAD-DATE: September 13, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: sew
                        Copyright 2007 Seattle Weekly LLC
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 656
 
                            Bangor Daily News (Maine)
                            September 8, 2007 Saturday
                               Correction Appended
                                   All Editions
 Board receives Bt corn proposal;
 Consumption focus of debate
 SECTION: Pg. B1
 LENGTH: 810 words
 Members of the Board of Pesticides Control spent much of Friday struggling with
 creating regulations to follow up their decision in July to allow Maine farmers
 to grow certain varieties of Bt corn, a genetically modified corn used to feed
 cows.
 Maine previously was the only state in the country that did not allow Bt corn,
 which is considered by the board, but not the federal government, to be a
 pesticide.
 Bt, or Bacillus thuringiensis, corn is genetically engineered to produce
 pesticidal proteins from the naturally occurring soil-borne Bt bacteria that
 kill certain insects.
 The board grappled Friday with definitions and requirements for training and
 registration, an exercise that has become more urgent with the recent
 application to the BPC by Syngenta Crop Protection Corp. to sell Bt corn seed to
 be grown in Maine for human consumption.
 "Bt sweet corn is being used in other states and already consumed in this
 state," board member Thomas Qualey said.
 "It would be incredibly naive of us to believe that when we go to Hannaford or
 Shaw's and buy sweet corn from November to June that it is not this product,"
 agronomist Lauchlin Titus commented from the audience. He also noted that Bt
 sweet corn grown throughout the Midwest is used in creating corn syrup, which is
 widely found in products ranging from sugar to salad dressings to processed
 lunch meat.
 This new application by Syngenta, however, is the first to seek permission to
 grow such corn in Maine for humans.
 BPC Chairman Carol Eckert, M.D., said that the issue of approving the sale or
 growth of genetically modified corn for human consumption is different from the
 feed corn approval.
 "People grow corn in their backyards," she said. "The numbers are so much larger
 that need protection."
 Farmers, particularly those conforming to organic standards, are concerned about
 pollen drift from genetically engineered crops affecting their own crops.
 Maine dairy farmers sought to remove the ban on Bt corn so they could better
 compete with farmers across the country who can grow the modified feed corn for
 their cows less expensively. The Maine farmers said they could save money and
 the environment by eliminating pesticide spraying and growing bigger,
 disease-free crops.
 After corn is genetically engineered to produce the pesticidal proteins, in
 essence, the plant growing from the seed becomes a pesticide factory. As such,
 the state Board of Pesticides Control determined that since the DNA of the corn
 cannot be separated from the seed, the corn seed would be considered a
 pesticide.
 Some in attendance Friday, including Russ Libby and C.R. Lawn of the Maine
 Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association and Logan Perkins of Protect Maine
 Farmers, watched the proceedings closely.
 In a break in discussions, Libby said the Legislature already has allowed more
 genetically engineered crops to enter Maine's food stream by failing to approve
 a labeling law. Such a law would require product labels to indicate when any
 food sold for human consumption has been genetically modified.
 "This all goes back to the failure of the Maine Legislature to ask people what
 is in their food," he said. "They had the opportunity five times and refused to
 act each time. People are eating GE-altered sweet corn right now and have no
 idea."
 Much of the BPC's discussion Friday centered on education and training for Bt
 farmers and dealers.
 One of the board members also pointed out that though the board voted at its
 July meeting to allow farmers to grow Bt feed corn in 2007, the approval came
 too late for its use in the current planting season.
 "Should we be dissatisfied with our ability to regulate farmer training, we
 could conceivably refuse to permit [Bt] in 2008," board member Daniel Simonds
 noted.
 After several hours of conversation, the BPC also agreed to have toxicologist
 LaBelle Hicks conduct research on the Bt sweet corn and bring recommendations
 back to the next board meeting.
 Board members felt it was critical to get some use regulations in place before
 the 2008 planting season. Since farmers generally purchase their seed late in
 the year, that puts a deadline just a few months away.
 Ned Porter, deputy commissioner of agriculture, questioned how much overlap was
 going on between the board and a task force appointed by the state's Committee
 on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry to develop seed regulations. The task
 force was created after the committee's decision to carry over a bill that would
 have dealt with the integrity of seed crops.
 Porter said that bill must be handled by the committee by Dec. 10 and the task
 force will begin meeting next week.
 Members of the BPC felt the two groups could work parallel in creating
 regulations - with the BPC focusing on Bt seed and the task force dealing with
 all seed - and asked that Porter keep them updated about the task force's
 recommendations.
 LOAD-DATE: October 1, 2007
 CORRECTION-DATE: October 1, 2007
 CORRECTION:A story on discussions of the Maine Board of Pesticides Control that
 appeared in the State Section on Sept. 8 indicated that two new applications for
 the sale of Bt genetically-engineered corn seeds had been received by the board
 and that one was for a corn to be used for human consumption. According to Paul
 Schlein, spokesman for the MBPC, the application for corn for human consumption
 has not been formally filed. The company making the inquiries, Syngenta Crop
 Protection Corp., has filed a formal request to sell Bt corn for cow
 consumption.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                         Copyright 2007 Bangor Daily News









Document Number: 657
 
                      The Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin)
                            September 4, 2007 Tuesday
 BYLINE: Mike Ivey
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. A8
 LENGTH: 695 words
 A decade ago, any development regarding Monsanto Corp. and its milk-boosting
 synthetic hormone BGH would have made headlines all across the dairy state.
 But a ruling by federal regulators last week against the agricultural products
 giant barely made the business pages.
 For those who missed it, the Federal Trade Commission turned down a request from
 Monsanto to stop dairy companies from advertising their milk as free of
 synthetic hormones.
 The genetically-engineered hormone, technically known as recombinant bovine
 somatotropin or rBST, had created a firestorm around Wisconsin and the State
 Capitol in the early 1990s.
 A cause-minded state senator named Russ Feingold of Middleton had pushed for
 requiring mandatory labels on dairy products from cows injected with the
 hormone. The idea was to protect Wisconsin's family farmers and consumers from a
 then-unknown product, sort of like the fight against oleo margarine here in the
 1960s.
 Monsanto, seeing Wisconsin as a battleground state for rollout of its
 genetically engineered hormone that triggered cattle to produce up to 10 percent
 more milk, worked overtime to block the effort.
 Then Gov. Tommy Thompson was wise enough to stay on the sidelines, saying it was
 a national issue that needed to be settled by the feds.
 Both politicians have since moved on and rBST has largely disappeared as an
 issue in a state where some 14,000 dairy farms of all shapes and sizes remain in
 operation.
 But St. Louis-based Monsanto, which markets the hormone under the brand name
 Posilac, has continued to push the FTC to investigate companies that advertise
 their milk as free of synthetic hormones.
 One ad from national dairy leader Borden says: "We work exclusively with farmers
 that supply 100 percent of our milk from cows that haven't been treated with
 artificial hormones. So, who do you trust when it comes to your family's milk?"
 Monsanto has claimed those types of ads mislead consumers into thinking that
 milk from cows not treated with rBST is healthier or safer than dairy products
 from cows treated with the hormone. Indeed, it's impossible to tell the
 difference in chemical testing.
 But the FTC said Borden's ad and other dairy ads were fair since they did not
 claim milk from cows injected with Posilac was unsafe. Mark Kastel of the
 Cornucopia Institute, an organic foods advocate who was active in the initial
 rBST fight in Wisconsin, said he was absolutely stunned by the ruling.
 "How come some federal regulators are acting in the interest of the citizenry?"
 he quipped. "First we had the legal action against the merger between Whole
 Foods and Wild Oats and now the FTC confirming that consumers have the right to
 intelligently choose their food products. What gives?"
 All sarcasm aside, the decision against Monsanto comes as Starbucks coffee said
 it would stop using the milk from cows treated with rBST.
 The developments leave one wondering about the future of Posilac, which is
 already banned in Europe and Canada in part over opposition to genetically
 modified foods and fears it leaves dairy cows more prone to illness.
 The issue has died down in the U.S. largely because food producers have been
 responding to consumer concerns about the purity of milk. Witness the growth of
 operations like Organic Valley in La Farge. Even mainstream grocery chains like
 Safeway and Kroger Co., have also switched to milk free of synthetic hormones.
 Monsanto officials maintain the issue all along has been "accuracy in labeling"
 but have admitted that pressure from retailers for milk free of synthetic
 hormones could limit long-term demand for Posilac.
 But the company isn't shedding too many tears over the FTC milk ruling.
 Investors remain bullish, with shares of Monsanto (MON) trading near their
 52-week high of $70. The company had a gross profit of some $3.5 billion last
 year.
 And late last week, regulators in Argentina OK'd use of Monsanto's genetically
 modified seed corn that contains both an insect protection trait and an
 herbicide resistant trait.
 In other words, Monsanto won't be backing down from its effort to market
 genetically engineered products worldwide as long as there is money to be made.
 mivey@madison.com
 LOAD-DATE: September 5, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                     Copyright 2007 Madison Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 658
 
                            Investor's Business Daily
                            September 4, 2007 Tuesday
 SECTION: TO THE POINT; BUSINESS BRIEFS; Pg. A02
 LENGTH: 258 words
 Barclays funds troubled vehicle
 Britain's No. 3 bank said it injected $1.6 bil into an investment vehicle after
 it was unable to raise the money in the credit markets. Meanwhile, published
 reports said Barclays borrowed $3.2 bil in the past 2 weeks from the emergency
 fund of Bank of England. The bank blamed a widely reported breakdown in the
 banking clearance system and dismissed concerns of deeper financial trouble.
 Barclays rose 4% to 49.60.
 S&P exec ousted on credit woes
 McGraw-Hill, the parent of Standard & Poor's, replaced the president of S&P's
 credit rating agency amid increasing criticism that S&P failed to rate subprime
 loans as high-risk. Deven Sharma was named to replace Kathleen Corbet, who is
 stepping down. Earlier this month, the Senate Banking Committee called for an
 examination of the credit rating agencies' role in valuing the subprime mortgage
 securities market. Shares of McGraw-Hill, which also owns BusinessWeek, edged up
 0.4% to 50.46.
 Court order blocks Bayer's rice
 The chemical and pharmaceutical giant has had its application to bring
 genetically modified rice into the Philippines put on hold by a court order. The
 decision cites possible health and environmental hazards with Bayer's rice. The
 court set a Sept. 14 hearing for the preliminary injunction on the staple food.
 Shares rose 2.3% to 79.05.
 ** Monsanto said that Argentine regulators have approved a genetically modified
 corn product that contains both an insect-protection trait and an
 herbicide-resistant trait. Shares rose 1.3% to 69.74.
 LOAD-DATE: August 31, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2007 Investor's Business Daily, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 659
 
                            Investor's Business Daily
                            September 4, 2007 Tuesday
 China Feeds Growth At This Firm
 SECTION: HEALTH & MEDICINE; UNDER THE MICROSCOPE; Pg. A08
 LENGTH: 509 words
 Neogen Corp.
 Lansing, Mich.
 neogen.com
 Concern about the safety of Chinese food exports has focused a spotlight on
 Neogen. It develops and sells tests to detect and diagnose bacteria and toxins
 in food for both humans and animals.
 Food safety has been a particular problem in China. Officials there recently
 said the country will spend more than $1 billion to improve food and drug safety
 by 2010. Five pesticides were banned earlier this year, and the Agriculture
 Ministry reportedly is compiling a blacklist of companies still making them.
 Neogen plans to mine the nascent market in China, says Lon Bohannon, the
 company's president. He makes three trips a year to China.
 "If the Chinese want to be exporters, with the kind of media attention they've
 had recently, there's no question of their need for testing," Bohannon said.
 Neogen produces some products in China, but annual sales there are less than $1
 million. U.S. inspectors reject more products from India and Mexico, Bohannon
 says.
 The fastest growth in Neogen's business comes from overseas. International sales
 have risen from 20% of the total in 2003 to 38% today.
 "We'd like to think we can get to 50% of revenues," Bohannon said.
 Europe is the most fertile soil. Food safety regulations there are more numerous
 than in the U.S.
 "They test for things we don't, like genetically modified food," said analyst
 Anton Brenner of Roth Capital Partners, which does business with Neogen. "That's
 a bigger deal in Europe than in the U.S."
 Neogen posted sales of $86 million for fiscal 2007, which ended in May. That was
 up 19% from the prior year and marked the seventh straight year of double-digit
 growth. Profit moved up 5% to 97 cents a share. Thomson Financial analysts
 expect profit to grow 20% this fiscal year and 22% in fiscal 2009.
 The company is debt-free and has $13 million in cash.
 When Neogen was founded in 1982 only 20 countries had official food safety
 standards. Now 100 maintain standards, Bohannon says.
 In addition to tests for food contaminants, Neogen has tests for contaminants in
 food-processing equipment. It has no competition across its entire product line
 of products, Brenner says.
 "I'm not aware of any testing company as diverse and broad," he said.
 Neogen is ready to make more acquisitions to expand its range, Bohannon says. In
 2005, it bought the dairy antibiotic testing unit of Belgian UCB. A year later,
 it moved the operation from Barcelona, Spain, to Lansing, Mich. Sales of that
 unit have already grown from a pretakeover $8.5 million to $10 million.
 Neogen's clients include the biggest food producers in the world, Bohannon says.
 He named Kraft, Nestle, Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill.
 Pharmaceutical firms and wine makers also are clients.
 Neogen should get more business with the introduction of new Food and Drug
 Administration regulations for diet supplements.
 Bohannon sees more sales as the U.S. tightens rules on food imports, now 13% of
 consumption. Neogen plans to grow at 20% a year, equally from new sales and
 acquisitions.
 LOAD-DATE: August 31, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2007 Investor's Business Daily, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 660
 
                                The New York Times
                             August 28, 2007 Tuesday
                               Correction Appended
                               Late Edition - Final
 Useful Mutants, Bred With Radiation
 BYLINE: By WILLIAM J. BROAD
 SECTION: Section F; Column 0; Science Desk; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 1759 words
 Pierre Lagoda pulled a small container from his pocket and spilled the contents
 onto his desk. Four tiny dice rolled to a stop.
 ''That's what nature does,'' Dr. Lagoda said. The random results of the dice, he
 explained, illustrate how spontaneous mutations create the genetic diversity
 that drives evolution and selective breeding.
 He rolled the dice again. This time, he was mimicking what he and his colleagues
 have been doing quietly around the globe for more than a half-century -- using
 radiation to scramble the genetic material in crops, a process that has produced
 valuable mutants like red grapefruit, disease-resistant cocoa and premium barley
 for Scotch whiskey.
 ''I'm doing the same thing,'' he said, still toying with the dice. ''I'm not
 doing anything different from what nature does. I'm not using anything that was
 not in the genetic material itself.''
 Dr. Lagoda, the head of plant breeding and genetics at the International Atomic
 Energy Agency, prides himself on being a good salesman. It can be a tough act,
 however, given wide public fears about the dangers of radiation and the risks of
 genetically manipulated food. His work combines both fields but has nonetheless
 managed to thrive.
 The process leaves no residual radiation or other obvious marks of human
 intervention. It simply creates offspring that exhibit new characteristics.
 Though poorly known, radiation breeding has produced thousands of useful mutants
 and a sizable fraction of the world's crops, Dr. Lagoda said, including
 varieties of rice, wheat, barley, pears, peas, cotton, peppermint, sunflowers,
 peanuts, grapefruit, sesame, bananas, cassava and sorghum. The mutant wheat is
 used for bread and pasta and the mutant barley for beer and fine whiskey.
 The mutations can improve yield, quality, taste, size and resistance to disease
 and can help plants adapt to diverse climates and conditions.
 Dr. Lagoda takes pains to distinguish the little-known radiation work from the
 contentious field of genetically modified crops, sometimes disparaged as
 ''Frankenfood.'' That practice can splice foreign genetic material into plants,
 creating exotic varieties grown widely in the United States but often feared and
 rejected in Europe. By contrast, radiation breeding has made few enemies.
 ''Spontaneous mutations are the motor of evolution,'' Dr. Lagoda said. ''We are
 mimicking nature in this. We're concentrating time and space for the breeder so
 he can do the job in his lifetime. We concentrate how often mutants appear --
 going through 10,000 to one million -- to select just the right one.''
 Radiation breeding is widely used in the developing world, thanks largely to the
 atomic agency's efforts. Beneficiaries have included Bangladesh, Brazil, China,
 Costa Rica, Egypt, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan,
 Peru, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand and Vietnam.
 Politically, the method is one of many quid pro quos the agency, an arm of the
 United Nations in Vienna, offers client states. Its own agenda is to inspect
 ostensibly peaceful atomic installations in an effort to find and deter secret
 work on nuclear weapons.
 Plant scientists say radiation breeding could play an important role in the
 future. By promoting crop flexibility, it could help feed billions of added
 mouths despite shrinking land and water, rising oil and fertilizer costs,
 increasing soil exhaustion, growing resistance of insects to pesticides and
 looming climate change. Globally, food prices are already rising fast.
 ''It's not going to solve the world food crisis,'' said J. Neil Rutger, former
 director of the Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center in Stuttgart, Ark.
 ''But it will help. Modern plant breeders are using every tool they can get.''
 The method was discovered some 80 years ago when Lewis J. Stadler of the
 University of Missouri used X-rays to zap barley seeds.  The resulting plants
 were white, yellow, pale yellow and some had white stripes -- nothing of any
 practical value.
 But the potential was clear. Soon, by exposing large numbers of seeds and young
 plants, scientists produced many more mutations and found a few hidden
 beneficial ones. Peanuts got tougher hulls. Barley, oats and wheat got better
 yields. Black currants grew.
 The process worked because the radiation had randomly mixed up the genetic
 material of the plants. The scientists could control the intensity of the
 radiation and thus the extent of the disturbance, but not the outcome. To know
 the repercussions, they had to plant the radiated material, let it grow and
 examine the results. Often, the gene scrambling killed the seeds and plants, or
 left them with odd mutations. But in a few instances, the process made
 beneficial traits.
 In the 1950s and 1960s, the United States government promoted the method as part
 of its ''atoms for peace'' program and had notable successes. In 1960, disease
 heavily damaged the bean crop in Michigan -- except for a promising new variety
 that had been made by radiation breeding. It and its offspring quickly replaced
 the old bean.
 In the early 1970s, Dr. Rutger, then in Davis, Calif., fired gamma rays at rice.
 He and his colleagues found a semi-dwarf mutant that gave much higher yields,
 partly because it produced more grain. Its short size also meant it fell over
 less often, reducing spoilage. Known as Calrose 76, it was released publicly in
 Today, Dr. Rutger said, about half the rice grown in California derives from
 this dwarf. Now retired in Woodland, Calif., he  lives just a few miles from
 where the descendants grow, he said.
 A similar story unfolded in Texas. In 1929, farmers stumbled on the Ruby Red
 grapefruit, a natural mutant. Its flesh eventually faded to pink, however, and
 scientists fired radiation to produce mutants of deeper color -- Star Ruby,
 released in 1971, and Rio Red, released in 1985. The mutant offspring now
 account for about 75 percent of all grapefruit grown in Texas.
 Though the innovations began in the United States, the method is now used mostly
 overseas, with Asia and Europe the leading regions. Experts cited two main
 reasons: domestic plant researchers over the decades have already made many,
 perhaps most of the easiest improvements that can be achieved with radiation,
 and they now focus on highly popular fields like gene splicing.
 ''Most scientists here would say it's pretty primitive,'' Norman T. Uphoff, a
 professor of government and international agriculture at Cornell University,
 said of the method. ''It's like being in a huge room with a flashlight.''
 But the flashlight is cheap, which has aided its international spread.
 Today, the process usually begins with cobalt-60, a highly radioactive material
 used in industrial radiography and medical radiotherapy. Its gamma rays, more
 energetic than X-rays, can travel many yards through the air and penetrate lead.
 Understandably, the exposure facilities for radiation breeding have layers of
 shielding. Scientists run small  machines the size of water heaters that zap
 containers full of seeds,  greenhouses that expose young plants and special
 fields that radiate row upon row of mature plants. In Japan, one circular field
 is more than 650 feet wide. A shielding dike some 28 feet high rises around its
 perimeter.
 Dr. Lagoda said a rust fungus threatened the Japanese pear, a cross between
 pears and apples. But one irradiated tree had a branch that showed resistance.
 He said the Japanese cloned it, successfully started a new crop and with the
 financial rewards ''paid for 30 years of research.''
 The payoff was even bigger in Europe, where scientists fired gamma rays at
 barley to produce Golden Promise, a mutant variety with high yields and improved
 malting. After its debut in 1967, brewers in Ireland and Britain made it into
 premium beer and whiskey. It still finds wide use.
 ''The secret,'' reads a recent advertisement for a single malt Scotch whiskey
 costing $49.99 a bottle, is ''the continued use of finest Golden Promise barley
 and the insistence on oak sherry casks from Spain.''
 The atomic agency in Vienna has promoted the method since 1964 in outreach
 programs with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, in
 Rome.
 Starting roughly a decade ago, for instance, the atomic agency helped scientists
 fight a virus that was killing cocoa trees in Ghana, which produces about 15
 percent of the world's chocolate. The virus was killing and crippling millions
 of trees.
 In the city of Accra on the Atlantic coast, at the laboratories of the Ghana
 Atomic Energy Commission, the scientists exposed cocoa plant buds to gamma rays.
 The mutants included one that endowed its offspring with better resistance to
 the killer virus.
 The scientists planted the resistant variety on 25 farms across Ghana ''with no
 evidence of a resurgence,'' M. R. Appaih, executive director of the Cocoa
 Research Institute of Ghana, told the agency.
 The atomic agency had similar success in the Peruvian Andes, where some three
 million people live on subsistence farming. The region, nearly two miles high,
 has extremely harsh weather. But nine new varieties of barley improved harvests
 to the point that farmers had surplus crops to sell.
 In 2006, Prof. Gomes Pando won the Peruvian prize for Good Government Practices
 for her work on the radiation mutants.
 In Vietnam, the agency has worked closely with local scientists to improve
 production of rice, a crop that accounts for nearly 70 percent of the public's
 food energy.
 One mutant had yields up to four times higher than its parent and grew well in
 acidic and saline soils, allowing farmers to use it in coastal regions,
 including the Mekong Delta.
 Last year, a team of 10 Vietnamese scientists wrote in an agency journal, Plant
 Mutation Reports, that the nation had sown the new varieties across more than
 one million hectares, or 3,860 square miles. The new varieties, they added,
 ''have already produced remarkable economic and social impacts, contributing to
 poverty alleviation in some provinces.''
 Dr. Lagoda said that radiation breeding, though an old technology, was
 undergoing rapid growth. New methods that speed up the identification of mutants
 are making radiation breeding even more popular, he said.
 ''Now it becomes interesting again,'' he said of the method. ''It's not a
 panacea. It's not the solution. But it's a very efficient tool that helps us
 reduce the breeding time.''
 Spreading the secret, Dr. Lagoda added as he played with his tiny dice, ''is
 very gratifying because we really, really help people.''
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: August 28, 2007
 CORRECTION-DATE: September 1, 2007
 CORRECTION:An article in Science Times on Tuesday about the use of radiation to
 produce mutations of crops misstated the properties of Japanese pears. Although
 Japanese pears have the crisp texture characteristic of apples, they are not a
 cross between apples and pears. They are pears, from the species Pyrus
 pyrifolia.
 GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: A BETTER BANANA?: Pierre Lagoda, the head of plant breeding and
 genetics at the International Atomic Energy Agency, showing mutated plants at a
 greenhouse in Austria.(PHOTOGRAPH BY HERWIG PRAMMER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES,
 ABOVE AND BELOW)(pg. F6) DRAWING (PHOTO ILLUSTRATION BY TONY CENICOLA/THE NEW
 YORK TIMES)(pg. F1)
    CHART: Here to Stay: More than 2,500 mutant crop varieties have been
 officially registered with the United Nations and the International Atomic
 Energy Agency. About three-quarters of the varieties were directly induced by
 gamma radiation. (Source: F.A.O./I.A.E.A. Mutant Variety Database) Chart shows
 various pie-charts and territories across the world. (pg. F1)
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 661
 
                                 University Wire
                             August 23, 2007 Thursday
 Red rice, obesity viruses & smart birds?
 BYLINE: By Shelby Martin, The Stanford Daily; SOURCE: Stanford
 LENGTH: 653 words
 DATELINE: STANFORD, Calif.
 "She was all over him like white on rice." We might have to update the old
 saying, because it turns out rice wasn't always white. Ten thousand years ago,
 all rice was red. Research published this week shows that white rice today takes
 its color from a mutation in a single gene in red rice. The mutation truncates a
 critical protein in the molecular pathway leading to rice's red color.
 The research suggests that early farmers selected the pale variety of rice and
 spread it all over the world. White rice cooks faster, and its hull is easier to
 pick off -- two traits that would have made it a more valuable crop than its red
 relative.
 I find this particularly relevant in the days of hysteria over genetically
 modified foods. There are certainly valid reasons to be worried about wanton
 doctoring of DNA, but it brings some perspective to the issue to realize that
 when it comes to our food, it's all been genetically modified. The standard
 "non-modified" white rice is actually a mutation spread by early farmers.
 Now for some weirder news: Could obesity be spread by a virus? Adenovirus-36 is
 a common bug that causes respiratory and eye infections in humans. Researchers
 at Louisiana State University announced this week that the virus may be causing
 more that sneezes and watery eyes: it could be accelerating the obesity
 epidemic.
 The researchers used hunks of fat sucked out of patients via liposuction, and
 isolated adult stem cells from the tissue. These powerful stem cells are capable
 of turning into bone, cartilage, fat and muscle. In this experiment, exposing
 the cells to adenovirus-36 turned them into fat cells.
 Adenovirus-36 has come under scrutiny before. Previous research showed that
 chickens and mice injected with the virus gained more weight than the control
 group. Another study found that 30 percent of obese people were infected with
 adenovirus-36, compared to 11 percent of skinny individuals.
 But there may yet be hope. In addition to demonstrating the nefariousness of
 adenovirus-36, scientists may also have uncovered a way to fight it. The same
 research group from Louisiana announced that they've found the specific gene in
 adenovirus-36 that makes infected animals fatter. According to the researchers,
 the gene could be targeted in future human therapies such as vaccines and
 antiviral medicines. A vaccine against obesity? I'm a bit skeptical, but what
 the heck. Sign me up -- and then pass me the potato chips.
 Ornithological news: Some very smart crows are proving that "bird brain" may
 actually be a compliment. New Caledonian crows look a lot like their local
 relatives, but they live only in a smattering of islands off the coast of
 Australia. In 2002, the crows impressed researchers by cleverly making tools out
 of wire, a material they don't encounter in the wild.
 Two birds, Betty and Abel, were choosing between a straight piece of wire and a
 hooked piece of wire to retrieve a small bucket of their favorite meat. When
 Abel flew off with the hooked wire, an undeterred Betty simply tweaked the
 straight wire into a hook and snatched her snack.
 It turns out the crows' talents extend even further. Researchers at the
 University of Auckland reported this week that the birds can spontaneously use
 one tool on another tool to get a snack. The awed researchers called it
 "meta-tool use."
 The crows were presented with some meat in a hole, along with a stick too short
 to reach the snack. They also got a longer stick that could access the food, but
 it was out of reach inside a box. The clever crows used the short stick to get
 the long stick out of the box, and then used the long stick to snag their tasty
 snack.
 Six out of seven birds solved the problem on their first try - evidence of true
 reasoning ability rather than simple trial and error. The crows actually do as
 well as apes in solving the problem. Not bad for a bunch of featherbrains!
 (C) 2007 The Stanford Daily via U-WIRE
 LOAD-DATE: August 23, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2007 The Stanford Daily via U-Wire









Document Number: 662
 
                            Pittsburgh Tribune Review
                              August 19, 2007 Sunday
 Politicizing science
 BYLINE: Rod Dreher
 LENGTH: 904 words
 To hear the left tell it, the so-called war on science is the only war
 Republicans have managed to wage successfully.
 From the Bush administration's suppression of data supporting global warming, to
 its opposition to federally funded embryonic stem-cell research, to the recent
 testimony of former U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona, who said of his former
 employer, "Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological,
 theological or political agenda is often ignored, marginalized or simply
 buried." Republican government has occasioned an assault on science not seen
 since Urban VII told Galileo to shut his trap.
 That's the story, anyway. Unfortunately, there's more than a kernel of truth in
 the overwrought charge. This administration has been pretty awful about twisting
 science to serve its policy goals -- though please note that after Dr. Carmona's
 Galilean cri du coeur, the libertarian writer Radley Balko showed that Dr.
 Carmona was willing to play the same game as long as science was distorted in
 ways of which he approved.
 But the slam against conservatives, however justified, is also hypocritical,
 dishonest and even dangerous.
 Liberals themselves have resisted scientific research that doesn't suit their
 own beliefs. Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish professor and renowned skeptical
 environmentalist, is treated slightly better than a heretic in Calvin's Geneva.
 The European left rejects scientific advice on genetically modified crops,
 demonizing them as "Frankenfoods."
 Before bringing up genetic or social science research that reflects negatively
 on the capabilities or performance of racial minorities, women or other human
 groupings favored by the left, you would do well to remember "The Bell Curve."
 And for decades, an avalanche of data detailing the failures of "scientific"
 socialism did little to shake the true believers in its superiority as an
 economic system.
 When liberals accuse conservatives of opposing science, what they often mean is
 that conservatives simply disagree with their policy preferences, especially in
 the matter of bioethics. President Bush's refusal to commit federal funds for
 embryonic stem-cell research was not "anti-science," but rather a move that put
 exceedingly modest limits on science.
 Does anyone other than a madman believe that science should be free to operate
 with no moral limits imposed by society? If scientific curiosity is its own
 justification, then prepare to pay your respects to Dr. Mengele.
 Raising the anti-science alarm is a tried-and-true rhetorical strategy. For one
 thing, it allows liberals to flatter themselves for their superior intellect.
 For another, positing these conflicts as a clash between the forces of reason
 and ignorance has been an effective public relations move since at least the
 Scopes monkey trial. It plays to the American weakness for scientism -- that is,
 granting science authority it does not deserve.
 Result: Disagree with what scientists, or many scientists, say, and you reveal
 yourself to be a mouth-breathing peasant with a torch in one hand and a Bible in
 the other, ready to burn down the labs. In no case are you to be taken
 seriously. Sneering is not an argument, but as a political matter, it's often
 argument enough.
 "People have a nasty habit of clustering in coalitions, professing certain
 beliefs as badges of their commitment to the coalition and treating rival
 coalitions as intellectually unfit and morally depraved," writes Harvard
 scientist Steven Pinker, in an edge.org essay about dangerous ideas.
 "Debates between members of the coalitions can make things even worse," he
 continues, "because when the other side fails to capitulate to one's devastating
 arguments, it only proves they are immune to reason."
 Why is this dangerous?
 Decisions that individuals and societies make based on false, flawed or
 ideologically tainted scientific information can be harmful, even devastating.
 History -- Ciao, Galileo! -- shows how damaging it can be to suppress science to
 serve an ideological agenda. Recent history shows how destructive it can be to
 suppress moral reasoning to serve a scientism-driven agenda.
 In the early 20th century, eugenics -- the scientific philosophy devoted to
 improving the human race through various forms of genetic engineering -- was
 supported by leading scientists and academics, as well as progressive
 philanthropists, politicians and social reformers.
 Many mainstream Protestant religious leaders evangelized on the idea that
 science, through sterilization and selective breeding, should be employed to
 improve society by reducing the numbers of the "unfit."
 Many liberals -- religious and otherwise -- embraced eugenics. So did
 business-minded conservatives. Who opposed it? In the main, Protestant
 fundamentalists and Catholics, who were denounced as obscurantists trying, yes,
 to impede the progress of science. And then came the Nazis.
 Is it crazy to consider that religious traditionalists, whatever their
 shortcomings, might be playing the same prophetic role today? In this age of
 genetic wizardry and a time in which something called "liberal eugenics" is
 bidding for respectability, can we really afford to vilify these people again?
 Last time around, the conservative church folks didn't know as much as the
 intelligentsia who looked down on them. But they knew what really mattered.
 Rod Dreher is a Dallas Morning News editorial columnist.
 LOAD-DATE: August 19, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                 Copyright 2007 Tribune Review Publishing Company
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 663
 
                     Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock)
                             August 18, 2007 Saturday
 Rice industry struggles to purge flagged strains Genetically engineered crops
 haunt farmers
 LENGTH: 849 words
 Aug. 18, 2006, is a day that many in the U.S. rice industry would like to
 forget.
 One year ago today, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that traces of
 an unapproved, genetically engineered rice had been discovered in U.S.
 long-grain rice supplies.
 "I wish that day would never have happened," said Keith Glover, president and
 chief executive officer of Producers Rice Mill Inc. in Stuttgart. "It really
 created a lot of hardship for a lot of people: farmers, mills, exporters, seed
 dealers ... everybody in the industry was impacted." The USDA and the Food and
 Drug Administration said the genetically engineered rice - one of Bayer
 CropScience's LibertyLink varieties - posed no health, food safety or
 environmental risks. But many foreign countries, which buy about half of each
 year's U.S. rice crop, shun genetically engineered foods. As a result, sales in
 nearly half of all U.S. rice export markets were negatively affected. Exports to
 the 27 member nations of the European Union halted almost completely.
 The fallout from the problem was particularly acute in Arkansas where the
 state's farmers produce about half of all U.S. rice. In 2006, Arkansas' rice
 harvest was worth $892 million, making it the state's single most valuable crop.
 The U.S. rice industry has been working to purge LibertyLink traits from the
 country's long-grain rice supply and restore the grain's international
 competitiveness and marketability. Great strides have been made, said Ray
 Vester, a Stuttgart rice farmer who is chairman of the USA Rice Federation's
 environmental regulatory subcommittee.
 Arkansas took the lead by banning the 2007 planting of two rice varieties,
 Vester said. Cheniere and Clearfield 131 both tested positive for the
 "adventitious presence" or unintentional commingling of trace amounts of the
 protein that makes LibertyLink rice varieties resistant to the herbicide
 Liberty, also known as glufosinate. Farmers and millers then were urged to
 thoroughly clean their equipment before starting the 2007 harvest.
 Whether those efforts have been successful in Arkansas will become apparent
 later this month, when the state's rice harvest begins, Vester said.
 He and many others are confident that this year's crop is "clean." "I really
 feel good about what we have in the field right now," said State Plant Board
 Director Darryl Little. "My biggest fear - and I suspect that of everyone in the
 industry - would be carryover of Cheniere and Clearfield 131 that was grown last
 year that might be in on-farm storage somewhere" and get mixed with the new
 crop, Little said.
 Rice miller Glover echoes that concern.
 "You're just nervous about that one kernel that might happen to show up" in a
 shipment to Europe, he said. "If they just happen to probe and hit that one
 kernel, that's all it takes to ban the whole shipment and have to ship it back."
 For that reason, the U.S. rice industry is lobbying the EU to agree to "origin
 testing," Glover said, so that U.S. exporters can be confident their rice will
 be accepted for delivery before it is shipped. Alternatively, the EU's
 establishment of a minimum tolerance for the adventitious presence of
 genetically engineered traits could help to restart U.S. rice exports, he said.
 USDA also could assist the rice industry by completing and releasing its
 long-awaited investigation into the LibertyLink case, Glover said, explaining
 "what happened, how it happened and what's being done to correct the problem."
 The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has repeatedly promised to
 "determine the circumstances surrounding the release [of regulated material into
 supplies of commercial long-grain rice] and whether any USDA regulations were
 violated." But APHIS spokesman Karen Eggert said Thursday "that investigation is
 not yet complete, so we haven't issued any final findings." Not surprisingly,
 the genetically engineered rice problem has spawned hundreds of lawsuits during
 the past year. Most of those cases have been brought by farmers who are suing
 Bayer CropScience. Some cases, however, have been brought by rice buyers and
 seed dealers, and several cases also name rice mills as defendants.
 In December, all such rice litigation - which now numbers 184 cases - was
 consolidated in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in St.
 Louis. Judge Catherine Perry was assigned to handle all pre-trial matters such
 as discovery, which began last month.
 Most of the rice-farmer plaintiffs are seeking class-action status for their
 complaints, said Scott Poynter, a Little Rock attorney who serves on the
 plaintiffs' executive committee. A hearing on that issue is scheduled for May 1,
 "I think it's more than likely, if [Perry] does certify the class, that the
 class case would be tried with her," Poynter said. "Individual cases that aren't
 part of the class, and any individual case where the plaintiff doesn't fall
 within the class definition will go back to their original venue and court."
 Based upon the current scheduling orders, none of the rice trials will begin
 before 2009.
 This article was published 08/18/2007
 LOAD-DATE: August 20, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2007 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 664
 
                           Sacramento Bee (California)
                             August 16, 2007 Thursday
                               Correction Appended
 Seniors preparing for final year of high school
 BYLINE: Melissa Nix Bee Staff Writer
 SECTION: ELK GROVE LAGUNA; Pg. G1
 LENGTH: 2967 words
 Senior year marks the end of high school and the high school experience. It also
 marks the beginning of a new opportunity for seniors to prepare for the future,
 whether it is work, college or both.
 To acknowledge this milestone, Bee Staff Writer Melissa Nix visits with standout
 students who are beginning their senior year. They are today's rising stars, and
 there are many others like them.
 One student wants to be a defense attorney to ensure those without resources
 have fair trials. Another student plans to pursue a fashion career without
 sacrificing her passion for competitive soccer. One determined student raised
 his grade-point average from a 1.0 in his sophomore year to a 3.58 in his junior
 year.
 These teenagers are preparing for their senior year of high school -- and for
 life beyond. They've got a lot of their plates: SATs, college applications, life
 decisions, senioritis. But they've also got senior proms, big, glossy yearbook
 photos and, of course, graduation, to look forward to.
 They're today's rising stars, and there are many others like them. We couldn't
 write about them all, so we asked teachers and principals to suggest the
 students they thought best represent the stars of the class of 2008.
 Justin Austin Gage Age: 17 School: Elk Grove High Dream school: California
 Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
 Top accomplishments: Cumulative grade-point average of 3.73; California State
 Fair finalist, ceramics; captain, Elk Grove High volleyball team; mathematics
 tutor; runner-up in the Boys State mock government program.
 Q: What career do you plan to pursue after high school?
 A: I'd like to be an architect. I've always liked drawing and thinking about how
 to incorporate buildings into nature. My hero is Frank Lloyd Wright and my
 favorite Wright house is the House of Falling Waters. He put a river through
 someone's living room, and I thought that was very beautiful.
 Q: What is the best lesson you've learned in high school?
 A: Patience and perseverance. They help you to succeed. I've seen it on a small
 scale with my art -- you spend a long time on something, and you finally have a
 product. Same goes for classes. They're hard and backbreaking, but worth it in
 the end.
 Q: Why do you enjoy tutoring fellow students?
 A: Not only does it help me strengthen my skills, but I am passing them on,
 really helping them. It makes me feel good to help others.
 Monica Pearce Age: 17 School: Franklin High Dream schools: UCLA or University of
 California, San Diego
 Top accomplishments: cumulative 4.34 grade-point average; president of the class
 of 2008; National Honor Society; varsity golf
 Q: What career do you plan to pursue after high school and why?
 A: I plan on an engineering career. I've had the opportunity to be a part of a
 program at my school that's called STEM, which stands for the School of
 Technology, Engineering and Media. My teacher has motivated me to continue.
 Q: What's your dream job?
 A: Working for an architectural and engineering firm where I can design houses
 and buildings.
 Q: How do you manage to keep such a high GPA?
 A: I've been taking honors classes since freshman year. I took courses I knew I
 could succeed in. Some people load themselves up with AP (Advanced Placement)
 classes, but I wanted to be able to succeed 100 percent in each class.
 Q: What is the best lesson you've learned in high school?
 A: One of the best lessons I've learned in high school -- wow, so many lessons
 -- probably that people come from all different backgrounds. It sounds cliche,
 but you can't judge a book by its cover. As junior class president, I had to
 deal with a lot of people. Sometimes I would get frustrated, but I'd stop and
 think about where someone is coming from.
 Jofil Borja Age: 17 School: Florin High Dream schools: University of California,
 Davis; UC Berkeley
 Top accomplishments: Florin High School conflict management; Associated Student
 Body; Center for Youth Citizenship; Safe School Ambassador; mens track and
 field; mock trial.
 Q: What career do you plan to pursue after high school?
 A: Law. I want to practice business or financial law. If all works out well, I
 hope to go to Boalt Law School at UC Berkeley.
 Q: What is the best lesson you've learned in high school?
 A: That opportunities are given every day, it's up to you to grab them.
 Q: Why the interest in conflict management?
 A: I wanted to see if I could make a difference in some small way. I've seen my
 friends get into conflicts, and sometimes talking to peers is more valuable than
 talking to adults because of the fear, resentment or overall uneasiness (a young
 person may feel). Sometimes another student can be key to opening up the bigger
 story.
 Q: What are you looking forward to in your senior year?
 A: I want to graduate with flying colors and be a part of a class that will
 leave a legacy -- a positive one -- behind.
 Tamerra Griffin Age: 17 School: Laguna Creek High Dream school: California State
 University, Long Beach
 Top accomplishments: Associated Student Body, commissioner of publicity,
 incoming rally commissioner; active member of Striving Toward Equality for All
 People; class 1 competitive soccer; cumulative 3.9 grade-point average;
 writer-editor for school newspaper, the Cardinal Voice.
 Q: Why is attending CSU, Long Beach, so important to you?
 A: I want to have a career in fashion or fashion merchandizing, but I also play
 competitive soccer. There are lots of arts schools you can attend for fashion,
 but it's hard to find a school that would enable me to pursue soccer and study
 fashion. CSU, Long Beach lets me do both.
 Q: So why fashion?
 A: I love diverse and different things, and fashion embodies everything --
 doesn't matter what color skin you have.
 You can look at a country's clothes and understand something about their
 culture. Even within the states, people dress differently. In New York and on
 the East Coast, it's more of a neutral palette, more sophisticated. In L.A.,
 people are more colorful and more laid-back.
 Some people think the fashion industry is really superficial -- and it can be --
 but I think wanting to create beautiful things for people is a reflection of how
 you feel on the inside.
 Q: Who is your favorite fashion designer?
 A: Huh! Right now? I really like Michael Kors, even though his clothes aren't
 really for my generation. But you can see his influences, and he has a strong
 point of view. He makes things that are really wearable and fashionable at the
 same time.
 Q: What is the best lesson you've learned in high school?
 A: I probably learned my best lesson junior year. As an athlete, you have to try
 to "recruit" yourself. So I lived and breathed UCLA. As you get older, you learn
 more about yourself. I've learned that GPA or SAT score has nothing to do with
 your character. You have to be open-minded about what you want and where you
 want to go.
 Kaela Helms-Perez School: Monterey Trail High Age: 17 Dream schools: University
 of California, Riverside, or California State University, Sacramento Top
 accomplishments: 3.75 cumulative grade-point average; four-year Advancement Via
 Individual Determination member; Multicultural Club officer; junior varsity
 field hockey; varsity women's soccer; promoted to shift leader from sales
 associate at Hallmark
 Q: What career do you plan to pursue after high school and why?
 A: I want to be an orthodontist. I had braces when I was in third grade, and
 everyone in the office was really nice. It looked fun, and I thought I could do
 it.
 I've looked into it, and it takes a long time (to become an orthodontist), but
 in the long run, it'll be a good career.
 Q: Why does it take so long?
 A: You have to go to medical school and dental school. You have to learn all
 about the anatomy of the mouth and so on.
 Q: Orthodontics is a very specific thing to be interested in. Why so passionate?
 A: I want to help people get a good smile.
 Q: What is the best lesson that you've learned in high school?
 A: Don't procrastinate. If you study for a test or finish a project ahead of
 time, all the stress will be off your back. And you'll have a fine week.
 Q: What has been the biggest obstacle that you've faced in your life?
 A: I think moving to a new school in the middle of high school. I moved to
 Mountain View in the middle of my sophomore year. It was very scary to meet new
 people and fit in. But that's when you have to be yourself, don't stress over
 these things. Just go up and say, "Hi." Be nice, be yourself, show your
 personality.
 Q: Where do you hope to be in 10 years?
 A: In 10 years, I'll have finished college and be going into medical school, but
 I want to be starting a family, too. I don't want to wait until after medical
 school. I'll be, like, 37!
 Kelly Kohn School: Pleasant Grove High Age: 17 Dream school: UC Berkeley or UCLA
 Top accomplishments: Associated Student Body president; Campus Pride leader;
 stage manager for theater; fire protection volunteer; 4.13 cumulative
 grade-point average; Rotary Club speech competition, first place; intern with
 California Broadcasters Association
 Q: What career do you plan to pursue after high school and why?
 A: I want to go into public relations for government, hopefully in Washington,
 D.C. I've always enjoyed politics, but I've never wanted to be a politician. I
 don't want to be in the spotlight.
 Q: What's your favorite subject?
 A: I really like English. I really like student government and history, too. Not
 a fan of math and science.
 Q: What kind of history are you interested in?
 A: I like U.S. history. I like to figure out the past, to see where we started
 and how we evolved.
 Q: What is the best lesson you've learned in high school?
 A: I think one of the biggest lessons is that, probably with relationships and
 things like that, following your morals. Stick with people you like and trust,
 even if it means leaving other friends behind.
 Q: What has been the biggest obstacle you've faced in your life?
 A: I don't know. I haven't had any major obstacles to overcome, but I moved to
 Elk Grove when I was in seventh grade. I came and didn't know anybody. It's hard
 to start from scratch.
 Mimi Vo School: Sheldon High Age: 17 Dream schools: To be determined
 Top accomplishments: 4.0 grade-point average last semester; BioTech Academy;
 Asian Club president; incoming Associated Student Body president; treasurer for
 the class of 2008 in 10th grade; Associated Student Body secretary in 11th
 grade; float construction for homecoming
 Q: What do you deal with in the BioTech Academy at your school?
 A: We study and talk about genetically modified food and plants, as well as
 medical issues and diseases we are now facing worldwide.
 Q: What career do you plan to pursue after high school and why?
 A: Psychology, because I like helping people. I like to listen to personal
 problems and helping people to have a better lifestyle.
 Q: What is the best lesson that you've learned in high school?
 A: Hard work always pays off.
 Q: To whom are you grateful?
 A: People in my family. They teach me that it's really important to have people
 beside you to help you succeed in life. You can do things all by yourself, but
 it's better to have a healthy relationship with more than just yourself.
 Q: What has been the biggest obstacle you've faced in your life?
 A: Being different from everyone else in your family, as well as my friends.
 They don't understand how hard it is for me to be academic and in student
 government and all the extracurricular activities.
 My family is very traditional. They think that good grades are all you need to
 go to a good college and have fun in life.
 Sometimes I have emotions from all of them and don't know where to go to.
 Sometimes I feel alone with that.
 Q: Why is student government so important to you?
 A: My freshman year, I didn't know who I was. I just did everything my friends
 did. I didn't attend school events, because I felt out of place. But my
 sophomore year, I began to understand how important events were and how they
 make high school better.
 I've learned so much from leadership. Learning how to make my own choices and
 decisions will help me to go far in life.
 And people in student government care about a lot about things, like the school
 and how it will be in 10 years.
 High school really is the best years of your life. I really believe that. I want
 to soak all of it in.
 Q: Where do you see yourself in 2018?
 A: By that time, I'll be 27, hopefully graduated from college and maybe a
 psychologist and have my own practice. I want to have started a family, too.
 Valerie Jackson School: Valley High Age: 17 Dream school: Spelman College,
 Atlanta, Ga.
 Top accomplishments: Gold medalist, county National History Day competition;
 volunteer for special-needs community; youth leader at Miracle Temple Church of
 God and Christ; a 3.4 grade-point average last semester.
 Q: What career do you plan to pursue after high school?
 A: I plan to go into the U.S. Navy and work with the Judge Advocate General's
 Corps.
 Q: What's your dream job?
 A: I want to be a defense attorney. My ultimate goal is to be a judge.
 Q: Why?
 A: I hate to see people accused of things without evidence. I want to work for
 the state -- if you can't afford an attorney, I would be appointed.
 Q: You've said you've found a few teachers at Valley High particularly
 inspirational. Could you elaborate?
 A: My English teacher, Chelsea Bowler, she was my honors English teacher for
 11th grade. She was so inspirational and never gave up on me. She always made me
 work harder than I wanted to. And then Chris Hardwicke, my AVID (Advancement Via
 Individual Determination) and Advanced Placement U.S. history teacher -- he
 never, like, let us slack off. He was such a help. I wouldn't have gotten as
 good of grades if not for him. I wanted him to see my progress. I thank him for
 that.
 Q: What is the best lesson that you've learned in high school?
 A: Do not procrastinate! Do not procrastinate! I've regretted so much. I had the
 worst grades. I would put things off, and the day before it was due, I'd say,
 'I'm not going to do that.' I've come to grips with reality.
 Q: What is one of the most difficult things you've faced in your life?
 A: My eighth-grade year, my mom was diagnosed with colon cancer. They found it
 in time -- and I helped her recuperate.
 Q: Where do you see yourself in 2018?
 A: In 10 years? Wow. I plan on going to law school. I hope to be graduated from
 law school. I don't have a lot of means, so I'll have to work hard to be hired
 by the government. If not, I'll get loans and go into practice myself.
 Kristen Elliott School: Calvine High Age: 17 Dream school: Sacramento State
 Top accomplishments: Nearly perfect attendance; bringing up grade-point average;
 heading toward graduation.
 Q: Your teachers have said you are working hard to change your life around and
 definitely think you're a "star." Does that make you feel proud?
 A: I'm really proud that I got into Calvine High School and that I have gotten
 this far. I'm flourishing here at Calvine. I'm also proud of my attendance and
 of bringing up my grades.
 At Sheldon and Cordova high schools, I pretty much got all F's because I never
 went to school.
 But I got 3 A's and 2 B's last year and had nearly perfect attendance.
 Q: What made the difference?
 A: The teachers seem like they care more here.
 Q: Do you have any advice for incoming juniors?
 A: Focus on yourself and what you want to do with your life. Don't get caught up
 in other people's problems.
 Q: What career do you plan to pursue after high school and why?
 A: I want to go into criminal forensics. I used to watch "CSI" all the time and
 was especially interested in the scientists. I find it interesting how they look
 into the cause of death and what people were doing before they died.
 Q: What is the best lesson that you've learned in high school?
 A: Um, one of the best lessons is that you have to keep up on your work. You
 can't get behind. Pay attention in class and do not get caught up in all the
 drama all around you -- gossip, boys and so on.
 Q: What has been the biggest obstacle that you've faced in your life?
 A: I've had people close to me die, because of what they were involved in,
 because they weren't school-oriented or were trying to get money the wrong way.
 I want to do it the right way.
 Q: Where do you see yourself in 2018?
 A: I see myself living in a big house with little kids running around. I see
 myself very far in my career and doing good and being the best I can be at it.
 Brandon Johnson School: Rio Cazadero High Age: 17 Dream schools: Cosumnes River
 College or UCLA
 Top accomplishments: Men's basketball; coed softball; junior-senior prom
 organizer; honor roll all four semesters; 3.58 grade-point average junior year;
 student leadership club; Eskaton volunteer with the elderly
 Q: What career do you plan to pursue after high school and why?
 A: I've actually thought a lot about being a correctional officer at Folsom
 prison or a firefighter. My mom was a correctional officer.
 Q: What's your dream job?
 A: I'd like to be a firefighter with Sacramento County.
 Q: What is the best lesson that you've learned in high school?
 A: Don't fool around. Stay focused. Don't try to fit in with the crowd.
 Q: Can you elaborate?
 A: Yeah. In ninth grade, I kind of messed around and didn't earn enough credits
 for my sophomore year. I messed around during my sophomore year, too. My junior
 year, I realized I had to step up. If I didn't, I wasn't going to graduate. I
 got my act together.
 Q: Why the change?
 A: Seeing all my friends -- they're getting into honors classes -- it kinda woke
 me up.
 Q: Did your grades improve?
 A: Yeah. I pulled up my GPA from a 1.0 as a sophomore to a 3.58 my junior year.
 Q: What's your favorite subject?
 A: I love English -- I don't do well in math. I like to write. I'm actually a
 good writer.
 Q: Where do you see yourself in 2018?
 A: Hopefully, I'll be a firefighter.
 The Bee's Melissa Nix can be reached at (916) 478-2653 or mnix@sacbee.com
 LOAD-DATE: May 26, 2008
 CORRECTION-DATE: August 30, 2007
 CORRECTION:A story on page G1 of the Aug. 16 Elk Grove section incorrectly
 identified Elk Grove High School senior John Austin Gage as Justin Austin Gage.
 Also, because of incorrect information provided by the Elk Grove Unified School
 District, Gage's cumulative grade-point average was incorrectly given as 3.73.
 The correct figure is 3.86.
 GRAPHIC: Justin Austin Gage
 Monica Pearce Jofil Borja Tamerra Griffin Kaela Helms-Perez Kelly Kohn Mimi Vo
 Valerie Jackson Kristen Elliott Brandon Johnson
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2007 McClatchy Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 665
 
                 The Berkshire Eagle (Pittsfield, Massachusetts)
                            August 15, 2007 Wednesday
 Indie Update
 BYLINE: Berkshire Eagle Staff
 LENGTH: 190 words
 Terrorism in a petri dish
 Internationally acclaimed artist and professor of art at University of Buffalo
 Steve Kurtz, on the eve of opening a show at MASS MoCA, was arrested by the FBI,
 under suspicion of bioterrorism.
 It all began when his wife died of heart-failure and he called the paramedics,
 who in turn became suspicious of Petri dishes and scientific equipment in his
 apartment.
 Kurtz explores issues of genetically modified food, and uses biotechnology to
 create art from biological matter. FBI agents in hazmat suits sealed off the
 block around his house and look through his work, his house, and impounded his
 wife's body.
 He wasn't indicted for terrorism, but he faces 20 years in jail for illegally
 obtaining biological microbes.
 Kurtz's story is related in Lynn Hershman Leeson's new documentary "Strange
 Culture."
 Because he is legally prevented from discussing the case, actors Tilda Swinton
 and Thomas Jay Ryan interpret the events.
 Their re-enactments are incorporated with news footage, animation, and
 testimonials. The film also looks at how the Patriot Act has impacted art in
 this country.
 --Janet Curran
 Images Cinema
 Williamstown
 LOAD-DATE: August 15, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
    Copyright 2007 MediaNews Group, Inc. and New England Newspaper Group Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 666
 
                          Brattleboro Reformer (Vermont)
                              August 10, 2007 Friday
 Letter Box
 BYLINE: Reformer.com
 LENGTH: 1412 words
 'Silent majority' finally speaking up in town
 Editor of the Reformer:
 At long last the "silent majority" is speaking out against the professional
 protesters who continue to hassle the community on various issues in the name of
 "freedom of expression."
 I particularly liked Andrew Buttery's letter of Aug. 5 suggesting that these
 protesters devote their energies to helping the elderly and disabled who would
 like to have a nice garden for themselves and their neighbors to enjoy. Great
 idea!
 I, for one, wholeheartedly support our police force, and believe they do a great
 job for us. They do not need to waste their time with professional protesters
 who are trespassing on private property, trying to "persuade" them to leave
 peacefully. Since the protesters were being deliberately obstinate, I feel they
 got just what they were asking for.
 I believe property owners have a right to make their own decisions without the
 interference from trespassers trying to make a name for themselves, as long as
 the decision benefits the community.
 Quite frankly, that open bit of ground right off exit 3 looks like a very
 sensible place for a truck stop, and would probably bring additional revenue to
 the community.
 I am also offended by people who take advantage of the fact that the
 Constitution does not prohibit public nudity. The writers of the Constitution
 probably never thought this would be an issue.
 I have no objection to nudity in the right places, but the center of town is not
 appropriate, and offends most of us. It also attracts fellow protesters from
 distant places, and even gets our name in the foreign newspapers. Not the kind
 of publicity I would like Brattleboro to have. I have friends in the surrounding
 community who no longer come to Brattleboro, because they do not wish to be
 accosted or offended. Too bad.
 I hope these protesters might find more constructive ways to spend their time.
 There are certainly a lot of places where their energy could be a force for
 good. They could make their name by contributing, rather than disrupting, the
 community.
 Elizabeth Moore
 Brattleboro, Aug. 7
 Brattleboro needs a skate park
 Editor of the Reformer:
 I am approaching 30 years old and have been a skateboarder for 22 years. I grew
 up in Brattleboro and am a lifelong Vermont resident currently living in Putney.
 Back in 1995, I helped construct the Flat Street Skate park, which proved to be
 very valuable to the community and served many skateboarders both locally and
 regionally for years.
 However, once Flat Street became the Boys and Girls Club, it no longer allowed
 people who were over 18 years of age to utilize the skate park. This was very
 unfortunate because the age restriction excluded a large population of skaters
 who enjoyed and benefited from using the former Flat Street Park.
 Many other towns in Vermont, most of which are considerably smaller than
 Brattleboro, have public skate parks. A Brattleboro public skate park would be
 an excellent, healthy, substance-free, all-ages recreational resource for
 numerous people in our community.
 What would be even better is to have an indoor facility where skaters could find
 refuge even in the winter months. I am willing to contribute time, money and
 effort to see that a skate park happens here, but similar support from the town,
 recreational center and other members of the community would help tremendously.
 I can be contacted at scrispe@gmail.com .
 Spencer Crispe
 Putney, Aug. 2
 Stand with the Guilford School Board
 Editor of the Reformer:
 Congratulations to the Guilford School Board for establishing an appropriate
 procedural structure for its meetings. Board Chairman Kevin Freitas is exactly
 right when he reminds us that these are School Board meetings, not public
 hearings.
 Before these procedures were in place, I attended a School Board meeting where
 it took more than 45 minutes for the board to get to the first item on its
 agenda -- because board members were engaged in an argumentative conversation
 with one member of the audience, Vita Pisciotta.
 Our School Board members are the elected representatives of all the residents of
 Guilford -- they have important work to do on their behalf -- they need, deserve
 and are legally entitled to conduct their meetings in a way that enables them to
 get their work done.
 Under Vermont law (16 V.S.A.  554(b) ... "A school board shall afford a
 reasonable opportunity to any person in the school district to appear and
 express views in regard to any matter considered by the school board."
 I am confident that there are hundreds of Guilford residents ready and willing
 to testify that the meeting procedures the board has put in place are reasonable
 and fair. I urge everyone in town to publicly support the board. I urge the
 board to stay the course, to not settle "out of court" because of potential
 financial concerns for the town. We'll back you all the way.
 Jim Curley
 Guilford, Aug. 7
 Free-speech rights work both ways in Guilford
 Editor of the Reformer:
 The headline on the article about Vita Pisciotta's lawsuit against the Guilford
 School Board is highly misleading.
 Ms. Pisciotta's "activism" has nothing to do with education -- it's all about
 the money. I'm all for fiscal responsibility and holding the School Board
 accountable for the money it spends but Ms. Pisciotta objects to any increase in
 funding for the school and that has been her objective for years.
 It's ironic that her lawsuit is based on Ms. Pisciotta's perception of a denial
 of freedom of speech. All one has to do is to attend a Guilford School Board
 meeting to see that it works both ways. If Ms. Pisciotta doesn't like what a
 School Board member or another attendee has to say, she has no trouble at all,
 talking on top of that person or cutting that person off in mid-sentence, in a
 clear violation of that person's right to free speech.
 The school board has been more than considerate of Ms. Pisciotta over the years.
 They have allowed her to air the same complaint, meeting after meeting, month
 after month, year after year. It's a shame that she doesn't show the same
 consideration to the board members.
 Catherine L. Muscat
 Guilford, Aug. 9
 Movies focus on GMO dangers for kids
 Editor of the Reformer:
 There is increasing evidence that genetically modified foods are contributing to
 serious, widespread health problems. The health risks include immunity
 suppression, antibiotic resistance, digestive disorders and allergies.
 The government agencies that should be protecting our health are instead
 protecting the interests of the biotech industry. The FDA does no safety testing
 itself and allows the industry that profits from GMOs to conduct its own safety
 testing.
 An example of the inadequacies of testing is Bt corn. Bt corn is genetically
 modified to have a pesticide built into the plant itself, including the part we
 eat. According to the EPA, Bt toxin is not suppose to survive long enough to get
 into the small intestine. The agency bases its claim on test tube experiments
 conducted by Monsanto (a biotech industry giant), not independent studies.
 Neither the EPA nor the FDA has established standards for these tests. They
 accept the procedures and conclusions the biotech companies give them. Many
 scientists around the world have stated that these simulated test tube studies
 are not reliable. In the few independent feeding studies that have been done on
 mammals, not test tubes, scientists have found that Bt toxins do not all break
 down in the gut, and some enter the blood stream.
 Increasing evidence suggests that these Bt toxins harm our immune systems and
 trigger symptoms of allergies.
 Bt corn is sold as a feed corn, but it has cross-pollinated into sweet corn and
 popcorn. Even organic farming practices cannot completely halt
 cross-pollination. Seed stocks are becoming contaminated with unwanted GMOs.
 This is genetic, irreversible contamination.
 Children are three to four times more prone to allergies than adults. They are
 more affected by new allergens encountered in the food they eat.
 On Monday, Aug. 13, from 7:30 to 9 p.m., two documentary films will be shown at
 the Brooks Library, top floor, Main St., Brattleboro.
 The event is free and will highlight the hidden dangers of GMOs to children. All
 those interested in learning about the dangers of genetically modified foods and
 what you can do about them are encouraged to attend. The event is sponsored by
 the Windham County Genetic Engineering Action Group. For information, call
 Pam Nickerson
 Brattleboro, Aug. 8
 LOAD-DATE: August 10, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
    Copyright 2007 MediaNews Group, Inc. and New England Newspaper Group Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 667
 
                          Brattleboro Reformer (Vermont)
                             August 8, 2007 Wednesday
 Around Windham County
 BYLINE: Reformer.com
 LENGTH: 906 words
 In Brattleboro...
 FOLK SHOW SITE MOVED: The Midsummer Folk Show, scheduled for tonight at The
 Church, has been moved.
 The show will instead take place at the River Garden. Tickets will be sold at
 the door and will cost $10. The show begins at 7 p.m.
 For information, contact samidon@gmail.com or 917-922-3936, info@rhtt.net or
 'CHAT & CHEW' SESSION THURSDAY: On Thursday, the Windham County Genetic
 Engineering Action Group (GEAG) will host a free "Chat & Chew" at the
 Brattleboro Food Co-op from 5-7 p.m.
 Scientifically supported information on the harmful effects of genetically
 engineered (GE) organisms in our children's every day foods -- including 70
 percent of all processed foods in this country -- and how we can both identify
 and avoid GE foods will be discussed. Examples and samples of foods that are and
 are not genetically engineered will be provided, along with how to discern food
 labels. Members of GEAG will be present to answer questions.
 On Monday, Aug. 13, the GEAG will host a free, two-part film at Brooks Memorial
 Library (top floor meeting room) from 7:30-9 p.m. entitled "Hidden Dangers in
 Kids' Meals: Genetically Engineered Foods."
 The film presents the potential dangers to the health of children, because
 children are still developing and therefore are more sensitive to their
 environment. Much of the evidence presented will be relevant to adults as well
 -- especially those with chronic illnesses and/or allergies. Handouts will be
 provided and a discussion will follow.
 All those interested in learning more about the dangers of GE foods, and what
 one can do about them, are encouraged to attend these events. For additional
 information about the events and to learn more about GEAG, call 251-0577 or send
 an email to integra7@comcast.net .
 In Newfane...
 SENIOR MEAL: There will be a hot noon meal for seniors in Newfane and
 surrounding communities on Thursday at the Newfane Congregational Church.
 The menu will be: appetizer, London broil, potato salad, corn on the cob, tomato
 basil salad, biscuits, blueberry buckle with whipped cream.
 The meal is prepared by Barbara Brooks and Winnie Dolan, served by volunteers
 from the church and community and sponsored by The Council on Aging, Inc.
 The suggested donation for this meal is $3. For information or reservations,
 call Barbara Brooks at 802-365-7045 or call The Council on Aging for
 Southeastern Vermont, Inc. at 800-642-5119.
 OPEN HOUSE FOR KNECHTEL: There will be an open house retirement party for Doris
 Knechtel, administrative assistant for the Newfane Selectboard, on Friday from 3
 to 7 p.m. at the NewBrook Firehouse, 698 Route 30.
 Refreshments will be served.
 In Rockingham...
 TOWN PLAN MEETING: In its continuing series of public meetings to update the
 Rockingham Town Plan, the Rockingham Planning Commission will focus on the Local
 Government & Services and Community Services chapter of the document at its
 meeting tonight at 7 in the third floor meeting room at Town Hall.
 This chapter of the Town Plan reviews the functions and services of the various
 municipal governments and boards which operate within the town of Rockingham. It
 describes the framework of municipal government that influences, directs and
 implements the Town Plan.
 The municipal facilities which are included are town and village properties and
 services including administration, fire, police, ambulance and library.
 Note that highways, education and school boards, recreation, water and
 wastewater disposal are under separate chapters of the Town Plan and not
 included in the Government and Community Services section.
 Residents are welcome to come and share their thoughts and ideas. If one is
 unable to attend, submit comments in writing or via e-mail.
 The current 2001 Town Plan can be found on the town's Web site at www.rockbf.org
 . Comments should be sent to elhoward@rockbf.org or to P.O. Box 370, Bellows
 Falls, VT 05101.
 In Saxtons River...
 SLIDE SHOW ON ECUADOR: Marcea MacInnis of Saxtons River will present a photo
 show of her travels in Ecuador tonight at 7:30 at Main Street Arts.
 MacInnis spent more than a year in the South American country, where she worked
 on a dairy farm and visited many parts of the country, including the high,
 snow-capped peaks of the Andes, the Amazon jungle basin, the Pacific coast
 cloud-forest and the Galapagos Islands. Her presentation will highlight the
 country's diversity and introduce an eco-tourism project she is developing.
 MacInnis and brothers Toms and Michael Dammer, who are dairy farmers in the
 Andes, will explain how their new company, Nahual Expediciones, will organize
 trips to Ecuador as a means of funding a wilderness living school to help
 indigenous people improve their agricultural skills.
 A graduate of Marlboro College with a concentration in sculpture, MacInnis has
 also traveled extensively in India and Asia. Admission is free. Directions to
 MSA are available on its Web site, MainStreetArts.org, or by calling (802)
 In Wilmington...
 VOLUNTEER POSITIONS AVAILABLE: The town of Wilmington has vacancies on the
 following town committees:
 * Development Review Board alternate, two-year term.
 * Budget Committee, two years of a three- year term. Serve until next March's
 Town Meeting and then run for the remaining year.
 * Recreation Committee, one-year term.
 * Memorial Hall Board, three-year term.
 * Housing Advisory Committee, one-year term.
 For more information, call the town clerk at 802-464-5836.
 LOAD-DATE: August 8, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
    Copyright 2007 MediaNews Group, Inc. and New England Newspaper Group Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 668
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                             August 1, 2007 Wednesday
 Monsanto gains go-ahead for 2nd-generation soy seed
 BYLINE: By Rachel Melcer st. louis post-dispatch
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. C1
 LENGTH: 463 words
 Monsanto Co. took a leap Tuesday toward the launch of biotech soybeans that
 promise to help farmers - and the company - extract more green from every acre.
 Regulators in the United States and Canada approved the sale of RReady2Yield
 soybeans, which are genetically modified to withstand glyphosate herbicide that
 Monsanto sells as Roundup.
 Monsanto said RReady2Yield will boost per-acre yield by 7 to 11 percent, or
 between 3.5 and 5.5 bushels for an Illinois farmer. That translates into an
 additional $25 to $40 per acre in farm revenue, depending on soybean market
 prices - income that Monsanto will split by collecting technology fees on the
 seed.
 The Creve Coeur-based company said it will launch RReady2Yield for limited North
 American acres in 2009, followed the next year by a broad-scale rollout. It
 isn't revealing pricing, but Carl Casale, vice president of North American
 business, talked about overall revenue-sharing strategy in a recent earnings
 call with analysts.
 "Our golden rule is that we price for penetration (and) ensure value with the
 farmer. In general, we now price for up to one-half of the value created. We
 believe this ... allows us to be rewarded for innovation, but doesn't dampen the
 expansion of the use of our technology," he said.
 Monsanto anticipates RReady2Yield will supplant its 11-year-old Roundup Ready
 soybean technology as a must-have for farmers. This year, Roundup Ready crops
 comprised 91 percent of the 64.1 million soybean acres planted by U.S. farmers,
 according to estimates by the Agriculture Department.
 Farmers are eager for the change, said John Hoffman, president of the American
 Soybean Association.
 RReady2Yield "gives us a competitive advantage - it gives us a yield increase,"
 he said. "And, let's face it, right now there are less acres, so we need to grow
 more soybeans on the acres we plant" to meet demand for biodiesel, animal feed
 and export.
 U.S. soybean acres dropped by 15 percent this year, the USDA said. Many farmers
 switched to corn to capitalize on the ethanol boom.
 RReady2Yield, which offers a new yield-enhancing twist on old
 glyphosate-tolerance technology, is just the first product in Monsanto's soybean
 pipeline. It will be the basis for "stacked" seeds that feature several more
 innovative genetic traits, the company said. These include biotech soybeans that
 produce healthier oil, are fortified with Omega-3 fatty acids, or grow under
 stress.
 "As we proceed and interact with food companies and their suppliers, we'll get
 an understanding of just how to build these multi-trait products, which will be
 of great interest and demand," said Jerry Hjelle, vice president of regulatory
 issues.
 Hear
 STLtoday.com/links
 Listen to Dave Rhylander, Monsanto's director of traits, speaking about the new
 soybean product.
 LOAD-DATE: August 1, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2007 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 669
 
                                The New York Times
                               July 30, 2007 Monday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Without U.S. Rules, Biotech Food Lacks Investors
 BYLINE: By ANDREW POLLACK
 SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 1721 words
 This little piggy's manure causes less pollution. This little piggy produces
 extra milk for her babies. And this little piggy makes fatty acids normally
 found in fish, so that eating its bacon might actually be good for you.
 The three pigs, all now living in experimental farmyards, are among the
 genetically engineered animals whose meat might one day turn up on American
 dinner plates. Bioengineers have also developed salmon that grow to market
 weight in about half the typical time, disease-resistant cows and catfish
 needing fewer antibiotics, and goats whose milk might help ward off infections
 in children who drink it.
 Only now, though, do federal officials seem to be getting serious about drafting
 rules that would determine whether and how such meat, milk and filets can safely
 enter the nation's food supply.
 Some scientists and biotechnology executives say that by having the Food and
 Drug Administration spell out the rules of the game, big investors would finally
 be willing to put up money to create  a market in so-called transgenic
 livestock.
 ''Right now, it's very hard to get any corporate investment,'' said James D.
 Murray, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who developed the
 goats with the infection-fighting milk. ''What studies do you need to do? What
 are they looking for?'' he said, referring to government regulators. ''That
 stuff's not there.''
 But some experts caution that even if the F.D.A. clears the regulatory path in
 coming months, investors and agribusiness companies might still shy away. Many
 fear that consumers would shun foods from transgenic animals, sometimes referred
 to as genetically modified organisms, or G.M.O.'s.
 ''The companies we have spoken to have gone organic, and they are very
 concerned, at least up to the present time, of having G.M.O. associated with
 their name,'' said Cecil W. Forsberg, a professor at the University of Guelph in
 Ontario, Canada, who helped developed the ''Enviropig'' with the cleaner manure.
 Smithfield Foods, for one, the world's largest hog producer and pork processor,
 says it is doing no research on genetically engineered animals.
 Critics say changing the genes of animals could lead to potentially harmful
 changes in the composition of milk or meat, like the introduction of a protein
 that could cause allergic reactions. They say there could also be risks to the
 environment if, for example, extra-large salmon were to escape into oceans and
 out-compete wild salmon for food or mates. Some also say that some of the
 processes used to create transgenic livestock can harm the animals themselves.
 The federal guidelines would come after more than 15 years of talks and false
 starts at the F.D.A., a delay irking not only developers of the transgenic
 animals but also critics of biotechnology.
 ''The fact that the agency has sat there for years staring this problem in the
 face and really hasn't come up with a clear way to regulate this is abdicating
 its responsibilities,'' said Joseph Mendelson, the legal director of the Center
 for Food Safety, a Washington advocacy group.
 Even now, the F.D.A. will not say when the rules will be ready.
 ''We want to get it out, but we also want to get it right,'' said Julie Zawisza,
 a spokeswoman for the agency, which declined to make any other officials
 available for comment.
 Some industry executives and former and current government officials say one
 reason for the delay was that some government officials, in part because of a
 preference for fewer regulations, wanted less stringent rules than the F.D.A. is
 considering.
 Meanwhile, the biotechnology industry is actually pushing for the tougher
 standards.
 ''Our overarching goal is to have public confidence in our products,'' said
 Barbara Glenn, the managing director for animal issues at the Biotechnology
 Industry Organization, a trade group. ''We won't have that unless we have a very
 strong review process.''
 The F.D.A. is turning to transgenic animals after having tentatively declared in
 December that milk and meat from livestock that is cloned -- but not otherwise
 genetically manipulated -- was safe for people to eat.
 The F.D.A. considers clones to be less biologically radical than genetically
 engineered animals -- which instead of being mere replicas of naturally
 occurring animals are given foreign DNA, usually from another species.
 Larisa Rudenko, a senior biotechnology adviser in the F.D.A.'s veterinary drug
 division, said in a May presentation at the biotechnology industry's annual
 convention that each new type of genetically engineered animal would require
 approval for use in the food supply. That will be done, she said, under the
 umbrella of existing rules for drugs used in treating animal diseases.
 While the implanted gene is somewhat like a drug, the existing rules would have
 to be stretched to fit.
 But industry executives and some former agency officials said it was unlikely
 that Congress would enact totally new laws for transgenic animals. And using the
 drug laws, they say, would provide tighter control than an alternative approach
 of using the rules governing food additives. Agency officials have said that the
 veterinary drug rules would be used, and they have already been overseeing some
 experimental work on that basis. But they continued to debate the issue, and the
 policy has never been made official.
 The regulatory guidelines would indicate how the drug rules would be interpreted
 for transgenic animals, and what types of data would be needed to prove safety
 and efficacy. But there are open questions about how the drug rules would
 actually translate. While a chemical drug must be shown to be consistent and
 stable, for instance, it is unclear how that standard would apply to a gene
 passed from generation to generation. Some critics say that while the drug rules
 do provide fairly strict regulation of food safety, there are drawbacks to
 adapting that approach. Because applications for approval of drugs are
 confidential, for instance, there would be no opportunity for public comment
 before the agency acted.
 ''In order to create confidence in a new technology, you really don't want
 behind-closed-door proceedings,'' said Margaret Mellon, director of the food and
 environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
 Another worry is that the F.D.A. might not have enough expertise or authority to
 conduct a vigorous review of the environmental impact of transgenic animals. The
 F.D.A. has dismissed this concern, however, saying it has sufficient expertise
 and can consult with other agencies.
 The biotechnology regulatory branch of the Department of Agriculture created an
 animal division last December to figure out what its role should be.
 Genetically engineered animals are often created by injecting the gene of
 interest into a single-cell embryo. A more recent technique that is more
 efficient is to put the gene into a skin cell and create an embryo from that
 cell by cloning.
 In both cases, the embryo with the foreign gene is then implanted into the womb
 of a surrogate mother. After some transgenic animals are born, additional ones
 can be made by conventional breeding, because the foreign gene generally will be
 passed on to some of the offspring, as would any other gene.
 The fast-growing salmon is the transgenic animal that has been swimming upstream
 the longest at the F.D.A. Its developer, Aqua Bounty Technologies of Waltham,
 Mass., has been working to win agency approval for about 10 years.  Aqua
 Bounty's fish are Atlantic salmon that have been given a growth-hormone gene
 from the Chinook salmon. They have also been equipped with a genetic on-switch
 from a fish called the ocean pout, a distant cousin of the salmon.
 Normally, salmon produce growth hormone only in warmer months, but the pout
 gene's on-switch keeps the hormone flowing year round. That enables the Aqua
 Bounty fish to grow faster, reaching their market weight in about 18 months
 instead of 30.
 Elliot Entis, Aqua Bounty's chief executive, said the company had already given
 the F.D.A. studies showing that the fish were healthy and that the implanted
 gene remained stable over generations.
 He said the company also had tests done to show that its fish contained the same
 level of fats, proteins and other nutrients as other farmed salmon and would not
 set off unexpected allergic reactions in people who eat them. The fish also
 taste the same as other farmed Atlantic salmon, Mr. Entis said.
 ''Nobody has ever analyzed salmon as closely as we have had done,'' he said. But
 the F.D.A. is asking for more data on safety and potential environmental effects
 on wild salmon.
 Industry executives say the Enviropigs would be the next candidate for F.D.A.
 approval. The pigs contain a bacterial gene that allows them to produce an
 enzyme that helps them more fully digest a vital nutrient, phosphorus, in their
 feed. That means less phosphorus in the manure, which in turn could mean less
 phosphorus running off into lakes and oceans, where it can cause algal blooms
 and fish kills.
 MaRS Landing, a technology promoting organization in Ontario, is trying to find
 a corporate partner for the pig, said John Kelly, the agency's executive
 director.
 Less far along in the approval pipeline are pigs that contain a gene from the
 roundworm allowing them to produce omega-3 fatty acids, a nutrient normally
 found in fish that is good for the heart. That, in theory, could make eating
 pork or bacon healthier, although that has yet to be tested.
 Jing X. Kang, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School who helped direct
 the project, said the researchers were looking for corporate backers while also
 trying to raise the level of omega-3 in the meat.
 Carol Tucker Foreman, director of the Food Policy Institute at the Consumer
 Federation of America, a consumer advocacy group in Washington, said regulations
 might not assuage consumers, many of whom object to the genetic engineering of
 animals on humane or ethical grounds, more than on safety concerns.
 ''The fact that the F.D.A. has a powerful regulatory process for reviewing
 genetically engineered animals, far greater than they apply to genetically
 engineered crops, may not make any difference at all,'' Ms. Foreman said.
 ''Because that's not what it's all about.''
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: July 30, 2007
 GRAPHIC: Photos: Even though these Atlantic salmon are roughly the same age, the
 big one was genetically engineered to grow at twice the rate of normal salmon.
 (Photograph by Paul Darrow for The New York Times)(pg. A1)
  Meet the Enviropigs. They have cleaner manure and healthier meat, say their
 developers, at left, Dr. John Kelly of MaRS Landing of Ontario and Dr. Cecil
 Forsberg of the University of Guelph near Toronto. (Photograph Jim Ross for The
 New York Times)(pg. A14)  Chart: ''Farming With Borrowed Genes'' The Food and
 Drug Administration is now drafting rules for letting genetically altered
 animals into the food supply. Bioengineers in Canada and the United States have
 created and tested transgenic creatures, including these. (Sources: the
 companies and universities)
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 670
 
                            Bangor Daily News (Maine)
                              July 28, 2007 Saturday
                                   All Editions
 Modified corn OK'd for Maine farmers;
 Crop engineered to include pesticide
 SECTION: Pg. C1
 LENGTH: 819 words
 After pleas from farmers on both sides of the issue, Maine's Bureau of
 Pesticides Control on Friday approved the registration of corn that is
 genetically engineered with a natural pesticide. Maine is the last state in the
 country to allow the modified corn to be sold or grown.
 While dairy farmers said they needed the greater-yielding corn to maintain a
 competitive edge, organic growers said they feared for the health of Maine's
 residents.
 "This technology has been out there about a generation," testified Peggy Gannon
 of Stetson, "and there have been no long-term tests on humans." Gannon and
 others asked the Bureau of Pesticides Control to wait for approval until next
 spring to give the Legislature time to review new liability rules for planting
 genetically engineered crops.
 "Maine doesn't have this [engineered corn]. We are the only state because we're
 smarter," said Andrea DeFrancesca of Franklin.
 Dairy farmers, however, asked the bureau to allow them the same tools that other
 farmers across the country are using, saying they could save money and
 environmental costs by eliminating pesticide spraying and growing a bigger,
 disease-free crop.
 The genetically engineered corn approved Friday is Bt, or Bacillus
 thuringiensis, corn.
 Bt corn - which is used only for cow feed, not for human consumption - is
 genetically engineered to produce pesticidal proteins from the naturally
 occurring soil-borne Bt bacteria that kill certain insects. As such, the corn
 seed is considered a pesticide, which is why it requires BPC approval.
 Members of the BPC said they recognized that Bt corn may require special
 management because of concerns the pollen may drift to organic corn.
 "This is not Kansas," said BPC member Daniel Simonds. Referring to the different
 geography in Maine and how varying farms abut each other, he said, "The spatial
 management of this is quite complex and may be hard to monitor."
 To deal with those concerns, the BPC approved the corn with two conditions: that
 an educational program be offered by the chemical companies, and that sales
 records be provided to the BPC to allow monitoring of how much and where the
 corn is planted.
 The BPC held the hearing after a request filed in March by three biotech
 companies - Dow AgroSciences, Pioneer Hi-Bred International and Monsanto - on
 behalf of dozens of Maine farmers. The companies submitted applications to
 register seven Bt field corn products, all used as feed for animals.
 Organic farmers at Friday's hearing testified that drift from Bt corn could
 contaminate their certified organic crops and possibly open them up to copyright
 infringement lawsuits from the chemical companies that manufacture the seeds.
 Jody Spear of Co-Op Voices Unite said Bt corn poses unacceptable risks,
 including liver and kidney damage, allergies and asthma, as well as posing risks
 to other plants and animals.
 "Consider that one out of every three bites of food has been pollinated by
 honeybees. You need to tread carefully," she said.
 Logan Perkins of Protect Maine Farmers said the issue was not just about organic
 certification. "It is about the market, about consumer confidence and the
 farmers' ability to save seed."
 But conventional dairy farmers argued that organic farms represent a small
 percentage of Maine agriculture and the "tail shouldn't wag the dog."
 Dairy farmers from Knox, Pittsfield and Exeter testified Friday that using Bt
 corn will give them a competitive edge and allow them to stop spraying their
 fields with pesticides, which sometimes is done three times a season.
 James Crane, an Exeter dairy farmer, raises 2,400 acres of crops with nearly
 1,000 acres in corn, and pays $13 an acre to spray with pesticides.
 He said Bt corn already is being imported into the state as cattle feed. "It is
 coming into the state by rail cars. Allow me to compete," he said.
 The BPC began investigating Bt corn in 1994, conducting technical reviews to
 look for adverse effects on human health and for potential development of insect
 resistance.
 According to Dr. John Jemison, an agronomist at the University of Maine in
 Orono, these reviews were conducted in 1997 after applications were filed to
 register three Bt corn products. The human health review concluded there were no
 concerns, and a process was established to identify any development of insect
 resistance. The registrations were denied, however, because Maine's pesticide
 statute requires that a need or benefit be demonstrated for the products. No
 such information was available at that time.
 At Friday's hearing, the BPC members concluded that Maine farmers needed the
 edge provided by planting Bt corn.
 "If we don't take advantage of this technology, these farmers may not be here in
 five or 10 years down the road," BPC member Richard Stevenson said.
 The BPC will draft a new rule which then will be advertised by the Secretary of
 State's Office and a formal public hearing will be held in the future.
 LOAD-DATE: July 28, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                         Copyright 2007 Bangor Daily News









Document Number: 671
 
                          Portland Press Herald (Maine)
                              July 28, 2007 Saturday
                                  FINAL Edition
 Maine allows farms to grow modified corn;
 The Board of Pesticides Control approves Bt corn as animal feed, despite the
 fears of organic farmers.
 BYLINE: CRAIG CROSBY Blethen Maine News Service
 SECTION: LOCAL & STATE; Pg. B1
 LENGTH: 651 words
 Maine joined the rest of the nation Friday in allowing the use of a genetically
 modified corn that is resistant to insects.
 Citing a mandate to try to reduce the use of pesticides, the Board of Pesticides
 Control approved applications by Dow AgroSciences, Pioneer Hi-Bred International
 and Monsanto to register seven Bt corn products to be grown for animal feed.
 While allowing the corn to be grown in Maine for the first time, the board plans
 to develop rules for the crops' use to alleviate organic farmers' fears of
 contamination.
 ''I'm only going to be able to say there aren't unreasonable risks if we add
 some conditions (for use),'' said the board's chairwoman, Dr. Carol A. Eckert.
 The board voted 6-0 to approve the applications under the conditions that the
 three companies report sales data to the board and support education and
 training. The board also agreed 6-0 - John Jemison Jr. abstained from both votes
 for unstated reasons - to develop rules for use.
 Those rules, and how they are enforced, will be key to many of the roughly 60
 people who filled the room at the Hampton Inn for Friday's meeting. While
 conventional farmers argued that the Bt corn will help make them competitive
 with corn growers around the country, organic farmers raised concerns of genetic
 drift, the creation of super-resistant bugs, and potential threats to the health
 and welfare of people and animals.
 ''We should not be endangering our food supplies with dangerous biotech
 gambles,'' said Jody Spear of the Sierra Club.
 The board considered the applications in two primary areas: whether the Bt corn
 would have an adverse effect on the environment and whether farmers had shown a
 need to use the crop.
 Genetic drift - the cross-pollination of a genetically modified crop with a
 nonmodified crop - may occur, said Jemison, a water quality and soil specialist
 for the University of Maine Cooperative Extension in Orono. European markets
 allow products to be labeled organic with up to 5 percent genetic modification.
 ''If zero is the intended goal, it's really always going to be difficult,''
 Jemison said.
 Pittsfield farmer Tom Cote argued, however, that eliminating use of some
 pesticides by growing Bt corn will be a net gain for the environment.
 ''I believe Bt crops are a bit better for the environment and the people who
 have to handle them,''Cote said.
 While acknowledging the risks, the board ultimately decided it could mitigate
 the dangers by educating users and encouraging conventional farmers and organic
 growers to work together to help reduce the chance of genetic drift.
 ''We have to weigh that risk against pretty clearly defined benefits,'' said
 board member Daniel Simonds, a forestry consultant. ''I'm having a hard time
 seeing the net adverse effect as being unreasonable.''
 Board member Lee Humphreys, a market gardener, said there were too many unknowns
 about the genetically modified corn, such as its long-term effect on the soil
 and in creating resistant bugs.
 ''I think it might very well be a short-term solution and farmers will be forced
 to use more pesticides in the future,'' she said.
 Humphreys also mentioned 108 letters the board received opposing use of the
 corn.
 ''We represent them as well,'' she said.
 Many of the organic growers who spoke against approving the corn suggested there
 was no real need for it. Logan Perkins of Protect Maine Farmers noted the number
 of organic dairy farmers that survive without pesticides or Bt corn.
 ''If they can do it, why can't everyone else?'' Perkins asked.
 Using Bt corn will increase harvests an estimated 10 percent, which will help
 give farmers an important economic edge, said board member Richard Stevenson
 Jr., a commercial applicator for Modern Pest Services.
 ''It may not run a farm out of business today, but if they don't take advantage
 of these technologies, they may not be there five or 10 years down the road,''
 Stevenson said.
 LOAD-DATE: July 29, 2007
 GRAPHIC: Photos by Jim Evans/Blethen Maine News Service
 Dr. Carol Eckert, chair of the Maine Board of Pesticides Control, votes to allow
 genetically modified corn to be grown in the state during a hearing Friday in
 Waterville.
 Jeff Black of Thorndike demonstrates against a proposal to allow genetically
 modified corn to be grown in Maine. Maine had been the only state to ban
 production of the corn.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2007 Blethen Maine Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 672
 
                          Anchorage Daily News (Alaska)
                              July 26, 2007 Thursday
 Alaska bees escape malaise of southern cousins;
 WILD FOOD: Beekeeper says unpolluted environment keeps population healthy.
 BYLINE: By GEORGE BRYSON gbryson@adn.com
 SECTION: LIFE; Pg. D1
 LENGTH: 788 words
 Honeybees in Alaska appear to be thriving -- with no sign of the population
 collapse that's threatening both bees and crops in much of the U.S. -- and local
 beekeeper Joe Carson thinks he knows why.
 It's the fireweed, Carson says. And the dandelions. And maybe the Sitka rose and
 high-bush cranberry blossoms.
 Wild sources of nectar and pollen from plants such as those don't harm the bees,
 while certain farms in the Lower 48 probably do, says Carson, president of the
 Southcentral Alaska Beekeepers Association.
 "We don't have the genetically modified crops up here," he says. On an
 industrial scale, "we've got no commercial farming, no herbicides, pesticides or
 nitrogen-fixing fertilizers."
 Nor (according to the beekeeper's association) does Alaska have any documented
 cases yet of "colony collapse disorder" -- the new bee-killing malady that has
 resulted in the loss of about 25 percent of the nation's honeybees.
 So far, beekeepers in about half the states have reported episodes of the
 disorder, characterized by worker bees that simply fail to return to their
 hives.
 "It's the Alzheimer's of the bee world," says Carson, who recently lectured on
 honeybees at the University of Alaska Anchorage. "It's messing with their neural
 systems, where they just can't quite remember where to go back to."
 Scientists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture say the cause of the collapse
 remains a mystery.
 It might be traced to bees ingesting herbicides or pesticides -- or even nectar
 that's been compromised by genetically modified crops, as Carson claims. It
 might be the manifestation of some new disease. Or global warming, if rising
 temperatures are contributing to a bumper crop of parasites. Or perhaps some
 combination of factors.
 Federal officials hope to find answers fairly soon, considering how much is at
 stake. Roughly a third of the human diet depends on insect-pollinated crops, of
 which honeybees are the principal pollinators, according to the USDA.
 More than 100 U.S. crops rely on beekeepers who travel the country with portable
 hives to pollinate fields. Farmers in the $2 billion-a-year California almond
 industry each February truck in about half the nation's commercial honeybees.
 That might even be part of the problem, Carson says.
 Forcing high densities of bees to pollinate specific crops, stressing the bees
 by trucking them from state to state, augmenting their diet with genetically
 modified corn syrup -- all that may ultimately be damaging the honeybees' immune
 system, he says.
 "And everybody is using every kind of fertilizer and pesticide and herbicides.
 And they're feeding bucketloads -- actually, tanker truck loads -- of
 high-fructose corn syrup (to bees)."
 It's different in Alaska, where even commercial beekeeping is strictly
 small-time, Carson says. Here there's much more diversity in the flora of
 untended fields that feed most honeybees.
 "Our bees are working the dandelions, the willows, the Sitka roses," he says.
 "They're working the fireweed, the lupine, the berries. ... That's why it's
 very, very healthy."
 It's also fairly expensive -- up to $13 a pound -- if you try to buy a small jar
 of local honey.
 Part of the reason for that price, Carson says, is the fact that most Alaska
 honeybees have to be imported each year, since it's difficult to keep them alive
 through the winter in northern latitudes (it can be done, he says, but it's
 costly). And the cost of purchasing them outside and shipping them to Alaska is
 roughly $100 for an initial colony of 15,000 bees.
 Then the short growing season further limits the bees' production.
 "The willows come out in April and May, but we honestly don't make a real good
 (flower) crop until late June and July," Carson says. "This is my honey-making
 time right now, when the fireweed is blooming. I've got to have every bee
 working.... It's done by Aug. 1. When the fireweed drops -- we're finished."
 But local beekeepers contend that the quality of Alaska's pure, organic honey
 exceeds that of most honey produced Outside -- for the same reason, Carson says,
 that honeybee populations in the Lower 48 are collapsing.
 If the epidemic continues, he says, some of its ramifications will also be felt
 in Alaska. Apart from higher food prices, due to a nationwide crisis in trying
 to pollinate fruit and other crops, honeybees might grow so scarce in America
 that it will become prohibitively expensive for Alaskans to import them.
 "The reality is, if we don't come to grips with colony collapse disorder, we
 will not be importing bees to the state of Alaska -- from California or anywhere
 else," Carson says. "There will not be a surplus of bees to ship."
 Find George Bryson online at adn.com/contact/gbryson or call 257-4318.
 LOAD-DATE: July 26, 2007
 GRAPHIC: BOB HALLINEN / Daily News archive 2003
 A bumblebee visits a fireweed plant along the Seward Highway. Alaska beekeepers
 say their bees have a more diverse and healthier diet than those in the Lower
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Staff
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2007 Anchorage Daily News
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 673
 
                                The New York Times
                              July 24, 2007 Tuesday
                               Late Edition - Final
 A Genetically Modified Potato, Not for Eating, Is Stirring Some Opposition in
 Europe
 BYLINE: By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
 SECTION: Section C; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 3
 LENGTH: 1245 words
 DATELINE: LIMBURGERHOF, Germany
 When Timo Bohme, a plant scientist, pulls up the cluster of dirt-encrusted
 potatoes from a tidy field here, he cradles them like a precious baby. For his
 employer, the German chemical giant BASF, these unassuming golden orbs, called
 Amflora potatoes, are the culmination of nearly 20 years of research and hold
 the promise of immense future profits. But not just yet.
 Amflora potatoes, likely to become the first genetically modified crop in the
 last decade to be approved for growth in Europe, have become the unlikely
 lightning rod in the angry debate over such products on the Continent.
 The European Commission now says it will approve the potato ''probably this
 fall,'' even though European ministers have twice been deadlocked on approval
 over the last eight months, with only a minority voting in favor. According to
 European Union procedures, ''the ministers have not been able to take a
 decision, so we will have to reaffirm our earlier opinion to recommend it,''
 said Barbara Helferrich, spokeswoman for the European Commission's Environment
 Directorate.
 But European environmental groups are critical of Amflora potatoes, saying they
 could release dangerous genes into the environment. Approving Amflora would make
 ''a mockery of E.U. law,'' said Marco Contiero, an expert on genetically
 modified organisms at Greenpeace in Brussels.
 Still, perhaps the biggest hurdle for Amflora is the visceral popular reaction
 against genetically modified crops on a continent whose food culture is ancient
 and treasured.
 ''I just don't like the idea,'' said Monika Stahl, 31, waiting for a bus with a
 sack of fresh vegetables in Mannheim, just 12 miles from the Amflora field. ''I
 worry about safe food and about the environment. I have children and worry about
 them.''
 In one sense, the irony is that Amflora is not a food at all. Although it looks,
 feels and smells like any other  potato, each one is actually a genetically
 engineered factory for amylopectin, a starch used to make glossy paper coatings,
 clothing finishes and adhesive cement.
 Normal potatoes combine amylopectin and amylose; the gene for amylose is turned
 off in Amflora potatoes, which taste terrible, and will never be turned into
 French fries or a potato salad.
 ''You would think that this approval would have been easy since this potato has
 no seeds, no wild relatives to cross with in Europe, and only industrial use,''
 said Ralf-Michael Schmidt, vice president of BASF. ''But it didn't turn out that
 way.''
 Only 1 percent of the world's genetically modified food is grown in Europe. In
 contrast, 55 percent of the world's acreage in genetically modified crops is in
 the United States. From 1998 to 2004, the European Union had a moratorium on the
 approval of new genetically modified crops and food, so experts could study the
 risks involved. Under pressure from the World Trade Organization and the United
 States, that was lifted.
 The European Commission has been under enormous pressure to open its doors to
 crops like this ever since a W.T.O. decision in 2006 that made banning
 genetically modified crops tantamount to an illegal trade barrier.
 But if the approval process for industrial Amflora has proved a challenge  --
 BASF first filed an application to grow the potatoes in 1994  --  the road will
 certainly be far more arduous for other planned genetically modified crops
 because they do involve plants intended for food or animal feed. ''That will be
 a much tougher sell,'' Ms. Helferrich said. Indeed, BASF has a second
 application for Amflora pending that would allow the potato residue after starch
 extraction to be used as animal feed.
 Even Germany, which has favored the approval of Amflora for industrial use,
 would not support that application, said Wolfgang Kohler, head of the unit for
 gene technology at the German Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer
 Protection. He said: ''I'm very doubtful we could vote in favor for food and
 feed because of fears about transmission'' of genes into the environment or food
 supply.
 He noted that more than 70 percent of Germans say they do not want genetically
 modified organisms, or G.M.O.'s, in their food and the German food industry
 ''does everything it can to avoid using this stuff.''
 Polls by the European Commission have shown that 80 percent to 90 percent of
 Europeans distrust genetically modified plants. ''We can authorize as many crops
 as we want, but the bigger problem is to convince people they are safe,'' Ms.
 Helferrich said.
 In the United States, where genetically modified crops have been grown widely
 for more than a decade, approvals are left to expert agencies. But in the
 European Union  --  where voters and politicians are more passionate about food
 --  such approvals involve a more democratic process.
 On a crop-by-crop basis, the scientific recommendations of the European Food
 Safety Agency are voted on by ministers from the 27 member states. Approvals
 bounce back and forth and ultimately arrive at the European Commission in
 Brussels when member states cannot agree.
 ''As a scientist I have a hard time understanding it, but this is how Europe has
 chosen to make these decisions,'' said Susanne Benner, communications director
 at BASF. ''But it's hard when you see an innovative product go through the loops
 again and again. These decisions are not about science but about politics.''
 In February 2006, a scientific review by the European Food Safety Agency
 concluded that planting Amflora to make starch posed no more risk than planting
 an ordinary potato. Based on that opinion, Europe's administrative governing
 body, the European Commission, recommended approval and passed the application
 to the Council of Ministers, where it has been voted on twice, first by a
 council of experts from member states in December and again on Monday by
 European agriculture ministers. Approval requires a 74 percent majority.
 But the two votes were inconclusive, with a huge number of countries abstaining
 on a decision that is a political minefield. The voting is anonymous, but some
 information leaked out: In the second vote, the agriculture ministers of Italy,
 Ireland and Austria voted no; Germany and Belgium said yes; and France and
 Bulgaria abstained.
 ''These are elected politicians and they have to face the general unease at home
 about G.M.O.'s,'' said a European Union official who asked not to be identified
 because of the delicacy of the issue. ''They are passing the buck to the
 commission, which is between a rock and a hard place on this issue.''
 Many experts and even some of Europe's environment ministers continue to dispute
 the European food agency's scientific opinion that Amflora is safe for
 cultivation. One concern is that it contains a gene for antibiotic resistance
 that could get out of the potato and into the environment, making bacteria that
 infect man and beast more difficult to treat.
 The European Food Safety Agency concluded that this was unlikely given the
 closed system in which potato-based starch is produced. But a second dossier
 from BASF  --  one that received a positive review from the food safety agency,
 but has not yet come to a ministers' vote  --  involves using leftover Amflora
 pulp from starch production for animal feed.
 ''It is a fact that there will be contamination, given the volume of the
 industry,'' said Mr. Contiero of Greenpeace. ''And if animals are eating pulp it
 certainly will end up in food. This is not just an opinion.''
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: July 24, 2007
 GRAPHIC: Photo: Timo Bohme, a plant scientist, inspecting Amflora potatoes,
 which are genetically altered, in a trial field in Limburgerhof, Germany.
 (Photograph by Hans Rudolf Oeser for The International Herald Tribune)
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 674
 
                         Lincoln Journal Star (Nebraska)
                               July 23, 2007 Monday
                                   City Edition
 Industry more alert on gene-modified corn
 SECTION: B; Pg. 6
 LENGTH: 461 words
 One conclusion that can be drawn from the latest controversy involving
 genetically modified corn is that the private sector is maturing in its approach
 to such issues.
 In the case of Agrisure RW, rootworm-resistant corn developed by the Swiss
 company Syngenta, it's not black-garbed youthful urban protesters kicking up the
 fuss. It's other businesses involved in agriculture.
 The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway is worried that the genetically
 enhanced corn might inadvertently be mixed with other types of corn and has
 refused to haul it in its grain cars.
 Also voicing criticism is the National Feed and Grain Association and others in
 the grain business.
 At issue, the critics say, is that Syngenta rushed the corn into the field
 before it had secured all approval from overseas markets.
 Pat Ptacek of the Nebraska Feed and Grain Association in Lincoln referred to
 Agrisure RW as "a StarLink waiting to happen."
 Ptacek was referring to a high-profile incident several years ago in which
 traces of StarLink, a genetically modified corn approved for animal but not for
 human consumption, was discovered in taco shells. The discovery led to recalls
 of other corn products.
 Although more than 20 people claimed that StarLink corn products had triggered
 an allergic reaction, those claims were not confirmed by clinical testing.
 Aventis CropScience eventually agreed to a $110 million settlement in a lawsuit.
 Nebraska farmers collected an estimated $11 million of that.
 In the wake of the StarLink fiasco, ag-related businesses have become more
 vigilant in handling genetically enhanced crops.
 Randy Gordon, of the National Feed and Grain Association, said that "Syngenta
 made what we think was a rather precipitous and unwise business decision to go
 ahead and commercialize Agrisure RW before obtaining any foreign, international
 market approvals."
 That means that if traces of Agrisure are transferred to shipments of other
 corn, it could jeopardize huge export contracts.
 Ptacek said that many objections were made before Syngenta started selling the
 corn for planting this year. Now Gordon speculates that as many as 500,000 acres
 might have been planted with the corn.
 The incident isn't the first time Syngenta has been involved in controversy. In
 2005 the scientific journal Nature revealed that Syngenta accidentally sold a
 genetically altered seed corn before it was approved by the federal government.
 The federal government kept the incident secret for three years on the grounds
 that the corn posed no threat to health.
 The latest controversy shows that the private sector now is doing a better job
 of keeping track and handling genetically modified crops. It's reassuring that
 peer pressure now is applied in the private sector to maintain quality-control
 standards.
 LOAD-DATE: July 25, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2007 Lincoln Journal Star,
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 675
 
                         Topeka Capital-Journal (Kansas)
                               July 22, 2007 Sunday
 Group wants to block Geary County rice farm
 SECTION: MAIN; Pg. 10
 LENGTH: 878 words
 By Sarah Green
 A national environmental group has asked the Kansas Department of Agriculture to
 block a water permit requested by a California-based company to grow genetically
 engineered rice for pharmaceuticals near Junction City.
 The Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit public interest and environmental
 advocacy organization, asked the department to deny water-use permits to Ventria
 Biosciences because of concerns the rice crop could contaminate food supplies.
 The organization was established by the International Center for Technology
 Assessment to "challenge harmful food production technologies and promote
 sustainable alternatives," according to the letter.
 "Growing drugs in foods undermines confidence in the integrity of the U.S. food
 supply, and in the 'coordinated framework' for regulation of agricultural
 biotechnology products," the letter said.
 Ventria has applied for a "term" water-use permit, which if issued would be
 valid until the end of 2007, said Lisa Taylor, spokeswoman for the Kansas
 Department of Agriculture.
 The agency's Division of Water Resources will look at the potential water use of
 the crop - not necessarily the crop itself - to determine whether to issue the
 permit to the company, Taylor said.
 "The question is, how much water does the crop need to grow in Kansas?" she
 said. "We don't have a history for growing much rice in Kansas, so we don't have
 that information. This is a proving ground for the crop in Kansas in terms of
 learning how much water it will take to grow it."
 Ventria already has water rights, Taylor said, but seeks the term permit because
 the rice crop could require more water. According to the U.S. Department of
 Agriculture, the rice already has been planted.
 In May, the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service approved Ventria's
 application to grow the genetically engineered rice in Geary County. Under the
 permit, the company also must have an emergency management plan, specific
 testing procedures for the rice lines and have their records audited by the
 federal Biotechnology Regulatory Services.
 "APHIS has determined that the proposed action will not have a significant
 impact, either individually or cumulatively, on the quality of the human
 environment and that no Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared
 regarding this decision," according to the permit approval document.
 According to the document, 29 people wrote to support the venture. About 1,000
 individuals and rice industry representatives wrote to ask that the company's
 application be denied. The government also received 18,910 "nearly identical
 form letters" collected by two public interest groups from individuals generally
 opposed to growing food crops producing pharmaceutical or industrial compounds.
 Those in favor of the proposed rice farm included two farm industry
 organizations, nine physicians or other scientific professionals, Kansas
 Secretary of Agriculture Adrian Polansky, the mayor of Junction City, and
 representatives from Kansas State University and The University of Kansas School
 of Medicine.
 Ventria, which is based in Sacramento, Calif., didn't respond to KHI News
 Services' requests for comment.
 Scott Deeter, the company's president and chief executive officer, earned a
 bachelor's degree in economics from KU and has worked for Cargill and Koch
 Industries, according to his biography on the company's Web site,
 www.ventria.com.
 The rice the company proposes to grow in Geary County would contain two
 proteins, lactoferrin and lysozyme, which are found in human breast milk and
 "epithelial surface secretions," such as tears and saliva, according to the
 company's Web site, www.ventria.com
 "Proteins extracted from the rice will be incorporated into oral rehydration
 solutions to address childhood diarrhea," according to the site. "Ventria is
 also developing other products using these proteins. The rice itself is then
 discarded."
 Kansas food producers are concerned about the crop being introduced here, said
 Dan Nagengast, executive director of the Kansas Rural Center.
 "It's sometimes perceived from Kansans as 'here's something that's going to help
 - so why are people against it?' " he said. "From a larger perspective, there
 are a lot of people against it. There's a distrust of the agriculture Animal and
 Plant Health Inspection Service's ability to ensure that drug-bearing rice
 doesn't get out in the food stream, which has happened in multiple occasions
 where there has been contamination."
 Traditional food crops are starting to be used as vehicles to produce other
 substances, such as pharmaceuticals, because scientists understand the genomics
 of those crops, Nagengast said.
 "Does it make sense to put something nonedible into a food crop?" he said. "If
 they can use this in any plant, why don't they use something they can control in
 a lab?"
 The Center for Food Safety says the lactoferrin found in the genetically
 engineered rice is harmful to humans.
 "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved the pharmaceuticals
 Ventria is growing for human consumption," according to the letter.
 Sarah Green is a staff writer for KHI News Service, which specializes in
 coverage of health issues facing Kansans. She can be reached
 at sgreen@khi.org
 or at 785-233-5443, ext. 118.
 LOAD-DATE: July 23, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2007 The Topeka Capital-Journal
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 676
 
                    CQ Federal Department and Agency Documents
                             July 18, 2007 Wednesday
 LENGTH: 392 words
 U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has named Dr. Nina V. Fedoroff to be
 her new Science and Technology Adviser. Dr. Fedoroff is the Willaman Professor
 of Life Sciences and Evan Pugh Professor in the Biology Department and the Huck
 Institutes of the Life Sciences, Pennsylvania State University.
 The position of Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary (STAS) was
 created in 2000, to serve as the Department's chief scientist and principal
 liaison with the national and international scientific and engineering
 communities. Dr. Fedoroff is the third person to hold this position. The Adviser
 is responsible for enhancing the science and technology literacy and capacity at
 the State Department, increasing the number of scientists and engineers working
 in Washington and missions abroad, strengthening and building bridges to the
 scientific and engineering communities, and providing advice on current and
 emerging science and technology issues as they impact foreign policy. See
 www.state.gov/g/stas for more details.
 Dr. Fedoroff is a leading geneticist and molecular biologist who has contributed
 to the development of modern techniques used to study and modify plants. She
 received her Ph.D. in molecular biology from the Rockefeller University in 1972.
 In 1978, she became a staff member at the Carnegie Institution of Washington and
 a faculty member in the Biology Department at Johns Hopkins University. In 1995,
 Dr. Fedoroff joined the faculty of the Pennsylvania State University, where she
 served as the founding director of the Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences
 (http://www.lsc.psu.edu/). Dr. Fedoroff has done fundamental research in the
 molecular biology of plant genes and transposons, as well on the mechanisms
 plants use to adapt to stressful environments. Her book, Mendel in the Kitchen:
 A Scientist's View of Genetically Modified Foods, published in 2004 by the
 Joseph Henry Press of the National Academy of Science, examines the scientific
 and societal issues surrounding the introduction of genetically modified crops.
 Dr. Fedoroff is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the American
 Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the European Academy of Sciences. She has
 served on the National Science Board of the National Science Foundation. Dr.
 Fedoroff is a 2006 National Medal of Science laureate.
 INDUSTRY: SIC8733 NONCOMMERCIAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS (67%) executive,
 legislative, and general government, except finance
 STATES (96%) 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals - Virginia, West Virginia, North
 Carolina, South Carolina, Washington, D.C.
 LOAD-DATE: July 20, 2007
 SIC-MAJOR-GROUP: 09 - General Classification
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Other
        Copyright 2007 Congressional Quarterly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.









Document Number: 677
 
                              July 17, 2007 Tuesday
 BYLINE: John W Miller
 SECTION: Section A; Column 1; Pg. 9
 LENGTH: 48 words
 European Union will allow farmers to grow genetically modified potato developed
 by BASF to make paper coating; move marks first EU endorsement of modified
 organism since endorsement of type of Monsanto corn in 1998; step highlights
 growing pressure on EU to relax its tight restrictions (M)
 SCIENCE (90%) Agriculture; Potatoes; Corn; Genetics and Heredity; Paper and Pulp
 ORGANIZATION: EUROPEAN UNION (93%) Basf Ag; Monsanto Co
 PERSON: John W Miller
 (89%) European Union
 LOAD-DATE: July 18, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Abstract
                    Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
                               All Rights Reserved
                            Information Bank Abstracts









Document Number: 678
 
                          Portland Press Herald (Maine)
                               July 15, 2007 Sunday
                                  FINAL Edition
 Before Maine gets Bt corn, protect organic farmers' crops protection;
 The genetically modified product has built-in advantages, but it shouldn't take
 over by defaut.
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. C4
 LENGTH: 304 words
 Maine, the only state not to have approved the use of genetically modified ''Bt
 corn,'' may soon grant that permission to farmers.
 When and if it does, the policies and procedures under which it is planted and
 grown have to be strictly controlled to prevent other types of the crop from
 being contaminated with the new strain. Only stringent measures will protect
 those growers who boast of raising truly organic foods.
 The genetic structure of the modified corn has been altered scientifically to be
 more resistant to insect pests by producing an organic toxin called Bt, for
 ''Bacillus thuringiensis,'' a naturally occurring type of soil bacteria.
 Three producers of the GM grain, Dow AgroSciences, Pioneer Hi-Bred International
 and Monsanto, have applied to the state Board of Pesticides Control to
 reconsider its ban, which it could do at its July 27 meeting.
 The corn has long been opposed by Maine's large number of organic growers, who
 worry that Bt corn, which is pollinated by the wind, will cross-pollinate their
 organic varieties.
 They are also concerned that it will produce bugs that evolve over time to be
 more resistant to Bt, which they spray on their crops to kill the pests.
 The pesticides board turned down the last application to grow GM corn here 10
 years ago, but the grain has been modified to protect against a wider variety of
 pests, including cutworms, rootworms and caterpillars.
 And GM varieties of canola, corn and soybeans modified to survive weed-killing
 herbicides have been grown in Maine for years.
 Nevertheless, if the board approves Bt corn, it should provide for adequate
 buffer zones and other precautions to prevent cross-pollination and allow pests
 to feed on unprotected crops so that their vulnerability can be preserved.
 That's how the balance of nature can be worked into the GM equation.
 LOAD-DATE: July 15, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2007 Blethen Maine Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 679
 
                            Bangor Daily News (Maine)
                              July 14, 2007 Saturday
                                   All Editions
 Pesticide panel mulls Bt-modified corn
 SECTION: Pg. C6
 LENGTH: 540 words
 Maine's Bureau of Pesticides Control will determine next month whether to
 approve the registration of a type of genetically modified corn in Maine.
 Maine is the only state in the country where the corn, known as Bt, for Bacillus
 thuringiensis, corn cannot be grown or sold.
 John Jemison, a crop scientist at the University of Maine in Orono, is chairman
 of the board committee that has been investigating Bt use.
 "Basically, the interest for this came from large-herd dairy farmers who have
 lots of acreage and plant lots of corn," Jemison said Friday.
 Jemison said that in light of the fact that many other genetically altered crops
 are grown and sold in Maine, the board is responding to a request filed in March
 by three biotech companies - Dow AgroSciences, Pioneer Hi-Bred International and
 Monsanto - on behalf of dozens of Maine farmers.
 The companies submitted applications to register seven Bt field corn products,
 used as feed for animals.
 Bt corn has been genetically modified to produce plant-incorporated protectants,
 in this case the pesticidal proteins from the naturally occurring soil-borne Bt
 bacteria that kill certain insects.
 With corn, the target insects are caterpillars and soils pests such as cutworms
 and rootworms, according to the board. This makes Bt corn a pesticide and, in
 Maine, all pesticides must be registered and approved by the BPC before they can
 be sold or used.
 The history of Bt corn in Maine began in 1994, when the BPC undertook technical
 reviews to look for adverse effects on human health and for the potential
 development of insect resistance.
 According to Jemison, these reviews were conducted in 1997 after receipt of
 applications to register three Bt corn products. The human health review
 concluded there were no concerns, and a process was established to identify any
 development of insect resistance. However, the registrations were denied because
 Maine's pesticide statute requires that there be a demonstrated need or benefit
 for the products, and there was no such information available at that time.
 Jemison said the farmers have made inquiries about Bt corn for a decade but only
 in the past five months have registration requests been pursued by the three
 chemical companies. In the interim, the board has been gathering information at
 each of its meetings on topics such as economic need, and a technical advisory
 committee was established to evaluate the potential for pollen drift and
 resistance issues.
 At these meetings, Jemison said, supporters claimed that Bt corn reduces
 pesticide use, increases yield and requires fewer trips through the field. They
 also stated that the highest-yielding varieties are now available only as Bt
 corn and that Maine is at a disadvantage compared with the rest of the country.
 Opponents, however, expressed concern about insects developing resistance to Bt,
 since, in spray form, Bt is an important tool for organic growers. Other
 concerns mentioned were the potential contamination of non-Bt corn crops from
 pollen drift and liability issues when non-Bt crops are contaminated.
 The Board of Pesticides Control will meet at 9:30 a.m. Friday, July 27, at the
 Hampton Inn in Waterville. The meeting will be open to the public but is not a
 formal public hearing.
 LOAD-DATE: July 14, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                         Copyright 2007 Bangor Daily News









Document Number: 680
 
                          Portland Press Herald (Maine)
                               July 13, 2007 Friday
                                  FINAL Edition
 Maine may finally let Bt corn be grown, sold;
 The state could make a decision this month on the genetically modified corn with
 a built-in pesticide.
 BYLINE: JOSIE HUANG Staff Writer
 SECTION: FRONT; Pg. A1
 LENGTH: 975 words
 Over the past decade, a particular type of genetically modified corn has taken
 the farming world by storm with a built-in pesticide that wards off bugs from
 seed to harvest.
 The exception has been Maine, the only state where corn engineered to produce
 the Bt toxin cannot be sold or grown. But that may change soon.
 The biotechnology industry is trying to break into the Maine market again. And
 with science that protects against a wider array of pests and growing demand
 from Maine farmers, opponents of Bt corn are worried that the state won't say no
 this time around.
 Dow AgroSciences, Pioneer Hi-Bred International and Monsanto have applied to
 sell seven Bt corn products that would be grown for animal feed.
 The Maine Board of Pesticides Control could make a decision as early as its next
 meeting on July 27 in Waterville, according to agency officials.
 Maine's organic farmers have spoken out against Bt corn at a past board meeting,
 warning that overuse of the crop would create insect resistance to the Bt toxin,
 a naturally occurring pesticide that is widely sprayed on organic crops. Another
 concern is that the pollen from Bt corn would contaminate crops that are not
 bioengineered.
 Spencer Aitel, who is one of the 250 corn growers in Maine, said there would be
 no recourse for him if pollen from Bt corn drifted to his land.
 ''If your dog comes over in my yard and bites my kid, I can come back at the dog
 owner,'' said Aitel, who grows corn to feed 150 Jersey cows on his dairy farm in
 China. ''It's not so with genetically engineered corn.''
 But Tom Cote, a dairy farmer in Pittsfield and an advocate for Bt corn, said he
 can only see benefits.
 He said Bt corn is worth the additional $3 to $8 it would cost to plant per acre
 because it solves the conundrum of which type of pest will attack his corn in a
 particular year. Bt corn provides insurance against multiple pests, so Cote can
 avoid exposure to powerful pesticides while saving money from having to use
 them, he said.
 ''I've got a daughter who is doing more work on the farm, and if she doesn't
 have to handle the pesticides, then I don't have to worry about it,'' Cote said.
 Biotechnology firms last made a bid to sell Bt corn in Maine in 1997. As part of
 the application evaluation, the pesticides agency determined that Bt corn did
 not pose a risk to human health. The pesticidal protein in Bt corn attacks the
 digestive system of larvae that eat the corn, but is destroyed by the acids in
 people's stomachs, according to staff toxicologist Lebelle Hicks.
 The board, however, rejected the applications from Novartis Seeds and DeKalb
 Genetics by a 4-3 vote on the basis that growers in Maine did not demonstrate a
 need for the product, which at the time only protected against corn borers - a
 bug that farmers were not spraying against to begin with.
 In the years since, the technology has advanced to where some Bt corn varieties
 can protect against combinations of pests, such as caterpillars, rootworms and
 cutworms.
 Board member John Jemison, who leads its Bt Corn Technical Committee, said there
 still are mixed feelings about Bt corn on the board. But Jemison, who said he is
 abstaining from voting because he has accepted seeds from the applicants for his
 work as a water and soil specialist, could picture at least some applications
 getting approved.
 ''We're in a bit of a different place than we were in 1997,'' he said. ''Today
 the biggest difference is that I've seen fields that have been mowed down by
 cutworms, and farmers have had to go and re-seed the fields. That costs a lot of
 money, especially if they're using a high-end hybrid variety seed.''
 Bt corn would not be the first genetically engineered crop grown in Maine - the
 Roundup Ready line of canola, corn and soybeans, which has been modified to
 survive herbicides, has been legally grown in Maine for at least 10 years, the
 board said.
 And Bt corn is already present in Maine in the form of processed food such as
 corn flakes, said Lauchlin Titus, an agronomist who consults for Monsanto and
 Maine farmers. He said some of the sweet corn sold in Maine may be Bt corn.
 But the fact that Bt corn can't be grown in Maine has been a point of pride for
 some environmental and agricultural groups, whose members worry that the rise of
 bioengineered crops will hurt wildlife and humans and give corporations too much
 control over farming.
 Jemison encountered an extreme form of the opposition when a field of
 genetically modified corn he was growing for research was vandalized in 1999.
 But these days some of the biggest critics of bioengineering have been sounding
 less confident. Russell Libby, executive director of the Maine Organic Farmers
 and Gardeners Association, said he would be disappointed but not surprised if
 the Bt corn applications are approved.
 Should that happen, there need to be conditions placed on growing Bt corn, such
 as requiring farmers to receive training and provide a strategy to prevent
 pollen drift, Libby said.
 He said farmers must also follow a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 requirement to use non-Bt corn on 20 percent of their corn acres, so insects
 have a refuge from the toxin.
 ''If the refuge is planted on the edge of cornfields then it would make a great
 buffer'' with nearby farms, Libby said.
 If approved by the board this year, Bt corn products would be available in time
 for a 2008 planting, said Julie Kenney, a spokeswoman for Pioneer.
 Kenney said Pioneer and the other companies decided to coordinate their
 applications because increasing numbers of Maine farmers were asking for their
 products. ''It was an industry approach to get this product approved and into
 the hands of the growers,'' Kenney said.
 The board meeting will take place at the Hampton Inn in Waterville beginning at
 9:30 a.m.
 Staff Writer Josie Huang can be contacted at 791-6364 or at:
 jhuang@pressherald.com
 LOAD-DATE: July 13, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2007 Blethen Maine Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 681
 
                                The New York Times
                               July 9, 2007 Monday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Does Your Dinner Have Jet Lag?
 SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Editorial Desk; Pg. 16
 LENGTH: 664 words
 To the Editor:
 Re ''Origins of Our Food'' (editorial, July 4):
 I agree that food should be labeled with country of origin. But an even greater
 problem is our increasing reliance on foreign food sources. This can only grow
 worse as immense acreage is taken out of food production in order to grow a
 non-food type of corn for ethanol.
 Having sold our manufacturing industry abroad, we now proceed to put our food
 supply up for grabs. The whole country is for sale to the highest bidder for
 short-term gain without regard to patriotism or national interest, short or long
 term. It's called unfettered capitalism. And it is destroying America.
 David Dart
 Los Angeles, July 4, 2007
 To the Editor:
 It's true that consumers have a right to know the origins of the food they buy.
 But we also have a right to know if our food has been genetically modified.
 I for one do not choose to be part of a giant experiment on the effects of this
 juggernaut that's been unleashed, and I'm sure most people would agree if given
 the choice.
 You cite the intransigent lobbyists for meat importers and grocery retailers who
 stood in the way of labeling legislation. Perhaps you should add the
 agricultural biotech corporations that stand in the way of proper labeling of
 genetically modified food.
 One has to wonder if those who introduce potentially harmful things into the
 food supply would rather keep their products untraceable so as not be held
 accountable if things go bad. And, of course, proper labeling would most likely
 hurt sales.
 Mary Ann Ahearn
 King of Prussia, Pa., July 4, 2007
 To the Editor:
 Americans have a right to know the origins of our food, but why stop there?
 Want to know where your aspirin tablet comes from? Try reading the label
 (warning: use a magnifying glass). But you won't find it on your aspirin bottle.
 And I wonder about the origins of the prescription medicines I take. No
 information there, either.
 Alfred G. Kildow
 Monterey, Calif., July 4, 2007
 To the Editor:
 Your editorial about food labeling notes casually that lobbyists for meat
 importers and grocery retailers ''have blocked implementation of a 2002 law that
 requires country-of-origin labels on fresh fruits and vegetables, red meats,
 seafood and peanuts.''
 We seem to have grown so accustomed to the power of Washington lobbyists that
 the magnitude of that statement may pass unnoticed. But it says, as a matter of
 simple, frightening fact, that self-serving private interests can actually
 control the actions of the Congress of the United States and whether the laws of
 our land are carried out or ignored.
 If we allow this tragic farce to go on, can we honestly continue to call our
 country a democracy?
 Gerald Albert
 Hicksville, N.Y., July 4, 2007
 To the Editor:
 Your editorial addressed the consumer's inability to purchase beef with a known
 country of origin. As a cow-calf farm operator in central Kentucky dedicated to
 producing quality beef, I find that my frustration arises when my beef is
 ''commoditized'' and blended with other beef -- Identity Lost.
 Several years ago, some local farmers and I formed the Green River Cattle
 Company as a solution. We want to connect directly with our customers.
 Traceability back to the farm of origin and forward through our growing,
 harvesting and distribution process ensures that we meet our promises every step
 of the way.
 Ultimately, the consumers decide. Will the future be filled with
 ''source-unknown commodities'' or ''source-verified beef''? The answer
 determines our fate and their food.
 David P. Givens
 Greensburg, Ky., July 4, 2007
 To the Editor:
 Labeling for country of origin is such a trivial matter compared with knowing
 what that cow and that fish were fed, how they were raised, what drugs were used
 and how they were killed.
 This is what I need to know about my food. What do I do with country-of-origin
 labels? Make a political statement against Communism?
 Joshua Tauberer
 Philadelphia, July 4, 2007
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: July 9, 2007
 GRAPHIC: Drawing: ''United Steaks of America'' (Drawing by Peter Arkle)
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Letter
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 682
 
                               The Washington Post
                               June 29, 2007 Friday
                                 Suburban Edition
 The iPhone As Crowning Achievement? Um, Hel-lo?
 BYLINE: Paul Farhi; Washington Post Staff Writer
 SECTION: STYLE; Pg. C01
 LENGTH: 996 words
 Americans  love their techno-hype, which -- from the space program to the Segway
 -- has long been a facet of daily life. Embracing the hype over the would-be
 Next Big Thing is one of the things that defines us as Americans, the most
 innovative and optimistic people on Earth.
 Today, that Thing is the iPhone. Perhaps you've heard of it? Apple's new gizmo
 -- on sale starting today! -- is a cellphone, a camera, an Internet browser, a
 music player and (possibly) a Swiss Army knife. Gaseous clouds of publicity have
 hung about its introduction since January, when Apple co-founder Steve Jobs
 declared that his company is "reinventing the telephone." The San Francisco
 Chronicle played along, asking this week: "Can the iPhone Change Your Life?"
 (The paper's conclusion: Um, yeah, kind of.)
 The iPhone is just the latest iCon in our Golden Age of Techno-Hype. It follows
 essentially similar swoons for the XBox, PlayStation 2, the Razr phone,
 PalmPilot, BlackBerry, iPod, HDTV and other products. Periodically, hosannas are
 also shouted over the latest wonder of the Internet (Amazon, eBay, Google,
 MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, etc.).
 What's more, there are whole utopian promises floating major parts of our
 scientific-industrial complex. Nanotechnology. Biotechnology. Artificial
 intelligence. Gene-mapping and stem cell medicine. Fusion power and hydrogen
 fuels.
 The persistent techno-hype of this era, however, masks a simple observation: We
 don't live in particularly inventive or transformative times. This has been an
 age of scientific refinement, not revolution.
 As British historian David Edgerton notes in his new book, "The Shock of the
 Old: Technology and Global History Since 1900," much of the basic technology we
 rely on today was introduced many decades ago, although improved upon in
 multiple ways since.
 Computers, vaccines and antibiotics, nuclear weapons, birth-control pills,
 television, cellphones -- all are the product of early- to mid-20th-century
 innovation and development. The piston-driven internal combustion engine, the
 basis of our most common modes of transportation, was developed in the 1870s and
 '80s. Alexander Graham Bell demonstrated the feasibility of sending the human
 voice over electrical wires in 1875. Contemporary diesel trains use an airbrake
 system that was patented in 1872.
 If a person were to time-travel from the late 1940s to today, observes Edward
 Tenner, a technology historian, he'd have very little trouble recognizing our
 age.
 Tenner, the author of "Why Things Bite Back," about the unintended consequences
 of technology, argues that truly radical innovation has occurred in roughly
 30-year cycles -- and that our own era isn't one of the radical waves.
 The period from 1885 to 1915, for example, gave birth to such world-changing
 inventions as the airplane, movie projection, the radio, revolutionary new
 fertilizers and pesticides, as well as mass-production techniques such as the
 assembly line. Basic designs that we still use -- the bicycle, for example --
 sprang from this era, too.
 The next great wave, he says, extended from 1945 to 1975. That was the period of
 the polio vaccine, antibiotics, commercial jet travel, the space program,
 semiconductors, nuclear power. Even the Internet began during this period; the
 first e-mail was sent in 1972.
 The post-1975 period has produced fewer of these radical new technologies,
 Tenner says. But that's not to say we're slackers. Like the 1915-45 period, this
 era has produced many small, un-hyped and crucially important advances that have
 made older technologies better and more efficient.
 So, thanks to new materials and computer-aided design, the fuel efficiency of
 the 747 has doubled since that jumbo jet's introduction in 1970. New, stronger
 polyester-core threads break less often, so high-speed sewing machines can
 produce clothing at much faster rates. Cancer hasn't been cured, but new drugs
 have improved survival rates. For many, AIDS has been transformed from a death
 sentence to a chronic illness. "Incremental changes can add up to levels of
 refinement that are truly breathtaking," Tenner says.
 The iPhone might be the perfect expression of this refinement, but shouldn't be
 confused with revolution. All of the basic technologies that the iPhone
 incorporates were invented before 1975. And all of the iPhone's functions are
 available in superior form via existing devices. Its signal achievement, at
 least based on pre-launch reviews, seems to be how Apple has integrated so many
 functions into one elegant, easy-to-use package.
 The downside of techno-hype is that it has raised expectations that can't, or
 haven't yet, been met. Despite bright promises, some technologies have never
 quite worked as touted, or have had side effects that arrested their potential
 (which is why no one wants a nuclear power plant in their back yard).
 Remember artificial intelligence, which was supposed to make computers as
 intuitive as a human being? A 2-year-old child still has superior reasoning and
 cognitive abilities. Remember magnetic-levitation (mag-lev) trains, which would
 speed passengers to their destinations in frictionless comfort? Remember
 low-temperature superconductivity, which would enable almost infinite power
 storage?
 Remember the supersonic Concorde, which would take over transatlantic travel?
 The SST is now just a museum piece.
 The good news is that if Tenner's cycle theory is right, we could be on the
 verge of a new 30-year wave of paradigm-shattering innovation. Maybe in a few
 years, stem cell medicine will yield all the miracles that its supporters have
 promised. Maybe animal cloning and genetically modified foods will lead to the
 end of malnutrition and starvation. Maybe breakthroughs in battery and other
 energy-storage technologies will create true alternatives to fossil fuels and
 thus slow the pace of global warming.
 Maybe. But as in all things technological, it pays to heed a disclaimer buried
 in the fine print:
 You can't always trust the hype.
 LOAD-DATE: June 29, 2007
 DISTRIBUTION: Maryland
 GRAPHIC: IMAGE; Apple Via Associated Press; Apple's new gadget is being hyped as
 revolutionary, but historians would beg to differ.
 IMAGE; By Paul Sakuma -- Asociated Press; The iPhone has been placed on a
 pedestal since its unveiling in January in San Francisco.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2007 The Washington Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 683
 
                            Investor's Business Daily
                             June 27, 2007 Wednesday
 SECTION: TO THE POINT; TRENDS & INNOVATIONS; Pg. A02
 LENGTH: 180 words
 ** Genetically modified tomatoes may taste farm-fresh, according to a study
 published in Nature Biology. Scientists reportedly put back genes into tomatoes
 that are lost when they are grown in factories and sit on shelves. The Israeli
 study said 60% of the respondents preferred the taste of the modified crop.
 ** Square-shaped watermelons have gained popularity in Japan. Farmers in
 Zentsuji came up with the idea of inserting melons into square-shaped glass
 cases while they are still growing. The Zentsuji agricultural cooperative will
 ship 800 melons through mid-July. The price range is $130-$200, Kyodo News said.
 The melon is easy to pack and it fits in a refrigerator.
 ** Students with symptoms of mental illness often don't seek help, a Univ. of
 Michigan study found. Students have access to free mental health and counseling
 services, but 37%-84% of students didn't seek treatment, depending on the
 disorder. But more than 70% of students with major depression said they needed
 help. Skepticism about the effectiveness of therapy is one of the factors for
 not seeking for help.
 LOAD-DATE: June 26, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2007 Investor's Business Daily, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 684
 
                     THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE (California)
                             June 27, 2007 Wednesday
                                  FINAL Edition
 The shopper's GMO guide
 BYLINE: Carol Ness, Chronicle Staff Writer
 SECTION: FOOD; FOOD CONSCIOUS; Pg. F1
 LENGTH: 1268 words
 I could hear my mother's voice in my head as I leafed through Andrew Kimbrell's
 new quick-guide to genetically engineered foods.
 "Oh, the government says they're OK. And if they were such a big problem, we'd
 all be falling down dead by now. They're no different than regular hybrids,"
 she'd say, handing me a pot to wash with a dismissive snort.
 Polls have shown that a majority of Americans disagree with her. But many people
 also have a tough time explaining why, beyond their instinctive or ideological
 mistrust of this new technology.
 I'll admit I've never found the few quick sentences that might open my mother's
 mind to another view, because the subject is so complicated, involves heavy
 science and, I suspect, because people aren't falling down dead by the dozen
 from eating tortilla chips made with GE corn or drinking corn-syrup-laced soda.
 That we know of. Yet.
 But genetic engineering isn't E. coli, and opponents of GE food -- also known as
 genetically modified organisms (GMO) -- say problems suggested in some health
 studies could take years to show up. Meanwhile, we're eating lots of GE foods
 anyway, whether we know it or not -- especially in processed foods, because
 corn, soy and canola are the Big 3 GE food crops.
 For people like my mother, this may not be a problem. But for many people who
 know they don't want to eat GE foods, or for whom the jury is still out, it may
 be.
 "Since our government has refused to label these foods, how do we avoid buying
 and eating these foods?" asks Kimbrell, an attorney who heads the Washington,
 D.C.-based Center for Food Safety, a vocal opponent of GE foods.
 His new book, "Your Right to Know: Genetic Engineering and the Secret Changes in
 Your Food" (Earth Aware Editions, $24.95), answers that question. And,
 remarkably, it accomplishes that in user-friendly, factoidal, fun-with-graphics
 way.
 For conscious eaters, the heart of the book is a 14-page guide to your local
 supermarket. It tells you which foods are the most likely to contain GE
 ingredients (chips, snacks and baby formula), which aren't (fruits, vegetables,
 wheat), and how to read labels for "hidden ingredients" derived from corn, soy
 or canola (hint: look for high fructose corn syrup, soy lecithin and canola
 oil).
 A passport-size version of the guide, small enough to slide into most pockets or
 purses, comes along with the book.
 "I wanted to give people a usable tool to avoid these foods so they don't feel
 so helpless," said Kimbrell, who was in San Francisco last week to celebrate the
 launch of his book at Millennium restaurant and to appear before the Ninth
 Circuit Court of Appeal in a precedent-setting GE alfalfa case.
 The book isn't intended to present the pros and cons of GE foods. Kimbrell is
 100 percent against the technology and spends a lot of time in court fighting
 companies like Monsanto, to keep GE crops from spreading. The Center for Food
 Safety also opposes irradiation and food animal cloning, and has labored to keep
 industry from weakening federal organic standards.
 In fact, Kimbrell is the man who calls the current administration's efforts to
 protect food safety "Katrina on a plate."
 But anyone who has questions about genetically engineered foods, or is confused
 about the issue, might want to take a look at this book. Kimbrell and his staff
 lay out the complexities of the case against GE foods in bite-size pieces that
 manage to be thoroughly researched (220 footnotes!) and easily digestible.
 Concerns about human health issues like allergens, toxins and dangerous proteins
 potentially created as side effects of genetic engineering are aired, as well as
 the environmental threats.
 There are profiles of key players, lists of major food manufacturers and their
 friendliness to GE foods, and two-page chart worthy of "The L Word" that draws
 the many links between top U.S. food regulators and Monsanto and other GE food
 developers.
 As Kimbrell told me, nobody -- not the Food and Drug Administration, which
 regulates food, nor the GE food companies -- has ever declared GE foods to be
 safe.
 "They say they're not proven to be unsafe -- and as an attorney I appreciate
 that turn of phrase," Kimbrell said.
 While more than half of all the corn, cotton, soy and canola grown in the United
 States is now genetically modified -- most of it so that it can be sprayed with
 herbicides -- Kimbrell says much of the food supply is GE-free.
 "You can get through most of your shopping without buying GE foods -- and this
 could be at Safeway," he said. "It's much better news than you think."
 And he added, a lot of the food that does contain GE ingredients is junk food,
 or full of high fructose corn syrup.
 "You should be avoiding these foods anyway," he said.
 The Center for Food Safety continues to push for the labeling of GE foods, both
 to help consumers who want to avoid them and also for another reason.
 A lack of labels makes it difficult to track an increase in allergic reactions
 or some other pattern of health problems to a genetically engineered ingredient
 or food, Kimbrell said.
 "If you don't have a government agency looking for patterns," he asked, how will
 the safety of GE foods ever be determined?
 Other countries do require labels and are conducting these kinds of studies.
 In the meantime, conscious consumers now have a guide.
 Before you shop
 Here are a few of the tips on shopping to avoid genetically engineered food, if
 that's your choice, culled from Andrew Kimbrell's "Your Right to Know." If you
 have any doubts, Kimbrell says, ask the grocer about suppliers. Look for labels
 that say 100 percent organic or GE-free or GMO-free.
 Fruits and vegetables. Almost all are not GE. The exceptions are a few papayas
 from Hawaii and a tiny amount of fresh corn, zucchini and yellow squash.
 Meat and fish. No GE meat or fish are approved for human consumption. But most
 GE corn and soy is fed to meat animals and farmed fish. So look for wild fish,
 grass-fed beef and organic meats.
 Dairy. Dairy cows aren't genetically engineered but can eat GE grains unless
 they're organic. A genetically engineered hormone called rbGH or rbST is used in
 some dairy cows; look for labels that say no hormones were used.
 Baby foods. Most formula contains GE ingredients, either soy or milk from cows
 injected with GE hormones. Some also contain corn syrup. Cereals can contain
 ingredients like GE soy lecithin.
 Canned and frozen foods. Vegetables and fruits packed or frozen without
 flavorings, additives or corn, soy or canola oil are GE free. Sauces and entrees
 with lots of ingredients often contain vegetable oil, soy and cornstarch.
 Grains and beans. Corn is the only GE grain on the market. Soybeans are the only
 GE dried beans. So wheat, rice, oats, quinoa and foods made from them, like
 pasta, are OK. Check ingredient labels for additives like soy lecithin, which
 can be GE.
 Snacks. Most are processed foods that contain ingredients made from corn,
 canola, soy or cotton. Nuts, seeds and dried fruits are good options. Popcorn is
 not genetically engineered. Conventional chocolate bars often contain soy
 lecithin, corn syrup or other like GE ingredients. Organic snacks are GE free,
 but "natural" ones aren't necessarily.
 Beverages. Look for drinks that are 100 percent juice, or sweetened with sugar
 or honey instead of corn syrup. Beer currently contains no GE ingredients.
 Baked goods. Non-organic breads, baked goods and even chocolate chips often
 contain high fructose corn syrup, soy, or corn, canola or cottonseed oil, all of
 which can be GE. Look for products made from wheat, oats and rice, with sugar or
 maple syrup as sweeteners.
 LOAD-DATE: June 27, 2007
 Pocket size: A shopping guide comes with the book "Your Right to Know" by Andrew
 Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety. / Michael Macor / The Chronicle
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2007 San Francisco Chronicle
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 685
 
                       Chico Enterprise-Record (California)
                               June 24, 2007 Sunday
 Editorial: The states' business is no business of Congress
 BYLINE: Chico Enterprise-Record
 LENGTH: 465 words
 The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution basically tells the federal
 government to stay out of the states' business, except in areas where the
 document specifically grants authority to do so.
 That's a provision that some folks in Congress just can't seem to get.
 Twice in the current session, there have been efforts to undo actions taken by
 states   including California   that the state's legislators or citizens saw as
 beneficial to themselves.
 We don't see anything in the Constitution that grants Congress such pre-emptive
 rights.
 The most publicized effort is the fight between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of
 California and Rep. John Dingell of Michigan over a measure in an energy bill
 that would have blocked California's efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses. A
 dozen other states are taking similar steps.
 Dingell opposes it on behalf of the automakers concentrated in his state, who
 will likely have to begin improving fuel efficiency and reduce emissions if they
 want to keep selling their products in California.
 After a few weeks of the showdown, Dingell backed down, for now. Don't expect
 him to stop trying.
 The lesser noticed move by someone in Congress involved the Farm Bill now being
 developed. Tucked in there is a section aimed at sweeping away bans of
 genetically engineered crops.
 The provision bars states or local governments from banning any crop approved by
 the U.S. Department of Agriculture, as all commercial GE-crops are.
 Four counties in California have such bans, and there are others in place or
 pending in 16 other states.
 When a GE ban was proposed in Butte County in 2004, the Enterprise-Record
 opposed it, largely because it didn't make any sense to ban the crops in one
 county in the middle of the valley, surrounded by farms on three sides.
 But when the state's rice industry as a whole banned GE rice to protect its
 critical Asian markets   which won't touch the stuff   we thought that was a
 good idea. Just the possibility our rice might be contaminated would dry up that
 market, and likely gut the industry.
 The Farm Bill provision is catching a lot of fire, and hopefully won't survive.
 The only argument offered in favor of such measures is that they're necessary to
 prevent a "crazy quilt" of regulations across the country. It's an argument
 that's never caught much traction with us. If a business can only make one
 product for everyone in this country, it probably will go out of business
 anyway.
 Certainly there are cases where the nation must act to end abusive actions by
 state governments. Civil rights legislation is the most obvious example. But
 unless a state is repressing a group of its citizens, it's hard to justify
 overturning a state or local effort to make things better, just because someone
 in Washington has a different idea of what's better.
 LOAD-DATE: June 24, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
             Copyright 2007 MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 686
 
                                 The Denver Post
                              June 21, 2007 Thursday
 Organic bigwig surfaces at confab White Wave founder Steve Demos tells industry
 chiefs, ``We need to grow up, and we need to make money.''
 BYLINE: A.J. Miranda Denver Post Staff Writer
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. C-01
 LENGTH: 397 words
 Boulder - Steve Demos, founder and former president of Broomfield-based
 soy-foods giant White Wave, came out of a self-imposed two-year "exile"
 Wednesday with a message for his organic brethren.
 "Dream big or don't leave home," he told more than 100 industry leaders at New
 Hope Natural Media's inaugural Organic Summit.
 "We need to grow up, and we need to make money," he said. "The best
 recommendation for this industry is, make a bucketful of money - because you're
 moral, you're ethical and you'll figure out the right thing to do with that
 scale of influence and power once you have it."
 Demos served as chief executive of White Wave until 2005 - three years after it
 was acquired by Dallas-based Dean Foods Co.
 Demos was among the panelists speaking in a session titled "Is This the Organic
 We Wanted?"
 Many critics have questioned whether organic-food sellers and producers will
 lose touch with their roots once big corporations get involved.
 Silk, White Wave's soy-milk superstar, is in nearly every grocery store in the
 U.S., but Demos said that was the goal all along.
 The organic movement began more than 30 years ago but has thrived in the past 10
 years as big agriculture companies began acquiring smaller organic businesses.
 Organic-food sales have risen 20 percent every year for a decade, according to
 the Organic Consumers Association.
 But Demos said the goal of the movement was to make organic mainstream.
 Compromising with big business has been key to organic's rise in prominence, he
 said, but a backlash from within has resulted.
 Kathleen Merrigan, director of the Agriculture, Food and Environment Program at
 Tufts University, agreed that compromise is necessary but clarified the point.
 "We don't mean we should compromise our principles," Merrigan said.
 The organic community will never compromise on issues like pesticides and
 genetically modified foods, she said.
 The Organic Summit was Demos' first public speaking appearance since returning
 from a world tour that he said included Papua New Guinea, Rwanda and the Amazon.
 He has plans for a food venture called NextFoods. He said that NextFoods is
 still in the development phase but that he plans to make an announcement about
 it in September.
 The Organic Summit is taking place at the St. Julien Hotel in Boulder and will
 conclude Friday.
 Staff writer A.J. Miranda can be reached at 303-954-1381 or
 amiranda@denverpost.com
 LOAD-DATE: June 21, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2007 The Denver Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 687
 
                     Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock)
                              June 19, 2007 Tuesday
 Bayer testing 2nd modified rice in state
 LENGTH: 1173 words
 The company whose genetically engineered rice is at the center of an ongoing
 government investigation - and has disrupted U.S. rice exports - has been
 quietly testing another transgenic variety in Arkansas.
 This spring, Bayer Crop-Science planted four 0.2-acre plots of LLRICE62 near
 Proctor, Newport, Stuttgart and Tillar, according to the state Plant Board.
 Greg Yielding, executive director of the Arkansas Rice Growers Association, said
 Monday that his group requested information last week from the board under the
 Arkansas Freedom of Information Act after hearing rumors about Bayer's current
 testing.
 "We want to know exactly where [the fields] are, who owns the land and what
 farmers abut the land - those people have a right to know this," Yielding said.
 In 2005, the association spearheaded efforts to prevent Ventria Bioscience from
 planting rice in Arkansas that had been genetically engineered to produce human
 proteins. The Rice Certification Act was one result of those efforts.
 Act 1238 of 2005 specifically exempts any rice plot used for research "conducted
 by federal, state, or private entities" from special scrutiny by the Plant Board
 for "characteristics of commercial impact." Yielding said the exemption was
 included at the request of Stuttgart-based Riceland Foods Inc., the country's
 largest rice miller and marketer.
 Riceland spokesman Bill Reed said Monday that he could not comment on the matter
 because of pending contamination litigation that names Riceland as a defendant.
 Yielding said, "As it is right now, Ventria can come in here and plant rice ...
 as long as they follow the federal protocols and get a permit." Earlier this
 year, Ventria received permits to conduct field tests of its pharmaceutical rice
 in Kansas.
 "Go to Kansas," was Paul Byrd's message for Bayer Crop-Science, a subsidiary of
 Germany-based Bayer AG, a multinational chemical and health-care corporation,
 whose list of products includes Bayer aspirin and Alka-Seltzer.
 Byrd, Little Rock managing counsel for Birmingham, Ala.-based Hare, Wynn, Newell
 and Newton LLP, filed one of the first contamination lawsuits by Arkansas
 farmers, seeking damages from both Bayer and Riceland Foods.
 On Aug. 18, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that traces of Bayer's
 LLRICE601 had been found in U.S. long-grain rice supplies. Since that
 revelation, sales in nearly half of all U.S. rice export markets have been
 harmed, resulting in everything from required testing to the complete cessation
 of trade, according to the USA Rice Federation.
 Arkansas produces about half of all the rice grown in the United States. The
 country exports about half of its production. The state harvested $892 million
 worth of the grain in 2006.
 Although the USDA has promised a full report on the circumstances surrounding
 the contamination, it has yet to release any information. USDA spokesman Rachel
 Iadicicco said she "had no timeline" for when the report would be issued.
 Mark Waldrip, who represents farmers on the state Plant Board, said, "Arkansas
 rice farmers have already been damaged so much by what has gone on with
 contamination issues." Farmers were prohibited this year from planting two
 popular rice varieties - Cheniere and Clearfield 131 - in an effort to halt
 further contamination. Farmers and millers also have been requested to
 thoroughly clean all of their rice-handling equipment.
 "Most of the rice farmers in this state are already a party to one lawsuit or
 another," Waldrip said. "I think we owe it to them to minimize any possibility
 of exposure." Waldrip was referring to the hundreds of lawsuits that have been
 filed since Aug. 18 regarding the contamination, most by rice farmers, some by
 rice buyers and at least one by seed dealers.
 Adam Levitt, a partner in the Chicago office of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
 Herz LLP, serves as co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs in those cases, which are
 being consolidated in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
 Bayer "continues to put American rice farmers at risk," Levitt said, without
 explaining what went wrong with LLRICE601 "and what steps they've taken to
 change their oversight, supervision, management and protection of the U.S. rice
 supply in their testing of Liberty Link rice varieties." Bayer's Liberty Link
 rice varieties feature a protein that makes them resistant to the herbicide
 Liberty, also known as glufosinate.
 LLRICE601 and LLRICE62 are different cases, according to Bayer, because LLRICE62
 was "deregulated" or approved for commercialization in the United States in
 1999. LLRICE601 was deregulated in October, after the contamination had been
 made public.
 "LLRICE62 has been determined safe for human food use by [Food and Drug
 Administration] and USDA," said Greg Coffey, a spokesman for Bayer CropScience
 based in Research Park Triangle, N.C.
 "And, although it's deregulated, we're voluntarily conducting these trials in
 adherence to USDA's guidelines for regulated rice," he said.
 Coffey said the LLRICE62 test plots are small, will be harvested by hand and are
 under the control of private-contract research farms "experienced in biotech
 trials," where no seed production takes place.
 Plant Board Director Darryl Little says the current tests do differ
 significantly from last year's research, which took place in a seed breeding
 program.
 "If you have a mistake in a breeding program and end up with the trait in your
 breeding program, when you release that seed it's going to spread from one end
 of the Rice Belt to the other, like what we had last year," Little said.
 Any potential problem this year would result in "a very minute amount that's
 going to the mill," he said.
 Little confirmed that his agency plans to visit Bayer's test plots this week.
 The exact locations of the fields will remain confidential because of concerns
 that they might be sabotaged, he said.
 Arkansas Agriculture Secretary Richard Bell said the current testing is less
 worrisome because the Plant Board will have some oversight.
 "I think the Plant Board will be able to handle it and I don't think it's a big
 risk," he said.
 Bob Cummings, vice president for international affairs at USA Rice Federation,
 said Bayer was conducting tests of LLRICE62 as part of its efforts to secure
 European Union authorization for importation of the variety.
 "We're concerned about field trials of [genetically engineered] traits in the
 absence of USDA's investigation about how Liberty Link 601 got out in the first
 place," Cummings said.
 Keith Glover, president and chief executive officer of Producers Rice Mill Inc.
 of Stuttgart, said he, too, is concerned "a great deal, given what [the rice]
 industry had to suffer this past year with the rice that contained Liberty Link
 traits." Bill Freese, a science policy analyst with the Washington, D.C.-based
 Center for Food Safety, said he was surprised by news of the testing.
 "After all that's happened, it's unbelievable that the state would give Bayer
 another chance to contaminate Arkansas rice," Freese said.
 This article was published 06/19/2007
 LOAD-DATE: June 19, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2007 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 688
 
                               Daily Deal/The Deal
                               June 18, 2007 Monday
 GM crops: Calculating costs and benefits
 BYLINE: by Bill McConnell
 LENGTH: 1025 words
 HIGHLIGHT:Despite heated debate, farmers worldwide are copying the U.S.'s
 unrestrained embrace of the technology.
 Despite heated debate among officials in Europe, Africa and South America over
 the wisdom of planting genetically modified crops, farmers around the globe are
 copying America's unrestrained embrace of the technology.
 Genetically modified agriculture now predominates among cash crops in the U.S.,
 accounting for the vast majority of cotton and soybeans planted and just over
 half of the corn. Worldwide, by some estimates, more than 80 million hectares
 are planted in so-called GM crops and are being rapidly adopted in Argentina,
 Canada, Brazil, China and India.
 The American agriculture business adopted GM crops so rapidly after their
 commercial introduction in the late 1990s that there was very little up-front
 debate among policymakers about the potential financial, environmental and human
 health impact.
 Now, however, some farm states are beginning to have second thoughts about GM
 agriculture and its impact on the economics of farming, food safety and
 long-term effectiveness against insect pests and weeds. California and Arkansas
 have established certification programs for GM rice to help stem contamination
 of natural varieties exported to Asia and Europe. Four California counties have
 banned or placed a moratorium on GM crops altogether. Washington state now
 prohibits planting of GM canola near the Skagit Valley area, which produces $20
 million worth of vegetable seeds annually, because canola cross-pollinates
 easily and poses a contamination threat to organic crops.
 Supporters of the GM crops are fighting back and are counting on help from
 Congress. The current version of the 2007 farm bill contains a provision
 overriding state prohibitions against any U.S. product the Secretary of
 Agriculture has inspected and passed or determined to be of "nonregulated
 status." Iowa's Rep. Leonard Boswell, chairman of the House Agriculture
 Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry, inserted the provision into the
 bill.
 The provision has alarmed state officials and agriculture safety activists not
 only because it could affect regulation of GM crops but also because it could
 limit other state and local government initiatives, such as New York City's ban
 on artificial trans fats in restaurant cooking oil, prohibitions on foie gras
 produced by forced overfeeding of geese and local school board restrictions on
 junk food in schools.
 Bill Freese, science policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety, a group
 calling for tougher regulation of the GM business, argues that approvals of GM
 products by the Department of Agriculture provide little safety oversight. The
 USDA's approval process is essentially a self-certification program that relies
 on companies like Monsanto Co. to adequately test their products for human and
 environmental safety and thoroughly report the results. "The impact of GM food
 crops on human health is not being adequately tested," Freese says.
 His group is pushing for rules that would require safety studies in which GM
 food crops are fed to animals for 90 days before approval for sale to humans.
 CFS also wants GM products labeled so consumers know what they are buying.
 Monsanto counters that after a decade of use there have been no safety problems
 created by GM crops, a point Freese and most other critics of GM concede.
 But Monsanto's cotton products, particularly seeds containing its flagship
 Roundup Ready trait, have proven to have unwanted side effects, Freese and
 leading cotton experts say. Roundup, which is scientifically known as
 glyphosate, is one of the most common and effective herbicides and is generally
 considered environmentally friendly because it breaks down in soil. But weed
 resistance to glyphosate is appearing.
 Planting crops modified to resist glyphosate allows farmers to spray their
 entire fields by crop dusting or overhead sprayers rather than more laborious
 spot spraying of weeds.
 In central Georgia and Tennessee, the nasty weed Palmer amaranth is developing
 resistance to Roundup. Palmer amaranth, more commonly known as pigweed, can grow
 taller than eight feet, siphon nutrients from crops and produce stalks so thick
 it can jam cotton harvesters.
 Freese predicts that more glyphosate weeds will appear because nearly all major
 crops now contain resistance to the herbicide. Consequently, fields are
 continually doused in Roundup and the time-honored practice of rotating
 plantings does nothing to stem weeds' ability to develop resistance.
 Monsanto says it is currently investigating the appearance of resistant pigweed.
 In the meantime, the company is urging planters not to spray more then
 recommended amounts of Roundup Ready and to carry out a preplanting treatment of
 other herbicides.
 Beyond glyphosate resistance, Freese says there is also evidence that Roundup
 Ready plants release compounds into the soil that kill micro-organisms that help
 plants absorb nutrients. That may hurt plant growth as well as lead to food
 crops deficient in nutritional value.
 Finally, he says GM crops threaten organic farming -- an increasingly attractive
 option for small farmers that can't compete with giant industrial-scale farms.
 Cross-pollination or inadvertent mixing by seed producers can contaminate
 organic crops, as can drift from overhead spraying of insecticide or herbicide.
 Monsanto argues that whatever problems have started appearing, they are
 minuscule compared with the benefits already delivered by GM products worldwide.
 A Monsanto-financed study by the U.K.'s PG Economics Ltd.shows that reduced fuel
 and chemicals costs have saved farmers around the world more than $27 billion
 for the decade ended 2005. From an environmental standpoint, GM technology has
 reduced pesticide spraying by 224 million kilograms, an estimated reduction of
 more than 15%. By reducing the need to kill weeds through tilling, GM technology
 has also significantly reduced the release of greenhouse gas emissions from
 turned soil. In 2005 alone, the cut in emissions was the equivalent to removing
 4 million cars from the roads.
 Given the pace of GM adoption, no true cost-benefit analysis will likely be
 available until it's recorded in history books.
 See related story: Germinal questions
 URL: http://www.TheDeal.com
 COMPANY: MONSANTO CO (82%); CNINSURE INC (71%) Monsanto Co.; PG Economics Ltd.
 Agriculture
 LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
                         Copyright 2007 The Deal, L.L.C.









Document Number: 689
 
                                Chicago Sun Times
                               June 17, 2007 Sunday
                                  Final Edition
 Animal, vegetable, fanatical; A novelist and her family test the strength of
 their 'locavore' belief
 BYLINE: Cheryl L. Reed, The Chicago Sun-Times
 SECTION: BOOKS; Cheryl L. Reed; Pg. B12
 LENGTH: 1072  words
 By Barbara Kingsolver
 With Steven L. Hopp and Camille Kingsolver
 HarperCollins, 384 pages, $26.95
 To understand Barbara Kingsolver's polemic against mass market farming, it helps
 to be good at solving story problems. Remember those from high school math
 class? For example: How many calories of fuel does it take to transport a single
 calorie of fruit from California to New York in the middle of winter?
 The answer -- according to Kingsolver's new book Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A
 Year of Food Life -- is 87. That means a 60-calorie apple would cost you 5,220
 calories of fuel. (A gallon of gasoline is equivalent to 31,000 calories.) And a
 bag of 12 apples would require about two gallons of gas. Still with me?
 Kingsolver argues that it's cheaper, more nutritious and better for the
 environment -- without all those semi-trucks crisscrossing the continent -- if
 Americans simply ate what was in season and grown locally. That means limiting
 apple eating to the fall when local orchards harvest them, saying no to lettuce
 with highway miles and refusing February raspberries that have had to be carted
 in from the Southern Hemisphere. It also cuts out anything processed, even
 store-bought bread, and virtually all snack food. Ever see a field full of corn
 chips?
 If you're wondering why novelist Kingsolver -- most notably the author of The
 Poisonwood Bible and The Bean Trees -- is writing a nonfiction book promoting
 organic and local foods, it's because she and her family are converts to what
 she calls the "locavore" movement. In order to test out the strength of their
 politics, Kingsolver and her brood, a biologist husband and two daughters, moved
 from Tucson, Ariz., and spent a year eating only what was grown or raised on or
 near their 100-acre Virginia farm.
 Animal, Vegetable, Miracle is a chronicle of food feats -- harvesting 3-year-old
 asparagus, making cheese from mail-order cultures, playing matchmaker between
 turkey hens and toms -- even watching them have sex. Kingsolver's memoir is one
 of a spate of books hitting the market this spring that tackles organic eating,
 including Plenty (see accompanying review on this page), about a vegetarian
 couple in Vancouver, British Columbia, who also spent a year eating locally.
 Kingsolver is a vegetable pusher, the kind who believes people might like
 broccoli if it spent more time in the ground and less in the back of a truck.
 She blames bland grocery store vegetables on a culture that has insisted on
 seasonal foods year-round, forcing farmers to breed for "indestructible"
 varieties that hold up in shipping crates but taste like the cartons they arrive
 in.
 Much of the book is a hunter-gatherer saga. Kingsolver even details chopping off
 the heads of roosters, a bloody act that seems contrary to the author's
 save-the-earth nature: "We set the rooster gently across our big chopping block
 (a legendary fixture of our backyard, whose bloodstains hold visiting children
 in thrall), and down comes the axe. All sensation ends with that quick stroke.
 He must then be held by the legs over a large plastic bucket until all the blood
 has run out."
 She argues that eating meat in the winter costs less gas than to truck in tofu,
 that refrigerator-trucked soy milk and pre-washed spinach shipped 2,000 miles
 seems more cruel than "harvesting" animals that have been raised free range. She
 believes it's OK to kill animals as long as they had happy lives. "We dispense
 with all delusions about who put the live in livestock and who must take it
 away," she writes.
 Kingsolver is a woman whose politics are difficult to pinpoint. She seems to
 sift most issues through the sieve of how it benefits the land and the local
 farmer. Yet, there are apparent flaws. She chastises Americans' dependence on
 corn syrup -- ignoring that the demand employs farmers and factory workers --
 yet defends the raising of tobacco, a product arguably more harmful, for the
 same reason.
 Readers who will least appreciate Kingsolver's message are working mothers who
 are more apt to pull out a frozen pizza than whip up a spinach pie from scratch.
 Kingsolver rains down a not-so-subtle guilt on those who don't cook, can or
 freeze fresh vegetables. "Plenty of people have freezers that are humming away
 at this moment to chill, among other things, some cardboard. The space could be
 packed with some local zucchini and beans," she writes. "It's easy for any of us
 to claim no time for cooking; harder to look at what we're doing instead, and
 why every bit of it is presumed more worthy."
 Writing this as I stare out from my weekend farmhouse surrounded by fields of
 soybeans and corn and corralled horses, I'm inclined to agree with most points
 Kingsolver makes. Consumers should pay more attention to local, organic produce
 and ethically raised animals. And she's right that it takes less time to throw
 together a salad than it does to heat up a pizza, that limiting kids' junk foods
 is just as critical to their health as keeping their vaccinations up to date.
 The book is packed with convincing statistics about the dangers of steroids in
 milk and how nutritionally inferior genetically modified crops are to
 chemical-free ones. But what Kingsolver lacks is a reality of most people's
 lives.
 It is not an exaggeration to characterize the author as a bit fanatical. Her
 year eating locally was an obsessive pursuit. By her own admission, she spent
 hours most weeknights toiling in her garden and raising chickens and turkeys.
 Weekends in late summer were given over to canning and freezing vegetables. Even
 when she went on a sort of second honeymoon to Italy, she and her husband sought
 out farms and went to absurd lengths to dry seeds from a chard.
 Most people would be too overwhelmed by Kingsolver's account to even attempt to
 emulate her, which is too bad. Because what's the point of learning about the
 pesticides we're feeding our families, only to close the book and serve up
 another dish of genetically modified food?
 I had planned to ask Kingsolver how others could adapt her family's ideologies,
 but our interview was canceled when her plane to Chicago was delayed, her
 luggage lost. Her young publicist phoned me in a panic several hours before the
 scheduled meeting. It seemed their biggest challenge was making sure Kingsolver
 had enough time to get dinner. I don't suppose room service would have sufficed.
 creed@suntimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: June 18, 2007
 Color Photo: (See microfilm for photo description). ;
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Column; Review
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2007 Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 690
 
                        The Chronicle of Higher Education
                               June 1, 2007 Friday
 The Power of the State in a Global Economy
 SECTION: THE CHRONICLE REVIEW; Pg. 16 Vol. 53 No. 39
 LENGTH: 1721 words
 When I began working on my latest book, I also began regularly reading a news
 source greatly undervalued in international relations: The Onion. The timing was
 serendipitous because I soon stumbled across a mock headline that crystallized
 one of my central themes: "Correct Theory Discarded in Favor of More Exciting
 Theory."
 That headline resonated because, simply put, international relations is a
 faddish discipline. Scholars are always searching for the new new theory to
 explain world politics. Many of us select research projects to mesh with
 whatever the problem du jour is in contemporary world politics. To be fair,
 there are perfectly valid reasons for that. In contrast to much of the physical
 sciences, our subject matter is constantly in flux. To remain relevant to both
 scholars and policy makers, international-relations theorists need to
 periodically consider whether new developments require a rethink of our
 conceptual tool kit.
 Attention to the new and exciting comes with a downside, however. Overhyping a
 phenomenon that does not actually transform world politics can lead to errors in
 analysis. That is what has happened with economic globalization. To be blunt,
 globalization has been responsible for a lot of reliable international-relations
 theories' being discarded in favor of unreliable, but trendier, approaches. That
 is not because globalization is an unimportant phenomenon. It is because the
 theoretical reaction to the phenomenon has overstated how globalization actually
 influences world politics.
 To be sure, globalization has opened up new arenas of study for
 international-relations theory. Policy questions that used to be local are now
 global. The reduction of tariffs, quotas, and capital controls has introduced a
 bevy of new international conflicts over residual impediments to global economic
 integration -- differences among domestic rules and regulatory standards. Topics
 affected include, but are not limited to, labor standards, environmental
 protection, financial supervision, consumer health and safety, competition
 policy, intellectual-property rights, and Internet protocols. The Organisation
 for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates that those standards and
 regulations affect approximately $4-trillion in traded goods.
 Regulatory regimes strike a political chord because they symbolize a shift in
 the locus of politics. For many issues that make up the daily substance of our
 lives -- what can be accessed on the Internet, how much medicine will cost, how
 to treat workers, how much to pollute, what can go into our food -- the politics
 have gone global. Public anxiety about globalization has also been on the rise,
 thanks in no small part to Thomas Friedman's oeuvre of hyperbolic Electronic
 Herd/Golden Straitjacket/Flat World metaphors.
 So globalization has opened up some exciting new areas to research. The problem
 is that many scholars have also assumed that completely new theories are
 required to explain the phenomenon. The dominant strands of globalization
 research share a common assumption: State autonomy has declined relative to
 other factors and actors. Structuralists of many stripes agree that
 globalization undercuts state sovereignty, weakens the ability of governments to
 effectively regulate their domestic affairs, and ultimately deprives states of
 their autonomy and agency. Enthusiasts of global civil society argue that
 globalization empowers a new set of nonstate actors -- multi-national
 corporations, nongovernmental organizations, and transnational activist
 networks. Lawyers and sociologists look at the increase in laws, rules,
 treaties, and international institutions, and see the state cosseted by a web of
 supranational arrangements.
 The trouble with such arguments is the lack of variation in the independent
 variable and the presence of variation in the dependent variable. According to
 the accepted narratives, globalization increases the number and power of factors
 and actors that inexorably promote policy convergence, forcing states into
 agreement on regulatory matters. There are, however, a number of regulatory
 issues -- data privacy, stem-cell research, global warming, genetically modified
 foods -- where regulatory convergence has been limited at best. Today's theories
 lack the capacity to explain variation in out-comes.
 For the past century, the standard approaches to international relations --
 realism and liberalism -- have focused on the role that state power and national
 interest play in determining outcomes in world politics. My book All Politics Is
 Global argues that globalization does little to reduce the salience of those
 factors. Since Albert O. Hirschman's National Power and the Structure of Foreign
 Trade (University of California Press, 1945), one of the basic measures of
 aggregate power has been relative market size. The current era of globalization,
 if anything, reinforces that metric of power. Governments that regulate large
 markets -- at present, the United States and the European Union -- establish the
 rules that other actors follow. A great-power concert is a necessary and
 sufficient condition for effective global governance over any transnational
 issue. The strong rules for Internet domain names and intellectual-property
 rights exist because of trans-Atlantic agreement. Without such a concert,
 international efforts at regulatory coordination will be incomplete.
 While the distribution of power determines who has a seat at the regulating
 table, the distribution of interests within and among the great powers
 determines whether there will be effective global governance. In large-market
 economies, globalization increases the rewards for policy coordination but has a
 negligible impact on the attendant adjustment costs that come with altering
 pre-existing rules and regulations. When the adjustment costs are sufficiently
 high, not even globalization's powerful dynamics can push states into
 cooperation. For example, because agriculture is the world's oldest profession,
 that sector has the highest adjustment costs. No one should hold his or her
 breath for any agreements on agricultural subsidies for the treatment of
 genetically modified organisms anytime soon.
 The more that domestic interests within the great powers have invested in the
 status quo, the greater the adjustment costs of change. That implies that
 coordination will be least likely when the regulatory issue in question affects
 relatively immobile or mature sectors or markets -- the regulation of land,
 labor, or consumer products. Ironically, the least globalized elements of
 great-power polities will exert the strongest effect on the likelihood of global
 regulatory coordination.
 Like any theory, mine leaves a large cast of characters offstage. For example,
 smaller states and nonstate actors in the international system do not affect
 governance outcomes -- but they do affect the processes through which governance
 is attempted. Weaker actors can block action of "universal" organizations like
 the United Nations and its International Labour Organization or the
 International Telecommunication Union. Their effect is marginal, however,
 because at the global level, governance structures are substitutable. Powerful
 states engage in forum shopping within a complex of international regimes. If
 the ITU poses a problem for Internet governance, the United States and the E.U.
 simply create the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers to handle
 the problem. If the developing countries get the World Trade Organization to
 agree to a public-health exception to intellectual-property rights, the United
 States responds by signing a web of bilateral trade deals with
 even-more-stringent protections. To get what they want, the great powers can and
 will delegate regime management to nonstate actors; create international regimes
 with strong enforcement capabilities; generate rival regimes to protect their
 interests; and exercise uni-lateral, extraterritorial measures to establish
 regional spheres of influence.
 Thus globalization affects world politics, but it does not require jettisoning
 how we currently think about world politics: State power and national interest
 still matter. That might not be a terribly exciting argument, but it is a
 necessary one. What is taking place today in debates about globalization and
 global governance echoes similar debates three decades ago. During the early
 70s, the global economy seemed to be buffeted by one shock after another -- the
 first oil crisis, the end of the Bretton Woods regime that defined how global
 finance operated after World War II, and more. Enter a surge of research about
 how complex transnational interdependence alters the behavior of states. The
 research emphasized the ways in which nonstate actors and the global economy
 constrained states. A few years later, another wave of scholarship arose asking
 how complex interdependence would be regulated in an anarchic world. The result
 was the literature on international regimes, which pointed out the ways in which
 states remained the primary actors in establishing the rules of the game, while
 other actors and factors were "intervening variables."
 A similar yin and yang is taking place in today's theoretical debates about how
 economic globalization affects world politics. The first wave arrived in the
 90s, highlighting how globalization placed added constraints on the state. My
 book belongs to a small but growing literature that looks at globalization and
 global governance from a state-centric perspective. Giving states pride of place
 makes it easier to discern the precise effects of the new forces of
 globalization. Much like scholars in the 1970s, I conclude that they matter as
 an intervening variable, but they are not transformative.
 When Tip O'Neill said that "all politics is local," he meant that politicians
 needed to heed the voices of their constituents. In today's global economy, the
 phrase means that, even if more issues are negotiated on the global stage, the
 sources of government power and preferences remain local.
 Daniel W. Drezner is an associate professor of international politics at the
 Fletcher School at Tufts University. His book All Politics Is Global: Explaining
 International Regulatory Regimes was published this spring by Princeton
 University Press.
 LOAD-DATE: June 5, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                 Copyright 2007 The Chronicle of Higher Education
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 691
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                              May 31, 2007 Thursday
 Monsanto has a game plan It's laying groundwork for an EU policy change, buying
 firms.
 BYLINE: By Rachel Melcer ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. C1
 LENGTH: 468 words
 The European Union is making slow progress - but progress nonetheless - toward
 acceptance of genetically modified crops, said Hugh Grant, chief executive of
 Creve Coeur-based Monsanto Co.
 At the moment, "financially it's immaterial, but strategically it's important"
 to Monsanto, Grant told analysts at the annual Sanford Bernstein Strategic
 Decisions Conference in New York.
 Monsanto, the world's largest agricultural biotechnology company, does not count
 on broad European regulatory approvals of genetically modified crops in its
 financial projections. But it is laying groundwork to take advantage of a policy
 change if one should come, Grant said.
 In Europe and countries that resist biotech crops out of environmental, health,
 or cultural concerns, Monsanto is focused on selling conventional hybrid seeds.
 It is buying local seed companies and using molecular breeding technology to
 build a base of seeds that outperform competitors' seeds, Grant said.
 If biotech traits for crops such as corn and soybeans are approved, Monsanto
 will be positioned to quickly roll them out in seeds that already have won over
 farmers. "That's a story still to come, but I think it will go quickly once
 biotech is approved," he said.
 The European Union has deadlocked over the issue for some time. The commission
 last approved a new biotech crop in 1998, though some products have won
 executive approval through a legal default process.
 On June 8, the commission will debate applications for approval of three
 varieties of biotech corn: one submitted by Monsanto, the others by a joint
 venture of Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. and Dow AgroSciences LLC. These
 seek a nod for use of the corn, grown elsewhere, in animal feed and food
 processing - not for cultivation in the EU.
 Still, the applications are not expected to pass.
 Marian Fischer Boel, EU commissioner for agricultural and rural development,
 told delegates at the recent World Agricultural Forum in St. Louis that the EU
 needs to speed its approval process.
 Varieties of biotech soybeans and corn prohibited in the EU are being adopted at
 a rapid rate by countries from which it imports. If they aren't approved, "we
 might find a situation where there are no imports available, in soybeans, for
 example," she said.
 Grant told analysts that seven European countries are planting biotech crops for
 the second straight season: France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Slovakia
 and the Czech Republic.
 "It isn't huge acreage, but it is commercial planting and not field trials," he
 said.
 And if the crops perform well, farmers are likely to demand more, Grant said.
 "When farmers actually experience this on their farm and their field, they don't
 go back. ... There still is consumer resistance, (but) from a regulatory and
 farm perspective, there's significant progress."
 MFG (72%); LIVESTOCK FEED (72%) AGRICULTURE; TECHNOLOGY; BIOTECHNOLOGY; European
 Union; POLICY; Monsanto Co.; REACTION; FOREIGN; PURCHASE
 LOAD-DATE: May 31, 2007
 NOTES:  Biotech Crops
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2007 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 692
 
                                 University Wire
                               May 29, 2007 Tuesday
 Iowa State U. files lawsuit against Monsanto over low-acid soybeans
 BYLINE: By Kevin W. Stillman, Iowa State Daily; SOURCE: Iowa State U.
 LENGTH: 415 words
 DATELINE: AMES, Iowa
 A lawsuit recently filed by the Iowa State University Research Foundation and
 the Department of Technology Transfer against seed producer Monsanto Corporation
 could halt further production of a specialty hybrid which has already been
 planted on thousands of acres of farmland across the Midwest.
 On May 21, the ISU Research Foundation filed suit claiming that Vistive
 soybeans, a genetically modified soybean crop engineered to have a low amount of
 linolenic acid, violates two patents held jointly by Walter Fehr, director of
 agronomy, and Earl Hammond, retired university professor emeritus.
 Bio-oil refiners currently pay more for low-linolenic beans, because they
 produce soybean oil with lower saturated and trans fats.
 If the foundation is successful, Monsanto will be barred from selling the
 hybrid, a primary source of low-linolenic oil.
 According to court documents, Fehr and Hammond hold several patents for creating
 a low-linolenic acid variety of conventional soybeans.
 Monsanto began marketing its genetically modified Vistive varieties in 2005 in a
 "Roundup Ready" variety approved for growth and sale only in the United States.
 The foundation's complaint claims Vistive products violate one patent granted in
 1996 and another granted in 1998.
 According to court documents, Fehr and Hammond's patents cover bean products
 directly related to the varieties raised for research as well as methods used in
 the creation of the variety.
 The foundation's complaint filed in federal court does not specify which part of
 the patents was violated.
 Fehr and foundation attorney Edmund Sease declined to comment on what evidence
 the foundation found to suggest the two hybrids were not developed
 independently.
 In written statement, a Monsanto representative said the company developed its
 hybrid independently, but when informed of possible litigation, made an
 agreement with representatives of the Research Foundation.
 The foundation said representatives met with Monsanto, but denied that any
 agreement was made.
 According to the complaint, Monsanto asked that Fehr and Hammond not be present,
 but the foundation insisted that Fehr's permission be sought for any agreement.
 Kenneth Kirkland, director of intellectual property and technology transfer at
 the ISU Research Foundation, declined to comment on whether Fehr had been
 informed of any agreements offered by Monsanto.
 Fehr declined to comment on the litigation and Hammond could not be reached for
 comment.
 (C) 2007 Iowa State Daily via U-WIRE
 LOAD-DATE: May 29, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2007 Iowa State Daily via U-Wire









Document Number: 693
 
                                     BestWire
                                   May 24, 2007
 LENGTH: 872 words
 LONDON (BestWire) - While the global property/casualty industry enjoyed great
 success last year, it will have to pay close attention to underwriting
 discipline, regulatory issues and a range of emerging risks if it is to continue
 to prosper.
 That view was presented at the opening session of British Insurance Brokers
 Associations annual conference by Martin J. Sullivan, president and chief
 executive officer of American International Group Inc.
 Underwriting discipline, Sullivan said, is key to reassuring clients, who look
 to the industry for financial stability. Success calls for diligence in the
 choice and pricing of risks, he said.
 Customers see us as a safe haven in a stormy sea, Sullivan said.
 Insurers must resist the temptation to cut premiums and broaden covers in order
 to gain market share, Sullivan said.
 Companies should also be aware of the emerging regulatory climate, particularly
 within the European Union, which is actively devising a system of cross-border
 regulation. Recent regulatory developments are changing the landscape of how we
 do business, Sullivan said.
 Sullivan pointed to progress on tort reform in the United States. He argued the
 only way to reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits in the United States is to
 bring in a U.K. system where the loser faces the prospect of paying the other
 sides legal costs. But with Democrats in power in Congress, he said, this is
 unlikely to happen.
 Insurers should also be aware of the high profile of risks that werent on the
 radar 20 to 30 years ago, Sullivan said. These include directors and officers,
 environmental impairment, political risk and specialized cover for
 high-net-worth individuals.
 Sullivan also pointed to interest in climate change and the apparent upward
 trend in extreme weather events. A major challenge for insurers, Sullivan said,
 will be to capture enough information to guide their decisions. He noted the
 criticism of catastrophe modeling systems after the 2005 U.S. hurricanes.
 The insurance industry will also have to familiarize itself with such risk
 transfer techniques as catastrophe bonds. Sullivan also pointed to underwriting
 concerns about terrorism and avian flu and possible risks associated with
 genetically modified food and nanotechnology.
 Whats clear is the risks faced by our clients as they go about their business
 are growing, Sullivan said.
 Sullivans speech also reflected the undeniable satisfaction from within the
 industry on last years property/casualty underwriting results.
 He noted the record 2006 profits of the U.S. property/casualty market, the
 worlds largest. The industry's net income after taxes was around $64 billion,
 with return on equity of about 14%.  This, Sullivan said, was the highest in
 about 20 years.
 Insurers benefited from good performances in different lines of U.S. business,
 improved investment income and sharply reduced catastrophe losses. Cat losses,
 Sullivan said, were $8 billion in 2006, down from $62 billion in 2005.
 All the indications are 2006 will turn out to be a record year for the global
 property/casualty industry, he said.
 Sullivan also pointed to the expansion of global markets amid a lowering of
 barriers to business. Nonlife premiums are set to continue increasing. Its an
 exciting time for our industry, he said.
 But Sullivan warned against either complacency or a loss of focus by the
 industry. Last year, he noted, was only the second year in more than 20 that the
 U.S. property/casualty sector had a combined ratio of less than 100. One good
 year does not set a trend, he said.
 Among the danger signs are predictions of increased hurricane activity in the
 United States. I hope they are wrong, he said.
 Sullivan also pointed to the unpredictability of investment markets, as
 demonstrated by the fall in stock prices in February and March of this year.
 Sullivan was introduced by BIBA Chairman Max Taylor, who described him as the
 most successful British businessman in the U.S.A.
 Sullivan, who was born in Stepney in Londons East End, retains more than a
 vestige of a London accent. He thanked BIBA for choosing a venue down the road
 from his birthplace. The three-day conference was held at the ExCeL center in
 Londons Docklands area.
 Every time I return to London its a great homecoming, Sullivan said. Each of his
 visits to London, he said, reveals a city that is of increasing importance as a
 hub of international insurance and finance.
 Sullivan also put in several plugs for AIG, which, he said, had been making
 progress in China, and in the insurance markets of Latin America, Eastern Europe
 and the former Soviet Union.
 AIGs sponsorship of Manchester United, the English soccer powerhouse, puts the
 companys logo on television screens around the world. Manchester United has 48
 million fans in Asia alone, Sullivan said.
 The Manchester United deal has not been without some emotional cost to Sullivan,
 who, since childhood, has supported Tottenham Hotspur, a London team now known
 mainly for disappointing its fans.
 American International Group currently has a Bests Financial Strength Rating of
 A+ (Superior).
 (By Robert O'Connor, London editor)
 COMPANY: None AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP INC(72%);EUROPEAN UNION (56%);
 LOAD-DATE: May 24, 2007
                      Copyright 2007 A.M. Best Company, Inc.









Document Number: 694
 
                        The Oklahoman (Oklahoma City, OK)
                              May 23, 2007 Wednesday
                                   City Edition
 Modern biotechnology provides foundation for enhancing crops
 BYLINE: Becky Varner
 SECTION: FOOD; RECIPE FOR HEALTH; Pg. 5E
 LENGTH: 752 words
 Traditional biotechnology started thousands of years ago as farmers learned to
 grow plants with desirable traits such as higher yields, better taste and more
 resistance to drought.
 Through the years, farmers replanted seeds or cross-pollinated from their  best
 crops. They would continue to select grains until a plant with more desirable
 traits emerged. This process took lots of time and was sometimes unpredictable.
 Today, modern biotechnology offers more precise and faster methods to establish
 improved foods that are abundant, tasty, safe and nutritious.
 As scientists learned more about DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), the genetic coding
 in living things, that knowledge has been applied to growing produce. This is
 simply applying plant genetics and science to improving our food quality and
 production. These advances in produce production are sometimes referred to as
 genetically modified food or "GM food."
 Agricultural scientists can select specific genes in produce that carry specific
 traits such as better nutrient quality or disease resistance to grow more
 desirable produce. A single gene from an unrelated plant can be transferred to
 another plant. Scientists also can remove a specific gene to delete undesirable
 traits in produce.
 There are multiple benefits of modern food biotechnology. One benefit is
 healthier and higher yielding crops. This can mean lower production costs for
 the farmer. An example is the enhancement of some varieties of corn to contain a
 common soil bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). This allows the corn
 to protect itself from some insects that can destroy plants and that can reduce
 the use of insecticides. Other crops are being developed to resist plant viruses
 and other diseases. Plants naturally have the ability to produce compounds to
 protect against invading organisms. Natural toxins are found in many foods, and
 scientists can identify the genes that produce natural toxins.
 Another benefit of genetically improved crops is weather-resistance. This can
 enable some crops to withstand severe weather, extending the growing season and
 growing regions to make more fruits, vegetables and grains available throughout
 the year. Regions with poor soil conditions or poor climates can become
 productive agriculture land. This can also reduce crop loss for farmers. Food
 biotechnology can develop ways for more food to be grown on less land.
 Transferring specific genetic traits in plants can produce fruits and vegetables
 with ripening qualities that allow them to be shipped farther and longer without
 spoilage for the arrival of fresher produce with better flavor. Produce can also
 be grown to resist mold. Modern food technology could make foods safer by
 detection of food-borne bacteria and viruses. This could result in a decline of
 food-borne illness.
 Some vegetable oils have been enhanced to have less saturated and more
 monounsaturated fatty acids. Soybeans, canola and other seeds providing oil have
 been enhanced to have less saturated fat and more oleic acid, is a beneficial
 fatty acid.
 Modern food biotechnology can allow for more advanced crossbreeding of foods,
 yielding new varieties of foods. An example seen in grocery stores in recent
 years is Broccoflower, a cross between broccoli and cauliflower that results in
 a light green cauliflower. You may have seen miniature foods such as a tiny
 bunch of bananas, smaller pineapples and baby ears of corn.
 Products developed through food biotechnology are subjected to the same
 stringent standards of labeling and safety by the Food and Drug Administration
 as all foods sold in the United States. These foods are tested and regulated.
 Evaluation methods used by manufacturers to ensure safety for consumers  are
 endorsed internationally by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
 Nations and the World Health Organization. Foods developed through biotechnology
 have the same food labels as other foods; in some cases, additional labeling is
 required.
 Food biotechnology is developing in many parts of the world and offers great
 promise for feeding the world. There are many potential benefits of food
 biotechnology, and as research continues, more benefits will be discovered. Food
 biotechnology is an approach for producing a high-quality, abundant, healthful
 and less expensive food supply for the world and for protecting the environment.
 Nutrient-enhanced crops could help address problems of malnutrition in various
 parts of the world.
 Becky Varner: beckyvarner@cox.net
 LOAD-DATE: May 24, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                Copyright 2007 The Oklahoman, All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 695
 
                    Kansas City Daily Record (Kansas City, MO)
                               May 22, 2007 Tuesday
 U.S. Supreme Court's telecom case draws attention in Missouri case
 BYLINE: Allison Retka
 LENGTH: 578  words
 The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Monday clearing several telecom companies of
 antitrust allegations may have some resonance in Missouri.
 The U.S. District Court in St. Louis is the host venue for a class action
 antitrust lawsuit against three biotechnology companies, one of which lodged an
 amicus brief with the nation's high court urging the justices to use Bell
 Atlantic v. Twombly to set stricter standards for suits that allege conspiracy
 among corporations.
 The high court did just that, satisfying the request of Wilmington, Del.-based
 DuPont to require antitrust plaintiffs to proffer a plausible claim backed by
 specific facts.
 DuPont is defending a potential class action suit in the St. Louis federal court
 brought by corn and soybean farmers in 13 states, including Missouri. The
 farmers claim DuPont, Pioneer HiBred and St. Louis-based Monsanto violated
 federal antitrust laws by conspiring to fix the price of genetically modified
 corn and soybean varieties and forcing farmers into strict licensing agreements
 that limit competition.
 Both sides are now waiting for U.S. Judge E. Richard Webber to rule on the
 biotech companies' motion to dismiss.
 But if in the meantime DuPont attempts to tout the Supreme Court's decision as a
 boon to its antitrust defense in St. Louis, the effort will fall flat, said Adam
 Levitt, a Chicago attorney and co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs in Shoenbaum
 v. DuPont, et al.
 "Not only is Schoenbaum distinguishable as far as the Section 1 antitrust
 analysis is concerned - in that the Schoenbaum claims are not based on parallel
 conduct allegations, as plaintiffs' claims in Twombly were - but the Schoenbaum
 complaint far exceeds the scope, breadth and depth of the Twombly allegations,"
 Levitt said.
 Robert Weiner, a Washington, D.C., attorney for Monsanto, said he could not
 comment on what the defense would do with the Supreme Court's Twombly hand down,
 but he praised Monday's decision.
 "I think given the burden of antitrust litigation, it's useful for the court to
 have directed the federal courts to be skeptical of implausible allegations in
 the pleading stage," Weiner said.
 The biotech companies have accused the Shoenbaum plaintiffs of making their own
 implausible allegations, including the claim that despite contentious ongoing
 litigation between the companies, DuPont and Pioneer willingly handed over their
 chunks of the seed market for portions of Monsanto's monopoly profits.
 The court can dismiss a case on the basis of implausible economic claims like
 that one, Weiner said to Webber at a Jan. 1 hearing on the case in St. Louis
 federal court.
 In its amicus brief, DuPont also touched on the financial burden of defending
 antitrust litigation in its Twombly amicus, citing the enormous expenses
 incurred by document retrieval and depositions.
 "Antitrust plaintiffs can impose huge discovery costs on defendant companies
 simply by alleging conduct that is common, perfectly legal and often
 pro-competitive," DuPont argued in its brief, filed in April 2006.
 Levitt, who represents another class of farmers in an extensive suit against
 Bayer CropScience involving genetically modified rice varieties, rejected that
 argument and expressed concern about the references to the cost of antitrust
 litigation in Associate Justice David Souter's opinion.
 "I do think the Supreme Court's analysis of (the burden of) discovery in a lot
 of ways puts an unreasonable and undue burden on plaintiffs in these kinds of
 cases," he said.
 LOAD-DATE: May 23, 2007
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Legal activity (lawsuits etc.)
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2007 Dolan Media Newswires









Document Number: 696
 
                           Inside Bay Area (California)
                              May 10, 2007 Thursday
 Candidates back off on genetic engineering
 BYLINE: Column by Byron Williams
 LENGTH: 684 words
 WHEN I reflected back on the recent debates held by Democrats and Republicans,
 in the spirit of Humphrey Bogart in the movie Casablanca, I remembered every
 detail -- the Democrats wore gray and Republicans wore black. The only
 distinguishing features were the different color ties, except for Sen. Hillary
 Clinton, who did not wear a tie and offered a different shade of gray from her
 male counterparts.
 Though such detail may be mundane and inconsequential to many, it is very
 revealing. I find it rather ironic that for all of the American rhetoric about
 choice and freedom, our politics can be very constrained and predetermined.
 It may also suggest the candidates are not prepared to substantially address
 what is perhaps the most important moral debate of our time -- genetic
 engineering.
 Given that the technology is moving at a faster pace than the morals and ethics
 surrounding it, genetic engineering must be part of our public conversation,
 much like how global warming finally made it into the mainstream dialogue.
 Like other moral issues, support or opposition to genetic engineering cannot
 simply be divided along the contours of right and wrong. The window of
 opportunity essentially closed on the genetically engineered food debate, but
 its not too late to debate human alteration, or designer babies.
 Polls indicate an overwhelming majority of Americans support gene alteration
 used toward the prevention or curing of illness, especially life threatening
 diseases. The debate, however, does not stop there.
 Ethical concerns are raised, and rightfully so, because such technology could
 lead down the slippery slope to some form of eugenics. This late 19th- and early
 20th-century theory advocated that only those with desirable characteristics of
 the perceived dominant culture should be allowed to reproduce, which was at the
 heart of Hitlers master race.
 Certain Western countries, including parts of the United States, enacted eugenic
 laws, thus allowing for those deemed unfit to be forcibly sterilized.
 Its unlikely anyone could successfully run for elective office on the eugenics
 platform. Nor would society embrace any government-sponsored program that
 systematically defined who was unfit to reproduce.
 What about the market-driven choice of the consumer? Does that change the moral
 and ethical debate? Are we prepared to enter into a new era where parents can
 take the guesswork out of accepting their children as they are? Should we have
 the power to select IQ, sex, hair color or height?
 Harvard professor Michael Sandel, who wrote The Case Against Perfection: Ethics
 in the age of Genetic Engineering, was in the Bay Area this week to suggest in
 part that this conversation is needed sooner than later.
 According to Sandel, we are at the point where parents go to fertility clinics
 and choose the sex of the child that guarantees 99.9 percent success for
 $18,000. He also mentioned a fertility clinic in Fairfax, Va., that uses sperm
 sorting -- a technology developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to breed
 cattle. Thats now available to the consumer.
 These are unintended consequences -- or benefits, depending on the point of view
 -- of a technology originally designed to prevent disease.
 We are already a country struggling not only with a sense of fairness, but
 driven almost blindly at times by our competitive nature. Genetic engineering in
 the marketplace runs the risk of enhancing these less than flattering American
 characteristics.
 This issue begs moral clarity. The scientific community should welcome
 theological critiques, and they shouldnt risk being driven solely by their own
 abilities without restraint.
 This is also a moral issue that warrants discussion by the presidential
 candidates. It is far more important than parsing a position on same-gender
 marriage, telling us where you can go to church, or making sure you are wearing
 the right color suit during a debate.
 Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist. E-mail him at
 byron@byronspeaks.com or leave a message at (510) 208-6417. Send a letter to the
 editor to soundoff@angnewspapers.com .
 LOAD-DATE: May 10, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
             Copyright 2007 MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 697
 
                               American Health Line
                               May 8, 2007 Tuesday
 Industry Holds Annual Convention
 LENGTH: 530 words
 The Biotechnology Industry Organization's International Convention began on
 Sunday in Boston and will run through Wednesday, the Boston Herald reports. A
 new survey was released in conjunction with the start of the conference that
 queried U.S. residents about their views on genetically modified foods,
 alternative fuels and the use of stem cells to find cures for diseases.
 According to the survey, U.S. residents "overwhelmingly believe" that finding
 cures for diseases is more important than the current war on terrorism, the
 Herald reports (Fitzgerald, Boston Herald, 5/7). The Boston Globe on Monday
 examined the high costs of biotech drugs, which "are the most expensive in the
 history of medicine," although they "undeniably benefit patients." Biotech drugs
 that treat cancer, multiple sclerosis, and other diseases can cost hundreds of
 thousands of dollars annually per patient. The cost to develop a single
 successful biotech drug is estimated to be $1.2 billion and requires eight years
 of testing and review by FDA, according to the Tufts Center for the Study of
 Drug Development. Biotech drugs are consuming a larger share of U.S. health care
 spending each year. Lawmakers have introduced bills to allow generic forms of
 biotech drugs on the market, and some biotech firms including Genentech are
 setting annual price caps on certain drugs. The biotech industry maintains that
 its products are too complex to duplicate as generic versions and says the costs
 of developing drugs for rare diseases are so expensive that the industry has to
 recoup those costs with higher prices (Heuser, Boston Globe, 5/6).
 Opinion Piece
 "The breathtaking five-figure prices that some biotech drugs command per course
 of therapy warrant a rethinking of this 'trickle-down' approach to supporting
 science," Jerry Avorn, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and
 Brigham and Women's Hospital, writes in a Boston Globe opinion piece. According
 to Avorn, although the "industry argues that these sky-high prices are justified
 to fuel the expensive research it performs, ... many biotech advances are
 heavily based on publicly funded research supported by" NIH and by foundations.
 In addition, pharmaceutical company figures show that only about 14 cents of
 every dollar in profit goes toward research and development, according to Avorn.
 "A safer course for the nation would be to take some of the billions the nation
 is paying for these expensive products and use it to rev up NIH funding,
 protecting the flow of scientific innovation on which new biotech products
 depend," Avorn writes. Improvements in compensating taxpayers who support
 product research also are needed, he says. "But amid the breakthrough findings,
 lavish entertainment and self-congratulation that will fill the convention
 attendees' schedules this week," such "important worries may not get the
 attention they merit," he adds.  Avorn concludes, "Public funding of
 university-based research, not extortionate drug prices, is the safest way to
 guarantee 'the miracle cures of tomorrow.' It might make for fewer luxury harbor
 cruises at future BIO conventions, but we can live with that" (Avorn, Boston
 Globe, 5/7).
 LOAD-DATE: August 31, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Online Publication
                    Copyright 2007 The Advisory Board Company
                               All Rights Reserved.









Document Number: 698
 
                            Christian Science Monitor
                               May 8, 2007, Tuesday
 A year of eating locally in 'Animal, Vegetable, Miracle'
 BYLINE: Marjorie Kehe
 SECTION: FEATURES, BOOKS; Pg. 13
 LENGTH: 812 words
 If you live in North America and cherish the seemingly innocent pleasure of
 slicing a banana over your cereal in the morning, think twice before picking up
 Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year of Food Life by Barbara Kingsolver. For
 afterward that pleasure will never be innocent again.
 "Each food item in a typical U.S. meal has traveled an average of 1,500 miles,"
 writes Steven L. Hopp, Kingsolver's husband, in the first of a series of
 sidebars sprinkled throughout her book. "If every U.S. citizen ate just one meal
 a week (any meal) composed of locally and organically raised meats and produce,
 we would reduce our country's oil consumption by over 1.1 million barrels of oil
 every week."
 "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle" is the story of how the Kingsolver-Hopp family
 moved from Tucson, Ariz., to southern Appalachia in a conscious attempt to
 liberate themselves from industrial food. They would eat only, they decided,
 what they grew themselves or what was grown by others within 10 miles of their
 home. They were seeking, Kingsolver writes, "an affinity between people and the
 land that feeds them."
 This may sound like a pretty crunchy read - either a frivolous ecofantasy or an
 uncomfortable scold aimed at those of us unable or unwilling to raise chickens
 in our backyards. But rest assured, it's neither.
 This is largely an informational book, short on plot, and don't expect any deep
 insights into the Kingsolver-Hopp family. Yet Kingsolver, author of bestselling
 novels "Bean Trees" and "Poisonwood Bible," adds enough texture and zest to stir
 wistful yearnings in all of us who have "lost the soul of cooking from [our]
 routines." Very sweetly Kingsolver reminds us of "the song of a stir-fry sizzle,
 the small talk of clinking measuring spoons, the yeasty scent of rising dough,
 the painting of flavors onto a pizza before it slides into the oven." There is
 no shortage of that kind of soul in the Kingsolver-Hopp home, and readers will
 enjoy the vicarious taste of domesticity that comes with descriptions of crusty
 homemade bread topped with (yes, really) homemade cheese.
 "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle" begins with the family leaving Tucson ("a space
 station where human sustenance is concerned") and follows them through their
 first year of life as "locavores" in their new home in Virginia. (Kingsolver's
 "year" begins, naturally, in the spring when the asparagus blooms.)
 The book wends its way through the discovery that rhubarb can substitute for
 fruit in the early spring, the purchase of the poultry flock to be
 enthusiastically tended by 9-year-old Lily Kingsolver, mulching, cheese-making,
 tomato-canning, and eventually, the day on which the poultry will be
 "harvested."
 This, too, the Kingsolver-Hopps do themselves (at least when it comes to their
 chickens and turkeys - they buy lamb locally.) "You can leave the killing to
 others and pretend it never happened," says Kingsolver, "or you can look it in
 the eye and know it."
 This coming from the mother of Lily, a girl who has to be told not to kiss her
 hens on the mouth and who assures her mother, "If I love my chickens six, I love
 you seven."
 Lily, in fact, emerges as a particularly appealing character, a plucky,
 pragmatic, young entrepreneur who lavishes care on her flock even as she keeps
 her eye fixed firmly on the horse she hopes her egg earnings will one day buy
 her.
 Like the carefully prepared meals described throughout, the book is a family
 affair. Husband Steven, a biology professor, provides sidebars on world hunger,
 global food distribution, genetically modified food, and pesticides. College-age
 daughter Camille - who is no slouch as a writer, either - introduces recipes
 complete with a teenager's view of what it's like to have parents who view
 out-of-state fruit as contraband material and who embarrass you by making turkey
 sausage in front of your friends.
 But perhaps what's most appealing about this book is the love that holds its
 disparate parts together: love of family, love of good food, love of the planet,
 and the willingness to expend extra effort to safeguard these treasures.
 If you subtract out the labor involved, the life of a locavore is an inexpensive
 one. Kingsolver estimates that during the year chronicled in "Animal, Vegetable,
 Mineral" her family ate "organically and pretty splendidly we thought" for about
 50 cents per person per meal.
 But of course the cost was never the point. "In April I'm happiest," Kingsolver
 writes, "with mud on the knees of my jeans, sitting down to the year's most
 intoxicating lunch: a plate of greens both crisp and still sun-warmed from the
 garden, with a handful of walnuts and some crumbly goat cheese."
 This, Kingsolver tells us, "is the opening act of real live food." It's hard not
 to be impressed.
 * Marjorie Kehe is the Monitor's book editor. Send comments to Marjorie Kehe.
 (c) Copyright 2007. The Christian Science Monitor
 LOAD-DATE: May 7, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
             Copyright 2007 The Christian Science Publishing Society
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 699
 
                 The Berkshire Eagle (Pittsfield, Massachusetts)
                                May 7, 2007 Monday
 Town to consider $220K truck buy
 BYLINE: By Scott Stafford, Berkshire Eagle Staff
 LENGTH: 342 words
 SAVOY -- Savoy voters will be asked for their decision on the purchase of a new
 $220,000 fire truck at the annual town meeting, scheduled for 7 p.m. Wednesday
 at the fire station. The fire-truck provision is one of 23 articles to be
 considered.
 Almost $90,000 in spending increases over this year's $1.58 million budget --
 which could lead to a tax rate increase of more than $1 -- also is at stake.
 Both of the town's fire trucks are more than 20 years old. The money would be
 raised through bonds or notes, along with a $50,000 USDA grant. The debt would
 be paid back over "a period not to exceed 15 years," according to the Savoy town
 warrant, and the debt would not be incurred until delivery of the truck, which
 could take up to two years.
 Salary levels for elected positions, public safety employees, general government
 expenses, and other expenditures would result in a total spending increase of
 about $89,000, noted Sue McGrath, tax collector and member of the Finance
 Committee.
 If left unchanged, the spending increase would result in a tax increase of more
 than $1 per $1,000 of assessed property value, she said. The tax rate is $10.77
 per $1,000 of assessed property value.
 McGrath added that property assessments on new growth have not been calculated
 and could bring that figure down after the town's annual meeting.
 Larger increases include $35,376 more to the Savoy, Adams and Cheshire school
 budgets and a $12,732 increase in the McCann Technical High School contribution.
 An appropriation of $20,000 for a new highway truck and $13,000 for fencing and
 bear caging at the transfer station also are included.
 Spending decreases include $4,200 in the treasurer's expenses, $5,000 in
 Assessors' expenses and $62,545 in town Highway Department spending.
 The last article is a resolution calling on state and federal governments to
 mandate the labeling of all genetically engineered foods and seeds, to assign
 liability to corporations that produce genetically engineered goods and to
 institute a moratorium on growing genetically engineered crops.
 LOAD-DATE: May 7, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
    Copyright 2007 MediaNews Group, Inc. and New England Newspaper Group Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 700
 
                                The Boston Herald
                                May 7, 2007 Monday
 Double vision on biotech;
  Some see miracle cures, others a fearful future
 BYLINE: By JAY FITZGERALD
 SECTION: FINANCE; Pg. 028
 LENGTH: 597 words
 Americans are highly confident about the biotech industry's ability to find
 cures for diseases and develop new alternative fuels.
 But biotch executives have work cut out for themselves in convincing Americans -
 especially women - about the benefits of genetically modified foods, according
 to new survey results released yesterday in conjunction with the first day of
 the 2007 BIO International Convention in Boston.
 Thousands of convention delegates streamed into the South Boston convention
 center yesterday to register for seminars, speeches and other industry events
 through this Wednesday.
 Today, the massive convention floor will be open to delegates, with actor
 Michael J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, giving the keynote address
 about the importance of cutting-edge medical research.
 U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy had been scheduled to speak before Fox, but called on
 Friday to cancel due to a floor vote in the Senate, a conference spokesman said.
 The American people generally back strong research programs, even if they're
 sometimes controversial, such as embryonic stem-cell research, according to
 surveys commissioned by BIO, the Biotech Industry Organization, producer of the
 Boston convention.
 In fact, Americans overwhelmingly believe that finding cures to diseases is more
 important than the current war on terrorism, according to surveys conducted in
 April of about 800 voters.
 People are also more confident than biotech executives, who were also surveyed,
 about the industry's ability to develop alternative fuels that are
 environmentally friendly, according to BIO.
 But as for genetically modified foods, Americans don't necessarily like
 scientists tinkering with Mother Nature.
 Only 47 percent of voters surveyed view genetically modified foods as positive -
 while 43 percent said the practice is ``troubling.''
 Men are generally more supportive of genetically modified foods, with 58 percent
 seeing benefits to the controversial practice, according to Geoffrey Garin,
 president of Hart Research, one of two outfits that did the polling for BIO.
 But 52 percent of females say they found genetically modified food
 ``troubling.''
 ``It's really about safety, not science,'' said Garin of women being more
 ``cautious'' about genetically altered foods.
 In general, women tend to be more cautious on other scientific and technological
 issues, such as nuclear energy, Garin said.
 On embryonic stem-cell research, about 69 percent of males viewed it as
 ``positive'' - while 57 percent of women viewed it as positive. Women over the
 age of 55 are even more skeptical about embryonic stem-cell research, Garin said
 of the survey results.
 Joshua Boger, chief executive of Cambridge's Vertex Pharmaceuticals, said he
 found it odd Americans are enthusiastic about the biotech industry coming up
 with new fuels to make the country less dependent on foreign oil - while being
 more reserved about genetically modified foods.
 Many alternative fuels, such as enthanol, involve altering plant genes to
 improve results, he said.
 - jfitz@bostonherald.com
 GRAPHIC: BIO INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION: Still more BIO 2007 by the numbers:
 ** 1,100 biotechnology companies
 ** 700 mini croissants served at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center
 ** 700 strudel links
 ** 5,000+ feet of Cat5e twisted-pair Ethernet cables for high-speed networking
 ** 16 electricians and helpers at the convention center, who will work a total
 of 960 hours installing electrical equipment for exhibit halls, meeting rooms
 and other areas
 ** 4,300 tons of refrigeration capacity to meet peak cooling system demand.
 LOAD-DATE: May 7, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2007 Boston Herald Inc.









Document Number: 701
 
                               The Bismarck Tribune
                                May 6, 2007 Sunday
 Last remains from Flight 587 placed
 SECTION: WIRE; Pg. 2A
 LENGTH: 449 words
 TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - New Jersey Gov. Jon S. Corzine will resume work Monday for
 the first time since being critically injured in a car crash last month, a
 spokesman said Saturday.
 Corzine was released from a hospital just last Monday and has been
 rehabilitating at the governor's mansion in Princeton, where he's expected to
 work starting Monday until he has recovered enough to return to the statehouse,
 spokesman Anthony Coley said.
 Corzine suffered a broken left leg, 11 broken ribs, a broken collarbone and
 sternum, among other injuries, in the April 12 crash along the Garden State
 Parkway.
 He spent 18 days in a Camden hospital, much of it in intensive care. He
 underwent three surgeries on his leg and needed to use a ventilator to breathe
 for more than a week.
 Senate President Richard J. Codey has been acting governor since the accident.
 Corzine's SUV, driven by a state trooper, was traveling at 91 mph in a 65 mph
 zone just north of Atlantic City, heading to a meeting at the governor's
 mansion. Corzine wasn't wearing his seat belt, as required by state, but he
 voluntarily paid a $46 fine and apologized.
 CHAPEL HILL, N.C. (AP) - As advanced science plays a larger role in courtrooms
 across the country, judges who earned degrees in English or the humanities face
 the daunting task of making informed decisions about some very technical
 disputes.
 That's why judges from across the Southeast gathered Friday for a crash course
 with medical and genetics experts at the University of North Carolina at Chapel
 Hill. About 60 judges are attending the conference, which is exploring emerging
 and often contested areas of science.
 Unlike other judicial seminars, this three-day intensive training session -
 dubbed The Southeast Regional Science and Technology Boot Camp - aims to prepare
 judges for some of the most politically charged issues of the day: gene therapy,
 genetic discrimination, genetically modified foods, human cloning and stem cell
 research.
 NEW YORK (AP) - The last unidentified remains of people killed in the 2001 crash
 of an American Airlines flight to the Dominican Republic have been placed in two
 crypts, officials said Saturday.
 Families of the 265 victims of the crash in the quiet neighborhood of Belle
 Harbor, Queens, were invited to a dedication ceremony Sunday at Woodlawn
 Cemetery in the Bronx, said Susan Olsen, a cemetery official.
 Olsen said the unidentified remains, in four caskets, were entombed at a
 mausoleum in the cemetery on Friday.
 The bodies of all 265 victims of the crash of Flight 587 had been identified,
 but the medical examiner's office was left with some remains that could not be
 matched, said Ellen Borakove, spokeswoman for the medical examiner.
 LOAD-DATE: May 7, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
        Copyright 2007 The Bismarck Tribune, a division of Lee Enterprises
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 702
 
                   Wisconsin State Journal (Madison, Wisconsin)
                                May 6, 2007 Sunday
 BYLINE: From The Economist
 SECTION: FORUM; GUEST COLUMN; Pg. B1
 LENGTH: 1021 words
 The wireless was once a big, wood-paneled machine glowing faintly in the corner
 of the living room. Today's wireless device is the sleek mobile phone nestling
 in your pocket.
 In coming years wireless will vanish entirely from view, as communications chips
 are embedded in a host of everyday objects. Such chips, and the networks that
 link them together, could yet prove to be the most potent wireless of them all.
 Just as microprocessors have been built into everything in the past few decades,
 so wireless communications will become part of objects big and small. The
 possibilities are legion. Gizmos and gadgets will talk to other devices - and be
 serviced and upgraded from afar. Sensors on buildings and bridges will run them
 efficiently and ensure they are safe.
 Wireless systems on farmland will measure temperature and humidity and control
 irrigation systems. Tags will certify the origins and distribution of food and
 the authenticity of medicines. Tiny chips on or in people's bodies will send
 vital signs to clinics to help keep them healthy.
 The computing revolution was about information - digitizing documents,
 photographs and records so that they could more easily be manipulated.
 The wireless-communications revolution is about making digital information about
 anything available anywhere at almost no cost. No longer tied down by wires and
 cables, more information about more things will get to the place where it is
 most valuable.
 For the moment, the mobile phone is stealing the show. It is evolving from a
 simple phone into a wallet, keychain, health monitor and navigation device. But
 as mobile-phone technology matures, even more innovation is taking place in
 areas of wireless that link things only meters or millimeters apart.
 For that, thank the crossbreeding of Marconi's radio and the microprocessor.
 Etched into silicon, the radio is starting to benefit from the dramatic
 decreases in size and cost and the huge increase in performance that have
 recently propelled computing.
 Satellite-navigation chips today cost as little as a dollar each.
 Radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags can be made so tiny that they fit
 into the groove of a thumbprint. When power can be wirelessly routed to such
 devices, something that is not far off, all the pieces will be in place.
 Wireless brings countless benefits. Devices and objects can be monitored or
 controlled at a distance. Huge amounts of data that were once impossible or too
 expensive to collect will become the backbone of entirely new services.
 Wireless communications should boost productivity just as information technology
 has.
 Imagine how wireless communications could change motoring. Carmakers are
 starting to monitor vehicles so that they know when to replace parts before they
 fail, based on changes in vibration or temperature. If there is a crash,
 wireless chips could tell the emergency services where to come, what has
 happened and if anyone is hurt.
 Traffic information can be instantaneous and perfectly accurate. They administer
 tolls based on precise routes. One American firm leases cars to people with bad
 credit who cannot get a loan, knowing that if payments are missed it can block
 the ignition and find the car to repossess it. British insurers offer policies
 with premiums based on precisely when and where a person drives.
 Of course, plenty of work will be needed before wireless communications can
 realize their promise.
 The first obstacle is novelty. As is usual in the early days of a new industry,
 all kinds of proprietary systems abound, many of them built from scratch -
 rather as early computer hackers fiddled with their Altairs in the mid-1970s.
 Until common standards and protocols emerge for machine-to-machine and wireless
 sensor communications, costs will be a problem.
 It is not yet clear who will bang heads together to set standards. Today's
 mobile-phone businesses may be too busy getting people to talk to bother much
 about talking machines.
 Sony Ericsson and Nokia, two giants of the mobile-phone industry, have in recent
 years sold their machine-to-machine divisions.
 Mobile operators see the new field as such a small part of their overall
 business that it gets relegated to the back burner. That has left an opening for
 fleet-footed firms from computing, as well as industrial conglomerates, such as
 Samsung, Philips, Honeywell and Hitachi.
 Just this week, General Electric's sensing division said it wanted to use
 wireless sensors in industries as diverse as drugs and petrochemicals.
 Government will play a crucial role, not least because radio spectrum will be in
 short supply. That makes it more important than ever that the airwaves are
 sensibly allocated according to the ability to pay. Special "reserves" and
 unlicensed spectrum could be put aside for emerging technologies that lack
 financial or political clout.
 And politicians and business people would do well to keep an eye on the health
 risks of electromagnetic radiation. No serious evidence yet suggests it is a
 danger - but the nonsense over genetically modified foods shows how much a new
 technology needs popular approval.
 A greater concern in the long term is privacy. Today's laws often assume that
 privacy is guaranteed by a pact between consumer and company, or citizen and
 state.
 In a world where many networks interconnect on the fly and information is widely
 shared, that will not work. At a minimum, wireless networks should let users
 know when they are being monitored.
 But for the moment the danger is surely too much regulation, not too little. It
 is hard for anyone - politicians most of all - to picture how wireless will be
 used, just as it was with electric motors and microprocessors, two earlier
 stand-alone technologies that have been built into a plethora of devices.
 Wireless technology will become a part of objects in the next 50 years rather as
 electric motors appeared in everything from eggbeaters to elevators in the first
 half of the 20th century and computers colonized all kinds of machinery from
 cars to coffee machines in the second half.
 Occasionally, the results will be frightening; more often, they will be
 amazingly useful.
 LOAD-DATE: May 8, 2007
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Column
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                     Copyright 2007 Madison Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 703
 
                        Austin American-Statesman (Texas)
                                May 4, 2007 Friday
                               Correction Appended
                                  Final Edition
 ViaGen eagerly awaiting FDA decision on cloning
 BYLINE: Lilly Rockwell AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. D01
 LENGTH: 634 words
 On a sunny spring afternoon, Brian Bruner made what has become a frequent
 commute, driving 80 miles from the North Austin offices of ViaGen Inc. to
 Hillman Ranch just outside Cameron.
 It is where the small biotechnology company keeps more than 100 cattle; most are
 cows getting ready to give birth or already have. The 300-acre ranch looks like
 dozens of others in the area, and there's nothing remarkable about the
 appearance of the cattle grazing on protein pellets.
 But Hillman Ranch is at the heart of the national debate over animal cloning.
 Most of the cows are surrogates that will give birth to clones - exact genetic
 copies of other cows or bulls.
 Viagen specializes in cloning animals, everything from champion racehorses to
 farm animals. So far, it has cloned 250 animals.
 The five-year-old company's business is likely to skyrocket if the Food and Drug
 Administration approves the sale of meat and milk from cloned animals, a
 decision expected this year.
 In December, the agency released a risk assessment that concluded that cloned
 animals and their offspring are safe to eat. A four-month comment period ended
 Thursday.
 After the agency reviews the 118,000 comments that were submitted, it's expected
 to release a final draft of the risk assessment that will give Viagen and its
 peers the all-clear to start producing animal clones for food.
 Viagen CEO Mark Walton said the market for clones could be at least $500 million
 a year, as ranchers seek to clone their best-producing cows or pigs that fatten
 rapidly for market. His company is one of the few in the U.S. capable of
 producing large numbers of cloned animals.
 The company is poised to ramp up production after the FDA decision is handed
 down. In the interim, it keeps busy cloning show animals and rodeo horses -
 charging from $10,000 for a lowly pig to $150,000 for a racehorse.
 "For most cattle producers, the busy season is the spring and the fall, but we
 are busy enough that we are going year-round right now," said Bruner, director
 of animal operations.
 Walton, a scientist with a background in plant genetics, said he expects to
 double the company's production of clones this year.
 But the cloning debate has been intense, touching on ethical, health and animal
 welfare issues.
 The FDA heard from people outraged that the agency had not considered the
 welfare of the animals, others who declared that "humans are not God," and many
 who supported the decision. By far, most comments focused on whether the FDA
 should require a labeling and tracking program for cloned animals and their
 offspring.
 Polls show that the majority of Americans do not support the idea of cloning
 animals. A study by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology from December
 shows that 64 percent of Americans are uncomfortable with animal cloning. Even
 those who said they were comfortable with eating genetically modified foods said
 they did not like animal cloning.
 But Walton said there hasn't been a "huge consumer backlash developing."
 "By the end of this year, people will really start to be comfortable with the
 issue - more comfortable than they are at the end of today," Walton said.
 It's still unclear where the meat and dairy industries stand on this issue. The
 dairy industry reportedly is concerned about allowing cloned animals to be used
 for milk production. The International Dairy Farm Association did not
 immediately return phone calls Thursday.
 Meanwhile, ViaGen continues to produce clones at Hillman Ranch. Its clients
 include breeders of prize-winning Texas Longhorns and ranchers who are having
 their cattle cloned now, betting that they will be able to sell them when the
 FDA decision is final.
 "We aren't even running at full capacity," Walton said. "'We can produce more
 embryos today than we've got sales for."
 lrockwell@statesman.com; 445-3819
 LOAD-DATE: May 5, 2007
 CORRECTION-DATE: May 5, 2007
 CORRECTION:* An article on Page D1 Friday about ViaGen Inc. overstated how many
 comments the Food and Drug Administration has received about animal cloning. The
 FDA received 11,800 comments on a proposal to allow the sale of meat and milk
 from cloned animals. Also, the name of the International Dairy Foods Association
 was incorrect.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2007 The Austin American-Statesman
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 704
 
                     THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE (California)
                                May 4, 2007 Friday
                                  FINAL Edition
 Modified rice called nice for environment
 BYLINE: Bernadette Tansey, Chronicle Staff Writer
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. C1
 LENGTH: 563 words
 A Davis biotechnology company is collaborating with China's top rice-growing
 region on a project designed to reduce the huge contribution of agriculture to
 global warming.
 Arcadia Biosciences has agreed to adapt its genetically engineered strain of
 rice to grow in China, where it may lower the need for nitrogen fertilizer
 because it absorbs the element nitrogen more efficiently than naturally
 occurring varieties.
 Nitrogen-based fertilizer contributes to climate change because soil bacteria
 convert it into nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas that has almost 300 times the
 power to induce global warming as carbon dioxide, Arcadia chief executive Eric
 Rey said.
 The company's collaboration with the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region of China may
 also help establish a new source of revenue for farmers if the partners can
 demonstrate that the rice strain reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
 If the benefit is recognized by governments that are signatories to the Kyoto
 Protocol -- an international agreement among industrialized nations to reduce
 greenhouse gas emissions -- growers who use less fertilizer would be able to
 sell "carbon credits'' on world trading markets.
 Buyers of the credits are companies that need to offset their own excess gas
 emissions to avoid government penalties. A coal-fired power plant in England,
 for example, could someday buy credits from Chinese rice farmers, Rey said.
 Emissions from agriculture contribute about 15 percent of the world's greenhouse
 gases, according to a report published by the World Resources Institute.
 Nitrous oxide represents about half of those agricultural releases. The other
 half are carbon-based gases including methane and carbon dioxide.
 Rice production consumes about 20 percent of global nitrogen fertilizer use and
 China is the world's largest user of these fertilizers, Arcadia said.
 Rey estimated that China could generate $330 million of carbon credits per year
 if it converted to rice crops requiring less fertilizer.
 The company declined to disclose revenue estimates for the use in China of its
 Nitrogen Use Efficiency rice, which has not been commercialized in any country.
 Rey said it could take six years or more to reach the marketing stage, pending
 regulatory approvals.
 Such projects often face scientific and financial hurdles, said Bill Freese of
 the Center for Food Safety, a watchdog group that opposes the rapid adoption of
 genetically modified crops.
 No company has widely commercialized a genetically engineered crop variety that
 increases nitrogen efficiency, Freese said. About 81 percent of agricultural
 varieties produced through gene splicing are sold based on their ability to
 tolerate herbicides, he said.
 Such engineered traits can produce unintended health risks or environmental
 consequences, Freese said.
 If China allows genetically modified strains in its rice supply, it could face
 the rejection of its rice exports in countries such as Japan because of consumer
 resistance, he said.
 The Center for Food Safety advocates thorough evaluations by government
 regulatory agencies of the impact of genetically engineered crops on health and
 global ecology.
 The organization supported a lawsuit against Monsanto's modified form of alfalfa
 in federal court in San Francisco, where a judge ruled Thursday that planting
 must halt until the U.S. Department of Agriculture completes an environmental
 impact review.
 LOAD-DATE: May 4, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2007 San Francisco Chronicle
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 705
 
                        The Times Union (Albany, New York)
                              April 27, 2007 Friday
 Schenectady county calendar
 SECTION: CAPITAL REGION; Pg. B2
 LENGTH: 572 words
 Film screening and roundtable discussion
 Where: Stockade Building, Room 101, Schenectady County Community College,
 Schenectady When: 7 p.m. Cost: $3 donation Contact: 372-1622 Ext. 286 Notes:
 Roots and Wisdom is sponsoring a screening of "The Future of Food," an in-depth
 look into the controversy over genetically modified foods. A roundtable
 discussion will follow.
 "America's Tallest Tales" musical
 Where: St. Helen's School, 1801 Union St., Niskayuna When: 6:30 p.m. Cost:
 Adults, $3; children 5-12, $2 Contact: 382-8225 Notes: Presented by students in
 the fifth grade class.
 "Infinite Images: Technologies of Printmaking and Beyond"
 Where: Mandeville Gallery, Union College, Nott Memorial, Schenectady When: 9
 a.m.-5 p.m. Contact: 388-6004 Notes: Selected works from the Union College
 Collections. Reception and Gallery talk 5-7 p.m. May 3 in the Nott Memorial.
 Gallery talk 3:30 p.m. May 4.
 Painting Schenectady: Samuel Sexton and His Works exhibit
 Where: Schenectady County Historical Society, 32 Washington Ave., Schenectady
 When: 1-5 p.m. Contact: 374-0263 Notes: The exhibit is open Monday through
 Saturday and features works from the 19th century, depicting everyday life in
 Schenectady.
 Delack Guild Room Art Opening
 Where: Proctor's Theatre, 432 State St., Schenectady Contact: 382-3884 Ext. 111
 Notes: The exhibit features photos by Nancy Noble Gardner, and Ralph and Susan
 Rosenthal. Open by appointment only.
 GED classes
 Where: Bethesda House, 418 Liberty St., Schenectady When: 1-3 p.m. Contact: Tom
 Morley, 374-7873 Notes: Courses are taught by staff from Washington Irving Adult
 Education Center and students don't need to attend on a fixed schedule.
 Heartsmart nutrition and cooking class
 Where: Ellis Hospital, 1101 Nott St., Schenectady Cost: $5 Contact: 243-4017
 Notes: Registered dietitians who specialize in cardiac health will teach class
 participants how to lower cardiac risk from 1-2 p.m. May 9. Registration for the
 program is required.
 Youth swimming lessons
 Where: YWCA of Schenectady, 44 Washington Ave., Schenectady Contact: Nick Lecce,
 374-3394 Ext. 141; e-mail: nlecce@ywca-schenectady.org Notes: The YWCA offers
 seven levels of swimming lessons to children ages 4 and up.
 Mass of Remembrance
 Where: Notre Dame-Bishop Gibbons High School, 2602 Albany St., Schenectady
 Contact: 393-3131, Ext. 112 or http://www.nd-bg.org Notes: Event is 7 p.m.
 Monday (April 30) at school to honor all deceased members of the ND-BG
 community. Reservations required today.
 NetLibrary computer demonstration
 Where: Technology Room, Schenectady County Public Library, 99 Clinton St.,
 Schenectady When: 9 a.m. Cost: Free Contact: 388-4500 Notes: The new service
 allows library cardholders to download digital versions of books that can be
 listened to on a computer or MP3 player.
 ECCO String Chamber Orchestra
 Where: Memorial Chapel, Union College, Union Street, Schenectady When: 8 p.m.
 Cost: $20; students $8 Contact: 388-6080 Notes: The new conductorless orchestra
 performs works by Corelli, John Adams and Dvorak.
 Cherry Blossom Craft Festival
 Where: Congregation Gates of Heaven, Eastern Parkway and Ashmore Avenue,
 Niskayuna When: 10 a.m.-4 p.m. Cost: Free Contact: 374-8173 Notes: The
 indoor/outdoor event will feature crafts from more than 50 vendors, with games
 and rides for the kids. It will be held rain or shine.
 LOAD-DATE: April 27, 2007
 GRAPHIC: Photo
  TIMES UNION ARCHIVE CHERRY BLOSSOM CRAFT FESTIVAL at Congregation  Gates of
 Heaven in Niskayuna at 10 a.m.-4 p.m. Sunday will include  items from more than
 50 craft vendors as well as rides and games for  children.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2007 The Hearst Corporation
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 706
 
                        The Times Union (Albany, New York)
                              April 27, 2007 Friday
 Around the region
 SECTION: CAPITAL REGION; Pg. B2
 LENGTH: 242 words
 Film screening and roundtable discussion
 Where: Stockade Building, Room 101, Schenectady County Community College,
 Schenectady When: 7 p.m. Cost: $3 donation Contact: 372-1622 Ext. 286 Notes:
 Roots and Wisdom is sponsoring a screening of "The Future of Food," an in-depth
 look into the controversy over genetically modified foods. A roundtable
 discussion will follow.
 Critical Mass bike ride
 Where: Veterans Memorial, Washington Park, State Street, Albany When: 5 p.m.
 Cost: Free Contact: 489-0866 or http://www.albanybicycle
 coalition.com/ Notes: Relaxed ride through streets of Albany to promote
 bicycling both as a response to climate change and as no-cost exercise.
 Jack and Jill of America's "Stoned Soul Picnic" fundraiser
 Where: The Desmond Hotel & Conference Center, 660 Albany Shaker Road, Colonie
 When: 7 p.m. Cost: $50 Contact: 229-6061 Notes: Dinner and dancing to music from
 the 1960s, '70s and '80s. Benefits the Boys & Girls Club of Albany.
 Fiber arts and show
 Where: Shenendehowa Senior Center, 6 Clifton Common Court, Clifton Park When: 9
 a.m.-4 p.m. Cost: $5 Contact: 383-1343 Notes: Demonstrations, including weaving,
 spinning and tatting.
 Preserve cleaning
 Where: Albany Pine Bush Discovery Center, 195 New Karner Road, Albany When: 9
 a.m.-noon Contact: 456-0655, Ext. 211 or on the Web at http://www.albanypine
 bush.org Notes: Groups can work along roadsides and trails in search of debris.
 LOAD-DATE: April 27, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2007 The Hearst Corporation
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 707
 
                                 University Wire
                              April 27, 2007 Friday
 Fear and doubt and Sheryl Crow hurt environment
 BYLINE: By Jonathan Lo, The Daily Reveille; SOURCE: LSU
 LENGTH: 703 words
 DATELINE: BATON ROUGE, La.
 I have always hated the "environmentalist" movement. Every time I hear people
 declare themselves environmentalists without a scientific background, Klaxons
 immediate sound off in my head and I invariably roll my eyes, expecting this
 person to be an utter moron.
 But it isn't because I think environmentalism's general goals are wrong or
 misguided. On the contrary, I firmly believe in the sustainable and responsible
 management of the planet's resources.
 The thing I so despise about these environmentalists is that, more often than
 not, they are championed by people who have no real perspective of what they
 talk about. I hate to generalize, but with Sheryl Crow recently espousing the
 benefits of a "one-square-per-toilet-visit policy," it reminded me of the
 problem with the public face of environmentalism. Although she called it a
 "joke," she proposed creating a shirt with a detachable "dining sleeve" that
 would be used instead of paper napkins to help save the trees.
 As much as I admire the time and effort celebrities spend promoting an effort,
 such comments only draw ridicule to the movement and hurt the chances for
 implementing real and effective change. Needless to say, saving a few scraps of
 paper from the dumpster won't save the rain forest or help prevent global
 warming. Sorry Sheryl.
 While such comments are relatively minor and somewhat innocuous, much more
 damaging to the real ideals of environmentalism are the ridiculous, unequivocal
 opposition to certain technologies that have been declared as "anti-green" by
 traditional environmental groups like Greenpeace, The Sierra Club and Friends of
 the Earth.
 Particularly concerning is their exploitation of fear, uncertainty and doubt,
 often known collectively as "FUD." Preying on the ignorance of the general
 public, these environmental groups spread FUD as a means of publicly
 discouraging the adoption of new technology, which they disagree with, usually
 on principle. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are against genetically
 modified organisms on principle, which is to say that even safe, beneficial
 genetically modified organisms are opposed.
 One such technology opposed was "Golden Rice," which was rice that was
 genetically modified to provide vitamin A to people who consume it. More than
 110 million people are affected with vitamin A deficiency, and more than 1
 million die of the deficiency each year. Many others are left with vision
 damage, including permanent blindness. Despite the promise of the technology,
 Greenpeace came out strongly against the technology. Instead of addressing the
 great promise of this technology to combat vitamin A deficiency, they spent much
 of their argument making unfounded claims like "the GE rice will be no real
 solution for vitamin A deficiency," and "GE rice could exacerbate malnutrition
 and undermine food security." They concluded that "Golden Rice was designed more
 to help industry overcome the widespread consumer rejection of GE crops than to
 help overcome a vitamin deficiency."
 Ingo Potrykus, one of the Swiss researchers associated with the Golden Rice
 research, responded with incisive and scientific clarity, noting that they had
 provided no such concrete evidence for their claims, were responsible for
 viciously misrepresenting the merits of Golden Rice and had threatened to
 destroy the test fields. He ended strongly, concluding that if the research
 fields are destroyed, Greenpeace "will be accused of contributing to a crime
 against humanity."
 This kind of irrational fanaticism against genetically modified organism
 technologies serves to further show how irrational and irrelevant these
 "mainstream" environmentalist groups are and why they should not be given an
 inch of credence when their public relations campaigns are put into motion.
 While awareness campaigns by these groups may truly represent growing problems
 and concerns, it is important to truly understand the issues surrounding the
 problems presented by reading reputable sources like scientific magazines,
 peer-reviewed papers and governmental research documents. All these are easily
 accessible through online sources and are much more reputable than thoughts by
 female singers.
 (C) 2007 The Daily Reveille via U-WIRE
 LOAD-DATE: April 27, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2007 The Daily Reveille via U-Wire









Document Number: 708
 
                        The Times Union (Albany, New York)
                             April 26, 2007 Thursday
 Noteworthy
 SECTION: CAPITAL REGION; Pg. B3
 LENGTH: 190 words
 Union College hosts NYU speaker
 The Union College philosophy department Speaker Series continues at 4:30 p.m.
 today in the Phi Beta Kappa Room of the Schaffer Library, 807 Union St.,
 Schenectady. New York University professor J. David Velleman will present a
 lecture titled "Artificial Agency." The series is sponsored by the
 Spencer-Leavitt Foundation. For information, call 388-8011.
 Nutrition and cooking class
 Ellis Hospital is holding a heart-smart nutrition and cooking class from 1 to 2
 p.m. on May 9 at the hospital, 1101 Nott St., Schenectady. Registered dietitians
 who specialize in cardiac health will teach class participants how to lower
 cardiac risk. The class is $5; free for post-surgical patients at the hospital.
 Registration is required. Call 243-4017.
 Modified foods
 Roots & Wisdom is sponsoring a screening of the film "The Future of Food,"
 followed by a round-table discussion at 7 p.m. Friday in Room 101 of the
 Stockade Building at Schenectady County Community College, 78 Washington Ave.,
 Schenectady. The film examines the controversy over genetically modified foods.
 A $3 donation is suggested. Call 372-1622, Ext. 286.
 LOAD-DATE: April 26, 2007
 GRAPHIC: Photo
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2007 The Hearst Corporation
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 709
 
                        The Times Union (Albany, New York)
                             April 26, 2007 Thursday
 Schenectady county calendar
 SECTION: CAPITAL REGION; Pg. B2
 LENGTH: 731 words
 Jazz in Our Schools Night and ziti dinner fundraiser
 Where: Schalmont High School, 1 Sabre Drive, Rotterdam When: 4-8 p.m. Contact:
 Sean Lowery, 355-6110 Ext. 3021 Notes: Enjoy a cabaret-style ziti dinner in the
 cafeteria while the Schalmont Jazz Combo and Middle School Jazz Ensemble
 perform. Proceeds will support the Schalmont Marching Band.
 A Little Bit of Jazz
 Where: Van Curler Room, Schenectady County Community College, Washington Avenue,
 Schenectady When: 5:30-8 p.m. Cost: $50 Contact: 573-0773 Notes: To benefit
 Schenectady Day Nursery, the event includes dinner, jazz stylings by Colleen
 Prat & Friends, wine tasting and silent auction. The event will also honor John
 and Karen Mantas, owners of Mike's Hot Dogs on Erie Boulevard in Schenectady.
 Senior Resource Expo
 Where: Rotterdam Senior Citizen Center, 2639 Hamburg St., Rotterdam When: noon-6
 p.m. Cost: Free Contact: 356-1561 Notes: The expo provides information to
 Schenectady County residents about senior services within the county.
 Fueling the Future
 Where: Schenectady Museum & Suits-Bueche Planetarium, 15 Nott Terrace Heights,
 Schenectady When: 10 a.m.-5 p.m. Contact: 382-7890 Notes: Examining how we will
 fuel the increasing number of automobiles.
 Painting Schenectady: Samuel Sexton and His Works exhibit
 Where: Schenectady County Historical Society, 32 Washington Ave., Schenectady
 When: 1-5 p.m. Contact: 374-0263 Notes: The exhibit is open Monday through
 Saturday and features works from the 19th century depicting everyday life in
 Schenectady.
 Wandering the Souk: Marketplaces and Peoples of Israel and Turkey
 Where: Wikoff Gallery, Union College, Nott Memorial, 807 Union St., Schenectady
 When: 10 a.m.-6 p.m. Contact: 388-6004 Notes: Photographs by Maureen Hsia.
 Pilates
 Where: YWCA of Schenectady, 44 Washington Ave., Schenectady When: 4:15-5 p.m.
 Contact: 374-3394 Notes: Learn the importance of core stabilization, muscle
 balance, proper alignment, strength and flexibility while integrating the
 concept of mindfulness, fluidity and grace.
 Delack Guild Room Art Opening
 Where: Proctor's Theatre, 432 State St., Schenectady Contact: 382-3884 Ext. 111
 Notes: The exhibit features photos by Nancy Noble Gardner and Ralph and Susan
 Rosenthal. Open by appointment only.
 GED classes
 Where: Bethesda House, 418 Liberty St., Schenectady When: 1-3 p.m. Contact: Tom
 Morley, 374-7873 Notes: Courses are taught by staff from Washington Irving Adult
 Education Center and students don't need to attend on a fixed schedule.
 Heartsmart Nutrition and Cooking Class
 Where: Ellis Hospital, 1101 Nott St., Schenectady Cost: $5 Contact: 243-4017
 Notes: Registered dietitians who specialize in cardiac health will teach class
 participants how to lower cardiac risk from 1-2 p.m. May 9. Registration is
 required.
 Youth swimming lessons
 Where: YWCA of Schenectady, 44 Washington Ave., Schenectady Contact: Nick Lecce,
 374-3394 Ext. 141; e-mail: nlecce@ywca-
 schenectady.org Notes: The YWCA offers seven levels of swimming lessons to
 children ages 4 and up.
 Mass of Remembrance
 Where: Notre Dame-Bishop Gibbons High School, 2602 Albany St., Schenectady
 Contact: 393-3131, Ext. 112 or http://www.nd-bg.org Notes: Event is 7 p.m.
 Monday at school to honor all deceased members of the ND-BG community.
 Reservations needed by Friday.
 Preschool story hour
 Where: Rotterdam Public Library, 1100 N. Westcott Road, Rotterdam When: 10 a.m.
 Cost: Free Contact: 356-3440 Notes: A weekly story program for children ages
 Philosophy Department Speaker Series
 Where: Schaffer Library, Union College, Schenectady When: 4:30 p.m. Cost: Free
 Contact: 388-6000 Notes: David Velleman from New York University will present a
 lecture titled "Regarding as Rational."
 Film screening and roundtable discussion
 Where: Stockade Building, Room 101, Schenectady County Community College,
 Schenectady When: 7 p.m. Cost: $3 donation Contact: 372-1622 Ext. 286 Notes:
 Roots and Wisdom is sponsoring a screening of "The Future of Food," an in-depth
 look into the controversy over genetically modified foods. A round-table
 discussion will follow.
 "America's Tallest Tales" musical
 Where: St. Helen's School, 1801 Union St., Niskayuna When: 6:30 p.m. Cost:
 Adults, $3; children 5-12, $2 Contact: 382-8225 Notes: Presented by students in
 the fifth-grade class.
 LOAD-DATE: April 26, 2007
 GRAPHIC: Photo
  TIMES UNION ARCHIVE THE SCHALMONT JAZZ COMBO and Middle School  Jass Ensemble
 will perform as part of the Jazz in Our Schools Night  and ziti dinner
 fundraiser from 4 to 8 tonight at Schalmont High  School.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2007 The Hearst Corporation
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 710
 
                               The Washington Post
                             April 26, 2007 Thursday
                                 Suburban Edition
 The Dance Of the Fruit Fly;
 Art and Science Meet in 'Genome' Project
 BYLINE: Sarah Kaufman; Washington Post Staff Writer
 SECTION: STYLE; Pg. C01
 LENGTH: 1304 words
 The fruit fly -- speck-size victim of endless experimental mutations -- is taken
 for granted in the genetics lab, but in Liz Lerman's dance studio it's a star.
 Lerman, the MacArthur Award-winning modern dance choreographer who has created
 works about dogs, shipbuilders and immigrants, has had a career-long affinity
 for the average Joe and his overlooked heroism. In her newest production,
 "Ferocious Beauty: Genome," which runs tonight through Sunday at the Atlas
 Performing Arts Center, she delves into the field of genetics and its
 implications for all of us. And for the fruit fly.
 At a recent rehearsal in the Liz Lerman Dance Exchange studio in Takoma Park, a
 frenetic klezmer party tune plays as a chorus of dancers whiz about with arms
 cocked and shoulder blades flapping. One dancer wiggles through a comically wry
 solo that ends in a slow, suggestive runway strut. This fly is nobody's lab rat.
 He's . . . pretty fly for a fruit fly.
 "It's funny, but it's not," Lerman said of this section, her eyes squinting with
 intensity under wisps of hair that have escaped from her unruly updo. "By
 anthropomorphizing the fly, we get to who we're sacrificing for this."
 This is the leading edge of genetic research, the science that proposes to treat
 and cure diseases and bring about myriad life-altering changes by tinkering with
 our DNA, the instruction book that lies within each cell. Genetics sometimes
 gets a bad rap in the popular view -- its specialists seen as the scary forces
 behind genetically modified food and cloned sheep, the search for the gay gene
 and the looming ability for a chosen race to arise should babies bear physical
 traits of their parents' design. But Lerman, who spent five years consulting
 with scientists as she worked on the piece, says she has tried to steer away
 from misconceptions about the field. Instead, she focuses on the miracles of
 molecular life -- including the  choreography taking place within each cell, as
 divisions and traffic patterns are managed with exquisite timing.
 "Ferocious Beauty" also explores how genetics proves connections among all
 living things: As one of the Dance Exchange performers put it, we share
 "something like 65 percent of our DNA with a banana." And Lerman draws out the
 similarities between science and art.
 "I got very attached to the passion and curiosity of the scientists," she says.
 "In many ways, they're not unlike artists. Their sleeplessness and restlessness,
 the coming up against a wall and trying to get around it, the questions of
 meaning, making leaps of imagination."
 But the driving force throughout her piece, she says, is the inescapable reality
 that advances in genetic research pull us all into unknown territory -- whether
 you're an easily mutated drosophila, as the fruit fly is known in the lab, or
 whether you're someone carrying the gene for Huntington's disease, an incurable
 and debilitating illness.
 "The technology is new," Lerman says. "But the question of what are we going to
 do about knowledge is as old as Adam and Eve."
 How do you make a dance about DNA?
 "Initially I had some apprehension," says Kathy Hudson, who directs the Genetics
 and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University. "It doesn't strike you
 immediately as a match made in heaven." But Hudson ended up consulting with
 Lerman, won over by the choreographer's enthusiasm and her out-of-the-ordinary
 approach.
 "We need to engage people more richly in thinking about what the issues are and
 what we want the future to look like. [Lerman] has done that in a really
 different way," Hudson says, "bringing people in through the other side of the
 brain, in an experiential and artistic way instead of a fact-based way."
 The question of how to pull it off baffled Lerman from the beginning, when she
 first happened to read through a stack of material on genetic advances. She was
 preparing for a workshop she was to lead for a museum hosting an exhibit on art
 and science. "I went into shock," she says, squeezing her eyes shut to replicate
 the moment and shaking the tinkling strands of crystals dangling from her ears.
 "A lot of it was reproductive issues, choosing your baby's characteristics,
 living forever."
 Thinking of the choices her own college-age daughter will face whenever she
 contemplates motherhood, Lerman wanted to learn more.
 "I thought, I don't know anything now, but if I make a dance about it I'll know
 something."
 So, how does a choreographer get a handle on sophisticated material that PhDs
 spend their careers pondering? Lerman had a lot of Big Ideas: How about a piece
 about science and capitalism -- the dance for research dollars! Or science and
 God -- can they coexist? Discuss!
 She eventually reduced her interests to the three with the most personal appeal:
 Aging, ancestry and perfection. Aging intrigued her because she will turn 60
 next Christmas Day and she has been mulling the limits of her own life span;
 ancestry arose from a fascination with evolution. And the drive for perfection
 "is the outcome of where the hardest thinking is going on," she says. (It's also
 a particularly fraught issue for dancers, who spend their careers scrutinizing
 themselves in front of a mirror.)
 Still, aren't genomes just a bit too abstract for the stage? To get around the
 PowerPoint approach, Lerman dusted off the "docu-dance" structure from her
 social activist days. Back in the 1980s she was known for smart works about
 serious subjects -- "Nine Short Dances About the Defense Budget" was one -- that
 merged transcripts and congressional testimony with irony and sly humor. That
 form became her blueprint. "Ferocious Beauty" unfolds like much of Lerman's past
 work: a mixture of dance and spoken word in a series of stories and vignettes
 about people that illuminate the issues.
 There is one key difference here, however. Lerman's work has always been
 deliberately low-tech, even low-technique. Two of her company members are
 elderly, sharing the stage with dancers in their 20s. Aggressive energy has
 never been the point; she builds her work from simple, everyday gestures. But to
 help ease along the narrative in "Ferocious Beauty"-- and also because she found
 herself growing "tired of talking dancers" -- whiz-bang technology plays a
 leading role. On view: floor-to-ceiling and wing-to-wing video projections of
 scientist interviews and magnified molecules, live-feed imagery of the dancers
 and a slew of visual and sound effects.
 Still, even stamped with a MacArthur "genius" grant and 30 years of experience,
 at the outset of this project Lerman left a few observers -- and even her
 dancers -- scratching their heads. "I was a little intimidated," admitted dancer
 Elizabeth Johnson.
 Irene Eckstrand, a geneticist who works at the National Institutes of Health,
 was an early adviser to Lerman who says she has always felt a kinship between
 genetics and art (she describes DNA as "an incredibly simple and beautiful
 molecule"). What struck her most watching the work grow was  the similarities in
 the artistic and scientific processes, even in evolution and choreography, which
 are both concerned with making changes in the drive toward perfection. To her,
 the most powerful part of "Ferocious Beauty" addresses genetic diseases: "Do we
 think about them as mistakes or as differences that we value? How do you value
 differences?"
 Which brings us back to the fruit fly. The rehearsal ends with elderly dancer
 Martha Wittman's solo for the dying drosophila, dropping her wings as she traces
 a slow, painful circle.
 "Extinctions happen in order for evolution to happen," Lerman says. "In the lab
 it's happening too. Death is part of the process." Modeling death, and the
 change necessary to living, is one of the roles an artist can play.
 "Evolution," she says, "has given me a beautiful metaphor -- and a reality -- to
 give back to people."
 LOAD-DATE: April 26, 2007
 DISTRIBUTION: Maryland
 GRAPHIC: IMAGE; Photos By Melina Mara -- The Washington Post; Choreography is in
 her genes: Liz Lerman consulted with research scientists on "Ferocious Beauty:
 Genome."
 IMAGE; Ted Johnson and other dancers in rehearsal. Spoken word merges with
 movement, as choreographer Lerman returns to her "docu-dance" model.
 IMAGE; Photos By Melina Mara -- The Washington Post; Liz Lerman dancers Susie
 Richard, right, and Cassie Meador rehearse the choreographer's work about
 genetics.
 IMAGE; Ted Johnson and Martha Wittman, foreground, with Thomas Dwyer and Ben
 Wegman in a run-through at the Takoma Park studio.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2007 The Washington Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 711
 
                        The Oklahoman (Oklahoma City, OK)
                             April 25, 2007 Wednesday
                                   City Edition
 Many foods are modified, fortified or enriched to improve our health
 BYLINE: Becky Varner
 SECTION: FOOD; RECIPE FOR HEALTH; Pg. 5E
 LENGTH: 670 words
 Functional foods are foods and beverages that provide health benefits beyond
 basic nutrition.  These benefits frequently come from more than one component of
 the food and may enhance health and/or ward off certain diseases. Scientific
 research has found potential benefits of many functional foods.
 One category of functional foods is modified foods. These include foods enriched
 or fortified with specific nutrients and those enhanced with phytonutrients.
 Modified foods are  created by the food industry by adjusting certain
 ingredients in traditional foods. They may be produced with more or less of one
 or more specific nutrients and are often produced with less fat, trans fat,
 saturated fat, sugar, sodium or cholesterol.
 Examples of these foods are fat-free chips, reduced-fat salad dressing,
 low-sodium canned vegetables, sugar-free candy and many other products. Modified
 foods may also be produced with added fiber, vitamins, minerals or other
 nutrients.
 Modifying the foods may change the flavor and/or how the food feels in the
 mouth. For example, a food produced with less salt may be less flavorful, and
 other seasoning ingredients may be added to boost the flavor.
 Enriched foods are those foods with nutrients added back that were lost during
 the processing of the food. For example, if a grain is refined, the refined
 grain or the product (such as bread) made from the refined grain  may be
 enriched with B vitamins and iron that were lost in the refining of the grain.
 Fortified means adding nutrients or food substances to a food that were not
 originally present in the food. Fortification adds nutrients that may be lacking
 in the typical diet. Adding nutrients to foods also contributes to the nutrient
 density of foods, which is important for optimal nutrition.
 Examples of fortified foods are milk fortified with vitamin D, a nutrient that
 helps the body absorb the calcium and phosphorus in milk. Vitamins A and D are
 added to milk and some soy beverages. Most enriched-grain products are fortified
 with folic acid to reduce the incidence of birth defects. However, unenriched
 grain products, for example pastas that are imported, may not be fortified with
 folic acid. Some fruit juices are fortified with calcium, and fiber is added to
 many breakfast cereals.
 Vitamins, minerals or fiber are added to most every category of processed foods
 to improve or maintain the nutrition and health-promoting qualities of the food.
 Phytonutrients in food promote health by helping slow the aging process or by
 reducing the risk for some diseases. There has been much research investigating
 how phytonutrients may protect against certain cancers, heart disease, high
 blood pressure, stroke, cataracts, osteoporosis, urinary tract infections and
 other chronic diseases.
 Phytonutrients can work as antioxidants. Antioxidants slow or prevent the
 oxidative process (damage from oxygen) and so prevent or repair damage to body
 cells.
 Here's how this occurs: Every cell in the body requires oxygen. When body cells
 use oxygen, free radicals are formed. Free radicals are unstable molecules with
 a missing electron that can damage body cells and tissues. A familiar example of
 oxidation outside of the body is the quick browning of an apple that has been
 cut. However, if the apple is immediately coated with orange juice that contains
 vitamin C, it does not turn dark. In the body, free radicals may cause oxidation
 or cell damage by "stealing" an electron from body cells to become stable. Over
 time, this may contribute to the onset of certain health problems. The
 antioxidants in the body can counteract the action of the free radicals.
 Phytonutrients might also work to enhance immunity and enhance the communication
 among cells in the body.
 Remember that fruits, vegetables, whole-grain foods and nuts as well as the many
 modified foods are excellent sources of antioxidants. Check the food label to
 see what nutrients and food substances are added to foods.
 Becky Varner, R.D.,L.D.:   beckyvarner@cox.net
 LOAD-DATE: April 26, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                Copyright 2007 The Oklahoman, All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 712
 
                          Portland Press Herald (Maine)
                              April 24, 2007 Tuesday
                                  FINAL Edition
 Farmers clash over modified crops;
 State House: A bill would make the manufacturers liable if genetically altered
 plants spread.
 BYLINE: ANN S. KIM Staff Writer
 SECTION: LOCAL & STATE; Pg. B1
 LENGTH: 724 words
 Organic and conventional farmers find themselves on opposite sides of the fence
 as the Legislature considers a bill to make manufacturers of genetically
 modified seeds liable for damages if their products spread to other crops.
 Some supporters of the bill, sponsored by Rep. James Schatz, D-Blue Hill, said
 it would protect farmers' ability to control what they grow, whether they use
 organic or conventional methods.
 Opponents said the bill could cause some manufacturers to remove their products
 from Maine, depriving conventional farmers of tools they use.
 Seth Kroeck of the Crystal Spring Community Farm in Brunswick, a supporter of
 the bill, says that not enough is known about crops whose genetic material has
 been scientifically altered to produce particular traits, like resistance to rot
 or pests. Organic growers could lose their certification if their products mix
 with genetically modified plants, he said.
 ''Genetically modified crops are getting more powerful. You put that up against
 organic food, which is growing as a market,'' Kroeck said. ''We're going to
 start banging up against each other really soon.''
 Organic products are grown without the use of synthetic fertilizers and
 pesticides. Organic livestock is given feed grown in that manner.
 Schatz said his bill would assign liability to the manufacturer of genetically
 engineered plants, rather than the farmers, when someone sues over plants
 spreading onto their property. A person could sue for damages including the cost
 of replacement seed and the difference in profit caused by the contamination.
 ''Being proactive, I think, will prevent a lot grief and strife between our
 agricultural communities,'' Schatz told the Agriculture, Conservation and
 Forestry Committee at a public hearing Monday.
 The bill is similar to one that Vermont lawmakers passed last year before Gov.
 James Douglas vetoed it. Similar bills are in play in several states, including
 California and New York, according to Logan Perkins, campaign coordinator of
 Protect Maine Farmers, a group that worked with Schatz on the bill.
 In Maine, the most prevalent genetically modified crop is Roundup Ready corn, an
 herbicide-resistant variety created by Monsanto Co. that is grown as feed,
 primarily for dairy cows.
 Several thousand acres of genetically modified soy beans and canola are also
 grown, and there are trial acres of alfalfa. Three applications for various
 types of insect-resistant corn are before the Maine Board of Pesticides Control.
 Critics of the bill said it would reduce options for some farmers. Thomas Cote,
 a dairy farmer from Pittsfield, said Roundup Ready corn lets him cut down on the
 herbicide he would otherwise use to grow silage corn for his herd. He said he's
 had no problem with the product mixing with his sweet corn because he makes sure
 they aren't being pollinated at the same time.
 ''We want to continue using the products we have. We want to be able to use the
 products coming down the road,'' he said.
 The state Department of Agriculture also opposes the bill. Agriculture
 Commissioner Seth Bradstreet III said liability concerns would make
 manufacturers less willing to invest in Maine. He noted that such products get
 federal and state approval before they are used.
 Vernon DeLong of the Maine Agricultural Bargaining Council said he believes the
 bill is a back-door approach to eliminating genetically modified crops in Maine.
 He said farmers in the state benefit from crops like canola. The non-genetically
 modified type was unsuccessful because of weeds, he said.
 ''We need to maintain our right to technology,'' DeLong said.
 The Maine Farm Bureau is opposing the bill because the organization's state
 board feels the issue is too divisive, said Jon Olson, executive director.
 Rep. Nancy Smith, D-Monmouth, urged the committee to consider the bill from a
 business perspective. Smith, who has an organic dairy farm, said the
 introduction of genetically modified organisms into organic products will cause
 growers to lose their price premiums, the additional amount of money consumers
 are willing to pay for such products.
 ''Let me grow what I want to grow. I'll let you grow what you want to grow,''
 she said.
 The committee will revisit the bill at a work session, which has not yet been
 scheduled.
 Staff Writer Ann S. Kim can be contacted at 623-1031 or at:
 akim@pressherald.com
 Legislature
 LOAD-DATE: April 24, 2007
 GRAPHIC: Staff photo by Jack Milton
 Seth Kroeck waters seedlings on Monday at the Crystal Spring Community Farm in
 Brunswick. Kroeck supports making manufacturers responsible if genetically
 engineered crops spread. He fears that organic growers could lose their
 certification if mixing occurs.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2007 Blethen Maine Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 713
 
                               The Washington Post
                              April 24, 2007 Tuesday
                                 Suburban Edition
 New Allies on The Amazon;
 McDonald's, Greenpeace Unite To Prevent Rainforest Clearing
 BYLINE: Marc Kaufman; Washington Post Staff Writer
 SECTION: FINANCIAL; Pg. D01
 LENGTH: 1194 words
 It was an unusual group to be sharing a small boat making its way up the Amazon
 River.
 There were four environmental activists from Greenpeace -- Brazilians and others
 who flew in from Europe for the trip. And there were four corporate leaders of
 McDonald's, the world's largest fast-food chain, from its Chicago headquarters
 and from Europe.
 The eight were in the rainforest together on a mission to see firsthand where
 farmers were cutting down virgin forest to grow soy beans for, among other
 customers, McDonald's. And though Greenpeace had not long ago been accusing
 McDonald's of complicity in the deforestation, by the time of the Amazon trip in
 January, the eight officials were calling each other partners.
 Those weren't just words. The ubiquitous fast-food company and the global
 environmentalists had already jointly pressured the biggest soy traders in
 Brazil into placing an unprecedented two-year moratorium on the purchase of any
 soy from newly deforested areas.
 Officials at Cargill, the huge multinational company that supplied McDonald's
 with Brazilian soy for chicken feed and ultimately pushed fellow soy traders to
 accept the moratorium, confirmed that the odd couple of McDonald's and
 Greenpeace made it happen.
 "McDonald's and, yes, Greenpeace, were the catalysts," said Laurie Johnson, a
 spokeswoman for Cargill. "They brought together a wide range of people and
 created a sense of real urgency."
 The tale of how the two heavyweights came together reflects the complexities,
 pressures and ironies of the globalized economy. It also illustrates how
 once-unthinkable partnerships can become forces for addressing environmental and
 social problems that governments cannot handle.
 With Brazilian soy, the problem at least partially grew out of an unrelated
 dispute over genetically modified food products.
 While U.S. consumers and many others largely accept biotech foods, the products
 are unpopular with Europeans, and most companies doing business in Europe make a
 point of using only soy, corn and other staples that have not been genetically
 modified. With U.S. and other major soy growers increasingly turning to biotech
 crops, Brazilian growers saw a market opportunity in traditional, non-modified
 soy.
 With help from multinational companies such as Cargill, some Brazilian farmers
 began cutting down trees in the interior of the Amazon rainforest to grow soy
 and other crops. The scale of the operation did not become apparent until 2003,
 when Greenpeace and other activists saw satellite maps that showed significant
 new deforestation. Because of the Amazon rainforest's central role in modulating
 global climate, the maps caused immediate alarm.
 Greenpeace's investigators searched records to see which companies were involved
 in the destruction and which were buying the rainforest soy. One relatively
 small-scale but high-profile buyer was McDonald's European operation, which fed
 the soy to chickens destined to become McNuggets.
 Greenpeace and other non-governmental organizations have become adept at putting
 pressure on big companies like McDonald's, which don't want customers to think
 they are unfriendly to the environment or mistreating animals. Greenpeace not
 only staged rainforest protests at McDonald's outlets in Europe last spring, but
 it also sent its ship, the Arctic Sunrise, to block Cargill's port in the Amazon
 city of Santarem.
 Following the protests, the fast-food chain and the environmentalists got
 together and brought in Cargill. The company had opened a port and series of soy
 silos at Santarem in 2003 and encouraged some farmers to grow soy for it --
 though Johnson, the spokeswoman, said the company thought most of the 150 to 200
 farmers it worked with were tilling land that had been deforested long ago. She
 also said the port was used to ship soy grown outside the rainforest.
 At first, Cargill took the stand that it was bringing economic development to an
 impoverished region and was already working with the Nature Conservancy and
 others to promote good stewardship practices. Greenpeace, and soon additional
 environmental groups, replied that the company was inducing farmers to move into
 environmentally fragile areas, where they often began planting with fake
 property papers, without proper permits and with little understanding of forest
 conservation.
 Faced with its unhappy McDonald's client, Cargill brought together other
 Brazilian soy traders, and they ultimately agreed on the moratorium -- an
 unthinkable action just a few months before.
 "We really didn't see an immediate problem with the soy farmers, but we could
 see how it could grow into a big problem in the future," Cargill's Johnson said.
 "The moratorium will give everyone time to plan how to better control the
 farming and protect the forest."
 A working group of soy traders and environmental and community organizations is
 scheduled to meet this month to discuss the soy farmers, this time with
 representatives of the Brazilian government, too.
 For McDonald's, working with a group like Greenpeace was unusual but not
 unprecedented. The company has joined with a variety of environmental and animal
 welfare groups over the years on issues including the company's packaging, the
 use of environmentally harmful refrigerants and treatment of farm animals.
 Creating a responsible supply chain is part of the corporate culture, its
 officials say, though it clearly is also good public relations.
 "We listened to what Greenpeace was saying about soy from the rainforest, and I
 think we surprised them at first by saying, 'You're right. We have a problem
 here,' " said Bob Langert, McDonald's vice president for corporate citizenship.
 "We have a firm policy against using beef -- or any other products -- that come
 from the rainforest. So when we learned that some of our soy was coming from
 there, we got involved."
 John Sauven, head of Greenpeace's rainforest initiative, said that joint efforts
 between nonprofit groups and major corporations have become increasingly
 important and sophisticated but that the idea of partnering with McDonald's was
 hardly in the initial plan.
 "We have an active campaign to save the rainforests, and it turned out that we
 and McDonald's had very similar goals," he said. "We didn't start out with the
 idea of focusing on McDonald's or partnering with them, and someday we may well
 go after them again on other issues. But on this one, they played a highly
 positive role."
 John Buchanan, director for agriculture and fisheries for Conservation
 International, a nonprofit group, said his organization has been working with
 the big traders of soy and other grains in Brazil for some time, helping them
 create "environmental scorecards" to see how they are doing throughout their
 long supply chains.
 Buchanan said Greenpeace and McDonald's uncovered a growing problem that had not
 been flagged before. Together they "shook the tree" in "soil that had been
 cultivated by others," and now unprecedented environmental progress is possible,
 he said.
 "You never know how things will ultimately turn out, but this could be an
 important model for attacking very complicated social and environmental problems
 in the future," he said.
 LOAD-DATE: April 24, 2007
 DISTRIBUTION: Maryland
 IMAGE; Photo Courtesy Of Bob Langert -- Mcdonald's; Graphic By Laris Karklis And
 Karen Yourish -- The Washington Post; An unlikely team of Greenpeace activists
 and McDonald's executives took a boat up the Amazon to see the destruction of
 rainforest partly driven by McDonald's demand for soybeans.
 IMAGE; Courtesy Of Bob Langert -- Mcdonald's; From left, the
 Greenpeace/McDonald's team of Karen Van Bergen, Thomas Hennigsen, Paulo Adario,
 Agnaldo Almeida, Bob Langert, Frank Guggenheim, Else Krueck, Daniella Montalto
 and Antonio Pontes in Santarem, Brazil, during a trip that helped forge a
 moratorium on soy purchases from newly cleared rainforest.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2007 The Washington Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 714
 
                             Buffalo News (New York)
                              April 22, 2007 Sunday
 Bee decline worries growers;
 Beekeepers warn of disappearance from hives; some blame pesticides
 BYLINE: By John F. Bonfatti - NEWS STAFF REPORTER
 SECTION: LOCAL; Pg. C1
 LENGTH: 901 words
 In "Silent Spring," ecologist and writer Rachel Carson pondered a season without
 bird songs as she detailed an unintended consequence of pesticides: a serious
 decline in bird populations.
 Today, beekeepers here and around the country are warning that a new spring
 season begins with a mysterious loss of bees.
 Area beehive populations show a loss of 50 percent to 90 percent.
 The effects go beyond the beekeepers, as area farmers depend on bees to
 pollinate their apples, pears, cherries, cucumbers, pumpkins and squash.
 "It's going to be huge," said Peter Wagner of Wagner Farms in Sanborn. "It's
 going to be bigger than what everybody thinks. There aren't enough bees around
 locally."
 At least eight beekeepers who are either located or operate in New York reported
 colony declines of at least 50 percent over the past year. Many colonies that
 survived were left severely weakened.
 "Normally, you lose maybe 20 percent," said Bruce Fiegel of Appleton, owner of
 Fiegel Apiaries. "We were 80 percent this year."
 Authorities have given the condition a name: Colony Collapse Disorder. It is
 characterized by the sudden absence of live bees from the hive, most vanishing
 without a trace.
 "You open up these hives, and there's nothing in there," said beekeeper Jeff Rex
 of Palmyra, near Rochester.
 Large bee die-offs have happened in the past but were usually geographically
 isolated and could be explained by one of the usual reasons: tiny mites that
 attack hives, stress related to poor nutrition or particularly adverse weather.
 "It's never been quite as dramatic," said Maryann Frazier, a Pennsylvania State
 University professor who has done extensive research on the phenomenon. "It's
 quite mysterious. In the past, in most cases, we have been able to sort of
 figure out what's going on."
 Although they admit nothing has been proven, some beekeepers and scientists
 point to a family of pesticides as a prime suspect.
 "I think it's pesticide," said James E. Doan of the Rochester suburb of Hamlin,
 who operates Doan Family Farms, one of upstate New York's largest apiaries.
 Doan, whose colony dropped from 4,300 hives last fall to 1,900 by this spring,
 pointed the finger at a pesticide called imidacloprid during testimony at a
 congressional subcommittee in March.
 A member of a relatively new class of pesticides called neonicotinioids, the
 pesticide has been deemed toxic to honeybees by the federal Environmental
 Protection Agency.
 The pesticide disorients bees, which could explain why the bees apparently die
 away from the hives where their lives are centered. The concern was strong
 enough for the French government to ban imidacloprid's use on sunflower seeds.
 "As they found in France, bees are picking it up as pollen and bringing it back
 to the colony and feeding it to the young," Doan said. "Once [they] go out on
 flights, they fly away and can't find their way back."
 More and more crops are being treated with this pesticide, Doan said.
 "Before, it was only used on corn," he said. "Today, it is used on everything
 from potatoes to apples to grapes. It's also used now on almonds. In Florida, we
 saw it used on oranges."
 Bayer CropScience, which makes imidacloprid, denied any link between its product
 and the bee decline.
 "Extensive field studies, both by Bayer CropScience and independent researchers,
 have reaffirmed that bee health is not impacted by imidacloprid," said spokesman
 Greg Coffey, who said that statement assumes the product is applied as directed.
 Some experts were quick to say they weren't sure pesticide use was the reason.
 "I think it's possible, but we certainly don't have the evidence," Penn State's
 Frazier said.
 Troy Fore, president of the American Beekeeping Foundation, said that Doan is
 "not the only beekeeper who feels that way and that there's pretty strong
 anecdotal evidence but no scientific evidence yet."
 Frazier discounted several potential causes that have been mentioned, including
 interference from cell phone towers and genetically modified foods.
 Deborah Breth, who heads the Lake Ontario Fruit Program run by Cornell
 Cooperative Extension, mentioned a few other possibilities.
 "It may be a virus," she said. "And it may be another disease."
 Research continues, but Frazier said she tends to think that several factors
 contribute to the decline of bees.
 "My thinking is a combination of stress and lack of nutrition," she said.
 "There's less forage, and the forage that is available, some of it is not high
 quality pollen to raise young with."
 While experts work on finding out what's behind the disorder, beekeepers and
 growers are focusing on making sure they will be able to pollinate this year's
 crop of fruits and vegetables.
 "I already called some [growers] up and told them I would not be able to do it,"
 Fiegel said. "We had to cut back a little because I don't have the bees and
 they're hard to get."
 Area beekeepers said they hope to be able to rebuild their hives in time for
 mid-May, when pollination efforts locally swing into gear.
 Bees are not necessarily needed to pollinate, but they improve the quality of
 fruit and vegetables, Doan said.
 Doan said he already has spent $200,000 trying to rebuild his hives, an
 investment that becomes much more nerve-racking given the uncertainty of what's
 happening to the bees.
 "Without knowing exactly what the problem is, we could look at three months from
 now our bees collapsing again," he said.
 e-mail: jbonfatti@buffnews.com
 LOAD-DATE: April 23, 2007
 GRAPHIC: Charles Lewis/Buffalo News Bruce Fiegel, owner of Fiegel Apiaries,
 checks on his remaining bees. Because of the decline, he no longer has enough
 bees for all of his pollination work.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                         Copyright 2007 The Buffalo News
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 715
 
                            The Ledger (Lakeland, FL)
                              April 22, 2007 Sunday
 BYLINE: KEVIN BOUFFARD The Ledger
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A7
 LENGTH: 1345 words
 LAKELAND - Organic foods is the fastest growing and one of the most profitable
 categories in the supermarket, both for sellers and producers.
 But even consumers who regularly buy organic don't always understand what the
 term means, said Urvashin Rangan, a senior scientist and policy analyst for the
 Consumers Union, a nonprofit consumer advocate and publisher of the monthly
 magazine, Consumer Reports.
 "I'm not sure people know everything about what organic means. There are several
 hundred pages of regulations," she said.
 Laurie Demeritt, the president of the San Francisco-based Hartman Group, a
 market research firm on health and wellness issues, agreed mainstream consumers
 don't have a clear idea on the meaning of organic.
 "And they don't want to know," Demeritt said. "They're comfortable with the
 belief that it's healthier, and they're satisfied with that."
 The following attempts to boil down those hundreds of pages of regulations into
 the essential information every consumer should know about organics. Unless
 otherwise attributed, the following information comes from the U.S. Department
 of Agriculture's Web site.
 Q. What does "organic" mean?
 A. Organic is a method of farming and ranching that emphasizes using renewable
 resources and conservation of soil and water.
 Organic food is produced without using pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers,
 hormones and other chemicals made with synthetic ingredients. The USDA
 regulations also prohibit using sewage sludge; bioengineering, such as
 genetically modified organisms (GMOs); or ionizing radiation.
 Organic producers must maintain buffer zones sufficient to prevent organic crops
 or animals from mixing with neighboring farms and ranches not following the
 federal standards.
 Q. Do the regulations ban all uses of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers?
 A. No, only those products using synthetic chemicals, which does include most
 products in those categories.
 But the organic regulations do allow using natural fertilizers, such as manures
 and composting, that were standard before chemical fertilizers replaced them
 during the last century.
 There are also some organic herbicides available, said Benny McLean, a Clermont
 citrus grower with about 1,000 acres of organic groves, but they are not as
 effective as their chemical cousins.
 In general, any natural substance not processed in a factory can be used in
 organic growing, he said. That includes the natural fertilizers and even
 chemicals such as copper sulfate or zinc sulfate, which are mined and applied
 without further processing.
 Q. Who determines what is organic?
 A. The USDA has a certification program that uses private, accredited inspectors
 to ensure a farm, ranch or food processor is following federal organic
 guidelines implemented in 2002.
 The certification program for farms and ranches takes three years because it
 takes that long for synthetic chemicals to leave the soil. After initial
 certification, products can carry a "USDA organic" label.
 Thereafter producers must have annual inspections. Every five years, products
 must be tested for chemical residues in fruits, vegetables and animals.
 Consumers Union agrees the annual inspections are sufficient to enforce the
 regulations, but it has advocated for testing yearly or no less than every two
 years, Rangan said. Most chemicals can be detected five years after use, but
 some cannot.
 Q. Are there any other consumer issues concerning USDA organic regulations?
 A. The regulations are generally clear and consumer friendly, Rangan said. The
 USDA took a record amount of comments from interest groups, including Consumers
 Union, during the 12 years of developing the organic standards.
 "The organic label offers consumers something of measurable value over standard
 products," she said.
 However, the regulations have ambiguities and loopholes, she said.
 One of the biggest ambiguities in the regulations is the amount of access that
 livestock must be given to outside pastures, Rangan said. The regulations don't
 define "pasture" or set a minimum time the animals must spend outside.
 So-called "free-range chickens" may have spent their lives only in a screened
 porch beside the henhouse, she said. Some companies keep their cows on a dry
 lot, feed them grass and call that "pasturing."
 "That's a big issue in the organic community. Because there are no specifics,
 some companies have gotten away with really pushing the envelope," Rangan said.
 USDA rejected recommended pasture standards offered by its own panel of
 scientific advisers, she said.
 Other than loopholes such as the pasture issue, no one has raised concerns about
 the USDA's enforcement against cheating, such as the use of prohibited
 chemicals, Rangan said.
 Q. What about organic seafood?
 A. Any seafood product labeled organic is meaningless because the federal
 guidelines don't deal with seafood at all, Rangan said. Nevertheless, the USDA
 has allowed companies to use the term on seafood products.
 "If 'organic' is a production practice, the controls need to be in place, and we
 need to know what the controls are," she said.
 Q. What kind of organic label should consumers look for?
 A. The USDA allows companies to use three official labels:
 "100 percent organic" means every ingredient in the product was produced under
 organic regulations.
 It is usually used for single-ingredient products, such as fresh fruits and
 vegetables, milk, meats and cheeses. Processed products, such as orange juice
 made only with organic oranges, also can use the label.
 "Organic" means at least 95 percent of the ingredients by weight meet organic
 standards. Water and salt do not count, Rangan said.
 "Made with organic" ingredients can be used on products that have at least 70
 percent organic ingredients by weight.
 Products using less than 70 percent organic ingredients can note organic content
 on a side panel but cannot make any organic claims on the front of the package.
 Companies that sell or label a product "organic" when they know it does not meet
 USDA standards can be fined up to $11,000 for each violation.
 Q. Are "organic" and "natural" the same thing?
 A. No. Products using artificial flavorings, colorings and preservatives and
 other chemicals may be labeled "natural" but not "organic."
 Q. Are organic products healthier?
 A. The organic label is a production claim, the USDA says. It means nothing
 regarding the nutritional value or safety of the product.
 Rangan agreed companies may not legitimately claim their organic products are
 more nutritious, but they can validly claim that the absence of pesticides,
 hormones and other chemicals used in standard production practices is healthier
 for the consumer.
 "We know from our testing data that organic fruits and vegetables have less
 pesticide residue, and that has added value," Rangan said. "Tests also show
 organic juices have less pesticide residue."
 Studies also show children raised on an organic diet have lower levels of
 chemical residues in their bodies - an undisputed health benefit - she said.
 Other health-related claims - such as hormones and other growth chemicals used
 widely in livestock get passed to children, causing early onset of puberty -
 have not been proven scientifically, Rangan said.
 "It's unproven, but it still gives reason for concern, even for me," she added.
 "Failure to prove harm is not equivalent to proven safety."
 Q. Are there any food safety issues associated with organic foods?
 A. The January Consumer Reports reported its study of contamination levels on
 fresh whole chickens purchased nationwide. It showed 25 percent of organic
 chickens tested positive for salmonella compared to less than 10 percent for
 other chickens, Rangan said.
 That's probably because organic producers can't use the standard anti-bacterial
 washes used by others, she said.
 But that doesn't mean consumers should fear buying organic chickens because
 salmonella poisoning occurs only with undercooked birds, Rangan said. Organic
 chicken has other health benefits.
 "We try not to make things black and white," she said.
 Kevin Bouffard can be reached at kevin.bouffard@theledger.com or at
 Local; Agriculture; Food; Grocery; Retail
 LOAD-DATE: May 3, 2007
              Copyright 2007 Lakeland Ledger Publishing Corporation
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 716
 
                        St. Paul Pioneer Press (Minnesota)
                              April 20, 2007 Friday
 Kennedy wants Capella info on student loans
 BYLINE: Pioneer Press
 SECTION: INTL BIZ BRIEFING; Business; Columnists
 LENGTH: 837 words
 Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts asked two universities and their suspended
 financial-aid directors to turn over information related to their "possible
 inappropriate relationships" with CIT Group Inc.'s student-loan unit. Capella
 University, the online division of Minneapolis-based Capella Education Co., and
 Widener University must provide documents detailing their ties to CIT Group's
 Student Loan XPress, according to letters Kennedy's office released Friday. The
 schools selected Student Loan XPress as a "preferred lender" for their students
 and families seeking to cover tuition and other costs. The schools are among
 about 100 targeted in a broadening investigation by New York Attorney General
 Andrew Cuomo of lenders providing consulting fees, company stock and other
 payments to colleges and their officials. Irene Silber, a spokeswoman for
 Capella, said the school will respond to inquiries from Kennedy and Cuomo. U.S.:
 NWA judge should withhold payments
 Northwest Airlines' bankruptcy judge should withhold full payment of more than
 $22 million in fees and expenses billed by attorneys and professionals in the
 case, a Justice Department attorney said. The U.S. Trustee's Office, the arm of
 the Justice Department tasked with monitoring bankruptcy cases, said in a court
 filing Friday that the fees shouldn't be paid in full until the professionals
 complete their jobs and the Eagan-based airline exits Chapter 11 reorganization.
 The objection didn't specify what percentage of the total fees sought from
 Northwest should be withheld. Judge Allan Gropper in New York will consider the
 request at a hearing set for Monday.State halts sale of modified corn seed
 State officials Friday halted all sales and distribution of a type of Syngenta
 corn seed with genetically modified rootworm resistance, and are urging farmers
 not to plant it because the seed has not yet been approved for use in Minnesota.
 The variety is "Agrisure RW MIR 604." While the trait has received federal
 approval, Syngenta failed to secure regulatory permission from the Minnesota
 Department of Agriculture, as required by state law. The department said
 Syngenta records show that 7,480 units of the seed have been distributed to 99
 seed dealers across Minnesota. Farmers affected are urged to call their seed
 dealers immediately, state officials saidXcel begins conversion of coal-fired
 plant
 Xcel Energy planted a tree Friday to celebrate the start of its $212 million
 conversion of the nearly century-old coal-fired Riverside power plant in
 Minneapolis to one that will burn cleaner natural gas. The conversion is part of
 the company's $1 billion Metro Emissions Reduction Project that includes a
 similar coal-to-natural gas conversion of Xcel's High Bridge plant in St. Paul
 and the installation of modern anti-pollution equipment on its A.S. King
 facility in Stillwater. The Riverside project is scheduled to come on-line in
 May 2009.Minnesota Power plans wind farm
 Duluth-based Minnesota Power Co. said Friday it will build and own the first
 commercial wind energy farm in northeastern Minnesota. The company is proposing
 to build the 25-megawatt farm in central St. Louis County on property owned by
 United States Steel Corp. near its Minntac Mine in Mountain Iron. The 10-turbine
 facility is expected to begin producing electricity in 2008. A new state law
 says nearly all Minnesota power companies must produce 25 percent of their
 electricity from renewable resources like wind by 2025. Xcel Energy, the state's
 largest utility, must produce 30 percent by 2020.Cattlemen sue beef packers over
 losses
 A group of Midwest cattlemen, who suffered large losses in 2005 when checks for
 their fed cattle bounced, on Thursday filed suit against several beef packers in
 hopes of further recovering more of their money. Earlier, the cattlemen reached
 agreement in bankruptcy court for partial payment, in the wake of a bankruptcy
 filing of GFI America. The group of cattlemen, including several from Minnesota,
 are now filing suit in U.S. District Court in Minnesota seeking additional money
 from National Beef Packing Co., Creekstone Farms Premium Beef and Agri
 Processors, Inc., the companies that processed the cattle.
 Redmond Yeung will join Richfield-based Best Buy Co. in the newly created
 position of president and chief operating officer of Best Buy Asia, effective
 May 8. Yeung was senior vice president for Ports Design Ltd., a large fashion
 retail chain in China.
 Lenox Group, Eden Prairie, said it completed the refinancing of its $275 million
 revolving credit and term loans. The new financing package includes a $100
 million secured term loan and a $175 million revolving credit facility. ...
 Arden Hills-based IntriCon said it agreed to acquire Tibbetts Industries, a
 Camden, Maine-based maker of hearing-aid components and medical devices, for
 $4.5 million in cash. ... MedicalCV, Inver Grove Heights, said it sold $8
 million of senior secured debt to an affiliate of Whitebox Advisors LLC.
 - Staff and wire reports
 LOAD-DATE: June 18, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2007 St. Paul Pioneer Press
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 717
 
                            Christian Science Monitor
                             April 19, 2007, Thursday
 US and Europe: syncing up standards
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. 8
 LENGTH: 525 words
 Let's hop into a VW Passat. But which one? The one made for the US has different
 lights, wipers, and mirrors from the one made for Europe. It has passed a
 separate crash test. Same model, different cars - and both are more expensive
 for it.
 This is just one of many examples of how mismatched rules and standards between
 the US and Europe add cost and production complications to products and services
 sold in both regions.
 For more than a decade, politicians on both sides of the Atlantic have been
 talking about harmonizing standards and have attempted baby steps in this
 direction. But they're not even close to walking yet.
 This idea needs to be held firmly by the hand and guided. That could happen if
 the US and the European Union (EU) agree on a timetable and road map to remove
 nontariff barriers in dozens of sectors, from biofuels to banking.
 Such a commitment is being vigorously pushed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
 Germany holds the rotating presidency of the EU, and Ms. Merkel is intent on
 moving this idea through at the upcoming US-EU summit in Washington on April 30.
 It's encouraging that the White House also appears ready to commit.
 The transatlantic economy is already deeply established - and huge. The
 commercial relationship between the US and Europe accounts for three-fifths of
 the global economy.
 But going even deeper by harmonizing rules between the world's two richest
 regions - some call it creating a single US-EU market - makes sense in the face
 of increased competition from China and India. It would boost US and European
 economic growth. It would lead to commercial efficiency and lower costs for
 consumers. And on the political front, it would shore up a transatlantic
 relationship that has suffered under the strain of the war in Iraq.
 The obstacles will be difficult to climb over, even if political leaders lace up
 their hiking boots.
 Regulatory coordination requires cooperation between the European Parliament and
 the US Congress. Europeans and Americans also have different values, especially
 regarding risk. That's no small factor when it comes to, say, regulating
 genetically modified foods.
 And harmonization could become very complicated. Back to the car example: The
 supposedly simple task of using the same standards for headlights could involve
 changing road signs. The signs are at lower or higher heights, depending on
 whether it's Europe or the US, and headlights are made to shine either lower or
 higher.
 But here's how to get past the feeling that this project is just too big to
 tackle. First, take heart in what's been done - for instance, the recent
 agreement to open up transatlantic commerical air traffic, a deal expected to be
 signed at the summit. Second, pick target sectors and study the costs of
 barriers in those areas - and the benefits (and feasibility) of removing them.
 Then start harmonizing the easier stuff, such as accounting, or newer,
 unregulated products, such as nanotechnology.
 Not everything will be doable. But the US and EU need a goal and a plan. They
 can accomplish at least this much at their summit at the end of the month
 (c) Copyright 2007. The Christian Science Monitor
 LOAD-DATE: April 18, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
             Copyright 2007 The Christian Science Publishing Society
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 718
 
                      OC Weekly (Orange County, California)
                                  April 19, 2007
 Mutant Puppet Rock Band R00lz;
 LENGTH: 656  words
 It ain't easy being a radioactive carrot . . . or remembering to pretend to be
 one on the phone.
 Do you prefer to do interviews in character?
 I can do it either way. I'll do it in character.
 What's the origin of the Radioactive Chicken Heads?
 We're all, uh, genetically modified experiments to make super . . . super
 Frankenfoods, giant, uh, sorry. It's been a long time. But, um, we're all part
 of this experiment. We didn't know it at first. We've been modified mutants to
 become, um . . . giant chickens, giant vegetables . . . um, I'm sorry. I'm
 actually not in my character right now. I'm sorry. Let's start over.
 We can come back to that.
 Let's come back to that.
 Do you call what you do "puppet rock"?
 I've never called it that. You can call it puppet rock.
 Your site referred to Green Jell [now called Green Jell] as puppet rock.
 I did call them puppet rock. We're pretty much puppet rock. We were a band, but
 we didn't do anything until we saw Green Jell. They've helped us out a lot over
 the years. Green Jell, GWAR, the Residents-we love all those bands.
 Why do a "puppet rock" band?
 This is who we are. We're not all one persona. We already were the Radioactive
 Chicken Heads before it was a band.
 You already were those genetically modified . . . ?
 Yeah. [laughs]
 There was a band called Joe and the Chicken Heads. Do you avow any relation?
 Joe was our original manager, and originally, he put his name on our band, but
 he was a human and he had nothing to do with us. Since then, we've become the
 Radioactive Chicken Heads because the government has insisted that all
 radioactive products be labeled as such. We didn't really have much choice in
 the name change.
 Maybe it's asking you to step out of character, but are the masks homemade?
 They're all homemade and made out of different junk we have laying around. We
 don't have a method or anything. It's mostly chickens on the farm . . . just the
 chicken, carrots, tomatoes that were raised around chickens. . . . I don't know.
 I don't know why we do what we do. Maybe I should redo this interview.
 I think it's gone well so far.
 Okay. We try to be entertaining whether people like our music or not.
 Your band was on The Tyra Banks Show recently?
 Yeah. It was very strange. They gave us 45 seconds to play. They didn't really
 tell us what was going on. They gave us peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and
 then told us to get onstage. The audience didn't really like it. We had a lot of
 fun. They edited it down to make it safe for television. We didn't say anything
 inappropriate. It seemed like Tyra was taken aback.
 It was sort of a Gong Show competition?
 They tried to find the worst acts they could. But we weren't as bad as they
 thought we'd be.
 Who did you lose to?
 We lost to a man who painted a portrait of Tyra Banks while running on a
 treadmill. It looked nothing like her. It was definitely a fix.
 Do you tend to end up on weird shows?
 We almost never end up on normal bills. We've played at parking lots, bar
 mitzvahs, with freak shows. We'll play anywhere that will have us. There really
 aren't many places for us to play in Orange County. The actual clubs in
 Hollywood are more open to what we do. In Hollywood, everyone's a freak. We walk
 down that street in Hollywood, and people don't take a second glance at us. In
 Orange County, we'll get hit by fruit and soda cans.
 Did you want to attempt the origin question again?
 Um, I could say that the Radioactive Chicken Heads . . . we . . . I'll just
 leave it, I guess.
 How do you feel about rabbits?
 Probably our mortal enemies are rabbits. A big bunny rabbit ate two of my
 friends, a radish and celery. His name is Bad Bunny, and he's a rabbit that's
 the size of a dinosaur. He's still out there somewhere looking for me.
 How do feel about the comedian Carrot Top?
 That's another one of my nemeses. Well, more of an annoyance.
 LOAD-DATE: April 26, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                           Copyright 2007 OC Weekly, LP
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 719
 
                           The Times-Union (Albany, NY)
                            January 20, 2011 Thursday
                              Final Edition EDITION
 SECTION: FOOD; Pg. E2
 LENGTH: 651 words
 Blu Stone Bistro hosting Table Hopping meetup
 Blu Stone Bistro in Colonie will be hosting a cocktail party for Table Hopping
 readers. Scheduled from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. next Thursday, Jan. 27, the event will
 feature complimentary hors d'oeuvres, drink specials, and a chance to chat with
 Table Hopping author Steve Barnes and blog readers and commenters.
 Reservations are required; e-mail Bill Wren, the restaurant's assistant general
 manager, at bill@blustonebistro.com to receive an invite and a $10 coupon good
 for use for dinner following the meetup that night.
 The bistro is at 661 Albany Shaker Road, across from The Desmond hotel. Call
 869-9976 for more information.
 State Museum food-and-science series returns
 The State Museum in Albany is bringing back its "Cooking the Tree of Life"
 lecture-demonstration series, scheduled for 7 p.m. on three Wednesdays in
 February in the Clark Auditorium at the museum, located on the south end of the
 Empire State Plaza at Madison Avenue. Each event, which is free and open to the
 public, pairs a chef with a museum scientist. The lineup:
 Feb. 2, "Swine and Dine": Jason Cryan, an evolutionary biologist at the State
 Museum, discusses the evolutionary origins, current distribution and biology of
 pigs, while chef Tony Destratis of Lake George Club prepares and presents
 pork-inspired dishes.
 Feb. 9, "Potato, the Perfect Human Food": Roland Kays, curator of mammals at the
 State Museum, gives the evolutionary back-story to the tuber that changed the
 world, and Saratoga-area chef David Britton cooks up examples of cuisine it has
 inspired.
 Feb. 16, "Loving the Bubbly: Bread, Wine and Beer": The variety of breads and
 fermented beverages developed by cultures around the world are made possible by
 one species of yeast that has evolved into hundreds of specialized strains. Join
 museum scientist Jeremy Kirchman and chef Stephen Topper of the Copperfield Inn
 in North Creek as they discuss the fascinating natural history of yeast and
 prepare delicious dishes.
 Italian wine dinner at The Wishing Well
 The Wishing Well restaurant in Wilton will be hosting a dinner featuring Italian
 food and wine at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday. The cost is $65 per person, plus tax and
 tip, and includes a tasting of a dozen brunellos, super Tuscans and rosso di
 Montalcinos from the Lauber Imports portfolio, five courses and wine pairings.
 Reservations are required; call 584-7640. The restaurant is at 745 Saratoga
 Road.
 The lineup, by executive chef Patrick Longton, includes Chianti-braised pork
 belly, with artichoke arancini, shrimp-cannellini bean salad, pasta Bolognese,
 Madeira-braised Padgett Farms beef short ribs, and crema di mascarpone with fig
 jam and almond cookies.
 Lecture series to focus on genetically modified food
 All four speakers in this year's Environmental Science, Policy and Engineering
 Winter Seminar Series at Union College in Schenectady will address the theme
 "Inside the Controversy on Genetically Modified Food." The series kicks off at 7
 tonight in the Nott Memorial with a talk titled "The Dirty Secrets Behind the
 Genetically Modified Foods You're Eating," by Jeffrey Smith, a leading non-GMO
 consumer advocate. The rest of the series' dates, subjects and speakers:
 Wednesday, Feb. 2: "Global Rifts over Biotechnology: Science, Politics and
 Political Science," Ronald Herring, Cornell University.
 Wednesday, Feb. 16: "Genetically Engineered Plants and Animals: Answers to
 Questions They Don't Want Asked (Science, Regulation, Environmental and Human
 Health Impacts)," Michael Hansen, Consumer Union.
 Tuesday, Feb. 22: "Environmental Considerations in the Use of Transgenic Crops,"
 Janice Thies, Cornell University.
 All talks are at 7 p.m. in the Nott Memorial. They are free and open to the
 public.
 Compiled by Steve Barnes. Items to be considered for publication must be
 submitted to sbarnes@timesunion.com Visit his blog at
 http://blogs.timesunion.com/tablehopping.
 LOAD-DATE: January 22, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2011 The Hearst Corporation
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 720
 
                  The News & Observer (Raleigh, North Carolina)
                             November 8, 2010 Monday
 Scientists look at crops, bugs and animals
 BYLINE:  ROBIN SMITH; Correspondent
 LENGTH: 434 words
 Genetic engineering usually brings to mind genetically modified crops of corn
 and soybeans.
 But the debate over transgenics is now turning from plants to mosquitoes and
 other pests. The idea is to alter the genetic makeup of these animals to stop
 them from spreading diseases - including Lyme disease, dengue fever and malaria
 - that affect millions of people each year.
 World experts from universities, private organizations, and federal and state
 agencies met at N.C. State University last year to explore the risks and
 benefits of transgenic pests. Meeting co-organizer and NCSU entomology professor
 Fred Gould explained the frontier of the field in a recent interview. Here's an
 edited account:
 Q: Scientists have engineered malaria-proof mosquitoes in the lab. How close are
 we to releasing them into the wild?
 That's still a ways off - I would say at least three to five years. For the time
 being, we're working with the National Institutes of Health and the Gates
 Foundation to genetically transform the mosquito that transmits dengue fever so
 it can no longer infect people with the disease. The trick would be to get the
 disease-blocking genes in the lab strains to spread into the wild mosquito
 populations.
 Q: What ethical issues remain?
 Most Americans don't realize that roughly 90 percent of soybeans and 80 percent
 of cotton and probably 70 percent of the corn we grow in the U.S. is genetically
 engineered. So we eat engineered food all the time. But there's still a lot of
 controversy. Transgenic crops stir fears about unintended harm to the
 environment and potential risks to human health.
 Transgenic pests bring up other issues. Genetically modified crops are meant to
 be contained, but the success of using transgenic mosquitoes to fight disease
 hinges on getting them to spread. We couldn't recall them easily once they were
 released.
 Q: Besides mosquitoes, are any other pests under consideration?
 So far we've been talking about using transgenics to fight insect-borne
 diseases. But in terms of agricultural pests, rats in Southeast Asia consume
 enough rice to feed 200 million people a year. Some scientists have suggested
 using genetic approaches to prevent rats from destroying people's rice fields.
 Researchers are also talking about using transgenic tools in conjunction with
 other control methods to stop the spread of invasive fish. These things are
 still down the road, but I think we're going to be having a major conversation
 about all of this within the next five years.
 robinsmith.sciwriter@gmail.com  For more information about the conference, go
 to:  www.ncsu.edu/project/gpm/ .
 LOAD-DATE: November 8, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
           Copyright 2010 The News & Observer (Raleigh, North Carolina)
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 721
 
                       Monterey County Herald (California)
                             July 21, 2010 Wednesday
 Super salmon: FDA nears approval of genetically engineered fish
 BYLINE: By LES BLUMENTHAL McClatchy Newspapers
 LENGTH: 927 words
 They may not be the 500-pound "Frankenfish" that some researchers were talking
 about 10 years ago, but a Massachusetts company says it is on the verge of
 receiving federal approval to market a quick-growing Atlantic salmon that's been
 genetically modified with help from a Pacific Chinook salmon.
 Though genetically engineered crops such as corn and soybeans have been part of
 the American diet for several years, if the Food and Drug Administration
 approves it, the salmon would be the first transgenic animal headed for the
 dinner table.
 "I would serve it to my kids," said Val Giddings, who worked as a geneticist at
 the U.S. Agriculture Department for a decade before becoming a private
 consultant.
 The financial rewards could be enormous.
 Aquaculture is already an $86 billion-a-year business, with nearly half of all
 fish consumed globally farm raised. As wild stocks dwindle and the world's
 population heads toward 9 billion, fish farmers will be looking for fish that
 will be market-ready quicker.
 Even so, skeptics abound.
 Fears persist about possible health risks from genetically modified food in
 general, but concerns about bioengineered salmon also extend to the environment.
 Farmed salmon are raised in net pens in coastal waters along Washington state,
 Maine and British Columbia. Most commonly, the fish being raised are Atlantic
 salmon, and the fear is they'll escape and compete with endangered native
 stocks. By some estimates, between 400,000 and 1 million Atlantic salmon have
 escaped into the wild from the 75 or so net-pen operations in British Columbia.
 A Purdue University study using a computer model, widely criticized by the
 biotechnology industry, showed that if 60 transgenic fish bred in a population
 of 60,000 wild fish, the wild fish would be extinct in 40 generations.
 "We've seen assurances in the past from industry and regulators that there won't
 be catastrophic consequences like the Gulf oil spill," said George Kimbrell, a
 senior staff attorney for the Center for Food Safety. "We have a cultural
 amnesia about these things."
 If the FDA approves the transgenic salmon, his group would consider litigation
 to stop it, Kimbrell said.
 AquaBounty, which calls its super salmon an "advanced hybrid" rather than a
 transgenic fish, said they're safe to eat and would be raised in contained
 farming operations that could be based inland rather than along coastal waters.
 And the modified fish, all females, would be sterile so that they couldn't breed
 with wild fish if any escaped, the company said.
 AquaBounty would market the eggs from a transgenic salmon, not the actual fish.
 After first filing for approval a decade ago to bring the fish to market, the
 company said in a recent press release that the FDA's Center for Veterinary
 Medicine has reviewed in detail five of the seven sections of its application.
 "The company believes the reviews for the remaining two parts of the application
 are very nearly complete," AquaBounty said, adding that its management was
 "confident of a successful outcome in the near future."
 The FDA doesn't comment on pending applications, though a public hearing on the
 AquaBounty application could come as early as this fall. Such public hearings
 can signal the FDA is close to a decision.
 Once approved, AquaBounty said it could start marketing the eggs from transgenic
 salmon within two or three years. The company is also reportedly developing
 transgenic tilapia and trout.
 Scientists elsewhere are working on cattle that would be resistant to mad cow
 disease, and researchers in Canada have developed an "enviropig," which would
 produce manure with less harmful levels of phosphorus.
 Biotech crops are spreading worldwide, with 14 million farmers growing them in
 25 countries, including the United States. About 330 million acres are planted
 globally, an 80-fold increase since 1996.
 Giddings, the former USDA geneticist, said that 77 percent of the global soybean
 harvest was transgenic, 26 percent of the feed corn, 21 percent of canola and 49
 percent of cotton. All told, Gidding said, there are 60 to 70 transgenic crops
 ranging from papayas to yellow squash.
 "All have been reviewed by the FDA," said Giddings, who also worked for a
 leading biotech industry group. "There is no greater risk from eating transgenic
 crops than eating non-transgenic crops."
 AquaBounty officials weren't available for comment, but the company's publicist
 referred calls to Giddings.
 Giddings said he hadn't eaten a transgenic salmon, but people he'd talked to
 who'd attended AquaBounty fish fries said they taste just like non-transgenic
 fish. He dismisses health safety concerns and fears that the fish could pose a
 threat to native stocks.
 "Transgenic foods are subjected to more scrutiny than any other food in
 history," he said.
 However, critics say there are no guarantees the transgenic salmon would be
 raised in contained, inland pens, and that claims of sterility can be overblown.
 The company says that 99 percent of the transgenic fish will be sterile, a level
 that meets FDA requirements.
 "I hope that's true," said Eric Hoffman, who works on genetic technology policy
 for Friends of the Earth.
 FDA regulations don't specifically address whether transgenic food is safe for
 public health and the environment, Hoffman said, and the approval process is so
 closed it's impossible to tell whether fish raised from AquaBounty's eggs will
 have to be labeled as transgenic. Products made from transgenic crops in the
 U.S. don't have to carry a special label.
 "This is all about corporate profit and not public health," Hoffman said.
 LOAD-DATE: July 23, 2010
 GRAPHIC: They may not be the 500 pound "Frankenfish" some researchers were
 talking about 10 years ago, but AquaBounty says it's on the verge of receiving
 federal approval to market a quick-growing Atlantic salmon that has been
 genetically modified.
 AquaBounty salmon include a gene from Chinook salmon, which provides the fish
 with the potential to grow to market size quickly.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2010 The Monterey County Herald
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 722
 
                     Congressional Documents and Publications
                                  July 20, 2010
 House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights
 and Oversight and Africa and Global Health Hearing;
 Oversight of the Feed the Future Initiative;
 Testimony by William Danforth, Chairman, Board of Directors, Donald Danforth
 Plant Science Center
 LENGTH: 2968  words
 Chairman Carnahan and Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Rohrabacher and Ranking
 Member Smith and Committee Members thank you for the opportunity to testify
 today on such a vital topic---global hunger and food security. I am William
 Danforth, former chancellor of Washington University and now chair of the board
 of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center both in St. Louis, Missouri. I have
 been involved in biomedical research for more than fifty years and in plant
 science for the last dozen years.
 I got into plant science because I believed
 * that plant science had been neglected and underfunded for decades,
 * that it was important because the next generations of innovations in
 agriculture depended on science,
 * that because of underfunding and old-fashioned research management at the
 national level there were few high-quality plant science programs, few, that is,
 compared with biomedical programs,
 * that because of the depth and breadth in biomedical sciences including
 genetics, cell biology, molecular biology and so on, we in our region could
 build first rate programs,
 * that success of our work in St. Louis and, in fact of all plant and
 agricultural research would require change from the traditional research
 management of the USDA and the adoption and funding of strong, well managed,
 research programs in which research grants were awarded to the most promising
 programs as judged by knowledgeable scientists in open competition.
 The last Congress established the new National Institute for Food and
 Agriculture (NIFA). It is now up and running with Dr. Roger Beachy as its
 founding director. Its competitive grants program is called The Agricultural and
 Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (AFRI). It was modeled after
 the stronger programs of the
 NIH and the NSF. This new program is the opportunity to develop a first-class
 research program modeled after the best parts of the NIH, the NSF and the best
 of the USDA programs.
 I believe that, there is enormous potential for modern agricultural research to
 address issues of hunger and food security and make our world a more livable
 planet for generations to come. Now in 2010 we have the federal agencies ARFI
 and the Agency for International Development (AID) poised to use the
 technologies and power of modern research to bring great boons to the fields
 under the jurisdiction of this sub-committee.
 Now I will talk about the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, because our
 goals are close to some of the concerns of this House Committee. I do so because
 it might give an example of how one can use plant science to address human
 problems.
 The mission of the Danforth Plant Science Center is to improve the human
 condition through plant science. Each day Danforth Center scientists and staff
 pursue new discoveries with the potential to help feed the hungry and preserve
 and renew our environment. That may sound challenging, but, if we work together,
 these are noble and achievable goals that, when achieved, will benefit the
 United States and the world.
 Consider three challenges: (Taken from Blessings and Challenges Science Holds
 the Key By William H. Danforth M.D.]
 The first is that America must continue to lead the world in agriculture. That
 means innovating more rapidly than others, some with more favorable climates and
 cheaper labor and land. We need increased productivity with fewer inputs, lower
 costs and new value added. Science is a necessary component of innovation and
 success and many others chase this goal. Over the last twenty years China and
 India have doubled global agricultural research. Our nation starts with many
 assets and should not toss away our lead.
 The second challenge is ancient: better nutrition. In many places, hunger and
 starvation plague humankind as they have since human life began. Still tonight,
 one billion people will go to bed hungry and about every six seconds one child
 dies of causes related to malnutrition.
 The third challenge is preserving and enhancing the environment so our
 grandchildren inherit a livable earth. This challenge is essentially new, even
 though throughout human time on earth we humans have been changing the
 environment that sustains us, usually for the worse. But the environmental
 damage has been local; the rest of the world has gone on as before. What is new
 is that there are now so many of us and our tools are so powerful that we
 threaten the environment of the whole world all at once.
 These challenges ancient and new can be summed up as one -- produce enough food,
 energy and other products in a way that is indefinitely sustainable.
 Consider these additional facts:
 * In order to avoid mass starvation global agricultural production must double
 by 2050.
 * The reasons include continuing growth of world population and rising
 consumption of meat in developing countries.
 * Seventy percent of the world's fresh water is used for agriculture. At the
 current consumption rate, by 2024 two of every three people will live in water
 stressed conditions.
 The need for more production with less input of water, fertilizer, and energy of
 all types is obvious. There is little new land that can be put into production
 without causing further environmental damage. About 40% of the world's arable
 land is currently used. Most of the uncultivated land is marginal with poor
 soils and either too little rainfall or too much. Bringing such land into
 production would require costly irrigation systems or soil enhancement measures.
 Biotechnology has to be one of the tools we use to meet the needs of a growing
 world population while preserving the environment.
 Again, a few key facts:
 Crops developed using tools of biotechnology have been approved by regulators in
 25 countries and have a history of safe use and consumption.
 * A record 14 million farmers in 25 countries are safely using products
 developed through biotechnology today to improve their livelihoods.
 * Ninety percent of these are smallholder farmers living in 16 developing
 countries.
 * No single incident has compromised human health or safety in the two decades
 biotech crops have been commercialized.
 * No environmental damage has been found in numerous studies.
 Biotech crops contribute to increased food availability and affordability,
 increasing world production by 141 million metric tons from 1996 to 2007
 * Growers of biotech crops numbered 13.3 million in 2008 compared with 12
 million in 2007, the vast majority farm less than 10 acres of land.
 * In agriculture-based developing economies, biotech crops are an engine of
 rural economic growth, which in turn can contribute substantially to national
 economic growth.
 In addition to improving yields, biotech crops preserve our environment.
 * Biotech crops reduced the amount of insecticide used in agriculture by more
 than 350 million pounds.
 * Biotech crops have increased no-till farming by 35% since 1996 preserving
 thousands of tons of topsoil.
 * Research in the United Kingdom indicates that energy savings created by the
 use of no till with GM crops is equivalent to removing five million cars from
 the road.
 It is worth noting that in the past there have been only minimal efforts to
 improve food security crops like cassava, sorghum and cowpea. Unlike maize and
 soybean there are no commercial drivers for the improvement of these crops
 despite the enormous numbers of people who depend on them for sustenance. It is
 not possible to grow maize or soybean in many parts of Africa due to the dry
 climate. All of the technologies developed for commercial crops have been proven
 applicable to food security crops.
 I'd like to share with you information about two projects underway at the
 Danforth Plant Science Center that are intended to address hunger in the
 developing world. Both are focused on the root crop cassava which is the 6th
 largest source of calories worldwide and 3rd largest in the developing world.
 250 million people living in sub Saharan Africa and 700 million people worldwide
 rely on it daily as a major source of calories.
 Cassava has the ability to grow on marginal land where cereals and other crops
 do not grow well because it can tolerate drought and can grow in low-nutrient
 soils. Roots are processed into a wide variety of granules, pastes, flours,
 etc., or consumed freshly boiled. Additionally, tubers can be left in the ground
 up to three years so if drought or disease kills off other crops, farmer's
 families can still fend off starvation by eating cassava.
 Although Cassava has many properties that make it an important food across 105
 countries in the world, it also has many limitations. Cassava lacks protein,
 vitamins A and E, iron and zinc and is susceptible to many pathogens,
 particularly in Africa, where one third of the continental harvest is lost each
 year to viral diseases.
 Twenty-five percent of the research at the Danforth Center is aimed at helping
 developing countries in Africa and other parts of the world. The Danforth Plant
 Science Center has been the lead on two major projects to address two of the
 most important constraints to cassava production and utilization - poor
 nutritional content of the root and susceptibility to virus disease.
 Danforth Center scientists have joined researchers at nine world-class
 institutions from around the globe in an effort to develop improved nutritional
 solutions for African farmers. In Nigeria, researchers at the National Root
 Crops Research Institute are leading the way. This project is called BioCassava
 Plus and is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's Global Challenges
 for Global Health Program. Its primary objective is to develop and deliver
 improved African cassava varieties that help meet certain minimum daily nutrient
 requirements.
 Research at the Danforth Center is primarily focused on increasing cassava's
 Vitamin A protein, zinc and iron content, lowering the levels of naturally
 occurring cyanide releasing chemicals and reducing spoilage. Beta-carotene is
 the precursor to Vitamin A and is contained in various foods today, but those
 foods are not readily available to many people living in the developing world.
 Vitamin A deficiency is perhaps most serious. The World Health Organization
 (WHO) estimates that more than 250 million school children are deficient in
 vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiency leads to lower immune function and people with
 the deficiency often have a higher risk of dying from infections. Vitamin A
 deficiency destroys eyesight and is a leading cause of childhood blindness. In
 Nigeria and Kenya alone, it is estimated that 1.1 million productive years are
 lost annually due to vitamin A deficiencies.
 Another way of looking at the importance of these nutrients comes from a recent
 economic study conducted by John Fiedler of Harvest Plus on behalf of the Bill
 and Melinda Gates Foundation that supports the benefits of nutritional
 enhancement. This study looked at the efficiency of uptake of various
 micronutrients including vitamin A, iron and zinc and then used a formula to
 assess the annual impact of life years lost due to death and disease also known
 as Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY).
 In Nigeria alone, the study predicted that increasing the level of Vitamin A to
 the target we have set would decrease the loss of nearly one million life years
 annually. Add zinc and iron and the total increases to more than two million
 years saved.
 Furthermore the study predicted that in the first ten year time period our
 improved cassava varieties have the potential to provide longer healthier lives
 to more than 9 million people living in Nigeria and Kenya. Should these
 technologies also be adopted in other developing countries the potential is
 enormous. For example, the more than 900,000 DALYs in Nigeria resulting from a
 deficiency in vitamin A include the deaths of more than 35,000 children.
 To date, Danforth Center researchers and our partners in Africa have met or
 exceeded all targets:
 * The levels of beta-carotene (Vitamin A) have been increased 30X, from 1
 [mu]g/g to 37 [mu]g dry weight.
 * The levels of iron have been increased 4X, from 11 [mu]g/g to 42 [mu]g /g dry
 weight.
 * The level of proteins have been increased 4X, from 3% to 12% dry weight.
 These increased levels reflect what is needed to furnish the minimum daily
 requirements for a child.
 BioCassava Plus has won the confidence of national partners and regulators in
 Nigeria on its effort to combat nutritional deficiency. In March 2008, it became
 the first entity ever to be granted a permit to conduct a confined field trial
 (CFT) of a transgenic crop in Nigeria. BioCassava Plus currently has a field
 trial of pro-vitamin A enriched events in Nigeria.
 Cassava Mosaic Disease (CMD) and Cassava Brown Streak Disease (CBSD) represent
 the most serious threats to cassava production in sub-Saharan Africa. Each year,
 CMD is responsible for a minimum of 30% losses of the harvest and cassava brown
 streak disease has become an increasing threat in recent years. Currently brown
 streak is ravaging cassava crops along the East African coast and around Lake
 Victoria, threatening millions of east Africans who rely on cassava for food.
 The virus has been present on coastal farms for several decades but in 2004 a
 new virus emerged in Africa's interior (spread by the white fly) and there has
 been an explosive pandemic-style spread since then. Farmers are desperate.
 The Virus Resistant Cassava for Africa (VIRCA) project represents a
 collaboration between the Danforth Center, the National Crops Resources Research
 Institute (NaCRRI) in Uganda and the Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute in
 Kenya to develop farmer-preferred cassava cultivars that are resistant to
 cassava virus diseases for delivery to African smallholder farmers thereby
 increasing root yields and food and economic security. Its second goal is to
 increase research ownership and capacity in the target countries. VIRCA is
 supported by funds contributed by USAID and the Monsanto Fund.
 Danforth center scientists have experienced significant progress on several
 fronts on both of these projects. Most importantly, in establishing multiple
 confined field trials of our transgenic cassava in Puerto Rico, Uganda and
 Nigeria. We gathered encouraging data from the field further corroborating
 findings in the greenhouse. Eventually we hope to stack multiple beneficial
 traits in the same cassava plant through transgenic technologies.
 Although much of the Center's biofortification efforts have been focused on
 cassava, there is also significant research underway to improve virus resistance
 in sweet potato, and to develop more nutritious, protein-enhanced peanut. Each
 of the programs has engaged research partners in Africa and active
 collaborations are ongoing.
 Training scientists from the world's tropical regions in technologies of value
 to their agricultural systems is a central component of our mission. Through
 enhancing the physical infrastructure and increasing human capacity in country,
 our goal is to establish functional cassava biotechnology laboratories in
 Uganda, Kenya and Nigeria. Researchers from each of these countries continue to
 receive training at our facilities on the transgenic technologies required to
 improve cassava.
 The Danforth Center is committed not only to developing the science and
 technology to come up with improved food products but has put together a
 professional team of experts from the private sector to deliver these products
 in a timely manner. Experts in property rights, biosafety, communication, field
 trials, and product management have been recruited in the recent years. In
 recognition of this commitment, in 2008 the Danforth Center was awarded a $5.4
 million grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as part of the Grand
 Challenges in Global Health initiative which seeks to identify and direct funds
 to the most critical scientific challenges in global health.
 Funds were used to create and manage a BioSafety Resource Network (BRN) to
 support four project teams conducting research under Grand Challenge #9 (GC9)
 which focuses on the use of appropriate technologies to increase nutrients in
 local crops in a socially and culturally acceptable way. The goal of the BRN is
 to ensure that research projects address quality assurance, biosafety science
 and regulatory science requirements. The BRN is conducting a thorough,
 preliminary biosafety assessment of all traits intended to be expressed in the
 crops, formulating a regulatory strategy and work plan for each trait-crop
 combination, and providing support in the planning and implementation of
 confined field trials. The BRN is also overseeing the systematic transfer of
 experience and services through the GC9 projects to scientific personnel and
 institutions thus building local and regional regulatory infrastructure.
 The Danforth Center will continue to play a pivotal role in developing and
 applying the most modern scientific and business thinking to the age-old problem
 of providing food, plant, fiber and energy products to the people of the world
 in ways that can be sustained for generations to come.
 The impact of global food security will have implications for foreign and trade
 policies as well as peace. In the past several years it is estimated that more
 than 76 nations have experienced food riots.
 Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we strongly recommend increased Congressional
 investment in basic agricultural research through the Agriculture and Food
 Research Initiative (AFRI) at the USDA's National Institute of Food and
 Agriculture (NIFA) and for USAID programs that enable biotechnology applications
 for food security crops as well as USAID home country missions that provide
 support for biosafety regulation.
 Thank you.
 LOAD-DATE: July 22, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Report
            Copyright 2010 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 723
 
                       Monterey County Herald (California)
                            December 12, 2009 Saturday
 Growing a gardening glossary
 BYLINE: Tom Karwin On Gardening
 SECTION: COLUMNISTS; Home and Garden
 LENGTH: 944 words
 The world of gardening, like other specialized fields of endeavor, has a
 glossary of terms to represent concepts unique to itself. The casual gardener
 can succeed without learning these terms but can discover unfamiliar aspects of
 the field by exploring the glossary.
 Today's column presents 10 uncommon gardening terms that I encountered and
 learned from while doing my research for previous columns. Most of these terms
 refer to groups of plants or functions of plants, but this is not a "top 10"
 list of any kind, just a random collection of ideas that I found interesting.
  Abscisic acid. A hormone synthesized by plants when they are under
 environmental stress, e.g., excess of heat, shortage of water or build-up of
 salts. The hormone inhibits fruit ripening and seed germination, and slows
 photosynthesis and transpiration. See gibberellic acid (below).
  Allelopathy. This is a characteristic of some plants and other organisms in
 which they produce a biochemical that inhibits the growth and development of
 other nearby organisms that would compete for the available resources
 (nutrients, water or light).
  Angiosperms. There are just two groups of plants that bear seeds
 (spermatophytes). The group of flowering plants, called the angiosperms, is the
 dominant and most diverse of the two groups. The other group is the gymnosperms,
 which includes the conifers (pines, cypresses and relatives), cycads, Gnetales
 (Gnetum, Ephedra and Welwitschia, none of which are familiar to me), and Ginkgo
 (G. biloba is the only living species of this genus, and a living fossil).
  Climacteric. In botany, the climacteric is the final stage of the fruit
 ripening process, after which the fruit begins senescence (aging). Climacteric
 fruits continue ripening after harvest: they show a distinct increase in their
 rate of respiration, i.e., production of carbon dioxide and evolution of oxygen,
 and they produce ethylene, an odorless, colorless gas that stimulates the
 process of ripening. Examples include apples, bananas, tomatoes and most melons
 and apricots. Non-climacteric fruits include citrus, grapes and strawberries.
  Geophytes. These are plants with bulbous organs that store carbohydrates or
 water for the plant. The organs take different forms, including true bulbs,
 tuberous roots, and modified stems (corm, tuber, rhizome, pseudobulb, caudex).
  Gibberellic acid. A hormone produced by plants that stimulates the growth of
 the plant's roots, stems and leaves. Synthetic forms of the hormone are used to
 promote the growth of some commercial crops, e.g., Thompson seedless grapes, and
 the flowering of various ornamentals, e.g., dahlias. See abscisic acid (above).
  Phenology. This is the study of recurring life cycle events of plants and
 animals. Examples include the leafing and flowering of plants, the maturation of
 agricultural crops, the emergence of insects, the migrations of birds, etc.
 Historically, phenology reflects the wisdom of the early humans who observed the
 patterns of nature. In the contemporary era, environmental scientists use
 phenology to track changes that result from global warming.
 In her book "The Landscaping Ideas of Jays: A Natural History of the Backyard
 Restoration Garden" (University of California Press, 2007), Judith Larner Lowry
 describes her use of phenology in collecting seeds at their peak of ripeness.
 She refers to her "library of seasonal markers, which mix the botanical, the
 ornithological, the piscatorial and the personal." (She does not explain how
 tracking some fish's life cycle events helps her to decide when to harvest seeds
 at optimal times.)
  Transgenic. A transgenic crop plant has had one or more genes inserted
 artificially, rather than having acquired the gene through the natural process
 of pollination. The inserted gene could come from an unrelated plant or a
 completely different species. Transgenic organisms are one form of genetically
 modified organisms (GMOs). Actually, growers have genetically modified virtually
 all crops by domestication, selection and controlled breeding, but today's
 science supports faster, more radical changes that some consumers believe could
 yield unintended and unwelcome effects.
  Trophe. This is the term for the feeding levels of the ecological pyramid
 (also called the Eltonian Pyramid). At the lowest level, plants are feeding on
 nutrients in the soil. At the level above, herbivores are feeding on plants. At
 the next level, carnivores are feeding on herbivores. At the top level, the
 omnivores are feeding on the herbivores and carnivores. This diagram is used in
 studies of the relationships among the several kinds of organisms.
  Xerophytes. These are plants that have adapted to environments in which the
 availability of water is very limited or intermittent. Plants in this category
 include succulents (like cacti, which store water in various ways) and epiphytes
 (which grow on trees, typically, and get moisture from humid air and rain).
 Compare these plants with mesophytes or "air plants," which prefer average
 conditions of temperature and moisture and grow in soil that has no water
 logging, and hydrophytes or "aquatic plants," which are vascular plants that can
 only grow in water or boggy soil. (Note that seaweeds are not vascular plants,
 but marine algae, so they are not hydrophytes.)
 Enjoy your garden and the arrival of the rainy season.
 Tom Karwin is a Santa Cruz resident, a member of several garden groups,
 including California Native Garden Foundation, Monterey Bay Dahlia Society,
 Monterey Bay Iris Society, Monterey Bay Master Gardeners, the Monterey Bay Rose
 Society, and also a garden coach. He can be reached at gardening@karwin.com .
 LOAD-DATE: January 22, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2009 The Monterey County Herald
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 724
 
                                      Agweek
                  Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News
                              April 28, 2009 Tuesday
 Biotech critics promote report on GM yields
 BYLINE: Mikkel Pates, Agweek Magazine
 LENGTH: 1171 words
 Apr. 28--FARGO, N.D. -- The Union of Concerned Scientists on April 17 released a
 report that concludes that -- despite implications to the contrary --
 genetically-engineered crops don't produce more food or fiber per acre of land.
 The report is getting mixed reviews in North Dakota, among thought leaders on
 either side of the genetically-modified crop issue.
 The report was written by Doug Gurian-Sherman, a biologist with UCS Food and
 Environment Program, who says traditional research delivers better results than
 transgenic crops. Gurian-Sherman reviews 20 previous studies of corn and
 soybeans and concludes that herbicide-tolerant soybeans and corn hadn't
 increased yields, while insect-tolerant corn did, "only marginally."
 Meanwhile, the yield increases for both crops over the past 13 years is "largely
 due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices."
 Margaret Mellon, a microbiologist and director of UCS's Food and Environment
 Program, writing for the report, says that after 3,000 field trials, only two
 types of engineered genes are in widespread use and they "haven't helped raise
 the ceiling on potential yields."
 The study makes a distinction between "intrinsic" and "operational" yield.
 Intrinsic yield refers to performance under the best possible conditions.
 Operational yield refers to yields after losses are subtracted from pests and
 other factors.
 Herbicide-tolerant corn and Bt (bacillus thuringiensis) corn have failed to
 increase intrinsic yields, the report says. But Bt corn provides a "marginal
 operational yield advantage of 3 to 4 percent over typical conventional
 practices." The authors average this increase over years since Bt corn became
 available in 1996 to come up with a .2 to .3 percent overall yield increase.
 Meanwhile, corn yields have increased by about 1 percent annually, "which is
 considerably more than what the Bt traits have provided."
 The report doesn't "discount the possibility" of GM crops "eventually
 contributing" to increased crop yields. But it says it makes "little sense to
 support genetic engineering at the expense" of conventional technologies
 "especially in developing countries."
 It calls "conventional plant breeding methods, sustainable and organic farming
 and other sophisticated farming practices" as "more promising and affordable"
 for farmers in developing countries."
 Allan Skogen, of Valley City, N.D., an outspoken proponent of biotechnology,
 says the report is only the latest criticism.
 "First they say it's dangerous; you can't eat it because it's going to kill you.
 Then they say it's going to take small farmers out of business," Skogen says, of
 critics' tactics. "Then they say it's going to destroy the integrity of the seed
 business, seed quality. Now they say there's no proven yield increase in
 genetically modified crops."
 Skogen acknowledges there haven't been a "lot of live studies" on yield
 increases in GMO crops, but that's because traits haven't been promoted that
 specifically increase yields. That doesn't mean GMO crops haven't allowed
 advantages through other traits.
 "As bad as we've wanted genetically-modified wheat, my wheat yields have
 increased dramatically since we've started raising soybeans, and couldn't raise
 them until we had Roundup Ready soybeans.
 Skogen says in the past seven years his own proven wheat yields -- mostly
 following soybeans -- to the 65-bushel per acre average, versus the past when it
 was a struggle to get 40 to 45 bushels.
 "We know that's not due to increased genetics in wheat, right?" says Skogen, who
 has been a proponent of genetically-modified wheat to help the crop compete with
 other crops, which have had modifications and increased acreage share in the
 region.
 Skogen says GMO soybeans have allowed for reductions in fertilizer applications
 in his and other farms in the region. Among other things, it allowed farmers to
 get away from the wheat-on-wheat and wheat-on-barley rotations. It reduced
 disease problems and reduced damage from chemicals.
 The Roundup Ready soybeans have cleaned up ground for better wheat results, he
 says. He also acknowledges that some of these soybean yield increases have been
 due to increased moisture.
 Meanwhile, Todd Leake, an Emerado, N.D., farmer and a member of the Dakota
 Resources Council, which was working to publicize the study.
 Leake says the scientists' report is something of a reaction to the recent
 promotional efforts of the Lugar-Casey Global Food Security Act, (Senate bill
 384) which seeks to put funds into efforts that, among other things, would try
 to get adoption of biotechnology.
 Co-sponsor, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., in a recent editorial, co-written with
 Nobel prize-winning wheat breeder Norman Borlaug, said more funding for biotech
 research is necessary because the world is "not producing enough" food, citing
 increased population.
 "It's straight into the face of a global effoot to maintain biodiversity," Leake
 says.
 Leake, who has grown both Roundup ready beans and conventional beans on his
 farms,, acknowledges that farmers in North Dakota may see benefits from GM
 soybeans, but "that's not the way the vast majority of people farm" in the
 world, especially in the developing world. He says the report calls into
 question whether the money being put into them is worth the benefit.
 Leake says that one of the problems with genetically-modified crops is that they
 automatically decrease the diversity in the gene pool. He says influx of GMO
 corn led to contamination of "in situ" corn in Mexico, which is the center of
 diversity of corn in the world. "That's where corn breeders get their genetics
 for breeding disease resistance or for increasing yields through ordinary
 breeding," Leake says.
 Leake says biotech grains in third world countries would "control seed" and
 "force and/or coerce farmers to be dependent on them, large or small."
 Leake was credentialed for the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resource
 for Food Agriculture (ITPGRFA) and worked to get the treaty passed in the Food
 and Agricultural Organization in 2001. Lugar-Casey would put $50 million into
 the Consultive Group for International Agriculture Research, the United Nations
 agency charged with carrying out the IPGRFA treaty. The group is responsible for
 maintaining international ag research centers like CIMMYT (International Maize
 and Wheat Improvement Center) in Mexico and the international seed banks,
 including the one at Colorado State University at Fort Collins.
 "I can't help but wonder if the offering of $50 million to a perennially
 cash-strapped UN agency might influence how the CGIAR administrators view
 promotion of GM crops," Leake says.
 To see more of Agweek, or to subscribe to the magazine, go to
 http://www.agweek.com. Copyright (c) 2009, Agweek Magazine Distributed by
 McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. For reprints, email
 tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax
 to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave.,
 Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.
 INDUSTRY: Biotechnology
 LOAD-DATE: April 29, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                              Copyright 2009 Agweek









Document Number: 725
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                             April 15, 2009 Wednesday
 Study: Modified crops don't improve yields
 BYLINE: Boomberg News
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. A9
 LENGTH: 271 words
 Genetically engineered crops do little to improve yields and instead promote the
 proliferation of herbicide-resistant weeds that curb production, according to a
 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
 Corn and soybeans modified to resist insects and the herbicide glyphosate
 haven't been proven to boost yields, the Cambridge, Mass.-based group said
 Tuesday in a 44-page report. The modified plants have increased the number of
 glyphosate-resistant weeds that compete for soil nutrients and moisture,
 reducing production, the group said.
 "The two major types of traits now present in transgenic crops - insect
 resistance and herbicide tolerance - are often classic contributors to
 operational yield," said Doug Gurian- Sherman, a senior scientist in the group
 and the author of the report. "Neither trait would be expected to enhance
 potential or intrinsic yield, and indeed, there is virtually no evidence that
 they have done so."
 Operational yield is obtained under normal field conditions and includes factors
 such as pests and other stressors, the report said. Intrinsic yield is the
 highest that can be achieved with crops grown under ideal conditions.
 Creve Coeur-based Monsanto Co., the world's biggest seed producer, didn't return
 calls seeking comment. Sharon Bomer Lauritsen, an executive vice president of
 food and agriculture at the Biotechnology Industry Organization in Washington,
 said the report is "absurd."
 "Biotech crops help to provide for more sustainable agricultural production,"
 Bomer Lauritsen said.
 The union is a "science-based nonprofit" group started in 1969 at the
 Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
 LOAD-DATE: April 16, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2009 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 726
 
                         Lewiston Morning Tribune (Idaho)
                             November 2, 2008 Sunday
 Organic farmer fears genetic contamination Associated Press
 LENGTH: 287 words
 PHILOMATH, Ore. - An organic farmer said he plans a legal challenge to
 genetically modified crops because he fears contamination.
 Frank Morton said he is concerned about modified sugar beet seeds that
 scientists with agricultural giant Monsanto have tweaked to resist Roundup, the
 company's most popular weed killer.
 Oregon doesn't grow many sugar beets, which supply half of the nation's sugar.
 But it turns out the Willamette Valley is nearly the sole supplier of U.S. sugar
 beet seeds.
 In the past two years, the humble commodity crop has quietly become the valley's
 first to incorporate genetic engineering wholesale.
 More than four-fifths of the nation's corn, cotton and soybean crops already are
 altered to resist pesticides and insects.
 Morton, 53, worries that sugar beet pollen can cross-fertilize table beet and
 Swiss chard plants, both of which he grows for seed.
 Each sugar beet flower contains thousands of pollen granules, and researchers
 have found the windblown pollen miles in the air and miles away from its home
 field.
 "Who's responsible if it isn't on a leash?" said Morton, a certified organic
 grower.
 Morton began organic farming in the Willamette Valley 20 years ago, growing
 lettuce varieties for restaurants. He considers it a moral obligation to keep
 his seeds free of contamination from transgenic crops.
 If any of his crop was contaminated with any detectable amount of transgenic
 sugar beet pollen, "my product becomes worthless," he said.
 Earlier this year, activists including Morton filed suit against the U.S.
 Department of Agriculture to stop Roundup Ready sugar beets.
 A similar suit that included an eastern Oregon alfalfa grower among its
 plaintiffs has stopped Roundup Ready alfalfa in its tracks.
 LOAD-DATE: November 4, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2008 Tribune Publishing Co.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 727
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                             December 10, 2006 Sunday
 ENGINEERED CROPS: SHEDDING THE STIGMA o SCIENTISTS SAY BIOTECH IS SAFE, BUT
 BYLINE: By Eric Hand ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A14
 LENGTH: 1263 words
 Many people fear biotech foods, and scientists say they have a hard time
 convincing the public that genetically modified crops are no more dangerous to
 eat than hybrids that have existed for more than a century.
 "There's just a lack of knowledge," said Patrick Rubaihayo, a plant scientist at
 Makerere University in Kampala, Uganda. "It's a subject, a monster they can't
 understand."
 Although there is little scientific debate over the safety of eating biotech
 crops, scientists have expressed some concerns over potential environmental
 effects of biotech.
 So what is biotech? It's a general term, short for biotechnology, that
 encompasses scientific manipulations of biological organisms.
 Genetically engineered or genetically modified crops are a specific type of
 agricultural biotechnology. These crops are the result of transgenic technology,
 which means taking a gene from a different species and inserting it into the
 chromosomes of the target organism.
 A gene is a section of DNA with instructions for a protein, molecules that
 perform most of life's useful functions. For example, transgenic cotton contains
 a gene from a bacterium that produces a protein that kills insects. That gene,
 inserted into the chromosomes of cotton, allows the plant to exude the natural
 pesticide itself.
 Genetically engineered techniques are not just for crops. Genes have been
 inserted into bacteria, yeast and even hamster ovaries, to make medical products
 such as insulin, antibiotics and cancer-fighting drugs.
 Scientist Michael Hall of the U.S. Agency for International Development said
 there is less opposition to medical biotech than to agricultural biotech because
 of the perceived benefits.
 "When you're dying, you don't get philosophical," said Hall, biotechnology
 adviser for east Africa.
 Critics say genetic transformations are sloppy and can produce new proteins that
 have toxic or allergenic effects. Biotech supporters say the new proteins are
 screened under current regulations.
 The screening process is more rigorous than for unregulated traditional
 breeders, who sometimes use radiation and chemicals to induce random mutations
 that result in new seeds. Under U.S. organic standards, these induced genetic
 changes are acceptable, but the specific genetic transformations of
 biotechnology are not.
 Environmental impact
 As public opposition to agricultural biotech lingers, the list of government and
 scientific bodies that have endorsed its safety grows. It includes the U.S.
 Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental
 Protection Agency, the American Medical Association, the United Nations, the
 European Union, the World Health Organization and the International Council for
 Science.
 A panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences, the premier U.S.
 scientific society, in 2002 found that "the transgenic process presents no new
 categories of risk compared to conventional methods" and that the "standards
 being set for transgenic crops are much higher than for conventional
 counterparts."
 The panel's 2004 report found that "no adverse health effects attributed to
 genetic engineering have been documented in the human population."
 But some of the panels expressed concerns for the environmental impacts of
 biotech. Many domesticated crops need human intervention to reproduce each year,
 which means their genes stay put. But some genetically modified crops can
 cross-pollinate with nearby wild or conventional relatives. When they do, genes
 mix to create a new generation, much as children receive a mix of their parents'
 genes.
 A study in August by EPA researchers found that a herbicide-resistant grass in
 Oregon had crossed with wild relatives outside a test plot, the first documented
 case in the United States of this mixing, which is called gene flow. Organic
 farmers view this as contamination or "gene pollution." If biotech crops cross
 with their own, they can't certify their crops as organic.
 But some scientists say organic farmers have a false sense of purity. Gene flow
 occurs everywhere, all the time - not just between genetically modified crops
 and natural relatives, but also between hybrids and natural relatives. Gene flow
 from biotech plants is only dangerous if the introduced gene carries a trait
 that will be harmful in the new population, the scientists say.
 Making drugs from crops
 Another such worry is with crops that are genetically engineered to produce
 drugs: What if the gene that makes the drugs gets into crops destined for the
 dinner table?
 Ventria Bioscience has genetically engineered rice specifically to produce
 proteins found in breast milk that can be used to combat diarrhea in children.
 The company, based in Sacramento, Calif., abandoned plans to grow the rice in
 California and in Missouri because of farmers' fears that the pharmaceutical
 rice couldn't be kept separate from table rice. Anheuser-Busch, the nation's
 largest buyer of rice, said it wouldn't buy Missouri rice if the pharmaceutical
 rice was grown in the state.
 Ventria announced in September plans to move its operations to Kansas, where
 rice isn't grown for food.
 Biotechnologists say farmers can safely segregate crops. Canadian farmers, for
 example, for years have kept two conventional canola varieties separate. One
 variety produces oil used in food; the other makes an industrial lubricant that
 would be harmful if eaten. Moreover, in the case of pharmaceutical rice, they
 say rice self-pollinates, which means its pollen is less likely to travel long
 distances to cross with related rice plants.
 Yet this summer, traces of a genetically modified rice were found in Missouri
 and Arkansas storage units, even though the herbicide-resistant rice was tested
 in Louisiana State University plots years ago. The maker, Bayer CropScience,
 hadn't sought USDA approval. Europe and Japan banned imports; rice prices
 plummeted; and rice farmers sued Bayer. The genetic traces pose no health or
 food safety concerns, the FDA and USDA say.
 Rubaihayo, the plant scientist in Uganda, supports biotech, but he also blames
 companies for overselling it - for making it so glamorous that people began to
 fear it.
 Fears of new foods are nothing new. In medieval times, Catholic priests tried to
 ban coffee, calling it "Satan's beverage." For a while, the potato was thought
 to cause leprosy, tuberculosis and rickets. And the tomato, now the world's most
 popular fruit, was considered poisonous well into the 19th century.
 In the 20th century, the safety of milk pasteurization and food irradiation was
 hotly debated even though the processes make food safer.
 So Rubaihayo isn't surprised that people are scared of biotech. But he wishes
 they weren't.
 "This is an ordinary technology that will not make miracles but could solve some
 problems," he says. "And it will not make disasters."
 He adds, "We have to go back and start again. And tell them that they were
 scared of nothing."
 o ABOUT OUR SERIES
 Reporter Eric Hand traveled to Africa on a World Affairs Journalism Fellowship
 administered by the International Center for Journalists. The fellowship is
 funded by the Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation. Photographer Dawn
 Majors was on assignment for the Post-Dispatch.
 Today o While a spreading virus robs millions of Africans of food, scientists in
 St. Louis work on a plant that will resist the sickness.
 Monday o The children might be dying of well-known diseases, but the real
 problem is they aren't getting enough to eat.
 Tuesday o Africa is in the middle of a fight between the U.S. and Europe over
 whether biotech foods are safe to eat and grow.
 LOAD-DATE: December 10, 2006
 NOTES: Feeding Africa
 PHOTO - o COOKING WITH CASSAVA Annette Busingye (left), a cook, and Alice
 Balinda, a teacher at the Early Learning School in Entebbe, Uganda, mix steaming
 cooked beans with boiled cassava. It will be dinner at the school, which has 90
 boarders, 110 day students and 24 staffers. Cassava sustains African farmers
 when their less hardy crops fail. Dawn Majors | Post-DispatchGRAPHIC - How
 biotech worksPost-Dispatch
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2006 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 728
 
                       Philadelphia Inquirer (Pennsylvania)
                  Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune News Service
                              October 2, 2006 Monday
 Modified plants show promise, but critics fear lax oversight
 BYLINE: By Harold Brubaker, The Philadelphia Inquirer
 LENGTH: 1217 words
 PHILADELPHIA _ American farmers have adopted genetically modified crops with a
 vengeance since their introduction 10 years ago.
 Biotech seeds _ available since 1996 _ already account for 61 percent of the
 corn, 83 percent of the cotton, and 89 percent of the soybeans planted in the
 United States.
 "From a farmer's perspective, it was basically a pretty wonderful invention,"
 said Abram Bakker, who farms 600 acres in Cumberland County, N.J., and uses
 herbicide-tolerant soybeans in crop rotations. "It's made it a lot simpler, more
 cost-effective, and you're putting less chemicals into the environment," he
 said.
 Plants genetically engineered to resist insects and withstand herbicides
 dominate the market now, but DuPont Co.'s Pioneer subsidiary and other
 biotechnology companies have bigger plans: for plants that tolerate drought,
 soybeans that contain healthier oils, and plants that produce drugs and
 industrial chemicals more efficiently than factories.
 In a laboratory called "The Bean Scene" at DuPont's Experimental Station in
 Wilmington, Del., for example, researchers have engineered soybeans to produce
 high levels of oleic acid and are working on beans with enhanced omega-3 oil
 content. Both are considered healthy fats.
 Yet, despite its momentum, agricultural biotechnology keeps stumbling in ways
 that raise doubts about how carefully government regulators and industry are
 handling the relatively new technology.
 Consider an August report from Bayer Cropscience that it had found traces of an
 unapproved genetically modified rice _ which Bayer had stopped field-testing in
 2001 _ in American long-grain rice.
 Such incidents "contribute to what is ultimately slowing down the industry, and
 that is a public concern about biotechnology that is translated into market
 restrictions," said Gregory Conko, a senior fellow at Competitive Enterprise
 Institute in Washington.
 The United States Department of Agriculture said the rice _ which contains a
 protein that allows it to tolerate a herbicide _ poses no danger to humans and
 has put it on a fast track for approval.
 "This isn't the tomato that ate Cleveland," said Norman C. Ellstrand, a
 professor of genetics at the University of California, Riverside.
 "What matters to me largely is that it sets a bad precedent. There will be
 transgenic crops coming down the pike that we will want to have contained," said
 Ellstrand, who studies the movement of genes from cultivated to wild plants.
 Cindy Smith, the USDA's deputy administrator for Biotechnology Regulatory
 Services, said the unit was modifying its regulations to keep pace with the
 "very complex, very rapidly evolving technology."
 She said the agency's "focus is to ensure that the technology moves forward, but
 does so in a safe manner."
 Critics of agricultural biotechnology worry about the USDA's dual role as
 promoter and regulator of biotechnology. "It's not a good combination," said
 Jane Rissler, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists in
 Washington.
 The public reaction to the rice incident has been muted, especially compared
 with the discovery six years ago that genetically engineered corn approved only
 for animal consumption slipped into the human food supply.
 The concern in 2000 was that the corn could cause an allergic reaction in some
 people. In the rice case, the protein in question has been approved for human
 consumption in 12 other countries.
 The rice discovery turned into a headache for U.S. rice exporters, who now have
 to certify their crop as nontransgenic before it can be shipped to the European
 Union and Japan. But other parts of the food industry remained unfazed.
 "This is not a food-safety issue, but rather a question of regulatory
 permissibility in certain markets outside of North America," said Kris Charles,
 a Kellogg Co. representative.
 "Here in the U.S., most consumers are not concerned about biotechnology, and we
 receive very few contacts on the subject from either the public or our retail
 customers," Charles said.
 Indeed, genetically modified crops are not a top-of-the-mind issue for most
 Americans, according to the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology at the
 University of Richmond. Still, opponents of the technology have persisted in
 trying to block its spread.
 "Until USDA gets its act together," in its efforts to keep genetically modified
 plants from mixing with natural plants, "we recommend a moratorium on all new
 permits for open-air field-testing of genetically engineered crops not permitted
 in the food supply," said Bill Freese, a science policy analyst at the Center
 for Food Safety in Washington.
 Michael Fernandez, executive director of the Pew biotech center, said it was not
 realistic to "expect 100 percent purity in any biological system growing out in
 the open. ... In traditional agriculture there is no expectation that there will
 be 100 percent purity in seed."
 Some scientists said they were not worried by the escape of genes that provided
 herbicide tolerance and insect resistance but were troubled by the potential
 entry of genes that caused plants to produce drugs or chemicals into food
 plants.
 Smith, head of Biotechnology Regulatory Services, said the government had
 instituted stricter regulations on the field-testing of such crops. Under the
 old regimen, each test field was inspected once. Now each is inspected seven
 times: five times during the growing season and twice in the year after, Smith
 said.
 This year, 181 acres in eight states were planted with crops that produce
 pharmaceuticals or industrial chemicals, according to Rachel Iadicicco, a
 spokeswoman for the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
 While the U.S. food industry is generally supportive of agricultural
 biotechnology, it is wary of "biopharming." For example, Anheuser-Busch Cos.
 Inc. threatened last year to stop buying rice from Missouri if a California
 biotech company planted rice there enhanced with synthetic human genes.
 Such concerns have slowed down the expansion of this area of biotechnology.
 "I think people both within the industry ... and neutral observers of the
 industry thought we would be in an entirely different place 10 years on," said
 Conko, the Competitive Enterprise Institute fellow.
 Some of the science has turned out to be more difficult than initially expected,
 and market acceptance _ especially overseas _ has not been achieved for some
 crops.
 For example, government regulators have cleared genetically engineered rice,
 potatoes and wheat, but they are not commercially available now because the
 industry made a decision that the market was not ready for them, said Michael
 Phillips, vice president of food and agriculture at the Biotechnology Industry
 Organization in Washington.
 Genetically modified crops have been adopted at a phenomenal pace, but "if those
 areas had been opened up, it could be much bigger."
 (c) 2006, The Philadelphia Inquirer.
 Visit Philadelphia Online, the Inquirer's World Wide Web site, at
 http://www.philly.com/
 Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
 PHOTOS (from MCT Photo Service, 202-383-6099): MODIFIEDCROPS-BIZPLUS
 For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or
 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group
 Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.
 LOAD-DATE: October 5, 2006
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2006 Philadelphia Inquirer









Document Number: 729
 
                                 The Denver Post
                             August 22, 2006 Tuesday
 EDITORIAL Biopharming gone awry
 SECTION: DENVER & THE WEST; Pg. B-06
 LENGTH: 393 words
 It's not exactly the Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, but the genetically
 engineered grass that recently escaped from an Oregon test plot has the
 potential to wreak serious environmental havoc.
 The creeping bentgrass, genetically modified to be resistant to common
 herbicides such as Roundup, was found to have crossed with wild grasses, the
 first known transgenic crop escape in the U.S.
 Yikes!
 Grass farmers and environmentalists fear the creation of a superweed that would
 contaminate grass seed production, a $373.5 million industry in Oregon.
 The revelation underscores the caution that is necessary - and apparently wasn't
 exercised - in handling genetically engineered crops.
 A federal judge recently came to a similar conclusion in a case out of Hawaii.
 The judge ruled that U.S. Department of Agriculture officials displayed "utter
 disregard" for Hawaii's many endangered plant species by not investigating
 potential impacts on them before issuing permits for cultivation of genetically
 modified crops.
 In a scathing 52-page order, U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright took the
 agency to task, saying the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service violated
 the law by granting permits for modified corn and sugar cane plants. Companies
 modified their genetic structure so that when harvested, the plants would
 contain hormones or proteins that could be used to treat human illnesses.
 Seabright this week will be considering remedies, and the plaintiffs are asking
 the judge to prohibit the issuance of biopharming permits for open air crops
 anywhere in the country until agency reviews its permitting process.
 It is a prudent course of action. While Oregon and Hawaii are far from Colorado,
 biopharming interests have eyed our state before. Two years ago, we urged
 extreme caution as the federal government planned to move ahead with permits
 allowing "pharmaceutical" corn to be cultivated in Colorado.
 Luckily, it would seem, no commercial biopharm crops were actually planted here.
 An Iowa State University researcher sowed a tiny plot of seed corn, but that was
 a far cry from original plans.
 Given the recent revelations of blunders, we think federal regulators ought to
 re-evaluate the regulatory process and monitoring safeguards. While tomatoes run
 amok might be the stuff of Hollywood, the risks from sloppy handling of
 gene-altered crops is all too real.
 LOAD-DATE: August 22, 2006
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Editorial
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2006 The Denver Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 730
 
                         The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon)
                             August 17, 2006 Thursday
                                 Sunrise Edition
 Gene-tweaked grass on loose in Oregon
 BYLINE: ALEX PULASKI, The Oregonian
 SECTION: Business; Pg. A01
 LENGTH: 2053 words
 SUMMARY: Modified crops   | Pollen has spread and bred with wild plants,
 sparking fear of a superweed
 Discovery of genetically modified bentgrass in the wild in Central Oregon --the
 first known transgenic crop escape in the United States --has fulfilled critics'
 warnings and raised the threat of contaminating the state's nation-leading grass
 seed crop.
 Environmentalists and some conventional seed growers had predicted that humans
 couldn't hope to rein in movement of the plant's pollen and seeds, so tiny they
 number 6 million a pound. Although backers of the modified grass seed hope to
 revolutionize golf course maintenance, opponents say the revolution comes at the
 risk of creating a superweed resistant to a relatively benign herbicide.
 Corvallis scientists discovered two years ago that the experimental Madras crop
 had sent pollen more than a dozen miles away. Their latest finding that the
 modified plants had crossed with wild grasses outside a buffer area is due out
 in the October issue of Molecular Ecology.
 Although discounted by the company hoping to win federal approval of the grass
 strain, the discovery is prompting "I told you so" responses from conventional
 grass seed growers and environmentalists who oppose its commercialization.
 "Exactly the things we were most worried about seem to be true," said Jim
 Diamond, former chairman of the Sierra Club's Genetic Engineering Committee.
 In Oregon, which has $373.5 million in annual grass seed sales, conventional
 growers fear transgenic seeds will contaminate their crops. That could curtail
 export markets --roughly 30 percent of sales --because some countries refuse to
 accept genetically modified strains.
 The creeping bentgrass strain, developed in partnership between Scotts
 Miracle-Gro Co. and Monsanto Co., is designed to resist the herbicide Roundup,
 the world's most widely used plant-killer. Golf courses could plant the seed and
 keep other grass varieties in check by spraying Roundup.
 Jim King, a Scotts spokesman, said the study's conclusions weren't surprising.
 "The fact that nature kind of took its course was exactly what you would have
 expected to happen," King said.
 Scotts has waited more than two years for an arm of the U.S. Department of
 Agriculture to decide whether to deregulate the crop, opening the door to seed
 sales. A seed crop was harvested in Madras and bagged, but the fields were
 cleared and Scotts attempted to eradicate plants that escaped by applying
 herbicides other than Roundup.
 King said he was unsure how the new study would affect federal review of the
 grass strain.
 He noted points that the company has made before: Trimmed grass on golf courses
 is highly unlikely to reach heights to produce seed or pollen, and even if it
 were to spread, bentgrass should not be considered an invasive species.
 But for grass seed growers such as Donald Wirth of Tangent, an invasion of
 hard-to-kill bentgrass in his ryegrass or fescue fields could spell catastrophe.
 Wirth worries that bentgrass, unlike Roundup-resistant strains of corn or
 soybeans, can remain dormant in soil for more than a decade and spring up.
 "These cultivated crops will quit growing after a year or two, but bentgrass
 would be there forever," he said.
 The study, led by Jay Reichman, an Environmental Protection Agency toxicologist,
 found that nine genetically modified plants were discovered among 20,400 samples
 taken. The samples were found as far as three miles outside the control area
 established for the crop's cultivation --in other words, well outside a buffer
 designed to prevent the escape of seeds and pollen.
 Of the nine plants, two were found in the Crooked River National Grassland area.
 A study abstract did not detail how many of the nine plants were the result of
 seeds drifting or from cross-breeding with wild grass.
 Alex Pulaski, 503-221-8516; alexpulaski@news.oregonian.com
 Graphic - Oregon's top commodities in 2005
 LOAD-DATE: August 18, 2006
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                           Copyright 2006 The Oregonian
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 731
 
                               The Washington Post
                               July 4, 2006 Tuesday
                                  Final Edition
 Beyond Genetically Modified Crops
 BYLINE: Jeremy Rifkin
 SECTION: Editorial; A15
 LENGTH: 873 words
 For years the life science companies  --  Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Pioneer
 Hi-Bred, etc.  --  have argued that genetically modified food is the next great
 scientific and technological revolution in agriculture and the only efficient
 and cheap way to feed a growing population in a shrinking world. Nongovernmental
 organizations, including my own, the Foundation on Economic Trends, have been
 cast as the villains in this unfolding agricultural drama, and often categorized
 as modern versions of the English Luddites, accused of continually blocking
 scientific and technological progress because of our opposition to genetically
 modified food.
 Now, in an ironic twist, new, cutting-edge technologies have made gene splicing
 and transgenic crops obsolete and a serious impediment to scientific progress.
 The new frontier is called genomics, and the new agricultural technology is
 called marker-assisted selection, or MAS. This technology offers a sophisticated
 method to greatly accelerate classical breeding. A growing number of scientists
 believe that MAS  --  which is already being introduced into the market  --
 will eventually replace genetically modified food. Moreover, environmental
 organizations that have long opposed  genetically modified crops are guardedly
 supportive of MAS technology.
 Rapidly accumulating information about crop genomes is allowing scientists to
 identify genes associated with traits such as yield, and then to scan "crop
 relatives" for the presence of those genes. Instead of using molecular splicing
 techniques to transfer a gene from an unrelated species into the genome of a
 food crop to increase yield, strengthen resistance to pests or improve
 nutrition, scientists are  using MAS to locate desired traits in other varieties
 of a particular food crop, or its relatives that grow in the wild. Then they
 cross-breed those related plants with the existing commercial varieties to
 improve the crop.
 With MAS, the breeding of new varieties always remain within a species, thus
 greatly reducing the risk of environmental harm and potential adverse health
 effects associated with genetically modified crops. Using MAS, researchers can
 upgrade classical breeding and reduce by 50 percent or more the time needed to
 develop new plant varieties by pinpointing appropriate plant partners at the
 gamete or seedling stage.
 While MAS is emerging as a promising new agricultural technology with broad
 application, the limits of transgenic technology are becoming increasingly
 apparent. Most of the transgenic crops introduced into the fields express only
 two traits  --  resistance to pests and compatibility with herbicides  --  and
 rely on the expression of a single gene. This is hardly the far-reaching
 agricultural revolution touted by the life science companies at the beginning of
 the era of genetically modified crops.
 Of course, marker-assisted selection researchers emphasize that there is still
 much work to be done in understanding the choreography  --  for example, between
 single genetic markers and complex genetic clusters and environmental factors,
 all of which interact to affect the development of the plant and produce
 desirable outcomes, such as improved yield and drought resistance.
 So, of course, a word of caution is in order. It should be noted that MAS is of
 value to the extent that it is used as part of a broader, agro-ecological
 approach to farming, one that integrates introduction of new crops with a proper
 regard for all the other environmental, economic and social factors that
 together determine the sustainability of farming.
 The wrinkle here is that the continued introduction of genetically modified
 crops could contaminate existing plant varieties, making the new MAS technology
 more difficult to use. A 2004 survey conducted by the Union of Concerned
 Scientists found that non-genetically modified seeds from three of America's
 major agricultural crops  --  corn, soybeans and canola  --  were already
 "pervasively contaminated with low levels of DNA sequences originating in
 genetically engineered varieties of these crops." Cleaning up contaminated
 genetic programs could prove to be as troublesome and expensive in the future as
 cleaning up the viruses that  invade software programs.
 As MAS technology becomes cheaper and easier to use, and as knowledge in
 genomics becomes more dispersed and easily available over the next decade, plant
 breeders around the world will be able to exchange information about "best
 practices" and democratize the technology. Already, plant breeders are talking
 about "open source" genomics, envisioning the sharing of genes. The struggle
 between a younger generation of sustainable agriculture enthusiasts anxious to
 share genetic information and entrenched company scientists determined to
 maintain control over the world's seed stocks through patent protection is
 likely to be hard-fought, especially in the developing world.
 If properly used as part of a much larger systemic and holistic approach to
 sustainable agricultural development, MAS technology could be the right
 technology at the right time in history.
 Jeremy Rifkin is the author of "The Biotech Century" and president of the
 Foundation on Economic Trends.
 LOAD-DATE: July 4, 2006
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Column
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2006 The Washington Post









Document Number: 732
 
                        Grand Forks Herald (North Dakota)
                              April 24, 2006 Monday
 A possible disaster of titanic magnitude;
 Farmers should weigh the risks, not use biotech wheat
 BYLINE: Dean Hulse
 LENGTH: 549 words
 FARGO, N.D. -- Bruce Freitag, a farmer from southwestern North Dakota and vice
 chairman of Growers for Biotechnology (formerly Growers for Wheat Biotechnology
 Inc.) would like consumers to believe that we need to go full speed ahead with
 commercializing biotech wheat so North Dakota's wheat industry doesn't become a
 "sinking ship." Convoluted thinking of this type -- some would call it hubris --
 most likely is responsible for the sinking of the Titanic on its maiden voyage.
 Thankfully, the ship that is biotech or transgenic wheat has yet to sail on its
 maiden voyage. Citing market resistance, Monsanto Co., the transnational
 corporation first in line to commercialize transgenic wheat in North America,
 gave up on the idea in May 2004. Coming up on the second anniversary of
 Monsanto's sane decision, what have we learned? We know that the commercial
 introduction of transgenic wheat within the next several years could cause major
 risk to the U.S. wheat industry. After examining data on existing markets,
 consumer trends and grain handling and transportation systems, Robert Wisner, a
 grain market economist at Iowa State University in Ames, has concluded that the
 commercial introduction of transgenic wheat could result in the loss of 30
 percent to 50 percent of U.S. spring wheat export markets -- and a reduction of
 up to one-third in U.S. prices for hard red spring and durum wheat. Anyone have
 a sinking feeling? By the way, a "transgenic" plant, such as the wheat Monsanto
 proposed, is one whose genome has been modified by the introduction of novel
 DNA. In other words, transgenic plants contain foreign genes from totally
 unrelated species--from a Red River of the North bullhead, for example, if one
 of its genes were to possess a desirable "trait."
 How it's done
 How can this be? One method of novel gene transfer involves a "gene gun," which
 relies on compressed air to fire microscopic gold particles coated with the
 foreign DNA at cells. And proponents of transgenic crops scoff at the term
 "Frankenfoods?"
 Through a misuse of regulatory authority, the Food and Drug Administration has
 determined that transgenic foods are "substantially equivalent" to conventional
 foods, a finding that exempts transgenic foods from any special testing or risk
 assessment. The FDA also has given the foreign genes and proteins engineered
 into transgenic foods the designation of being "generally regarded as safe,"
 which means that companies selling these foods usually don't need to use any
 special labels.
 In the United States, no comprehensive, systematic approach for determining the
 safety of transgenic foods has occurred. Instead, U.S. consumers are being
 "assured" by folks such as Freitag that no widespread health problems have
 resulted from the transgenic foods now available. This evidence, by anecdote, is
 supposed to imply safety - and yet, our lessons involving tobacco and DDT, to
 cite only a few examples, demonstrate that what we don't know indeed can harm
 us.
 If Freitag is so convinced of the safety and benefits of transgenic foods, then
 why doesn't he push for these foods to be labeled as such? Certainly, the
 confidence he's expressed in "the market" will prove him right. Or, could it be
 that consumer ignorance or apathy is what he's betting on to save biotech wheat?
 LOAD-DATE: April 24, 2006
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2006 Grand Forks Herald
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 733
 
                        Grand Forks Herald (North Dakota)
                             March 29, 2006 Wednesday
 VIEWPOINT : Farmers shouldn't risk use of biotech wheat
 BYLINE: Dean Hulse
 LENGTH: 551 words
 Bruce Freitag, a farmer from southwestern North Dakota and vice chairman of
 Growers for Biotechnology (formerly Growers for Wheat Biotechnology Inc.) would
 like consumers to believe that we need to go full speed ahead with
 commercializing biotech wheat so North Dakota's wheat industry doesn't become a
 "sinking ship".
 Convoluted thinking of this type - some would call it hubris - most likely is
 responsible for the sinking of the Titanic on its maiden voyage.
 Thankfully, the ship that is biotech or transgenic wheat has yet to sail on its
 maiden voyage. Citing market resistance, Monsanto Co., the transnational
 corporation first in line to commercialize transgenic wheat in North America,
 gave up on the idea in May 2004.
 Coming up on the second anniversary of Monsanto's sane decision, what have we
 learned? We know that the commercial introduction of transgenic wheat within the
 next several years could cause major risk to the U.S. wheat industry. After
 examining data on existing markets, consumer trends and grain handling and
 transportation systems, Robert Wisner, a grain market economist at Iowa State
 University, has concluded that the commercial introduction of transgenic wheat
 could result in the loss of 30 percent to 50 percent of U.S. spring wheat export
 markets - and a reduction of up to one-third in U.S. prices for hard red spring
 and durum wheat.
 Anyone have a sinking feeling?
 By the way, a "transgenic" plant, such as the wheat Monsanto proposed, is one
 whose genome has been modified by the introduction of novel DNA. In other words,
 transgenic plants contain foreign genes from totally unrelated species-from a
 Red River of the North bullhead, for example, if one of its genes were to
 possess a desirable "trait."
 How can this be? One method of novel gene transfer involves a "gene gun," which
 relies on compressed air to fire microscopic gold particles coated with the
 foreign DNA at cells. And proponents of transgenic crops scoff at the term
 "Frankenfoods"?
 Through a misuse of regulatory authority, the Food and Drug Administration has
 determined that transgenic foods are "substantially equivalent" to conventional
 foods, a finding that exempts transgenic foods from any special testing or risk
 assessment. The FDA also has given the foreign genes and proteins engineered
 into transgenic foods the designation of being "generally regarded as safe"
 (GRAS), which means that companies selling these foods usually don't need to use
 any special labels.
 In America, no comprehensive, systematic approach for determining the safety of
 transgenic foods has occurred. Instead, American consumers are being "assured"
 by folks such as Freitag that no widespread health problems have resulted from
 the transgenic foods now available. This evidence, by anecdote, is supposed to
 imply safety - and yet, our lessons involving tobacco and DDT, to cite only a
 few examples, demonstrate that what we don't know indeed can harm us.
 If Freitag is so convinced of the safety and benefits of transgenic foods, then
 why doesn't he push for these foods to be labeled as such? Certainly, the
 confidence he's expressed in "the market" will prove him right. Or, could it be
 that consumer ignorance or apathy is what he's betting on to save biotech wheat?
 Hulse is a past chairman of the Dakota Resource Council.
 LOAD-DATE: March 29, 2006
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2006 Grand Forks Herald
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 734
 
                                 University Wire
                              March 28, 2006 Tuesday
 GM crops offer positive future to food industry
 BYLINE: By Shawn Hanrahan, The Battalion; SOURCE: Texas A&M
 LENGTH: 588 words
 DATELINE: COLLEGE STATION, Texas
 It is estimated that 70 percent of products on U.S. grocery shelves include
 genetically modified ingredients. The U.S. Agriculture Department estimated that
 38 percent of the 79 million acres of corn planted in 2003 were genetically
 engineered. With numbers like these, it is a wonder that people are still
 fearful of transgenic crops.
 Genetic modification (GM) is the process where individual genes can be inserted
 or modified in an organism through various biotechnology approaches to achieve a
 desired result. GM crops are mainly produced to increase yield production and
 reduce the use of chemical pesticides. This process is heavily regulated by the
 U.S. government. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates a crop when
 a pesticide is involved, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
 regulates where they are grown and how it will affect the environment, and the
 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates for food safety. A GM plant will go
 through several years and millions of dollars of testing before it can be
 available as a commercial crop.
 GM foods have a lot of positive potential. Eliot Herman recently came to Texas
 A&M to give a presentation on reducing allergies to peanuts and soybeans. He
 said it was estimated that one in 50 children and one in 200 adults have an
 allergic reaction. Allergies to peanuts and soy can result in anaphylactic
 shock, the rapid constriction of the airway leading to death in minutes if the
 victim doesn't receive medical attention. By removing the protein causing this
 reaction, many people with food allergies would be able to breathe easier
 without having to carry around a needle of adrenaline 24 hours a day. Currently,
 the risk of a lawsuit for producing a non-allergen soybean has kept companies at
 bay due to food allergies having multiple causes.
 There is fierce opposition to GM crops. The most common argument has been that
 the effects of GM crops are not known. The problem with this argument is that
 all the crops go through the same regulatory agencies that make sure commercial
 fish are not swimming in mercury, drinking water is safe and commercial meat
 won't cause salmonellosis. It comes down to a level of trust. If one trusts the
 FDA to approve of the steak sizzling at a steakhouse, then he should also be
 able to trust the side of corn with his meal.
 GM crops have existed for over 10 years so far without a single case of
 widespread human problems. Even if a problem were to occur over the next 10
 years, there are people starving who do not have the food to last that long.
 Golden rice has been modified to produce vitamin A. This crop is needed in
 developing countries in Africa, where vitamin A deficiency is at epidemic
 levels.
 Sadly, golden rice has been blocked from commercial production due to fierce
 opposition by Greenpeace and other groups that argue it could "open the door" to
 other GM crops. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have even gone so far as to
 tell the president of Zambia that millions of tons of corn being sent to them
 for humanitarian aid were poisonous. These actions clearly show a disregard for
 life over scoring political points against GM foods.
 In short, GM crops have a very promising future. There is current research to
 produce bananas with vaccines to hepatitis B, fish that grow faster and are
 healthier and crops without allergens. To argue that these crops may harm people
 when there is no proof of it, while many are dying from starvation is, simply
 put, arrogant.
 (C) 2006 The Battalion via U-WIRE
 LOAD-DATE: March 28, 2006
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                     Copyright 2006 The Battalion via U-Wire









Document Number: 735
 
                                      Agweek
                Distributed by Knight/Ridder Tribune News Service
                            February 28, 2006 Tuesday
 How a Dakota Resource Council leader zeroes in on GM issue
 BYLINE: Mikkel Pates, Agweek Magazine
 LENGTH: 1982 words
 Feb. 28--FARGO, N.D. -- Dean Hulse believes he's speaking for taxpayers and
 consumers and farmers when works toward the release of information on deals
 between transgenic crop companies and land grant universities.
 Hulse, 50, is an environmentalist, a former farmer, an agricultural writer and
 one of North Dakota's most persistent critics of genetically modified crops and
 the commercialization of GM wheat in particular.
 GM wheat has been a hot-button issue in the state since the 2001 Legislature. In
 2003, the issue came up again, and it was largely off the table in the 2005
 Legislature, after Monsanto announced it would withdraw its commercialization
 plans for Roundup Ready wheat.
 Hulse is a past chairman of the Dakota Resource Council. While he was chairman,
 in 2005 the group filed open records requests with the North Dakota State
 University Research Foundation, to reveal what kind of research deals the public
 university has made with Monsanto, a private company, based in St. Louis.
 The North Dakota Attorney General has issued an opinion favorable to the DRC.
 The Foundation has delivered volumes of documents to the DRC, but Hulse says
 there are very few documents on Roundup Ready wheat deals.
 "As long as NDSU and any of its entities -- which the Foundation is -- as long
 as they want to accept public dollars, they should be accountable to the
 public," Hulse says.
 Hulse says the DRC isn't interested in private company trade secrets, but he
 believes that when it comes to the state's germ plasm and seedstocks, the public
 has a right to know how they're being managed and the "types of negotiation that
 engages those properties." He says companies with development deals with land
 grants should not be allowed to use the concern over the release of "proprietary
 information as a shield" against open records law.
 Hulse believes transgenic proponents see him as a Luddite -- generally an
 opponent of new technology. Ironically, he says it's the pro-GM crowd out of
 step with the times, with a focus on "monocultures, so heavily dependent on
 fossil fuel."
 Hulse says he adopted his "land ethic" up on a farm near Westhope, N.D., in
 Bottineau County.
 His parents, Darrell and Vivian Hulse, had two older daughters who died in
 infancy, so Dean grew up as an only child.
 Hulse's father, Darrell, raised a few cattle, but largely put much of the farm
 into the Soil Bank in the 1950s. He was active in Non-Partisan League and then
 Democratic politics and served several years on the local Farmers Union supply
 cooperative.
 "I always thought I was going to be a farmer," Hulse says, despite the fact that
 his father discouraged him. "All during my formative years, he was saying you've
 got to get off the farm," Hulse recalls. "He tried to persuade me it was not a
 good lifestyle -- hard work and low prices -- the farmer's lament." When Hulse
 was in high school, the farm had largely come out of the Soil Bank. In the
 spring 1968, Hulse remembers he started a summer-long job of breaking up 800
 acres of land that had been in the land idling program. He use a 5010 John
 Deere, pulling an offset disk and then a 24-foot-wide cultivator.
 His parents started renting some other family land, and the farm expanded to
 nine quarters.
 "It was about 1,000 acres -- a big farm for back then." It was sandier soil,
 great when there was moisture, but not when it was dry.
 After graduating from high school in 1973, Hulse attended the University of
 North Dakota in Grand Forks, where he received a degree in business
 administration.
 While Hulse was away at college, a farmer who rented land from his dad pulled up
 all of the fence on the pastureland and "farmed virtually every acre." In 1976,
 Dean married Nikki, who grew up in Hazen, N.D. Just out of college, Hulse sold
 cars for two years at Rydell Chevrolet in Grand Forks. A self-described
 introvert, Hulse says the car sales biz made him more outgoing and comfortable
 meeting strangers. "I took the job with the idea that it wasn't going to be
 permanent. I was going to farm someday."
 In 1978, Hulse's father was reaching retirement age and Dean and Nikki moved
 home to take over the farm. She worked as school district secretary.
 "Some of my happiest memories are the two years we farmed -- disking up stubble,
 chasing up partridge and grouse," Hulse says. "It was a nice lifestyle. It's
 still a nice lifestyle, even though there aren't enough people engaged in it."
 But farming was seeing a proliferation in chemical crop protectants, and Hulse
 didn't much like it. "I thought, did I want to take on a lot of debt and farm in
 ways that were not right for me, philosophically? All of this technology
 required mechanical aptitude to apply -- aptitude I didn't think I had." After
 the 1979 crop year, Dean and Nikki left the farm and headed for Fargo.
 In town, Nikki became a legal secretary. Dean enrolled in chef school. He got
 his one-year certificate, but he decided he didn't want to work in anyone else's
 restaurant and that buying his own restaurant would be too costly and risky. He
 went back to selling cars and worked as a business manager at Corwin Chrysler
 and was in sales at Valley Imports.
 In 1984, Hulse enrolled at Moorhead (Minn.) State University, where he got a
 mass communication degree. He was hired by a Fargo advertising agency and wrote
 news releases and brochure copy for manufacturers, including Steiger Tractor.
 In 1986, the Conservation Reserve Program started catching on. The Hulses put
 some of the land back home into the CRP -- pretty much all that had been broken
 up by the renter in the 1970s.
 Meanwhile, Dean started as a free- lancer writer. In 1992, he took a job as a
 staff writer with Farm and Ranch Guide, writing about conventional farmers.
 "What always intrigued me was the ingenuity of farmers, even if it was
 industrial." As part of a farm equipment feature, he interviewed Fred
 Kirschenmann of Windsor, N.D., one of the nation's most eloquent promoters of
 organic farming.
 Among other things, Kirschenmann talked about Wes Jackson, founder of the Land
 Institute in Salina, Kan., and a promoter of perennial polycultures.
 Hulse would meet Jackson and later his friend, Wendell Berry, a Kentucky-based
 farmer-author-environmentalist, who the New York Times called the "prophet of
 rural America." Hulse says he aspires to publish his literary writing, and to
 have an influence similar to Berry's.
 In August 1996, Hulse started as a part- time ag writer with the North Dakota
 State University Extension Service. He enjoyed getting research information out
 to farmers and consumers who could use it.
 In summer 2000, he quit at NDSU and went to Minnesota State University in
 Moorhead, where he worked toward a master of fine arts degree, which he received
 in 2002.
 About the same time, he joined the Dakota Resources Council. He'd gotten to know
 the DRC through his contact with the Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture
 Society.
 In 2002, he was asked to be an at-large member of the DRC board, which has
 roughly 25 members, depending on the number of active local affiliate groups.
 He served as chairman from 2003 to 2005.
 In 2004, Hulse was asked to write a column on "sustainability" for the Dakota
 Farmer magazine.
 "No one has ever called me a Luddite to my face, but people have certainly been
 dismissive," Hulse says of his economic beliefs. He's seen the "body language"
 by legislators when he's testified, indicating "they are not sharing my concerns
 or beliefs." He is against what he calls "industrial" agriculture.
 "I'm not claiming to have the answers," Hulse says. "I do believe industrial
 agriculture is not going to put people on the land. It's going to take people
 from the land. I'm not saying we can save every small town, but I think we have
 to be thinking about ways to get people on the land, if that's their choice."
 The DRC is concerned about market acceptance of transgenic crops. They're
 concerned that they can't be segregated and that there is no plan for liability
 in cases of contamination.
 This segregation is one of Hulse's chief concerns. "I can eat organic bread
 right now," he says. "Why can't I eat organic bread tomorrow that is as pure as
 it is today?" Research in agronomics is "leapfrogging" the issue of whether
 there might be unintended consequences.
 Like any DRC member, Hulse emphasizes that he speaks only for himself -- not the
 organization for which he serves as a past chairman. He notes that DRC is a
 nonprofit, citizens organization, with a broad spectrum of political and other
 viewpoints -- ranging from conservative to liberal.
 "What unites these people are issues," Hulse says.
 The DRC's paid staff members always are quick to refer questions to people like
 Hulse, or better yet the people who chair task forces on various issues.
 The DRC structure is "flat," with all members on an equal footing, Hulse says.
 The DRC is a 501C3 company -- tax-exempt and nonprofit -- the DRC can't advocate
 for individual political candidates, but only on issues. The DRC operates from a
 group of annually approved resolutions, which can be supplemented through the
 year by board actions at any of their bimonthly meetings.
 "If the board passes it, it becomes a position of the DRC," Hulse says. "At the
 annual meeting, if we want to revisit that, the members can take back a
 resolution.
 This is a very democratic group."
 An avid reader, Hulse often refers to works relating to agriculture.
 He subscribes to ideas in "The End of Agriculture in the American Portfolio," a
 1998 book by Steven Blank, an agricultural economist and former farmer who
 contends that U.S. land, labor and water costs will drive America out of the
 world agriculture picture and make us dependent on imported food.
 "I question whether the availability and cost of fossil fuels will allow
 agriculture to move ahead the way we have," he says.
 "I think we've reached 'peak oil.' We've gotten beyond half of the reserves on
 the planet, and we're spiraling through the second half." Hulse says that
 whether biotech crops offer true environmental benefits can be argued both ways.
 They've saved on fossil fuel use, he says, but they've also led to pest
 resistance. Some of this is unnecessary, Hulse says, noting that a Roundup Ready
 alfalfa has been developed, even though 83 percent of conventional alfalfa never
 gets herbicide treatment.
 "The idea of not knowing what we're undoing as we go forward concerns me about
 transgenic crops in general," Hulse says. "We tend to downplay the negative
 consequences of something new and exciting, with the potential to make money."
 Hulse says some of his former colleagues at NDSU no doubt are disappointed with
 his thinking.
 Most are good public servants who have made careers out of bringing new
 technology forward and are quick to embrace transgenics.
 "A lot of them would have to be faced with some pretty significant negative
 information (on transgenics) to change their point of view," he says.
 More information should be coming out on both sides of this, Hulse says. He
 hopes consumers will weigh in on transgenics, as they have done on trans-fatty
 acids. He says that while consumers already consume many products that include
 ingredients produced with genetically modified crops, he thinks that might
 change if the ingredient lists would specify that the products were labeled as
 such. He's seen studies that show some 70 percent of consumers don't know
 they're eating GM foods.
 "If consumers don't know that they're in there, they don't have a choice. It's a
 sign of an unhealthy system when people don't even know what they're putting in
 their mouth."
 To see more of Agweek, or to subscribe to the magazine, go to
 http://www.agweek.com. Copyright (c) 2006, Agweek Magazine Distributed by Knight
 Ridder/Tribune Business News. For information on republishing this content,
 contact us at (800) 661-2511 (U.S.), (213) 237-4914 (worldwide), fax (213)
 237-6515, or e-mail reprints@krtinfo.com.
 Agriculture/Food
 LOAD-DATE: February 28, 2006
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                              Copyright 2006 Agweek









Document Number: 736
 
                                 University Wire
                             July 20, 2005 Wednesday
 Southern Illinois U. researchers look at benefits of tobacco
 BYLINE: By Jaclyn Brenning, Daily Egyptian; SOURCE: Southern Illinois U.
 LENGTH: 680 words
 DATELINE: CARBONDALE, Ill.
 Southern Illinois University-Carbondale biotechnologist David Lightfoot is used
 to having drug squads fly over his fields.
 But, despite law enforcements' suspicions, Lightfoot isn't growing marijuana.
 He's growing genetically modified tobacco, which could help the environment and
 possibly cure diseases like epilepsy or the common cold.
 Lightfoot is the head of a research team analyzing the effects of adding a
 single bacterial gene called Gdh to tobacco plants.
 Discoveries could be used for preventing diseases in humans and animals, but
 it's going to be a while before researchers know whether or not the drugs have
 therapeutic value.
 "It originally started as a way to make plants more nitrogen efficient,"
 Lightfoot said. "If the rainfall isn't good, plants don't use up much nitrogen.
 The leftovers go into the rivers."
 The addition of Gdh allowed tobacco plants to take on more nitrogen. Herbicides
 sprayed over plants killed not only weeds but also the plants' natural enzyme,
 which absorbed the nitrogen. The gene Gdh acted as a second enzyme to take on
 nitrogen.
 "It was a novel way of doing things," said Scott Nolte, a SIUC graduate student
 in plant biology who's been with the project for five years.
 Ahmed Jawad is another graduate student working on his doctorate in the
 Molecular Biology, Microbiology and Biochemistry Department at SIUC. He has been
 part of the research team for several years.
 "Adding the Gdh gene is like two hands doing the same thing whereas previously
 you had only one," Jawad said. "There are results in better plant growth. As
 nitrogen increases, the biomass increases and the size of the leaf increases.
 The plant basically produces more."
 While adding the gene to the plants increased their ability to take nitrogen, it
 produced some unexpected results in other areas.
 With one of the most powerful telescopes on the market, the research team looked
 at tobacco. Of nearly 3,000 chemicals, 1,600 had never been seen, and almost
 2,400 varied from the original tobacco. "There's a lot of new medicines out
 there to be discovered in places where we think we've looked before," Lightfoot
 said. "Sixty percent of the chemicals we found had never been named by science
 because nobody knew they were there. Our chemistry sets were sort of exhausted.
 Now we had the strongest telescope in the world, and nobody had looked at
 tobacco with it before."
 After seeing how the gene works, the team is now trying to understand why it
 works.
 Understanding tobacco is a steppingstone to understanding more important plants,
 but how this gene affects the plant must be analyzed before the research can be
 used commercially. Lightfoot said it may be three to five years before the
 research can be used by the Food and Drug Administration for agriculture but
 more than a decade before any therapeutic value can be determined.
 "It's kind of a complicated picture. More experiments and analyses need to be
 done to explain why these things are happening," Jawad said.
 Adding a gene could change one chemical or hundreds. There has been controversy
 over the use of genetically modified plants in the past.
 "In the era of backlash of biotechnology, two questions were being asked,"
 Lightfoot said. "One, are transgenic crops safe? The argument by
 environmentalists was that transgenic crops are potentially dangerous because
 each gene is different and may have unintended consequences investigators did
 not see. And two, are they all the same?"
 Nonetheless, he said he has faced little opposition and many people were willing
 to sponsor the project.
 "There's a lot of people to thank for this one," Lightfoot said.
 The Herman Frasch Foundation gave the team its first grant of $45,000. Illinois
 Corn Marketing Board, concerned about the amount of nitrogen flowing into the
 Mississippi River, gave $60,000. The Illinois-Missouri Biotechnology Alliance
 and the Illinois Council of Food also contributed funding.
 "It may take another 16 years to finish this," Lightfoot said. "We're still at
 the beginning stage where we're saying, 'Wow! Look at that!'"
 (C) 2005 Daily Egyptian via U-WIRE
 LOAD-DATE: July 20, 2005
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                     Copyright 2005 Daily Egyptian via U-Wire









Document Number: 737
 
                    Winston-Salem Journal (Winston Salem, NC)
                       July 10, 2005 Sunday, METRO EDITION
 BYLINE: By David Rice JOURNAL RALEIGH BUREAU
 SECTION: A; Pg. 6
 LENGTH: 691 words
 As the debate over genetically modified crops in North Carolina accelerates, the
 General Assembly is considering legislation to limit just who controls what
 crops can be grown in the state.
 In response to the efforts of three counties in California to ban genetically
 modified plants, a bill in the Senate Agriculture Committee would give the N.C.
 Board of Agriculture sole authority to ban plants in North Carolina.
 The bill has already passed the House. Its backers say that North Carolina
 farmers - who already grow 3 million acres of genetically engineered corn,
 soybeans and cotton - need to know they are free to grow their crops.
 "The farmers have to plant this stuff in order to be competitive and stay in
 business," said Sen. Charlie Albertson, D-Duplin, the committee's chairman and
 sponsor of companion legislation. "Without it, we couldn't feed the world.
 "Who's going to make the decisions about those plants? Is it going to be the
 local governments or the Board of Agriculture, which has the expertise? I think
 it needs to stay with the Board of Agriculture," Albertson said.
 But organic farmers, in particular, have warned about the threat of
 cross-pollination and contamination of their own crops by genetically modified
 crops.
 The bill would remove control from local officials, said Sen. Janet Cowell,
 D-Wake. She and others point out that organic farming is a lucrative niche.
 "We've invested a lot in biotech in this state and we want to get a good return
 on that. But we're also extremely well-positioned for organic," Cowell said.
 Organically grown corn and soybeans sell for two to 2.3 times the price of
 conventional corn, said Wade Hubers, who grows both conventional and organic
 crops in Hyde County.
 Though his organic corn crop had a 30 percent lower yield last year than his
 conventional corn, Hubers said, he still earned $110 more per acre on the
 organic corn.
 "We're not looking at it like it's a philosophy," said Mac Gibbs, the acting
 extension director in Hyde County. "We see it as an opportunity to grow
 $5-a-bushel corn instead of $2.50-a-bushel corn."
 Albertson discounts the relative importance of organic crops, though.
 "We currently have people growing organic food. It's about one-tenth of 1
 percent," he said. "We have farmers growing 3 million acres of genetically
 modified crops."
 Senate President Pro Tem Marc Basnight is a longtime supporter of efforts to
 build the biotech industry in North Carolina. Basnight's district includes the
 research station in Washington County where scientists are studying rice that
 Ventria Bioscience has planted to produce human milk proteins.
 But Basnight is also making plans to serve organic chicken at his Nags Head
 restaurant because he says that more consumers are demanding it.
 Basnight said that he wants legislators to study how to make sure biotech crops
 don't threaten organic ones.
 "We want to protect both entities. And we don't know how to do it. So we're
 going to study it," he said.
 The bill to let the Board of Agriculture regulate plants in the state will move
 forward, Basnight said, but he also wants to add slots for an organic farmer and
 a consumer to the farmer-dominated board.
 But Gibbs, Hubers and others say they are confident that organic and genetically
 modified crops can coexist in North Carolina.
 Richard Reich, an assistant commissioner of agriculture, said that North
 Carolina farmers are accustomed to managing transgenic crops and treat them with
 proper respect for the risks.
 "Biotech uses for agricultural crops do hold promise for farmers and for society
 as a whole," Reich said. "At the same time, it's important to recognize the need
 to follow protocols and to safeguard all of our crops - conventional crops,
 organic crops and transgenic crops."
 If Ventria Bioscience wins approval to expand its production of its
 pharmaceutical-producing rice in North Carolina, "We want to do it in a highly
 managed and controlled situation," Reich said.
 "You don't take these things lightly and start doling out the seed," he said.
 "We feel it would be highly managed and affect limited areas."
 LOAD-DATE: July 11, 2005
                       Copyright 2005 Winston-Salem Journal









Document Number: 738
 
                         The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
                        April 25, 2005 Monday Home Edition
 Biotech tree tests rooted in caution;
 Genetic modification can add helpful traits, but effects on a forest's web of
 life call for extra care.
 SECTION: News; Pg. 1A;
 LENGTH: 1490 words
 Behind a locked gate in a quiet corner of a University of Georgia research
 forest, 30 spindly poplar trees have earned another year of life.
 Another spring. Still no flowers. In the rest of the forest, spring is a
 celebration of new life. For these trees, one of these years the budding of
 yellowish green blossoms will mean certain doom.
 "When that happens, these trees will be destroyed," says UGA forest geneticist
 Scott Merkle. Flowers, of course, mean pollen. "And these woods are full of
 yellow poplar," he says. "If the pollen from these trees escaped, it would be
 out of our control."
 Merkle's 15-year-old yellow poplars are among the oldest genetically modified
 trees ever grown in the open air. The first pollen they produce is expected to
 prove that engineered traits --- in this case an innocuous bacterial marker gene
 --- can be passed to succeeding generations of trees.
 And that is precisely why no one wants pollen from these trees drifting on the
 wind through a landscape where native yellow poplars --- a species found from
 New England to Florida --- live to the ripe old age of 300 years.
 This spring, farmers across America will plant more than 100 million acres of
 genetically modified corn, soybeans and cotton. Down on the farm, transgenic
 crops have become as common as fertilizer and weeds.
 In the forest, the brave new world of biotech trees is not so deeply etched. As
 transgenic trees move out of greenhouses into the open air --- and the industry
 edges closer to large-scale commercial plantings --- some vexing questions
 remain.
 "Genetically engineered trees can live for decades, are very closely related to
 their wild relatives and can spread their pollen for hundreds of miles," says
 Brian Tokar of the Institute for Society Ecology, one of several environmental
 groups that this spring asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture to halt further
 releases of such trees.
 Unlike farm crops, trees are part of a natural web of birds, insects, microbes
 and plants that make up forest ecosystems. A tree designed to resist insect
 attack or grow faster may have clear advantages for growers, but also
 unpredictable ripple effects that won't end with the first frost.
 "We have many of the same concerns that our critics have," says Merkle. "The
 difference is that instead of shutting things down, we want to do the
 experimental plantings that will answer these questions."
 Out in the open
 Most biotech trees still grow only in laboratory dishes and greenhouses. To
 answer some of the questions, however, transgenic trees --- "frankentrees" to
 their critics --- are increasingly moving outdoors.
 So far, the USDA has approved at least 124 open-air tests --- ranging from trees
 that can absorb mercury from contaminated soils around a former hat factory in
 Danbury, Conn., to a virus-resistant grapefruit with a gene from the snow drop
 lily in Texas' Rio Grande Valley. Transgenic walnuts, cherries, apples, pears,
 plums and persimmons are under development.
 Although it's gone largely unnoticed by U.S. consumers, most papayas from Hawaii
 now carry a novel gene designed to resist to a devastating ringspot virus.
 They're the first transgenic tree fruit to have entered commercial production.
 In China, however, foresters are planting hundreds of acres with two strains of
 poplar trees engineered to produce their own insecticide --- more than 1 million
 trees so far in seven provinces. Brazil is expected to begin planting commercial
 quantities of transgenic eucalyptus trees within the next year or two.
 Most of the tests in the United States are still limited to a few acres and a
 few years' duration. These experimental plantings encompass several broad goals
 of biotech forestry --- the restoration of vanishing tree species, "improved"
 trees for the forest and paper industry, and the use of trees as "toxic
 avengers" for industrial decontamination.
 An Arbor Day ceremony in Syracuse, N.Y., this week, for instance, marks the
 first planting of transgenic American elms outside the laboratory. Scientists at
 SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry hope the 2-foot trees with
 artificial genes planted in front of the college library will be a symbolic step
 toward vanquishing Dutch elm disease, which has destroyed millions of elm trees
 across America since the 1930s.
 By this fall, SUNY forester Bill Powell also hopes to plant the first transgenic
 chestnut trees. The saplings incorporate a wheat gene designed to make them
 resistant to chestnut blight, which has wiped out the once-dominant tree in
 eastern forests.
 "It will take five years or so to see if our technique works, but if it does, we
 also have our eye on other things like butternut canker, white pine blister rust
 and dogwood anthracnose," he said.
 Paper industry boon
 Commercial foresters are designing trees that grow faster, resist insects and
 herbicides, and are better suited to their end purpose. The pulp and paper
 industry, for instance, is eager to try out the "woodless tree" developed by
 Vincent Chiang of North Carolina State University.
 Chiang's aspens are not really woodless, but they have only half the normal
 amount of lignin --- the molecular glue that provides trees with rigidity by
 binding tree fibers together --- and increased volumes of cellulose, the stuff
 from which paper is made.
 "For the pulp and paper industry, removing lignin takes a lot of energy and
 chemicals, so the savings could be enormous," says John Cairney, associate
 professor of biology at Georgia Tech's Institute for Paper Science.
 Industry studies project that low-lignin trees could save the U.S. pulp industry
 between $1 billion and $3 billion a year. Field trials of the trees in England
 and France have so far found no harmful environmental effects, but researchers
 say more research is needed before the "woodless" trees are ready for
 large-scale plantings.
 Initially, the industry expects to use any "improved" trees on privately owned
 tree plantations, which currently account for about 34 percent of all trees
 harvested in the United States. The industry now plants nearly 2 billion new
 seedlings a year.
 In the United States, the leader in transgenic tree experimentation is
 Charleston-based ArborGen, a $60 million joint venture paper of forest industry
 giants such as International Paper and MeadWestvaco.
 For security reasons, ArborGen won't disclose the exact locations of its field
 tests, but USDA records show it holds permits for more than 67 open-air
 experiments on eucalyptus, pine, poplar and sweet gum.
 Most of the test plots are in South Carolina, but the company also has tests
 under way in Georgia, Florida and New Zealand. Anticipating that a key to future
 commercial plantings is likely to be assuring that engineered traits don't
 spread from tree plantations into the open forest, ArborGen is working to
 perfect sterile trees --- using what is sometimes known as terminator technology
 --- that would be incapable of pollinating others of the species.
 Cleanup role studied
 Researchers are also working to perfect trees that could aid in the cleanup of
 toxic wastes. Massachusetts-based Applied PhytoGenetics, using technology
 developed at the University of Georgia, is testing the ability of transgenic
 cottonwoods to remove mercury from the soil at industrial sites in Connecticut
 and Alabama.
 Early indications are that the cottonwoods --- engineered with a bacterial gene
 to detoxify mercury --- are prospering in contaminated soils that would be
 deadly to most trees.
 "If this works," says Chief Executive Officer David Glass, "we are doing with
 genetic engineering something that does not exist in nature."
 Industry sources are torn between wanting to publicize the potential of
 transgenic trees and the need to protect their open-air experiments. Most
 companies simply won't disclose the locations of their tests for fear their
 trees will be damaged or destroyed by environmental activists.
 The fear is not unfounded. In 2001, the Earth Liberation Front claimed
 responsibility for two arson attacks aimed at transgenic tree research --- a $3
 million fire at the University of Washington's Center for Urban Horticulture and
 a $500,000 fire at an Oregon tree farm.
 Few environmental groups --- even those opposed to transgenic trees --- condone
 such attacks. But as the industry eyes commercial plantings, even some
 professional foresters are urging caution.
 The Forest Stewardship Council, a group of forest research and management
 officials that certifies about 100 million acres of "sustainable" forests
 throughout the world, has flatly prohibited the use of transgenic trees on the
 lands it oversees.
 Without more knowledge about the consequences and better machinery to regulate
 releases, the group says, any use of the technology outside research settings
 poses "unnecessary and unacceptable risks."
 LOAD-DATE: May 19, 2005
 GRAPHIC: SUNNY SUNG / Staff UGA forest geneticist Scott Merkle's 15-year-old
 yellow poplars are among the oldest genetically modified trees ever grown in the
 open air.
                 Copyright 2005 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution









Document Number: 739
 
                         The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
                      January 13, 2005 Thursday Home Edition
 Biotech plantings up 20%;
 U.S. has most genetically modified crops
 SECTION: News; Pg. 6A
 LENGTH: 451 words
 Farmers throughout the world sharply increased their plantings of genetically
 modified crops last year, an international farmers' group reported Wednesday.
 The organization, which monitors world agricultural practices, says the record
 biotech plantings are a 20 percent increase from the previous year. Total
 transgenic acreage was 200 million acres, an area five times the size of
 Georgia.
 "Biotech crops have become one of the most rapidly adopted technologies in
 agricultural history," said Clive James, chairman of the International Service
 for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications.
 The first commercial genetically modified crops were planted in the United
 States less than a decade ago. Although they have been embraced by farmers for
 traits that reduce pesticide use or simplify herbicide applications, such crops
 have been dogged by consumer doubts about safety for use in food and
 environmental concerns that the introduced traits might spread to plants in the
 wild.
 The survey, sponsored in part by the Rockefeller Foundation, shows that despite
 such questions, more than 8 million farmers in 17 countries now grow transgenic
 crops --- mostly cotton, corn, soybeans and canola.
 The United States accounts for 59 percent of the world's total biotech acreage,
 but the fastest rate of growth in the technology is now among small farmers in
 underdeveloped countries.
 In addition to the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Canada and China now grow
 more than 10 million acres apiece of biotech crops a year. Other countries with
 significant production include Mexico, Paraguay, Uruguay, Australia, South
 Africa and Romania.
 China's share of the total is expected to increase in 2005 with that nation's
 expected approval of genetically engineered herbicide-resistant rice. New
 strains of pest-resistant corn could boost spring plantings in the United States
 as well.
 Clive said that with a "broadening base of support" in underdeveloped countries
 and new varieties of genetically engineered traits on the market, both the
 acreage planted and the number of farmers growing them are likely to double by
 Despite farmers' enthusiasm, the technology continues to face opposition from
 other segments of the agricultural food chain.
 In the United States, the spread of biotech industry suffered a setback in 2004
 when Monsanto Co., the largest producer of biotech seeds, shelved plans to
 commercialize herbicide-resistant wheat.
 The Monsanto wheat faced mounting opposition from environmentalists, consumer
 groups, food companies and farmers, who feared it would hurt U.S. exports of
 wheat to Japan, Europe and other places where some transgenic products are
 shunned.
 LOAD-DATE: January 13, 2005
                 Copyright 2005 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution









Document Number: 740
 
                            The San Francisco Chronicle
 45,387 sign petition on gene-altered crops
 SOURCE: Chronicle Staff Writer
 BYLINE: Jim Doyle
 SECTION: BAY AREA; Pg. B2
 LENGTH: 391 words
 Supporters of a ballot measure to ban genetically engineered crops in Sonoma
 County have delivered petitions with 45,387 signatures to the county registrar
 of voters, who will decide whether the initiative qualifies for the ballot later
 this year.
 Sonoma is the latest California county to consider a 10-year moratorium on
 transgenic crops. Voters in Marin and Mendocino counties passed moratorium
 ordinances last year, while voters in San Luis Obispo and Butte counties
 rejected similar measures in November. Organizers in several other counties plan
 initiative drives in 2006.
 The initiative's petition signatures, gathered by 500 volunteers and presented
 Wednesday, appear to be a record in Sonoma County. If enough signatures are
 deemed to be valid, a special election could be held as early as May, said
 Registrar of Voters Eeve Lewis.
 Even if approved by Sonoma County voters, the proposed ordinance is not expected
 to have an immediate impact on local vineyards, orchards or family-owned farms.
 "As far as we can tell, no one is growing anything genetically engineered for
 commercial ag in Sonoma County," said Daniel Solnit, a coordinator for the
 initiative. "This would limit anyone who is planning to do something in the
 future. We want to protect what we have here: our farms, our food supply, our
 public health."
 Vintners appear to be years away from producing viable, genetically engineered
 grape stocks. But companies such as Monsanto Co., which own patents on
 genetically modified crops such as corn and cotton, have plans to introduce
 genetically engineered fruits, nuts and vegetables in California.
 Moratoriums against genetically modified organisms are opposed by the State Farm
 Bureau, the state Cattlemen's Association and biotech industry groups.
 Environmentalists fear that farms will be contaminated by genetically modified
 organisms.
 "The state of California has zero regulatory structure to monitor genetically
 engineered crops, fish and trees," said Dave Henson, the primary author of the
 initiative.
 His proposed moratorium forbids the "propagation, cultivation, raising, growing,
 sale, or distribution of transgenic organisms." It does not prohibit genetically
 engineered ingredients in foodstuffs such as sodas and crackers at grocery
 markets.
 E-mail Jim Doyle at jdoyle@sfchronicle.com.
 LOAD-DATE: January 7, 2005
                   Copyright 2005 The Chronicle Publishing Co.









Document Number: 741
 
                               The Washington Post
                           November 10, 2004 Wednesday
                               Correction Appended
                                  Final Edition
 U.S. Genetically Modified Corn Is Assailed;
 NAFTA Report Calls Grain a Threat to Mexico;
 Administration Disputes Study
 BYLINE: Marc Kaufman, Washington Post Staff Writer
 SECTION: A Section; A02
 LENGTH: 946 words
 A scientific panel of international experts has concluded that the unintended
 spread of  U.S. genetically modified corn in Mexico -- where the species
 originated and modified plants are not allowed -- poses a potential threat that
 should be limited or stopped. But the United States yesterday attacked the
 report and its conclusions as unscientific, and made clear it did not intend to
 accept the recommendations.
 The report, written by a group convened under the North American Free Trade
 Agreement, rejected the U.S.  position that the modified corn is, in effect, no
 different than conventionally bred corn hybrids. It said that because the
 Mexican government has never examined or approved the use of transgenic crops,
 their presence in the country is an inherent problem.
 "How would Americans feel if we started getting living transgenic seeds that had
 been judged to be safe by the Cuban government but not the American government?"
 asked Norman C. Ellstrand, a University of California at Riverside geneticist
 and member of the NAFTA-appointed panel. "We would be outraged, and so are many
 Mexicans. Like us, they have the right to make up their own minds about
 genetically modified crops."
 The Mexican government embraced the NAFTA report and said it expected to
 implement many of its recommendations.
 The report, only the fifth in the treaty organization's history, was requested
 by Mexican farmers and officials in 2002 after researchers found that some forms
 of genetically modified corn were present in Mexico and were being naturally
 spread by cross-pollination. One variety contained genetically modified bacteria
 that protect the plant from certain insects, and another protects the plant if a
 particular kind of otherwise deadly weed killer is used on the fields.
 Although it remains uncertain how the modified corn got into Mexican fields, the
 report concluded that the large-scale importation of U.S.  corn was the likely
 cause.  The Mexican government distributes massive amounts of U.S.  corn for
 grinding into cornmeal  and flour, but some farmers are believed to have planted
 the corn instead. Once planted, the genetically modified corn spread naturally
 in fields over the seasons.
 Genetically modified corn can be legally used as food in Mexico but cannot be
 planted and grown, except in small test plots recently approved by the
 government.
 The NAFTA report concluded that the modified corn does not pose a health risk,
 but it did say that the environmental consequences are less well understood. It
 also raised the possibility of the spread of potentially more hazardous types of
 modified corn -- such as varieties  grown in the United States to produce
 pharmaceuticals and industrial products.
 "If those types of corn ever made it to Mexico and got planted, then yes, there
 would be a health and safety problem that would be very hard to solve,"
 Ellstrand said.
 The  U.S. rejection of the NAFTA report was broad and pointed.
 "This report is fundamentally flawed and unscientific; key recommendations are
 not based on sound science and are contradicted by the report's own scientific
 findings," the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Trade Representative
 said in a joint statement. "Implementing many of the report's recommendations
 would cause economic harm to farmers and consumers of all NAFTA countries and
 restrict international trade."
 The U.S. statement specifically criticized one recommendation -- that all U.S.
 corn coming into Mexico be milled at or near the border so it cannot be planted.
 That practice, it says, "would increase the cost of U.S. corn significantly,
 negatively affecting Mexico's livestock producers and consumers."
 The NAFTA report and the U.S.  response are also far apart on what constitutes a
 scientific assessment of the issue. The report included information about the
 attitudes of Mexican farmers to the genetically modified corn, saying many find
 it frightening and a threat to their staple food, while American officials said
 those views have no place in a scientific study.
 In support of their formal critique, the U.S. agencies cited the  report's
 conclusion that "scientific investigations and analyses over the past 25 years
 have shown that the process of transferring a gene from one organism to another
 does not pose any intrinsic threat over the short or long term, either to
 health, biodiversity or the environment."
 The NAFTA report went on, however, to conclude that the specific characteristics
 of any newly created organism need to be examined -- making the case that the
 benefits and dangers of any genetically modified plant can  be determined only
 by testing in the locales where it will be used. In the United States, the EPA,
 the Agriculture Department and sometimes the Food and Drug Administration must
 approve  genetically modified plants before they can be introduced.
 The National Corn Growers Association also sharply criticized the panel's
 conclusions. "The report needlessly raises concerns where there are none about a
 technology that is proven safe and already greatly benefits the environment and
 farmers around the world," NCGA President Leon Corzine said.
 A copy of the NAFTA report was leaked last month to the environmental group
 Greenpeace, which distributed it in Mexico. The report was released Monday.
 After the initial release, Mexico's equivalent of the EPA, Semarnat, said in a
 statement: "There is no doubt that the recommendations in the official document
 will be beneficial for Mexico and its environment. . . . Semarnat is awaiting
 the official publication of this report and is confident that the majority of
 the recommendations made will be implemented."
 LOAD-DATE: November 10, 2004
 CORRECTION-DATE: November 11, 2004
 CORRECTION:A Nov. 10 article on genetically modified corn incorrectly described
 federal agencies' review of genetically modified crops. The Food and Drug
 Administration and the Agriculture Department review all applications for food
 and feed products, while the Environmental Protection Agency reviews only some
 applications.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2004 The Washington Post









Document Number: 742
 
                                 University Wire
                             August 4, 2004 Wednesday
 Genetic food caters caution
 BYLINE: By Ben Tambiaschi, The Daily Aztec; SOURCE: San Diego State U.
 LENGTH: 808 words
 Scientists and researchers are racing along in a quest to understand and map
 nature's genetic blueprint and improve upon its design. But some would argue
 that in its rush to manipulate natural genomes, science is overlooking the
 potential risks of genetic modifications to plants, animals and humans.
 Proponents and manufacturers of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), assert
 genetic modification of plant species will have a pronounced beneficial effect
 on global agriculture. To that end, the biotechnology industry engineers traits
 such as drought tolerance, resistance to pests and diseases, resistance to
 temperature extremes and the ability to utilize poor quality soils.
 Biotechnology companies are quick to make claims of increased crop yields,
 enhanced nutritional value of foods, and thus, the alleviation of malnutrition
 and starvation problems around the world. However, both academic and political
 critics of genetically modified (GM) foods contend any benefits may be
 outweighed by known, and more importantly, unknown risks associated with the
 technology. Primary concerns include unintentional creation of new toxins and
 allergens, modification of plants into invasive species and cross-pollination of
 detrimental traits into wild species.
 According to biologist Karen Scholthof, in the United States GM crops represent
 substantial portions of total annual acreage in food production. In 2003, total
 acreage of multi-transgenic crops accounted for 34 percent of maize, 75 percent
 of soybean and 71 percent of cotton. Unfortunately, corporate policies
 concerning the development of GM crops are primarily profit-oriented and
 government regulation of GM foods is surprisingly limited.
 The Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency and Department
 of Agriculture, have joint jurisdiction over the production and sale of GM
 foods. The primary concern of the FDA is food safety, but author Kathleen Hart
 claims the Bush administration of 1992 undermined this goal by declaring GM
 foods subject to FDA regulatory approval only if substantial changes were made
 to nutritional components. The Clinton administration also supported this view
 and the standard has remained. Thus, our government addresses no additional
 safety concerns or production methods in the manufacture of GM foods.
 According to the Federal Register, the EPA's sole regulation regarding GM foods
 requires persons intending to use GM microorganisms for commercial purposes to
 submit a notice 90 days prior to use. Similarly, the USDA's 1993 requirement
 states only that those GM plants considered potential pests be subject to a
 mandatory pre-release screening -- a requirement it amended in 1997 in order to
 "simplify procedures for the introduction of (GM) organisms."
 Although GMO manufacturers routinely cite increased crop yields as a primary
 benefit, they fail to factor in the increased cost of growing GM crops. In
 addition, biologists P.M. Guerin and T.F. Guerin concluded that GM crops
 actually produce lower yields in certain species, because of decreases in
 fitness and hybrid vigor. Concerning increased crop yields alleviating global
 food shortages, biologist Alan Townsend notes a commonly held view among
 researchers: World hunger and malnutrition are the result of inequitable food
 distribution, not inadequate production.
 The drift of modified genes (transgenes) into wild species certainly exists.
 Instances of hybridized wild species range from low to moderate, depending on
 overlapping species (sympatry), inter-specie compatibility, pollination methods
 utilized by plants, and environmental factors such as wind conditions. Even in
 studies finding lower frequency of hybrids, such as Wilkinson's 2003 research,
 the authors conceded these numbers are primarily attributable to lack of
 sympatry and in conclusion suggest increased caution, segregation and monitoring
 of GM crops. This approach to the creation and use of transgenic plants is
 shared by a majority of independent studies, and is prevalent in other
 countries, but is clearly not the attitude adopted by U.S. seed corporations or
 the U.S. government.
 Evidence suggests we need to be cautious in the development, use and consumption
 of GM foods. The ecological, environmental and health risks are obvious, and
 specifically, the cross-pollination of transgenes into wild species represents
 potentially irreversible pollution of natural genomes. U.S. government agencies
 clearly design regulations that facilitate development and sale of GM products,
 while giant, unscrupulous biotech corporations are poised to become the sole
 sources of seed stock on the planet. The collusion of our government and the
 biotechnology industry are irresponsible and potentially dangerous, and
 represents yet another example of American arrogance and apathy.
 (C) 2003 The Daily Aztec via U-WIRE
 LOAD-DATE: August 4, 2004
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2004 The Daily Aztec via U-Wire









Document Number: 743
 
                       The Star-Ledger (Newark, New Jersey)
                              May 26, 2004 Wednesday
 Poor missing out on benefits of genetically modified foods
 SECTION: SAVOR; Pg. 34
 LENGTH: 455 words
 The world's poor are missing out on big benefits from genetically modified food
 because the technology is concentrated on lucrative cash crops rather than
 staples, the United Nation's food agency said on Monday.
 "Biotechnology holds great promise for agriculture in developing countries, but
 so far only farmers in a few developing countries are reaping these benefits,"
 the Food and Agriculture Organization said in a report on world farming.
 The world will have an extra 2 billion mouths to feed in 30 years' time, a
 challenge biotechnology could help face, the report said. But as yet, little
 progress has been made.
 Instead of improving the nutritional value of staple crops like rice and
 cassava, industry has developed four main GM varieties: cotton, maize, canola
 and soya, the FAO said.
 The FAO said the poor were missing out because their staples were "orphan crops"
 not favored by the $3 billion a year spent by business on research into
 agricultural biotechnology.
 "Other barriers that prevent the poor from accessing and fully benefiting from
 modern biotechnology include inadequate regulatory procedures, complex
 intellectual property issues, poorly functioning markets and seed delivery
 systems and weak domestic breeding capacity," FAO head Jacques Diouf said.
 Six countries account for 99 percent of the total planted area of GM crops:
 Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, South Africa and the United States. In many
 countries, food safety and environmental fears have held back the spread of GM.
 The European Union has blocked new GM imports since 1998. Since then, it has
 implemented tougher testing and monitoring regulations and is set to lift its
 moratorium later this week.
 Biotech giant Monsanto announced earlier this month it had shelved plans to
 launch the first GM variety of wheat after a storm of opposition.
 President Bush last year launched a trade suit against the EU, saying its stance
 was hurting U.S. exports and had also caused African countries to shun GM foods.
 The FAO report said concerns about long-term effects genetic engineering could
 have on the environment were justified and GM crops needed to be carefully
 regulated to guard against such risks and gain the trust of consumers.
 "Scientists generally agree that the transgenic crops currently being grown and
 the foods derived from them are safe to eat," said Diouf. "Although little is
 known about their long-term effects."
 The report, the State of Food and Agriculture 2003-04, said Chinese farmers
 growing insect-resistant cotton showed how developing countries could benefit
 from GM crops.
 Four million small farmers in China grow the crop, which has improved yields 20
 percent and reduced China's use of pesticides by one-fourth, the FAO said.
 LOAD-DATE: April 16, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: nsl
                     Copyright 2004 Newark Morning Ledger Co.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 744
 
                               The Washington Times
                      May 26, 2004, Wednesday, Final Edition
 Partial surrender on iFrankenfood'
 SECTION: EDITORIALS; Pg. A18
 LENGTH: 433 words
 The European Union recently surrendered to sound science in the debate over
 genetically modified foods [GMOs]. Specifically, EU commissioners lifted the
 six-year moratorium on GMOs by allowing the Swiss-based Syngenta to sell its
 sweet corn. David Byrne, the EU commissioner for health and consumer protection,
 said the corn "has been scientifically assessed as being as safe as any
 conventional maize. Food safety is therefore not an issue, it is a question of
 consumer choice."
 While the decision is a welcome one, it represents only a partial victory, since
 the EU continues to enforce tight labeling and traceability requirements on
 GMOs. Under EU dictates, records of all transactions involving GMOs - both where
 the materials came from and where they were sent - must be kept for years. In
 addition, all processed foods containing GMOs must be labeled as such.
 Coincidentally, the only exception is for foods processed by
 genetically-modified aids, such as enzymes used in the manufacture of wines and
 cheeses.
 The World Trade Organization [WTO] is expected to formally hear the United
 States' complaint against the EU ban in the near future. One of the first pieces
 of evidence that U.S. trade officials should offer is the recently released 2004
 annual report of United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. It was
 unambiguous regarding the safety of GMOs: "Currently available transgenic crops
 and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to
 test their safety have been deemed appropriate." Besides, GMOs have been on the
 market for years. It would long have been obvious if they caused adverse health
 effects or provoked allergic responses.
 More than 30 GMO products are awaiting EU approval, some whose applications have
 been standing for years. The time it takes for the EU to handle those
 applications, and those for new GMOs, will demonstrate its sincerity or lack
 thereof.
 In the meantime, the U.S. has no reason to drop its WTO complaint, since
 European opposition to GMOs remains strong. Over the weekend, four Greenpeace
 activists blockaded a ship full of GMO maize and corn attempting to unload at
 the port of Corinth. Considering the nonexistent health risks of GMOs, it is
 likely that anti-GMO activists truly fear that genetically modified foods will
 not bite back, causing an adverse effect on their fundraising efforts.
 In making the announcement, Mr. Byrne said, "I'm much happier to be guided by
 science than ideology." Time will tell if EU commissioners - and consumers -
 will follow that wise guidance.
 LOAD-DATE: May 26, 2004
                     Copyright 2004 The Washington Times LLC
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 745
 
                   The State Journal-Register (Springfield, IL)
                               May 24, 2004 Monday
 The truth about biocrops
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. 8
 LENGTH: 566 words
 THE "PROTATO" produces one-third to one-half more protein than a regular potato.
 It can do much to ameliorate malnutrition in India, where the potato is the
 staple for the poorest people, among whom protein deficiency is widespread.
 The development of genetically engineered foods like the protato and golden rice
 is key to addressing the needs of the world's poor and underfed, according to a
 new report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
 "More than 842 million people are chronically hungry," the report states, "most
 of them in rural areas of poor countries." It adds that "billions suffer from
 micronutrient deficiencies, an insidious form of malnutrition caused by the poor
 quality of, and lack of diversity in, their habitual diet."
 While some activist groups suggest the problems of hunger and malnutrition that
 plague developing countries can be solved without transgenic crops or
 genetically modified foods, the U.N. report is convinced "biotechnology can
 contribute to meeting these challenges."
 The report is the most substantive analysis yet by the U.N. organization of the
 political and scientific issues involving agricultural biotechnology. It comes
 down clearly on the side of those who argue that genetically modified foods can
 do much to nourish the world's poor and underfed.
 IN FACT, THE FAO laments that the nations responsible for most of the world's
 agricultural biotech products have concentrated themselves on too few crops. Six
 countries, led by the United States, and four crops (maize, soybean,
 canola/rapeseed and cotton) and two traits (insect resistance and herbicide
 tolerance) accounted for 99 percent of the global area planted in biotech crops
 last year, according to the report.
 The world's poor and hungry need more research and development of basic food
 crops, the report states, like potatoes, rice, cassava and wheat. They need
 private and public sector investment in new genetic technologies for the
 so-called "orphan crops" like sorghum, pearl millet, pigeon pea, chickpea and
 groundnut, which, said FAO Director-General Dr. Jacques Diouf, "are critical for
 the food supply and livelihoods of the world's poorest people."
 Of course, there remain some recalcitrant foes of biotechnology who direly warn
 the public of deleterious health effects and feared environmental impacts. Those
 opponents should differentiate the makeup of crops like the protato and golden
 rice with those that are genetically modified solely to enhance resistance to
 pests and disease.
 The protato's protein enhancement comes from a gene from aramanth, long a food
 source in South America and available in health food stores. The resulting plant
 is not engineered to resist herbicides or fend off bugs; it merely combines the
 protein-producing trait from aramanth with the endurance and hardiness of the
 potato. Fears of the hybrid becoming a superplant, killing off beneficial
 insects and wreaking environmental havoc, are irrational and misplaced. (The
 beta-carotene in golden rice, incidentally, comes from a daffodil gene.)
 But the U.N. report sets the record straight.
 "In those countries where transgenic crops have been grown, there have been no
 verifiable reports of them causing any significant health or environmental
 harm," it states. "On the contrary, some important environmental and social
 benefits are emerging."
 LOAD-DATE: June 14, 2004
                    Copyright 2004 The State Journal-Register









Document Number: 746
 
                          Duluth News-Tribune (Minnesota)
                               May 18, 2004 Tuesday
 News Briefs;
 Summaries of top stories from around the nation and the world
 LENGTH: 767 words
 Democrats press for oil release
 Congressional Democrats stepped up pressure on Monday for the Bush
 administration to ease gasoline prices by releasing oil from the Strategic
 Petroleum Reserve, but administration officials plan to keep adding to the
 reserve until some time next year.
 The average price for regular gasoline climbed above $2 a gallon for the first
 time last week. But administration officials said Monday that selling reserves
 would have a minuscule effect on gasoline prices.
 The Department of Energy has been building up its oil reserves since shortly
 after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The administration goal is to
 reach 700 million barrels by sometime next year.
 Industry analysts say tapping into the strategic reserve would have little
 influence on world supplies, but it could have a significant short-term effect.
 Low-carb diet's benefits uncertain in long-term
 Two new studies found that the Atkins low-carbohydrate diet outperforms
 traditional low-fat diets in the short term but offers no weight-loss advantage
 after one year.
 The findings buttress previous experiments that found the wildly popular diet a
 short-term fix that in the long-term is no better than more conventional
 approaches.
 The well-known nutrition plan now appears to be on a similar footing as numerous
 other commercial diets: effective for temporary trimming but unproven as a
 method for reducing weight-related health risks over a lifetime.
 With a majority of Americans now classified as obese and overweight, millions
 have turned to the theories of the late Dr. Robert C. Atkins, whose ideas have
 spawned a dieting empire. He offered a tasty fix: Dieters could consume meat to
 their hearts' content but must avoid breads and other carbohydrates.
 Prison fire kills more than 100
 An early morning fire at an overcrowded prison in northern Honduras on Monday
 consumed a cellblock housing gang members, killing 103, many as they slept, and
 injuring 25 others.
 The 1:30 a.m. fire was sparked by an electrical short-circuit in a cellblock
 occupied by 186 prisoners, Police Commissioner Wilmer Torres said. Some
 prisoners burned to death while others died from smoke inhalation.
 "We woke up with our clothes and our beds in flames," prisoner Jose Mauricio
 Lopez told a radio station from his hospital bed.
 Another prisoner, identified as Antonio Flores, said he heard an explosion "and
 then the cell block caught immediately on fire."
 Firefighters brought the blaze under control quickly, but it already consumed a
 large part of the jail in San Pedro Sula, 110 miles north of the capital,
 Tegucigalpa, by the time they arrived. There were no reports of any escapes,
 Torres said.
 Early ear implants improve hearing
 The earlier deaf children get cochlear implants, the more likely they are to
 speak and comprehend language normally later in life, new research suggests. In
 fact, some doctors say doing the surgery in infancy may produce the best
 results.
 In one study, children ages 12 months to 3 years showed rapid improvement in
 understanding speech during the first year after receiving one of the electronic
 devices, with the best results in the youngest children.
 In another study, 43 percent of children who got implants at age 2 had normal
 oral language abilities at ages 8 to 9, compared with just 16 percent of
 youngsters who got implants at age 4, University of Texas researcher Ann Geers
 found.
 Both studies appear in May's Archives of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery,
 released Monday.
 U.N. endorses modified crops
 In its strongest endorsement yet of genetically modified food, the United
 Nations' food agency said Monday that enhanced crops were helping poor farmers
 and had so far been found to be safe. But most developing countries are missing
 out on the benefits because private research is concentrated on four lucrative
 cash crops and not the staples needed to feed the world's hungry.
 In its first major report devoted to the controversial issue of biotechnology
 and food, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization said that the biggest
 problem was that the technology had not spread fast enough to poor countries and
 small farmers and had focused mainly on big commercial crops: cotton, maize,
 canola and soybeans.
 The report said that the scientists generally agreed that the food derived from
 transgenic crops was safe to eat, although more study was needed on long-term
 effects on humans and the environment.
 INJURIES(62%);HEARING AIDS(61%); natl
 LOAD-DATE: May 18, 2004
                       Copyright 2004 Duluth News-Tribune
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 747
 
                                The New York Times
                               May 18, 2004 Tuesday
                               Late Edition - Final
 U.N. Unit Sees Great Promise In Biotech Research on Crops
 BYLINE: By ANDREW POLLACK
 SECTION: Section C; Column 5; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 8
 LENGTH: 529 words
 Genetically engineered crops hold great promise for helping the world's poor,
 the United Nations food agency said yesterday. But it said the promise was not
 being fulfilled because too little biotech research was aimed at the basic food
 crops grown in developing countries.
 The United Nations agency, the Food and Agriculture Organization, is the latest
 group to weigh in on whether agricultural biotechnology could help feed the more
 than 800 million people in the world who are chronically hungry and cope with
 the increase of two billion in the world's population in the next 30 years.
 The issue has been caught up in the larger polarized debate over biotechnology
 foods. Proponents argue that the technology is essential to helping feed the
 world -- with the implication that biotechnology's opponents are against the
 poor. Opponents say that there are better ways to end hunger, or that
 biotechnology might make matters worse by making farmers dependent on high-price
 seeds from big companies.
 The Food and Agriculture Organization, in a 106-page report, came down on the
 side of biotechnology. It said genetic engineering, as part of a broader
 program, could help farmers increase their output and, by lowering food prices,
 help consumers in developing nations.
 The report said that achieving such gains required that the proper crops be
 developed and the seeds made available on terms allowing the farmers to profit.
 ''Thus far, these conditions are only being met in a handful of developing
 countries,'' the report said.
 Prabhu Pingali, director of agricultural and development economics at the
 agency, which is based in Rome, said that most work on biotech crops was done by
 big companies and aimed at the needs of the developed countries.
 ''The real areas where biotechnology could help poor farmers have generated very
 little interest through private-sector investments,'' he said in a telephone
 interview. Public-sector agricultural research, which gave the world the Green
 Revolution three decades ago, now pales in size compared with private
 biotechnology research, he said.
 The biotech crops available are primarily canola, corn, cotton and soybeans that
 have been made either insect-resistant or herbicide-resistant.
 While some of the crops and traits are useful in developing countries, Dr.
 Pingali said, there is a need for biotech potatoes, cassava, rice, wheat, millet
 and sorghum. And there is a need for crops that can tolerate droughts or the
 poor soils often found in developing countries.
 Even now, the report said that some biotech crops, particularly insect-resistant
 cotton, ''are yielding significant economic gains to small farmers.'' And,
 despite concerns that farmers would become beholden to big biotech companies,
 ''farmers and consumers so far are reaping a larger share of the economic
 benefits of transgenic crops than the companies that develop and market them.''
 Reaction to the report tended to follow ideological lines. The Biotechnology
 Industry Organization, a trade group, hailed it. But Anuradha Mittal, a critic
 of such crops at the Oakland Institute in Oakland, Calif., said the report
 followed the ''corporate agenda.''
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 INTERVIEWS (69%); AGRONOMY (79%); ECONOMIC CONDITIONS (75%) Agriculture;
 Genetics and Heredity; Research
 UNITED NATIONS (84%) United Nations
 PERSON: Andrew Pollack
 LOAD-DATE: May 18, 2004
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 748
 
                          January 25, 2004, Sunday FINAL
 SECTION: FOCUS, Pg.F1
 LENGTH: 1301 words
 From the perspective of the specialist, it is a mixed blessing when the world
 turns its attention to your chosen area of endeavor. You feel somehow
 legitimized when, if only briefly, the public shares your own intense interest
 in the issues to which you have devoted your professional life. However, initial
 excitement quickly gives way to exasperation as rhetoric overshadows the
 substantive deliberation necessary to move from knowledge to understanding.
 As a university professor dealing with issues surrounding seafood ecology, I
 toil in relative obscurity. The bread and butter of my research is how the
 relationship between the fishing and aquaculture industries is altering
 ecological, social and economic checks and balances the world over.
 The landmark study detailing the greatly increased toxin loads found in farm
 salmon relative to their wild counterparts has thrust me and my colleagues
 around the world into the media limelight for a few moments. A seemingly endless
 parade of cameras and microphones has passed through my lab recently at the
 University of Alberta in search of expert opinion to put these startling data in
 perspective.
 On average, farm-raised salmon have an order of magnitude higher load of cancer
 causing POPs (persistent organic pollutants) than wild caught salmon. This is
 not new. In fact over the last few years three other such studies - albeit much
 smaller - have come to nearly identical conclusions. As the dust settles around
 the current research, attention is shifting to consumer reaction and what effect
 this news will have on the aquaculture industry.
 What I have not seen in any of the worldwide coverage is anyone asking "Why?" By
 this I don't mean, "Why are toxin loads higher in farm salmon?" The answer is
 straightforward and was predicted long ago from well-established bioaccumulation
 principles. Nor am I referring to the implied paradigm of the existence of such
 a thing as a safe level of carcinogen. No, my frustration is rooted in the
 deafening absence of what should be a vigorous debate - "Why industrial
 aquaculture?" - or more specifically - "Why industrial salmon aquaculture?"
 Consider the following:
 Current production methods adopt maximum economies of scale. Thus, feedlot
 style, open net-pens in the oceans simultaneously maximize consumption of marine
 (read: public) resources (i.e. fresh, oxygenated water) while offloading
 production wastes (feces, uneaten food) and byproducts (toxins, antibiotic
 residues, escaped fish, bioamplified parasites and pathogens). Each net-pen
 (numbering in the hundreds on both of Canada's coasts) is tantamount to an
 untreated sewer outfall introducing solid and dissolved wastes directly into the
 marine environment. This is in every way "industrial waste," disposed of at no
 charge.
 The unnaturally high densities of animals in the feedlot environment of net-pens
 make that environment a breeding ground for disease and parasites. Recently in
 British Columbia, farm-derived parasites were implicated as the causal agent
 leading to the largest salmon cohort collapse on record anywhere in the world,
 ever.
 Three to five kilos of edible fish are used to make one kilo of farm salmon; a
 net loss of protein badly needed by humanity.
 The contribution of the salmon aquaculture industry to British Columbia's gross
 domestic product in 2001, as calculated by the Canadian Centre for Policy
 Alternatives, was $87 million. Marine-based industries directly jeopardized by
 salmon farming, including commercial and sport fisheries and marine tourism,
 contributed $582 million, or 51 percent of the provincial total.
 Salmon farming in Canada is dominated (greater than 80 percent of B.C.
 production) by foreign-owned multinational companies seemingly intent on
 liquidating Canada's natural marine capital for a very small profit. A similar
 arrangement characterizes the Washington state industry.
 Farm salmon overproduction (principally from Chile and Norway) has driven the
 price of all salmon to all-time lows. This forces Canadian and American farms to
 slash jobs to remain competitive and has brought ruin to coastal fishing
 communities across the Northern Hemisphere (which depend on a fair price for
 their wild catch).
 So, even a cursory review of the available information leads to the question of
 why we are engaging in this activity? This industry is clearly a net-loss
 proposition, whether viewed from the ecological, social or economic perspective.
 Consumers have either been uninformed or have opted to turn a blind eye to these
 facts. Admittedly, the cause-and-effect relationship between the viability of
 the world's oceans and your choice of entree is not as obvious as it could or
 should be but that does not make it any less real.
 The take-home message of the recent research is that we can no longer ignore the
 natural law that what is bad for the environment is bad for your health. Perhaps
 if industrial salmon aquaculture really held promise to feed the world's hungry
 or revitalize our struggling coastal communities or even provide a worry-free
 epicurean experience, there would be reason to give that industry the benefit of
 the doubt.
 Alas, the farm-raised salmon destined for your dinner plate arrives with
 overwhelming environmental and social baggage, in addition to - as we now know -
 not being as healthful as you've been told.
 As with most enviro-social dilemmas, there is hope, and options are available to
 consumers. The wild Pacific salmon fishery, contrary to popular belief, is not
 dead. Its major problem has not been lack of wild salmon, which have been
 plentiful in recent years. Rather, the problem has been to remain viable in the
 face of rock-bottom prices from the farms offloading costs of production to our
 coastal habitats. There are five wild Pacific salmon species, each unique in
 taste and texture.
 Advances in flash freezing at sea have resulted in continent-wide availability
 of a prime product 12 months of the year. In fact, for anyone who cares about
 what she/he eats, Internet communication and entrepreneurial spirit have
 combined to make it possible to buy fish (not just salmon) directly from the
 fisherman, regardless of location (some even have on-board Web cams). Supporting
 these fisheries not only does your body a service but also helps to support the
 dozens of coastal communities hurt by plummeting salmon prices.
 The major hurdle to the informed consumer is the current lack of labeling in
 supermarkets and restaurants. Without consistent labeling (farmed or wild,
 country of origin), the consumer cannot make an informed decision. Currently
 grocers and restaurants are not required to provide this information, a
 situation that is unfair to consumers and must change.
 The moral of this story resonates far beyond the farm salmon debate, coloring
 all of industrial agriculture: There are no shortcuts. So long as market forces
 alone shape how our food is produced, we will be faced with similar reality
 checks with increasing frequency and magnitude. Market forces only work when
 truthful product labeling and public understanding of all the costs accompany
 them.
 Indeed, the current crop of toxic farm salmon stories appearing in this paper
 compete for page space with mad cow disease coverage, transgenic crops and the
 like - all born of the shortsighted demand for more with less.
 In light of the remarkable shortcomings of this industry, it is time consumers
 and bureaucrats recognize that industrial salmon farming is a solution in search
 of a problem. Aquaculture in general has a bright future to be sure, but
 farm-rearing salmon is no one's idea of sustainability. The story is not just
 that farm salmon have greatly elevated toxin loads, but that this is actually
 the thin edge of the wedge.
 LOAD-DATE: January 26, 2004
 NOTES: John Volpe is assistant professor of fisheries and seafood ecology at the
 University of Alberta-Edmonton.
 GRAPHIC: Color Drawing
 Copyright 2004 Seattle Post-Intelligencer









Document Number: 749
 
                                     The Hill
                            October 15, 2003 Wednesday
 Groups give GMO crops to Mexicans
 BYLINE: By Lizzie Andrews
 SECTION: Pg. 28
 LENGTH: 607 words
 If you buy cornmeal in Cancun, Mexico, it is likely to have genetically modified
 organisms (GMOs).
 That message was spread to the 500 villagers of Valle Verde, Mexico, when
 American free-trade activists donated 2 tons of food in September.
 The donation emphasized the benefits of transgenic crops and served as a
 symbolic gesture to the World Trade Organization (WTO). which was holding its
 fifth ministerial conference in Cancun.
 WTO ministers did not discuss bioengineered harvests at the meeting, but they
 are expected to make a ruling that would alter international exchange of GMOs,
 said Greg Conko, director of food safety policy for the Competitive Enterprise
 Institute (CEI), one of the initiative's organizers and a supporter of trade in
 bioengineered foods.
 Under contention is a WTO rule - Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
 Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) - that requires countries to have scientific
 evidence in order to ban trade of bioengineered produce, Conko said.
 The United States has claimed in a petition to the WTO that the European Union
 (EU) violated SPS by outlawing biotech foods without proof of their detriment to
 consumers, Conko said.
 EU officials say that their regulation of transgenic crops is in accordance with
 WTO rules.
 "The EU's regulatory system for GMO's authorization is in line with WTO rules:
 It is clear, transparent and non-discriminatory," EU Trade Commissioner Pascal
 Lamy said in a May news release.
 But it could take years or even decades for the WTO to decide whether the EU's
 regulation of GMOs is too strict and in violation of WTO agreements, Conko said.
 Given the importance of the WTO's decision, CEI, Citizens for a Constructive
 Tomorrow, the Congress of Racial Equality and International Consumers for Civil
 Society organized the donation to bring attention to the benefits of trading
 bioengineered produce.
 Before and after the donation, representatives from the groups attended the WTO
 summit along with about 800 other non-governmental organizations.
 The Mexican charity La Ciudad de Alegria, meaning City of Joy, helped
 coordinators purchase natural rice and beans and bioengineered corn products at
 local markets in Cancun.
 Provisions were bought in Mexico to show the villagers that GMOs are in many
 goods they safely consume everyday, said Conko, who helped hand out parcels of
 food to about 225 families.
 Conko said many villagers were thankful. He could recall only two villagers who
 refused to accept the rations after being told by translators in Spanish that
 some items contained genetically modified corn.
 " [You] can't match the feeling of giving food to people who are desperate to
 have it," said Conko.
 Conko said the exchange highlighted the merits of open trade of GMOs. Much of
 the bioengineered corn in the distributed cornmeal, corn flour, corn oil and
 cornflakes came from the United States and was packaged in Mexico, he said.
 Still, opponents of bioengineered crops, who argue that it contaminates
 harvests, did make a presence. About a dozen protesters accompanied them to
 Valle Verde and told villagers the food was "pig feed," Conko said.
 Supporters acknowledge that not all the benefits of transgenic crops are easy to
 identify, Conko said.
 Transgenic food creates bigger yields for farmers, allowing them to make more
 money, said Conko. However, he added that it is too soon for consumers to see
 lower prices from the bigger profits for growers of GMO food.
 Also in the works for bioengineered crops is the development of grains fortified
 with minerals for malnourished parts of the world, Conko said.
 LOAD-DATE: October 16, 2003
                   Copyright 2003 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp.









Document Number: 750
 
                                     The Hill
                            October 15, 2003 Wednesday
 Misinformation on modified foods
 BYLINE: By Rep. Nick Smith (R-Mich.)
 SECTION: Pg. 29
 LENGTH: 892 words
 Over the years, scientific and agricultural innovations improving production
 methods and plant varieties have been vital in providing a safe, abundant food
 supply for the world's ever-growing population.
 Biotechnology is the next, with the potential to dramatically improve the
 quantity and quality of agricultural production around the world.
 With biotechnology, we have the ability to produce drought- or pest-resistant
 crops, enhance the nutritional characteristic of food, increase crop yields and
 better protect the environment. Agricultural biotechnology holds tremendous
 potential benefits for farmers and consumers.
 Despite such promise, some groups have fought to stop the development and use of
 biotechnology. Their arguments have been based on scientifically unjustified
 fears of perceived environmental and food-safety risks. Much of this fear was
 fueled by a study published in the journal Nature in 1999 suggesting that pollen
 from genetically modified (GM) corn might harm monarch butterflies. Despite the
 fact that subsequent studies dispelled the myth that pollen from the transgenic
 corn harmed monarchs, this incident perpetuated widespread controversies and
 allegations about the safety of genetically modified (transgenic) food crops.
 Following this incident, the House Science Subcommittee on Research embarked on
 several hearings in 1999 to investigate the potential benefits and safety risks
 associated with plant biotechnology. Findings from those hearings were compiled
 in a comprehensive report, "Seeds of Opportunity," which I published in 2000.
 The findings of the investigations indicated that GM crops were just as safe as,
 if not safer than, those developed through conventional cross and hybrid means.
 Scientists concluded that the characteristics of the product and not the process
 of development should be the basis for regulatory decisions. Over the past
 several years, an increasing body of scientific evidence has further supported
 the safety of genetically improved crops.
 Opponents of biotechnology have sought refuge in the so-called precautionary
 principle, which deliberately shifts the burden of proof of absolute safety to
 the proponents of the technology. Without the support of sound scientific data,
 opponents of agriculture biotechnology seem to ignore the known benefits of
 transgenic crops and concentrate on any imaginable risks. Unfortunately, the
 propagation of such fears has manifested itself in some nations utilizing these
 "safety" concerns as trade barriers, such as the European Union's moratorium on
 the approval of GM crops.
 I join the efforts of the Bush administration to pursue a World Trade
 Organization (WTO) challenge to the EU's import ban on GM products. Under WTO
 rules, countries are permitted to reject imports on the basis of health and
 environmental concerns if such policies are supported by adequate scientific
 evidence. The EU, however, has refused to process new applications for trade of
 transgenic food crops since 1998 without even attempting to demonstrate a
 compelling scientific reason for the ban.
 That blatant protectionism keeps U.S. farm products out of their markets
 allowing European farmers to sell their products at higher prices. Even worse
 than the economic effects that this ban has had on U.S. farmers is the negative
 impact it has had on many poor countries in Africa where famine and starvation
 are commonplace. Unfortunately, the EU has exploited Africa's dependency on the
 EU as a trading partner to stall acceptance of GM crops. For example, with its
 population starving last year, Zambia rejected U.S. food shipments out of fears
 that the EU would reject future corn exports from their country. Perhaps more
 important, EU pressure is impeding research on GM crops that will be important
 in bringing African nations closer to agricultural sustainability. In Uganda,
 where disease and pests have devastated banana crops in recent years, a biotech
 variety ready for field trials was left in the freezer due to trade concerns.
 Clearly, utilizing restrictions on GM crops as artificial barriers to
 agricultural trade and foreign food assistance is detrimental to everyone
 involved, from the American farmer to the developing nations most in need of the
 promise that GM crops hold. Current law now directs the National Science
 Foundation to work with African countries to develop products that can best help
 that region of the world. As the world's leader in agricultural biotechnology,
 we are best suited to take the lead in not only assuring safety but also
 dispelling the myths about biotechnology.
 To facilitate a better understanding of biotechnology on the part of the people
 we work with in other countries, I have introduced legislation (H.R. 2447) to
 establish a federal interagency task force. The goal is to help ensure that
 American government employees working overseas better understand the scientific
 facts of biotechnology in order to explain the benefits, safety, and potential
 uses. I believe that increased understanding and coordination of our efforts
 will allow research to proceed and help people around the world to reap the
 benefits of agricultural biotechnology.
 Smith is chairman of the House Science Subcommittee on Research. He also sits on
 the Agriculture and International Relations committees.
 LOAD-DATE: October 16, 2003
                   Copyright 2003 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp.









Document Number: 751
 
                       The Star-Ledger (Newark, New Jersey)
                            October 15, 2003 Wednesday
 Golden rice study gets Gates boost
 BYLINE: KITTA MacPHERSON, STAR-LEDGER STAFF
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 7
 LENGTH: 446 words
 The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has awarded $25 million to an
 international effort to combat malnutrition, including research on a
 controversial crop known as golden rice.
 The grant will support an effort dubbed HarvestPlus, a global research
 initiative to breed and disseminate new kinds of crops. Additional funding from
 the World Bank, Denmark and from the U.S. Aid for International Development will
 bring the total funding for the project to $45 million.
 The work will be spearheaded by the International Food Policy Research Institute
 in Washington, D.C., and the International Center for Tropical Agricultural
 Research in Cali, Colombia.
 About 80 percent to 85 percent of the funds will go toward supporting work on
 crops produced through classical breeding processes, according to Howarth Bouis,
 an economist who will head up HarvestPlus. These will emphasize a technique
 known as biofortification in which higher levels of micronutrients such as iron,
 zinc and vitamin A are produced in plants through hybrid techniques.
 "Vitamin and mineral deficiencies, which contribute to the deaths of millions of
 children each year, can be easily prevented by adding just a few key nutrients
 to staple foods," said David Fleming, director of global health strategies at
 the Gates Foundation.
 The remainder of the funds will support "exploratory" research on transgenic
 crops, Bouis said.
 That will include research by scientists at the International Rice Research
 Institute in the Philippines on golden rice. The experimental crop, a strain of
 rice spliced with two daffodil genes and a bacterium gene, was developed by
 European scientists Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer in 1999.
 Scientists continuing to pursue the technology have had difficulty getting
 stable funding because of opposition to genetically engineered crops in Europe
 and the developing world. They have been working on ways to boost beta carotene
 levels in the rice kernels and on cross-breeding it with higher-yielding
 varieties.
 International nongovernmental organizations have been steadfast in their
 opposition to genetically engineered crops such as golden rice, especially for
 the developing world. They fear there will be adverse environmental impacts in
 places lacking adequate regulatory structures. Though golden rice seeds will be
 given away for free, the activists worry that transnational corporations will
 own the intellectual property rights to other such seeds and will ultimately
 charge exorbitant rates for them.
 "Genetic engineering is a risky, expensive technology," said Doreen Stabinsky, a
 scientist at Greenpeace USA. "They know that countries are going to reject it.
 Why spend the money?"
 LOAD-DATE: April 16, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: nsl
                     Copyright 2003 Newark Morning Ledger Co.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 752
 
                                The New York Times
                             October 14, 2003 Tuesday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Farmers Help Deliver Modified Crops to Brazil
 BYLINE:  By TONY SMITH
 SECTION: Section W; Column 4; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 1158 words
 DATELINE: SANTO ANGELO, Brazil
 Brazil's decision in late September to legalize the planting of genetically
 modified soybeans may have infuriated environmentalists and some in the
 government, but it has caused much rejoicing and relief in the farming community
 here in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil's southernmost state, where farmers have been
 planting transgenic soybeans illegally for years.
 Among those celebrating is Rafael Moreno, who for the last four years has been
 planting and harvesting genetically engineered soybeans on his 1,000-acre farm.
 "Everybody around here was doing it and it made economic sense, so I did it,
 too," said Mr. Moreno, 30, a resident of this sleepy town close to the Argentine
 border.
 Such realities and the fact that Brazil -- already the world's No. 2 soybean
 producer, after the United States -- is working hard to become an agricultural
 superpower are crucial factors behind President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's
 changed stance on the planting of genetically modified crops.
 Before taking office in January, Mr. da Silva opposed such crops. But now that
 he heads the government, he has to weigh the growing importance of agribusiness,
 which accounted for a third of the country's gross domestic product and 40
 percent of its exports last year.
 Farmers here expect the president's decision, which legalized transgenic crops
 for this planting season, to pave the way for more permanent legislation that
 would put them on an equal footing with farmers in the United States, Argentina
 and Canada, where gene-altered crops have been planted for years.
 Mr. da Silva's about-face will affect not only Brazilian farmers, but American
 exporters and consumers from Stockholm to Shanghai.
 "Now we'll be more competitive in everything -- not just soy but melons, corn,
 oranges, cotton," Mr. Moreno said. "So far, we've only been catching up, thanks
 to our favorable climate and soil."
 When Mr. Moreno started planting the seeds, originally smuggled from Argentina,
 most of his farm equipment was at least 15 years old -- "more or less scrap
 metal," he said. But now, after just a few years, increasing returns from the
 farm have enabled him to replace all but one tractor.
 The government's decision has also brought a palpable change in mood to a
 bustling tractor and farm machinery dealership in Santo Angelo.
 Just five years ago, local farmers' margins were shrinking, and Wilson Pippi,
 the owner of Pippi Maquinas, said he was finding it tough to drum up new
 business. But then more and more farmers began planting genetically modified
 soybeans smuggled from Argentina, and Mr. Pippi's sales took off.
 "I've been selling Massey Ferguson for 40 years, and I can't recall a more
 favorable outlook for agriculture round here," said Mr. Pippi, who also grows
 soybeans.
 Unwilling to put his other business at risk by breaking the law, Mr. Pippi had
 refrained from planting genetically modified soybeans, but now he says he will
 and predicts most Brazilian farmers will do the same.
 On a national scale, although only about 17 percent of the soy plants in
 Brazil's fields are transgenic, the country's soybean production has risen
 nearly 60 percent in the last six years, closing the gap on the United States,
 which is expecting a drought-diminished harvest in 2003. On Oct. 10, the United
 States said that Brazil was about to surpass it in soybean exports.
 Santo Angelo farmers say that by planting the genetically modified seeds their
 average yield has already risen from around 30 to nearly 50 bushels an acre.
 "Unlike farmers in America or Europe, Brazilian farmers get no subsidies, so
 this is important in helping us compete," Mr. Pippi said.
 Too much genetically modified soy, however, could pose a problem. Brazil's top
 export market for soybeans is the European Union, which has introduced stringent
 regulations on the origins of all genetically modified food because of concerns
 by consumers. Domestic consumers could also prove resistant.
 The stance in Europe appears to be softening considerably from three years ago,
 when genetically modified foods were described as Frankenfoods. But if Europeans
 continue to resist, "we will just have to look for other markets," said Amauri
 Miotto of Rio Grande's Fetag, a federation offarmers working small, family-owned
 properties. "There are plenty of poor, hungry people in the world who need
 cheaper food."
 There is no reason Brazilian farmers cannot produce both conventional and
 genetically modified soybeans, said Carlo Lovatelli, president of the Brazilian
 Association of Vegetable Oil Industries, or Abiove, though he said they should
 be paid a premium for conventional crops because they cost $20 to $30 a metric
 ton more to produce.
 Detailed labeling and testing required for export shipments will eat into the
 improved margins of those planting genetically modified soybeans. Farmers here,
 however, say those costs are marginal compared with the savings on herbicides
 and in time, because the fields of genetically modified soybeans are free of
 weeds and easier to harvest.
 Environmentalist groups and many members of Mr. da Silva's Workers' Party
 continue to echo European concerns about genetically modified food. They are
 also angry at what they call a "sell out" by Brazilian agriculture to the
 Monsanto Company, whose Roundup Ready technology is used in the genetically
 modified seeds that have entered this region from Argentina.
 But at the end of the day, Mr. da Silva had little choice but to overrule such
 opposition, said Odacir Klein, Rio Grande's agriculture secretary.
 Nearly three-quarters of the state's soybean farmers have been planting the
 transgenic seeds for years.
 While it has been technically illegal to possess genetically modified seeds,
 only a handful of farmers have ever been prosecuted and only minimal amounts of
 the seed are thought to have been seized.
 "Patrolling the borders is a federal task, and the previous federal government
 was always quietly in favor of genetically modified crops, so they never did
 anything, and the result was this consummated fact," Mr. Klein said.
 Mr. Moreno agreed.
 "Even if they hadn't changed the law, we all would have planted again anyway,"
 he said. "What could they do, arrest 150,000 of us?"
 If Monsanto were to offer him genetically modified seeds engineered specifically
 for the region's climate and soil, he said he would not think twice about buying
 them and paying royalties to the company.
 Monsanto, which has complained bitterly for years about farmers in southern
 Brazil using its technology but not paying royalties, welcomed the government's
 decree and said it hoped to find "an applicable solution" for past and future
 unpaid fees.
 That is likely to be tough going. Here, at least, farmers have stockpiled seeds
 from previous harvests and now do not have to smuggle seeds.
 Mr. Moreno revealed a large supply of seeds stacked in his barn.
 "There are 2,000 bags in there," he said with a grin. "But I only need 600 bags
 to replant my crop."
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: October 14, 2003
 GRAPHIC: Map of Brazil highlighting Santo Angelo: Rio Grande do Sul is a rich
 agricultural state in southern Brazil.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 753
 
                       Saint Paul Pioneer Press (Minnesota)
                     September 25, 2003 Thursday CITY EDITION
 SECTION: BUSINESS; INTERNATIONAL; Pg. C2
 LENGTH: 346 words
 Members of the OPEC oil cartel have agreed to make a pre-emptive cut in their
 production target for crude in an effort to bolster prices ahead of an expected
 decrease in demand early next year. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting
 Countries decided Wednesday to lower its output ceiling by 900,000 barrels a day
 to 24.5 million barrels starting in November. The 3.5 percent cut startled the
 market where oil futures jumped more than $1 a barrel. One analyst said he
 expected the action would keep gasoline and heating oil prices that consumers
 pay near current levels. OPEC pumps about a third of the world's crude.
 Brazil lifts ban on modified seeds
 Brazilian farmers, the world's No.2 producers of soybeans, got the go-ahead on
 Wednesday to plant genetically modified seeds this season after the country's
 vice president said he would lift a ban on transgenic crops. The decree
 effectively extends a temporary decree legalizing the sale of genetically
 modified soy from this year's harvest, but officials said they expected it to
 pave the way for legislation that would be sent to Congress this year. The
 extension comes just in time for the October planting. Until last year, Brazil
 was one of the world's last main exporters of farm goods to ban the planting or
 sale of genetically altered crops or foods, although an increasing number of
 farmers have flouted the ban in recent years by planting transgenic seeds
 smuggled in from neighboring Argentina.
 Software patents in Europe restricted
 The European Parliament agreed Wednesday to make sweeping changes to a proposed
 law on the patenting of software inventions, threatening a fragile compromise
 reached by the European Commission. A majority of members of the European
 Parliament voted in support of amendments to the bill that would make it harder
 to register a patent. The amendments tightened up the wording of the bill to
 make it explicit that no patent, like the one Amazon.com registered for its
 one-click online shopping method, can be registered in the European Union. --
 From wire reports
 LOAD-DATE: August 16, 2005
                     Copyright 2003 Saint Paul Pioneer Press
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 754
 
                                The New York Times
                            September 21, 2003 Sunday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Page Two: Sept. 14-20;
 SECTION: Section 4; Column 5; Week in Review Desk; Pg. 2
 LENGTH: 608 words
 Frankenfoods to the Rescue Of Mother Earth
 HERE'S something for the Greens of the world to ponder: "genetic engineering may
 be the most environmentally beneficial technology to have emerged in decades, or
 possibly centuries," Jonathan Rauch writes in The Atlantic Monthly. So-called "
 transgenic crops" -- soybeans crossbred with genes that tolerate herbicides, for
 example -- have enabled farmers to vastly increase yields while eliminating the
 need for ploughing, which leaches the soil of nutrients and promotes erosion and
 runoff. Ploughless farming, because it requires no fuel, also saves money and
 reduces pollution.
 While citing the substantial risks involved in creating transgenic plants, the
 article notes other benefits of bioengineered crops: transgenic cotton, for
 instance, which makes its own pesticide courtesy of a toxin-producing gene, and
 engineered rootworm-resistant corn have enormous potential to reduce pesticide
 use. And other crops are being developed to tolerate soil contaminants like
 aluminum, a big problem in the tropics.
 Noting that "world food output will need to at least double and possibly triple
 over the next several decades," the author argues that "the great challenge" is
 "not to feed an additional three billion people (and their pets) but to do so
 without converting much of the world's prime habitat into second- or third-rate
 farmland."
 As a result, "if properly developed, disseminated and used, genetically modified
 crops may be the best hope the planet has got."
 Forget the Arab Street: Worry About the Elite
 THE United States needs a far more nuanced understanding of the public sphere in
 the Middle East.
 Marc Lynch writes in Foreign Affairs that Arab public opinion is a more complex
 phenomenon than conventional notions of a cynical elite and a passionate,
 nationalist "Arab Street" suggest.
 "What now matters more than the street, and sometimes even more than the rulers,
 is the consensus of elite and middle-class public opinion throughout the Arab
 world," he writes. "Articulate and assertive, combative and argumentative, the
 nascent public sphere increasingly sets the course for the street and the palace
 alike."
 Despite perceptions to the contrary, the Arab news media do not simply parrot
 the official line. But, the author says: "Ambitious politicians and public
 intellectuals have powerful incentives to criticize the United States in even
 stronger terms and almost no incentives to defend it. Anti-America rhetoric
 earns one a reputation for authenticity, courage and clear thinking." The Bush
 administration must change those incentives by recognizing "that the elite Arab
 public can speak for itself, deeply resents being ignored or condescended to,
 and is more than capable of directly observing American words and deeds for
 inconsistencies."
 There's a Reason It's Called Hard Science
 APPARENTLY the life of the typical scientist isn't filled with "Eureka!"
 moments, judging from a survey of the worst jobs in science in Popular Science
 magazine. "There are aspects of science -- entire jobs, even -- that, when you
 strip away the imposing titles and advanced degrees, sound at best distasteful
 and at worst unbearable," William Speed Weed writes.
 High on the list of most-unpalatable professions culled from nominations from
 more than a thousand working scientists are "dysentery stool-sample analyzer,"
 "Brazil mosquito researcher" (which involves offering one's body as bait and
 then drawing feeding mosquitoes into a mouth tube) and animal "carcass cleanser"
 (some taxidermists like using "flesh-eating buffalo-hide beetles"). Most of the
 other jobs are too disgusting to print here.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 (72%); ENVIRONMENT & NATURAL RESOURCES (77%) Agriculture; Genetics and Heredity;
 United States International Relations; Science and Technology; Agriculture
 ORGANIZATION: Atlantic Monthly; Foreign Affairs (Magazine); Popular Science
 (Magazine)
 PERSON: Jonathan Rauch; Marc Lynch
 GEOGRAPHIC: EARTH (92%) UNITED STATES (95%); MIDDLE EAST (90%) Middle East
 LOAD-DATE: September 21, 2003
 GRAPHIC: Photo: Can these transgenic sweet potatoes save the world? (Photo by
 Marc Lacey/The New York Times)
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 755
 
                       Saint Paul Pioneer Press (Minnesota)
                       August 24, 2003 Sunday CITY EDITION
 BYLINE: AMY BECKER AND LEE EGERSTROM, Pioneer Press
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Special Report: The GMO Debate; Pg. D1
 LENGTH: 2019 words
 Reporter Amy Becker traveled to Brussels, Copenhagen, Athens, Prague and Berlin
 in March and April as a participant in the German Marshall Fund of the United
 States' American Marshall Memorial Fellowship. She spent part of her fellowship
 talking to Europeans about the debate over imports of genetically engineered
 food. Here she teams up with agribusiness reporter Lee Egerstrom for this
 special report.
 BRUSSELS, Belgium -- America's trade dispute with the European Union over
 importing genetically engineered foods has implications far beyond the dinner
 table.
 After a U.S.-European split over the war in Iraq, the stage was set for a
 particularly contentious trade dispute. And, last Monday, the divisions
 deepened. The United States, Canada and Argentina formally asked the World Trade
 Organization to outlaw a European Union prohibition on importing GMOs --
 genetically modified organisms.
 The Brussels-based E.U. has refused to import genetically engineered foods
 unless they have specific GMO labels, and it says its policies are in line with
 WTO rules.
 U.S. trade officials contend that's nonsense. They argue that Europe is erecting
 a barrier to protect its advantage of nearly $1.2 billion in annual food and
 agriculture trade with the United States. Furthermore, they say the ban has cost
 U.S. farmers $1 billion in sales since 1998, when six E.U. countries, led by
 France, called for a moratorium on GMOs.
 Under international trade laws, the E.U. regulations could be set aside if a WTO
 panel concludes they constitute a trade barrier not supported by scientific
 evidence.
 In part, the dispute is a food fight over what rights consumers should have to
 know what's in their groceries. It's also a trade war over whose products will
 be purchased in Europe and elsewhere. Finally, it's a cultural war, observers
 say, and people trying to understand the issue need to look at all three
 aspects.
 "This is a fairly deep and complex cultural phenomenon," said C. Ford Runge,
 distinguished McKnight professor of applied economics and law at the University
 of Minnesota.
 Most Americans eat genetically modified foods without knowing which ones have
 altered genes. Despite a push by some producers and grocers, as well as U.S.
 citizens and lawmakers, no labeling requirement has ever passed the U.S.
 Congress.
 Modified foods are so deeply embedded in the U.S. food supply that Whole Foods
 grocery stores reformulated some recipes to exclude corn syrup because, the
 company said, it could not otherwise prevent GMOs from getting into store
 brands.
 Farmers say they use GMO seeds to reduce their use of pesticides and to prevent
 crop diseases. GMOs are made by injecting genetic material from other organisms,
 including bacteria, into crops.
 Many European consumers are skeptical of eating altered foods. Europeans see it
 simply as Americans trying to tell them what they should eat, said Rudolph
 Strohmeier, who is with the directorate general of agriculture for the European
 Commission, part of the E.U.
 Charlotte Antonsen, a Liberal Party member of the Danish Parliament, described
 Danes as unanimous in wanting to know what is in their food.
 "In Denmark, we all want it to be labeled -- all of us. So the people can decide
 if they want it," Antonsen said. "I'm personally not against GMOs, but I think
 it's up to every citizen to choose what they want to eat. It's much more
 politically sensitive in this part of the world."
 Milos Ruzicka operates a food-buying club on the outskirts of Prague that offers
 organic foods produced by several farmers across the Czech Republic. He knows
 which farmers make which goat cheese, yogurt or butter, an idea in keeping with
 his attitude about food.
 "It is our right to know what is in the food and where it came from," Ruzicka
 said.
 Similar skepticism can also be found in Minnesota.
 U ecology Professor Philip Regal said the U.S.-E.U. debate matters to him as a
 taxpayer "because a lot of money is going into promoting biotech in the state of
 Minnesota. There's not a proportionate amount (of money) going into looking at
 the downside of it.
 "They're encouraging Minnesota farmers to make personal investments in a farm
 product they may have trouble selling abroad," Regal said.
 The United States' case against the E.U. at the World Trade Organization
 underscores the value of genetically engineered crops.
 The global market value of such altered crops was estimated at $4.25 billion in
 2002, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
 Applications.
 The financial stakes are rising: Some 4.3 million acres of such crops were
 cultivated in 1996; by last year, 145 million acres were being cultivated,
 according to the most recent report by the service.
 More than half of the soybeans grown worldwide in 2002 were genetically
 modified. The lead producer is the United States, which grows 66 percent of the
 world's GMO crops. Argentina has 23 percent, Canada 6 percent and China 4
 percent, the service reported. Minnesota growers said this year 69 percent of
 their soybean crops would come from GMO seeds; Wisconsin said 71 percent of its
 crops would be biotech.
 European politicians want to be able to trace GMOs to their sources. U.S. food
 and agribusiness advocates say Europe's rules on tracing and labeling will
 burden the entire industry.
 Danes and the Dutch are mystified why tracing GMOs in food would be a burden for
 U.S. or Canadian farmers when they can now chase any quality flaws in cheese,
 for instance, back to herds and individual cows within two days.
 Trade in GMO products affects European farmers as well, said Strohmeier, with
 the directorate general of agriculture for the European Commission. Farmers
 would privately argue that if they have to compete with a cheaper, modified
 product, they want the same technology, he said.
 European skepticism has deep roots.
 Karl Erik Olsson, a member of the European Parliament from Sweden's Labor Party,
 sat in a cafe at the European Parliament building in March, sporting a tie
 depicting grains. The tie, from a Swedish seed company, is a nod to his farming
 background. He's a member of Sweden's seed board and a former agricultural
 minister.
 "This is a basic difference in cultural values in Europe and in the United
 States, where you have a larger trust in the science and in new developments,"
 Olsson said. "In Europe, we have become more and more careful. We have been
 through many more disasters at different times in history."
 In the old agricultural society, Olsson said, "food never moved far away. You
 normally knew the producer, the store, everything. If somebody got sick, you
 could trace it back."
 Recent scares, such as the widespread slaughter of cattle to prevent the spread
 of mad cow disease, encourage a conservative approach to food safety.
 "We have had scandals," Olsson said. "We have now a very, very careful
 attitude."
 That approach -- called the precautionary principle -- is prevalent in Europe,
 observers say. Runge, with the University of Minnesota, explained it this way:
 Under the principle, a technology essentially has to prove itself innocent.
 Under U.S. rules, technology is essentially presumed innocent, Runge said.
 Strong currents in the river of European history have elevated the role of the
 precautionary principle to Europeans.
 "Their whole history with science and technology has been much more demonic,"
 Runge said. For example, World War I in Europe marked the first major
 application of technology to warfare, an experience that left an entire
 continent haunted.
 "The problem is this whole issue is embedded in a culture war between the U.S.
 and Europe," Runge said. GMOs are "one in a set of questions arising in European
 capitals because of their unease with the idea of American hegemony."
 Europeans say they also feel blindsided by the Americans. Even though much of
 the biotechnology for GMOs is owned and was developed by European companies, the
 use of GMOs developed so quickly in the United States that "before anyone knew
 anything about it, it was here," said Olsson of Sweden.
 He thinks the often-stated goal of GMOs is legitimate: "We need to use this
 knowledge if people in the future would be able to feed a growing world
 population in sustainable agriculture."
 Olsson also said it would be hard to persuade Europeans to embrace altered
 foods.
 "The mistrust to food and to GM food is enormous," Olsson said. "I think we are
 forced to label, even down to very small percentages. We should also label food
 that originates from GM crops even if you cannot detect genetically modified
 organisms in the food."
 If the United States and its partners win the WTO dispute, they could still lose
 by failing to understand or address European consumers' culture, Runge said. He
 cited a WTO case from the late 1990s, in which the United States and Canada
 sought to force the E.U. to lift its ban on beef treated with bovine growth
 hormone.
 "We beat the Europeans squarely on the hormone dispute and we haven't increased
 sales in Europe one whit," Runge said.
 Regardless of what the WTO decides, other issues involving genetically altered
 foods must still be addressed, experts say.
 Who should decide how the world manages and monitors such products?
 In Berlin, one expert predicts the stakes are higher than many people realize.
 Benedickt Haerlin helped mastermind Greenpeace's European resistance to GMOs in
 the 1990s. A former Green Party member of the European Parliament, Haerlin was
 deeply involved in Greenpeace's opposition to GMOs, beginning in 1996, when the
 first Roundup Ready soybeans were shipped from the United States to Europe. It
 was the first major farm product to hit the European market and set off the wave
 of protest in Europe that led to the E.U.'s restrictions on GMOs.
 Haerlin still does contract work for Greenpeace, but his primary job is with the
 Foundation on Future Farming in Berlin where he lobbies on farming issues. Much
 of the foundation's annual budget goes to develop new organic seeds.
 He sees a need for non-GMO production to continue to preserve evolutionary
 diversity. He asks: Who will guarantee that non-GMO production will continue?
 Who will test to make sure non-GMO production is continuing?
 "We believe it's a major future threat to evolutionary diversity," Haerlin said.
 "We need to have a public debate about this. It shouldn't be left up to
 scientists and their employers. Who is going to decide how the world is going to
 look?"
 Runge pointed out that transgenic crops are an unusual technology that rocketed
 out of obscurity in the 1990s and accumulated political, trade, health and
 cultural baggage along the way.
 Few technologies have been criticized as much or saddled with such symbolic
 baggage, he said. "And, it may be that it's justified."
 Yet altered foods are being eaten, and altered seeds are germinating worldwide.
 "The genie is escaping slowly, but surely, from the bottle, and this technology
 is being disseminated," Runge said. "Before long, people will accept it and
 realize it's part of the landscape."
 Amy Becker can be reached at abecker@pioneerpress.com or (651) 228-5465. Lee
 Egerstrom can be reached at 651-228-5437 or legerstrom@pioneerpress.com.
 Genetically Modified Crops
 The major GMO crops worldwide in 2001 were:
 Soybeans: 62%
 Corn: 21%
 Cotton: 12%
 Canola: 5%
 Others: Squash and Papaya
 The number of farmers worldwide growing genetically altered crops in 2002 was
 between 5.5 million and 6 million.
 Traits of GMO crops: Herbicide tolerance, insect resistance, and virus
 resistance.
 Principal planters: United States, Argentina, Canada, China, South Africa and
 Australia
 Others: Romania, Spain, Uruguay, Mexico, Bulgaria, Germany
 Newcomers: India, Colombia and Honduras grew altered crops for the first time in
 2002. The Philippines approved biotech corn in Decemeber 2002.
 -Source: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.
 FOOD STORES(60%); Statistic Gmo Crops Genetically Modified Europe
 LOAD-DATE: August 15, 2005
 NOTES: See related stories: D1 and D6.
 GRAPHIC: Photo
 Benedickt Haerlin
 "We believe it's a major future threat to evolutionary diversity. We need to
 have a public debate about this. It shouldn't be left up to scientists and their
 employers. Who is going to decide how the world is going to look?" said Haerlin,
 who helped mastermind Greenpeace's European resistance to GMO's in the 1990s.
                     Copyright 2003 Saint Paul Pioneer Press
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 756
 
                           Sacramento Bee (California)
                              June 24, 2003 Tuesday
 Food security, not biotech
 BYLINE: Tewolde Egziabher Special To The Bee
 SECTION: EDITORIALS; Pg. B7
 LENGTH: 418 words
 The best way to ensure food security is to advocate for policies that enhance
 local food production systems. I do not believe that the U.S. government's
 agenda of advancing industrial agriculture methods of chemical use, food
 irradiation and genetically engineered crops is in the interest of Ethiopia or
 any other developing nations.
 First, the world has never grown as much food per capita as it is doing now, yet
 the world has also never had as many hungry. We have plenty of food; it's just
 not reaching those who need it most.
 Next, to my knowledge there has not been one commercially grown genetically
 modified organism, or transgenic crop, that out-yields all other varieties of
 that crop. What the transgenic crops have done so far is tie the farmer to
 specific chemicals and a specific company. For example, farmers in developing
 countries who use genetically engineered seeds that cannot reproduce - and so
 can't be saved and used for next year's crop - become tied to transnational
 companies such as Monsanto. As a result, farmers are tied to a technology that
 is controlled from another country and therefore subject to decisions outside
 their control.
 Let me give an example: Ethiopia just had a war with Eritrea that provoked a
 trade embargo. Suppose we had become dependent on some crop variety from the
 United States, Japan or Kenya. What if, during this political fracas, our
 trading partners had said, "No more seed?" Without local control, local
 availability of food can never be certain. In Africa there are many politically
 unstable countries. If every time there was a breakdown of law and order, the
 system of food production were to suffer, it could mean death to millions.
 The biotech industry is suggesting that food security will come through the
 farmer's loss of control of essential agricultural inputs. Do you see the lie?
 This is food insecurity. Ultimately, it is the people's voice that is going to
 make a difference. My people want to be free to use the alternatives that
 already exist: local, organic, biologically diverse, environmentally sound and
 sustainable agriculture that focuses on meeting the needs of local populations
 and is under local control.
 It can work as well in California as in Ethiopia if the U.S. government and
 biotech industry allow it to.
 Dr. Tewolde Egziabher is general manager of the Environmental Protection
 Authority of the government of Ethiopia and a board member of the San
 Francisco-based International Forum on Globalization. Web site: www.ifg.org
 LOAD-DATE: September 9, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2003 McClatchy Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 757
 
                           Sacramento Bee (California)
                              June 24, 2003 Tuesday
 News of a butterfly's demise greatly
 BYLINE: Dan Weintraub
 SECTION: EDITORIALS; Pg. B7
 LENGTH: 846 words
 The monarch butterfly is alive and well, flying proudly over Midwest cornfields.
 But that hasn't stopped the beautiful black and orange insect from becoming the
 poster child of the movement to stop the spread of genetically modified
 agriculture. Go anywhere near downtown Sacramento this week and you will see the
 butterfly's image hoisted high among the demonstrators gathered to protest
 outside a conference of farm ministers from governments across the globe.
 In a sense, the monarch is the perfect symbol for the protesters, an apt
 metaphor for their movement: Fears about its future were based on the misreading
 of a single, narrow study. Those fears were spread far and wide by people who
 had never read the science but who wanted to believe the worst. And when later,
 more exhaustive research proved them wrong, few noticed or cared. And so the
 myth persists.
 You may remember the details of the story. Perhaps you have only a vague sense
 that something about genetically modified farming is supposed to be bad for
 monarch butterflies. Chances are you never heard that the technology might
 actually be, on balance, good for the monarch.
 That's why a quick review of the story might be in order. The facts suggest that
 we ought to be as skeptical of the claims made by demonstrators as we are of
 those advanced by the government and industrial agriculture.
 The plight of the monarch first burst into the public conscience in 1999, when a
 pair of Cornell University researchers studied the effects in the lab of
 force-feeding pollen from a new kind of corn to the monarch caterpillar. The
 pollen came from corn plants in a line modified to produce a natural toxin
 deadly to the European corn borer, one of the most damaging pests of corn in
 North America.
 By way of background, the corn borer causes more than $1 billion in crop damage
 annually. It can also leave the plant vulnerable to highly toxic fungi which, if
 ingested by humans or animals, can cause the brain to liquefy. Farmers used to
 spray their fields with all kinds of chemicals to rid them of the corn borer.
 Now a protein that kills the worm but is harmless to humans is bred straight
 into the plant. This genetically engineered product is known as Bt-corn.
 Monarch caterpillars don't eat corn, but they love to munch on the milkweed that
 grows nearby and can be coated for brief periods by pollen dust drifting from
 the corn field. The Cornell study examined whether monarchs fed nothing but
 milkweed covered with this pollen suffered any damage. They did. But the authors
 cautioned readers not to draw any hasty conclusions.
 "We need to look at the big picture here," John Losey, one of the researchers,
 said at the time. "Pollen from Bt-corn could represent a serious risk to
 populations of monarchs and other butterflies, but we can't predict how serious
 the risk is until we have a lot more data. And we can't forget that Bt-corn and
 other transgenic crops have a huge potential for reducing pesticide use and
 increasing yields. This study is just the first step, we need to do more
 research and then objectively weigh the risks versus the benefits of this new
 technology."
 Right. Despite his warning, Losey's initial results were picked up by the media
 and exaggerated by opponents of genetic engineering to try to scare the public.
 Protesters dressed as monarchs became a staple of demonstrations against the
 technology. "Give Butterflies a Chance!" read a common banner.
 The furor prompted other researchers to try to replicate the Cornell results,
 both in the lab and, more importantly, in the field. But several studies
 completed since the original work and compiled by the National Academy of
 Sciences have concluded that Bt corn poses no danger to the monarch.
 The later studies placed the butterflies on milkweed that had been coated with
 pollen naturally - and thus contained far lower concentrations of the offending
 compound. The caterpillars in the field also were able to choose to eat the
 coated leaves or others nearby. The research generally concluded that the
 monarchs were all but unaffected by the stuff.
 And when you consider that Bt-corn replaces corn that must be sprayed with
 pesticides that can kill not only monarchs but also many other critters that are
 minding their own business among the cornstalks, it's likely that the
 butterflies are actually coming out ahead in the deal.
 This is not to say that we should welcome genetic engineering uncritically. Some
 data suggest that the dreaded corn borer is adapting to Bt-corn the same way
 bugs build immunity to chemical pesticides, only more quickly. If that's true,
 it could be a problem not only for mega-agriculture, but for organic farmers who
 use Bt more sparingly. This is a valid concern.
 But suggesting that the new technology isn't deadly enough doesn't have quite
 the same ring to it. It's not exactly the stuff of protest banners. Those
 monarchs are just so cute and innocent, their story is impossible to resist.
 Even if it's not true.
 l l l
 The Bee's Daniel Weintraub can be reached at (916) 321-1914 or at
 dweintraub@sacbee.com
 LOAD-DATE: September 9, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2003 McClatchy Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 758
 
                           Sacramento Bee (California)
                               June 22, 2003 Sunday
 Is genetically modified food a peril?;
 No: Reducing pesticide use
 BYLINE: Colin A. Carter Special To The Bee
 SECTION: FORUM; Pg. E1
 LENGTH: 1119 words
 The U.S. and the EU are not in the same camp when it comes to the future role of
 bioengineered crops in the world food system.
 The U.S. has rapidly adopted genetically modified (GM) crops and is in favor of
 making this cost-saving and environmentally friendly technology available to its
 own farmers and anyone else, including poor countries. Alternatively, the EU is
 doing its best to prevent further introduction of biotech crops in Europe or
 elsewhere.
 This major dispute is now being played out at the World Trade Organization
 (WTO). Last month, the U.S. filed a high-profile WTO case against the EU over
 its embargo - in place since 1998 - on the approval of any new genetically
 modified crops.
 Some observers believe the U.S. is simply trying to bully the EU into accepting
 GM crops so multinational seed companies can benefit. Others believe that the
 fight over transgenic crops gives environmental activists like Greenpeace and
 Friends of the Earth a cause, and they are holding the EU politicians captive on
 this one.
 But the U.S. is likely on the correct side of the WTO transgenic case, and it
 may win because this case is similar to the disagreement won by the U.S. in the
 late 1990s over the EU's ban on hormone-treated beef imports. Under the WTO's
 agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures, non-tariff barriers like the
 EU embargo on GM crops would have to be scientifically justified, which is not
 possible based on research to date.
 The EU position is indefensible and shows a total disregard for the plight of
 developing countries. Rich countries like France can afford to shun new
 agricultural technology, but poor countries like those in sub-Saharan Africa
 cannot. The EU's opposition to biotech crops is responsible for prolonging
 malnutrition and child deaths in the poorest regions of the world. For example,
 largely because of the EU's staunch opposition to transgenic crops, commercial
 release of the famous "golden rice" is on hold.
 This GM crop has the potential to reduce vitamin A deficiency in developing
 countries, alleviating malnutrition and blindness. But it does little for French
 consumers.
 Transgenic crops are produced using plant biotechnology to select desirable
 characteristics in plants and transfer genes from one organism to another. It is
 used to give plants resistance to chemicals, disease and weather-related stress.
 As a result, crops can survive under harsher conditions and yields are improved.
 Farmers and the environment are better off and consumers gain from lower prices.
 The benefits to developing countries are straightforward. They stand to gain due
 to reduced pesticide use, higher yields, lower production costs, increased farm
 profits and lower food prices. For instance, in China the use of agricultural
 pesticides has dropped sharply since the introduction of transgenic cotton a few
 years ago and farm incomes have improved.
 In the 1990s, the EU approved some GM varieties of corn, soybeans and rapeseed,
 but then suddenly halted the approval process in 1998. The EU has offered no
 scientific evidence in support of its prohibition on new GM crops. As a result,
 the U.S. maintains that the ban constitutes an illegal trade barrier under the
 WTO and that it restricts imports of U.S. corn in particular. The EU's response
 is that they are in the process of lifting the moratorium and therefore the WTO
 case is unnecessary.
 In fact, the case symbolizes a bigger issue because many developing countries
 are afraid to research and approve GM crops for fear of jeopardizing trade
 relations with the EU. Furthermore, even if the EU moratorium is lifted, the
 EU's GM labeling regulations will serve as a second line of defense against
 imports. In the official response to the WTO case, the EU said that the lack of
 consumer demand accounts for the low sales of GM products in the EU. This is
 nonsense because the EU's approach to mandatory labeling of GM food is not
 really giving consumers a choice - you cannot find GM food products on retail
 shelves in Europe.
 The U.S. first exported GM food to Europe in 1996. It was tomato puree from
 California, and it was voluntarily labeled as genetically engineered. The
 product was a big hit with consumers in Britain because it was cheaper than
 conventional tomato puree.
 However, when GM soybeans were imported into Europe later that year, there was a
 huge backlash from environmental groups, and the EU was then quick to introduce
 mandatory labeling for GM foods, which took hold in 1997. The U.S. government
 has correctly viewed the EU's mandatory labeling policy as a trade barrier.
 The World Health Organization and several national scientific academies in
 Europe and around the world have judged biotech foods as safe as conventional
 non-GM foods. If the U.S. wins, this WTO case may influence other countries to
 accept transgenic crops.
 At the same time, the WTO case could backfire for the U.S. and further
 jeopardize the EU market for U.S. farmers. Soybeans and corn, and their
 byproducts, are important U.S. agricultural exports to the EU, and GM varieties
 account for 70 percent of the U.S. soybean crop and 30 percent of the corn crop.
 The EU parliament does not pretend that GM food products pose a health risk.
 Instead, European politicians talk about environmental risk of GM crops despite
 the lack of scientific evidence of significant environmental risks. It is hard
 to argue against the EU's point of the importance of consumer choice, but in
 fact consumers in Europe do not really have a choice, as food processors and
 retailers have moved away from using GM ingredients in response to the stringent
 labeling laws in Europe.
 Given that GM crops are environmentally friendly, it is ironic that
 environmental groups are leading the anti-GM charge in Europe. Biotech crops
 reduce the use of chemicals and encourage zero-till farming, helping to conserve
 the soil. Nothing has done more for the natural environment in the U.S. than the
 introduction of GM cotton, corn and soybeans. The National Center for Food and
 Agricultural Policy estimated that in 2001, GM crops in the U.S. reduced
 pesticide use by 46 million pounds. European agriculture is one of the heaviest
 users of pesticides on the globe, and moving towards transgenic crops would cut
 this down.
 The EU ignored the WTO ruling against them in the hormone beef case and the U.S.
 retaliated with economic sanctions against the EU. If the U.S. wins this
 transgenic case and the EU tries to ignore the ruling, I hope developing
 countries like China, India and Brazil will step into the dispute as they have a
 huge stake in the outcome.
 Colin A. Carter (cacarter@ucdavis.edu) is an agricultural economics professor at
 the University of California, Davis.
 LOAD-DATE: September 9, 2008
 GRAPHIC: Los Angeles Times Syndicate / Johnson
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2003 McClatchy Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 759
 
                    Providence Journal-Bulletin (Rhode Island)
                      March 29, 2003, Saturday All Editions
 URI inks turf deal with biotech company
 BYLINE: MARION DAVIS Journal Staff Writer
 SECTION: News; Pg. A-03
 LENGTH: 862 words
 * The school proposes working with a business called HybriGene on research and
 development of genetically modified grasses.
 The University of Rhode Island has made a deal with HybriGene, a biotechnology
 firm developing genetically modified turf grasses, to share resources and
 collaborate on research in exchange for a share of the profits from any
 resulting products.
 The pact is a first for URI, and part of an effort to expand URI's role in
 economic development, said Jeffrey R. Seemann, dean of the College of
 Environmental and Life Sciences.
 "It's clearly going to be a model for future kinds of relationships with other
 companies," Seemann said.
 "These kinds of partnerships have been going on for well over a decade at other
 major public institutions," he said. "It is part of why in many places -- the
 Boston area, the Research Triangle in North Carolina, the Bay Area --
 universities are such fantastic business incubators."
 The HybriGene deal, Seemann told members of the Board of Governors for Higher
 Education this week, is "a critical next step for URI to be an important part of
 this industry. ... We hope this represents the beginning of our own
 mini-Research Triangle out of West Kingston."
 URI is home to the nation's oldest turf- research center, and the university
 generates substantial revenues from grass seeds developed there.
 HybriGene, which began as a small start-up, has grown rapidly since being
 purchased in 2000 by Bill Rose, a turf-seed magnate whose companies Turf-Seed
 Inc., Pure Seed Testing, and Roselawn Seed, develop, produce and sell grass
 worldwide.
 Rose is also president of Tee-2-Green Corp., which markets 70 percent of the
 creeping bentgrass -- the carpetlike grass used on golf courses -- sold
 worldwide.
 HybriGene has worked informally with URI for years, and it already uses labs,
 offices and greenhouses on the Kingston campus. Albert Kausch, HybriGene's
 research director, also teaches at URI and has helped develop biotechnology
 courses.
 HybriGene also sponsors an internship program that puts 10 to 15 undergraduates
 in the company's labs each semester -- "a great resume-builder," as Seemann put
 it.
 TO ENSURE that URI made the most of its HybriGene ties, Seemann sought to
 formalize the relationship. The negotiations took eight months, but both sides
 are "extraordinarily happy" with the result, he said.
 For starters, URI will get $121,000 worth of HybriGene stock, payable as stock
 or in cash -- URI's choice -- three years from now or earlier if, for some
 reason, the partnership is terminated. This compensates for any rent URI could
 otherwise charge for its labs and greenhouses.
 URI will also get 50 percent of any revenues from products resulting from URI
 and HybriGene scientists' collaboration, though the deal leaves room for each
 side to keep the profits from ideas they've already developed but may bring to
 the table as part of the joint effort.
 In exchange, HybriGene gets rent-free space, access to URI equipment, extra
 manpower, and students it can train to become future employees.
 It also gets the benefits of URI's position in the research world, Rose noted:
 "There's quite an edge for universities to obtain grants over private
 companies," he said.
 The state-sponsored Slater Center for Marine and Environmental Technology has
 also pitched in, giving HybriGene $85,000 and then another $100,000 to support
 its product development.
 HYBRIGENE is built around the controversial trend in agriculture to genetically
 modify crops so they are more productive, and so they can resist drought,
 disease, poor soil conditions, or even specific herbicides.
 One of the biggest problems with transgenic plants has been that as insects
 pollinate them, they transfer the engineered genes to other plants in the
 environment, with sometimes disastrous effects.
 Using a technology patented by the Purdue Research Foundation, HybriGene is
 working to produce transgenic crops that are environmentally safe because they
 are male and sterile, producing no pollen.
 Seemann said URI is "very sensitive" to the controversies surrounding
 genetically modified crops, but he also noted that already, more than 60 percent
 of the corn grown in the United States is transgenic.
 "We believe that it's a safe industry," he said. HybriGene in particular is
 doing it right, too, he noted, by ensuring its plants can't harm the
 environment.
 HybriGene's main focus is grass, but it is also working on rice. Rose predicted
 that within a month, the company may be ready to announce a breakthrough that
 could "double the yield of rice" produced today.
 And HybriGene's technologies are "applicable to all major crops," Rose said.
 Already, HybriGene has inked a deal with a "major corn company" -- he wouldn't
 say which -- to apply the concepts to corn.
 The URI-HybriGene deal was signed yesterday, although it still needs approval
 from the Board of Governors for Higher Education and from the state Properties
 Committee. The board's finance committee already OK'd the plan, however, and
 Seemann said he's confident that it will go through.
 "It really creates a win-win situation," he said.
 LOAD-DATE: April 1, 2003
                   Copyright 2003 Providence Publications, LLC









Document Number: 760
 
                                 University Wire
                            November 26, 2002, Tuesday
 Cornell U. engineers new rice strain
 BYLINE: By Philip Lane, Cornell Daily Sun
 SOURCE: Cornell U.
 LENGTH: 1166 words
 DATELINE: Ithaca, N.Y.
 Cornell University scientists announced today that they have developed a method
 to improve the resilience and yield of rice -- a crop that feeds over half of
 the world's population, according to a report in today's issue of the
 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
 By adding a single gene to the common rice plant, the researchers created a crop
 that has the potential to grow more quickly than other rice under normal
 conditions and is more tolerant of chilling temperatures, drought conditions and
 high water salinity.
 "The goal of this work was to make rice plants that were more tolerant of
 environmental stress," said Research Associate Ajay Garg, molecular biology and
 genetics, lead author of the study. "We tested drought stress, chilling, and
 salt stress and found a number of plants that show substantially increased
 tolerance."
 This research could generate new varieties of rice that can be grown in a wider
 range of temperatures and in brackish water. These varieties could also produce
 more grain per plant under the more hospitable conditions in which rice is now
 grown, Garg said.
 "This increases the area where rice can be grown. The plants will also tolerate
 water loss. They won't grow without water but they will resume growing once the
 water has returned," said Prof. Thomas Owens, plant biology.
 Of the world's 130 million hectares of land where rice is grown, about 30
 percent contain enough salt to either stunt rice yields or prevent cultivation
 altogether. Another 20 percent of this land is periodically subject to drought
 conditions that routinely affect food production.
 About 10 percent of locations where rice is grown occasionally experience
 temperatures that are too low for healthy plant development. The rice yield
 starts to diminish when the temperature is 15 degrees Celsius or below, but the
 transgenic plants produce normal yields at these temperatures.
 "In principle, this same technique can be used to transform other major cereal
 crops such as corn and wheat, also providing them with increased resistance to
 stress," said Project Leader Prof. Ray Wu, molecular biology and genetics.
 Rice, along with corn and wheat, accounts for 70 percent of the calories
 consumed by the human population. With experts projecting a doubling of the
 population over the next century, transgenic crops such as these could help
 agriculture keep up with demand.
 The genetically engineered plants produce a sugar called trehalose, which
 increases tolerance to adverse conditions. In invertebrates, bacteria and yeast,
 trehalose acts to preserve organisms in the absence of water.
 "Since trehalose protects so many organisms from environmental stress, the goal
 was to make more of it in rice," Owens said.
 Brine shrimp eggs, commercially marketed as fish food or as pet "sea monkeys,"
 can remain dried up for years in a state of suspended animation due to their
 trehalose content. The resurrection plant, found in desert environments, can
 also remain in a dry, suspended state due to the presence of this sugar.
 "We have designed the experiment so that the trehalose gene turns on when there
 is a stress. In the past, people have inserted the gene so that it is turned on
 all the time, which stunts the growth of the plants. Since the genes are only
 induced to turn on when there is a stress, the plants grow normally and become
 more stress tolerant," Wu said.
 The lab has experimented with six different genes, each of which provides some
 degree of stress tolerance. "What is special about the gene used in this case is
 that the degree of protection from stresses has been much higher than with the
 other genes that we have tested," Wu said.
 In addition to the expected increase in resilience due to the addition of the
 sugar, the researchers made a discovery they were not anticipating. The modified
 plants also exhibited higher levels of photosynthetic activity.
 "Humans have been breeding plants for 5,000 years. One goal has been to produce
 more yield by allocating more resources to producing fruit or grain. Another
 goal has been to increase photosynthesis, which has been difficult to achieve
 even with genetic engineering. Now it appears we have found one way to do so,"
 Owens said.
 A crop with an elevated photosynthetic rate grows faster and produces more
 seeds, for example more rice grains, per plant.
 "We accidentally stumbled on something we didn't expect," Owens said. "We've
 only uncovered the grossest characteristics of this. We don't really understand
 the mechanism."
 Owens hopes that further research will lead to a more thorough understanding of
 how the photosynthetic rate is increased.
 Meanwhile, other research interests are beginning to pay off as well.
 "We've done additional work with another gene that enhances rice yield," Garg
 said. Although results are preliminary, this research could provide scientists
 with additional insights as to how food production might be boosted.
 In the shorter term, crops more resilient to environmental conditions would be
 less susceptible to short-term drought and off years, thus stabilizing the food
 supply and commodity markets.
 "A limiting factor is acceptance of genetically modified crops as a food source.
 As we saw with golden rice, these things don't always make it to the people who
 they are intended to help," Owens said.
 Golden rice was developed in 1999 by scientists in Switzerland and Germany as a
 means of supplementing the diets of those in developing countries with
 beta-carotene, a precursor to vitamin A. Beta-carotene provides the rice with
 the "golden" tint from which its name is derived.
 According to the World Health Organization, millions around the world suffer
 from blindness and early death due to vitamin A deficiency, but the technology
 has not yet made it to the field.
 "I think golden rice was the first test system. Hopefully in a year or two, many
 of the legal considerations and other problems related to this will be resolved
 through the golden rice issue," Wu said.
 Environmentalist groups and others have opposed the plant due to its genetically
 engineered origin. However, as these issues are being resolved, golden rice may
 pave the way for other transgenic technologies.
 "Humans react to things in crisis mode, so if food is not a problem for the
 majority of people with money, then there's no rush to apply this technology,"
 Owens said.
 When the technology makes it to the field, a journey that is expected to take at
 least three years, it will be made available freely to farmers in developing
 countries, Wu said. Commercial farmers in rich countries will have to go through
 the normal channels and pay the appropriate licensing fees.
 "Our research is for humanity and global food security," Garg said.
 The six-year project was funded largely by the Rockefeller Foundation. The
 findings are published in today's issue of the Proceedings of the National
 Academy of Sciences.
 (C) 2002 Cornell Daily Sun via U-WIRE
 LOAD-DATE: November 26, 2002
                   Copyright 2002 Cornell Daily Sun via U-Wire









Document Number: 761
 
                                 Grand Forks Herald
                             November 11, 2002 Monday
 Committee makes gene-altered wheat recommendation;
 Interim legislative committee urges two more years of study
 BYLINE: By Mikkel Pates; Agweek Staff Writer
 LENGTH: 746 words
 FARGO, N.D. - An interim legislative agriculture committee in North Dakota has
 recommended that the 2003 Legislature create an expert board to take another two
 years to study the genetically modified wheat issue and possibly recommend
 legislation in 2005. That's the year Monsanto estimates it might launch
 commercial GM wheat varieties. Some grain marketing groups oppose the
 commercialization of GM wheat because many foreign buyers say they won't buy it.
 The 2001 Legislature stopped attempts to pass a moratorium on GM wheat
 commercialization and urged the interim committee to study it.
 Bills voted on
 Here are descriptions of two bills that were voted on for recommendation:
 -- Passed, 12 to 2 - A bill that requires the governor to appoint a "transgenic
 wheat board" to meet quarterly to study "scientific, legislative and regulatory
 efforts" that affect genetically modified wheat and determine whether the issue
 requires legislation. The group is charged with proposing appropriate state
 legislation for action by the Legislature in 2005.
 Under the recommended bill, the governor or his designee would serve as
 chairman. Also on the committee would be three wheat producers. (Two from
 submitted nominations from the North Dakota Farmers Union and the North Dakota
 Farm Bureau.)
 Others on the committee would represent the grain elevator industry, the grain
 transportation industry, three doctorate-holders in ag research, ag economics,
 ag law or a related field. The rest of the committee would be the state
 agriculture commissioner, state seed commissioner and the administrator of the
 North Dakota Wheat Commission.
 It written primarily by board member Rep. Phillip Mueller, D-Wimbledon, but the
 motion to pass it came from Rep. Eugene Nicholas, R-Cando, longtime chairman of
 the House Agriculture Committee.
 "It does keep the issue front-and-
 center and puts it in some other people's hands who aren't legislators," Mueller
 says. "It's a whole lot less than many people wanted. I did think it was the
 most that could get through this interim ag committee, and I think I'm right on
 that."
 Mueller describes the bill as "fairly weak-kneed," but notes the Legislature
 might add requirements for certification.
 -- Failed to recommend, 6 to 8 - A bill written by Sen. Bill Bowman, R-Bowman,
 that, among other things, would made Monsanto or other companies responsible for
 financial relief if farmers - an organic, nontransgenic wheat, or nontransgenic
 wheat seed - tests his or her crops and they are shown to be "contaminated" with
 1 percent or more of transgenic crops.
 Under its terms, the patent-holding company would not be responsible for damages
 if the contamination occurred as a result of actions out of the company's
 control, such as contaminated seed sources or insufficiently cleaned harvesting,
 transportation or storage equipment.
 The company would pay up the difference between the actual marketed price and a
 crop contaminated at the 1 percent or less level. If damages were awarded, the
 company would pay attorney's fees. If damages weren't awarded, the farmer would
 pay the company's attorney costs.
 Bowman's bill would have established an "agricultural biotechnology board" to
 report to the Legislative council.
 Dicey issueSen. Terry Wanzek, R-Jamestown, the chairman of the interim committee
 who served as chairman of the 2001 Senate Agriculture Committee, says he is
 pleased with the committee's result on the dicey GM issue.
 "Many would say they want more of an action plan, but the way I look at it, the
 ones best suited to deal with these issues are the ones in the industry - not
 the politicians," Wanzek says.
 Wanzek says the past two years have been "effective" in educating legislators
 about a multifaceted issue.
 "I think good faith people are coming forward from all sectors of our industry,"
 Wanzek says. "We'll work out compromises, tolerances - the real solutions - for
 developing a dual environment where both organic and new-technology farmers can
 exist."
 Wanzek says farmers who attended the interim committee meetings opposed Bowman's
 bill on grounds that it could cause "chaos and litigation" and might "chase out
 biotech companies." Wanzek says he thinks there will be further work on
 tolerance on liability issues.
 Mueller says the GM wheat matter is difficult, but he had hoped for more action
 from the committee. "I think it was less productive than I would have like to
 see it be," Mueller says.
 PERFORMANCE(73%);FARMERS & RANCHERS(73%);TENNIS(72%);SPORTS(72%); frm
 LOAD-DATE: November 11, 2002
                        Copyright 2002 Grand Forks Herald
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 762
 
                               The Washington Times
                    October 31, 2002, Thursday, Final Edition
 A new start for gene therapy?
 BYLINE: By Michael Fumento, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES
 SECTION: COMMENTARY; Pg. A21
 LENGTH: 930 words
 Just weeks ago, gene therapy celebrated one of its greatest successes, the
 almost-miraculous cure of a 2-year-old Dutch child afflicted with "bubble boy
 syndrome." His severe combined immunodeficiency [SCID] forced him to live
 hermetically sealed in plastic. But by removing stem cells from his marrow,
 genetically modifying them, and re-injecting them, researchers gave him a shiny
 new fully functional immune system.
 Now such SCID treatments in the United States have ground to a halt. Why?
 Similar therapy, which had cured a 3-year-old French boy, has given him a
 leukemia-like illness.
 Gene therapy has always been controversial, mostly because it got off to a
 promising start and then floundered for almost a decade. But it's now the
 "comeback kid" of biotech, and is involved in more than 600 clinical trials in
 20 different countries.
 Gene therapy shows promise not just against SCID but many hereditary disorders.
 About 5 percent of children worldwide are born with congenital or hereditary
 problems, and nearly 40 percent of adults are thought to have some genetic
 predisposition from minor ailments to killers like cancer and sickle cell
 anemia.
 Originally, the purpose of gene therapy was precisely what the "bubble boy"
 doctors did: Treat a disease caused by a single defective gene by substituting a
 good one for a bad one. Then scientists made a discovery that changed all that.
 They found that adding genes that caused the right proteins to be produced could
 potentially alleviate any number of disorders.
 Gene therapy is being applied to problems ranging from Parkinson's to heart
 disease to AIDS, although about two-thirds of the clinical trials are for
 cancer. A rodent study at Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia was
 spectacularly successful in actually preventing the animals from developing
 stomach cancer after they were heavily dosed with a powerful carcinogen.
 Further, the genes were delivered orally. Can anyone say: "Cancer prevention
 pill"?
 Looking further, the researchers found that among 26 different cancer cell lines
 - including tumors of the lung, head and neck, esophagus, stomach, cervix,
 pancreas and kidney - the new genes inhibited tumor cell growth in more than
 half of the experiments.
 The tragic case of the French toddler must be seen as a lesson, not the end of
 the road. And part of that lesson is that using viruses to insert and spread the
 corrective genes appears to have major limitations.
 All of the early gene therapy experiments took advantage of the infectious power
 of viruses, which by nature burrow into the nucleus of living creatures and set
 up house.
 Viruses comprise a small piece of DNA or RNA stuffed inside a protein envelope.
 Researchers render the virus theoretically harmless by deleting some or all of
 its genes. They then splice the therapeutic gene into the remaining genetic
 material and mix it with human cells. The altered virus, called a carrier or
 vector, can then deliver the therapeutic gene into the nucleus. Even the
 aforementioned rat pills contained viruses.
 But in the French child's case a retrovirus was used, and it's long been
 suspected that in exceptional cases these could cause cancer if they lodged in
 or near a cancer-causing gene. The one gene therapy-related death, that of Jesse
 Gelsinger in 1999, was an apparent reaction to proteins on a mere cold virus.
 Add to this that many genes are far too large to be inserted with a tiny virus.
 But scientists are working hard to come up with alternatives.
 Researchers at Friedrich Schiller University in Jena, Germany, are using
 infrared lasers to cut temporary holes in mammal cells and insert DNA. The
 genetic material was encoded so that it would glow green. This allowed the
 Germans to see that only the cells they aimed for were hit, that they were
 undamaged, and that they went on to grow and divide naturally.
 Using bacteria would be another way to avoid viruses and to insert genes far
 larger than a virus could handle. Virginia Waters of the University of
 California-San Diego in La Jolla has found that bacteria can "have sex" with
 mammalian cells. That may sound perverse, but it's really just good, clean
 science.
 The bacteria Ms. Waters used had been genetically engineered to contain pieces
 of DNA called plasmids. These readily transfer between two bacteria and are a
 vital tool in creating transgenic crops. But mammalian cells aren't known to
 accept bacterial DNA. Was this a matter of mean-spirited discrimination or
 perhaps just something that rarely occurred and had never been observed?
 To find out, Ms. Waters inserted a gene into one of the plasmids that would show
 up under a special light. She then laid the bacteria on top of a layer of
 mammalian cells, perhaps played some romantic music and turned the lights down
 low, and after eight hours used the light to determine that the desired
 hanky-panky had indeed occurred. This "bacterial conjugation," as she described
 it, could conceivably deliver even the largest genes to a variety of sites in
 humans.
 Just as it would have been wrong to blast the space program as unethical because
 brave astronauts were killed and hurt, so too with gene therapy. Yet this is not
 about beating the Russians to a cold rock, but rather treating and curing an
 as-yet unknown but vast array of crippling and killing diseases. Let's take a
 deep breath, try to figure out what went wrong, and plow ahead.
 We owe it to the bubble boys, and to ourselves.
 Michael Fumento is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.
 LOAD-DATE: October 31, 2002
                     Copyright 2002 The Washington Times LLC
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 763
 
                         Contra Costa Times (California)
                              October 4, 2002 Friday
 It's too late: The biotech gene is out of the bottle;
 SECTION: TO; Pg. 3
 LENGTH: 605 words
 I have an appointment with Dr. Korn this afternoon. My tummy hurts.
 I mention my doc's name because I just watched an advanced copy of "NOW with
 Bill Moyers: Seeds of Conflict." It airs at 10 tonight on Channel 9.
 The show is about genetically modified corn. Korn, you might call it.
 You and I have been eating lots of it. Some 70 percent of the processed foods on
 grocery shelves today contain biotech foodstuffs, mostly in the form of corn.
 Start a conversation on biotech corn and you will end up talking about a whole
 web of issues.
 I know because last week I attended a seminar on food and the environment at the
 UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.
 After four days of panels and presentations by scientists, environmentalists and
 food-industry officials, I walked away with this: Technology can work wonders,
 but once the genie -- or gene, in this case -- is out of the bottle, it's hard,
 often impossible, to get it back in.
 As "Seeds of Change" states: "... even genetic engineers who believe in the
 promise of transgenic crops think the unknowns unleashed by this technology call
 for research, caution and oversight."
 Think of the wonders of nuclear energy and the problems of nuclear waste.
 It makes my tummy hurt, which is why I'm seeing Dr. Korn (yes, he is a real
 doctor).
 There are lots and lots of smart people looking into the costs and benefits of
 biotechnology. Dr. Ignacio Chapela, a professor of environmental science, policy
 and management at UC Berkeley, is featured in the Moyers documentary and was at
 the seminar.
 I already knew that scientists were working such miracles as putting fish genes
 into tomatoes. I had just contributed to an article in the Times about the first
 genetically modified animal designed for human consumption: a salmon that grows
 twice as fast as a typical farm-raised fish.
 But Chapela, in a clear, compelling and scientific presentation, helped me grasp
 the newness and significance of biotech. Crops, such as corn, have been selected
 and bred for particular traits (the same is true for dogs; look at all the
 varieties) for a long time, but only now have we been able to create new traits.
 And all the ramifications of this are still a question mark.
 It was refreshing to witness Chapela's blend of passion and logic. It's a
 combination that's necessary for the future of the world's food supply. We are
 human beings. We are scientists. Where shall the two meet? And what shall we
 eat?
 "How can we assure that our grandchildren will have a stable and reliable food
 source?" Chapela asks in the PBS documentary.
 It's time to answer some big questions. Are we OK that beef cattle finish their
 short lives fattened on genetically modified corn? Are cattle merely a
 protein-delivery system for the American public?
 Michael Pollan, who followed a calf from birth to slaughter and wrote about it
 for the New York Times (he's also the author of "The Botany of Desire" -- a
 plant-eye's view of the world), was also at the seminar.
 "The logic of the marketplace is fundamentally different from the logic of
 nature," Pollan said to a packed-house crowd at one seminar event. What this
 means is that industry's objectives don't always fit with nature's destiny.
 Nature will win in the end. It always does. Tonight's PBS documentary -- well
 worth watching -- does an admirable job in presenting sides from both industry
 and nature. I came away feeling, however, that we can never truly tame nature.
 I think my stomach is growling for a reason.
 Nicholas Boer is the Times food editor. You can reach him at 925-943-8254 or
 nboer@cctimes.com.
 LOAD-DATE: October 4, 2002
 TYPE: news
                        Copyright 2002 Contra Costa Times
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 764
 
                              LA Weekly (California)
                             October 4, 2002, Friday
 SECTION: Columns; Pg. 26
 LENGTH: 1366 words
 Every now and then science throws us a curve ball, a technology at once
 staggeringly useful and breathtakingly dangerous. The most obvious case, of
 course, is nuclear power. Down on the farm another revolution is brewing, with
 proponents promising a radical new way to deliver drugs that could in theory
 solve some of the world's most pressing medical problems. The potential price --
 as always -- is environmental disaster.
 An outgrowth of genetic engineering, the technique has been branded "pharming."
 Rather than manipulating plants to make a firmer tomato or a sweeter peach,
 "pharmers" insert genes that instruct a plant to manufacture pharmaceutical
 compounds. In the future they envisage, flu shots will be replaced by bananas.
 Prozac, anyone? Try this corn puff. Pharmers dream that all drugs will
 ultimately be delivered in snacks.
 First out of the pipeline will be vaccines. In August, industry leader ProdiGene
 began Phase I clinical trials for a vaccine against traveler's diarrhea.
 Resulting from a dismal species of E. coli, the condition is also a prime cause
 of infant mortality in many poorer nations. Instead of pursuing the regular path
 of cell-culturing and purification, Texas-based ProdiGene hopes to deliver a
 vaccine in a simple kernel of corn.
 To understand what is at stake here, consider the case of hepatitis B.
 Worldwide, that virus kills more than 900,000 people a year, many of them in
 China, where the disease is at almost epidemic levels. A dose of hep-B vaccine
 costs around 50 cents, yet even that -- in quantity -- is beyond the budgets of
 many developing countries. Besides the cost of the drug itself, vaccination is
 hampered by the additional expense of needles and by lack of refrigeration.
 Vaccines produced the traditional way cost thousands of dollars a gram, but corn
 can be grown for 5 cents a pound. Hoping to tap into the huge hepatitis market,
 ProdiGene is currently conducting field trials on a strain of transgenic corn
 that has been spliced with hep-B antigens.
 ProdiGene even has its eye on AIDS. Two years ago the company received a
 $300,000 grant from the National Institutes of Health to research the
 possibility of a plant-based vaccine against the HIV virus. As a test of the
 concept, company scientists are beginning with the primate version, simian
 immunodeficiency virus, by splicing into corn the SIV genes responsible for
 producing a protein called GT120, which is known to trigger antibodies against
 the deadly invader. The NIH itself will conduct the clinical trials, and if all
 goes well it will move on from there to a human version.
 In theory, just about any drug could be engineered in a kernel of corn or a
 grain of rice. Earlier this year ProdiGene announced it was scaling up
 transgenic production of aprotinin, a protease inhibitor used in cardiac
 surgery. Traditionally extracted from bovine lungs, aprotinin reduces the need
 for blood transfusions in patients undergoing bypass surgery. Once the initial
 splicing is done, such transgenic crops can be grown anywhere, from Nebraska to
 Nigeria.
 Pharmers are also looking to actual farms.  Every year millions of animals have
 to be vaccinated at enormous expense to their owners and considerable stress to
 the creatures. Transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV), for example, is a
 highly contagious disease that kills infant pigs. Clinical trials by ProdiGene
 have shown that in principle plant-based vaccines can be effective against this
 pathogen. As with many biotech products, the development of transgenic vaccines
 will be driven initially by the demands of animal husbandry.
 To protect our health, we have fluoride in our water and iodine in our salt; why
 not deliver codeine in corn flakes, Wellbutrin in Ho Ho's? The problem, says
 Norman Ellstrand, a plant geneticist at UC Riverside, is that transgenic crops
 are incredibly difficult to isolate. Scientists now know that genes are
 routinely passed among plant species, and "gene flow" from genetically
 manufactured (GM) organisms to wild varieties has been documented all over the
 world. That's bad enough when a gene involved conveys herbicide resistance, but
 when you're talking about genes for proteins and hormones, the potential for
 disaster is enormous -- both for human health and the environment. "We need to
 be assured of zero tolerance," Ellstrand says, but that's almost impossible to
 guarantee.
 Genes aren't the only things that are hard to contain. Remember the Starlink
 debacle, when GM maize intended for animal feed found its way into taco shells?
 Imagine if the modified grain had contained a drug -- any drug. With vast
 amounts of grain being shipped around the world, Ellstrand believes it won't be
 possible to prevent such mix-ups. Sooner or later, innocent folk chowing down on
 corn chips or sesame buns are going to find their bloodstreams coursing with
 aprotinin or swine vaccine or God knows what else. According to Jane Rissler of
 the Union of Concerned Scientists, "The food industry is apoplectic about the
 possibility of this stuff getting into the food supply." Rissler and Ellstrand
 argue that pharming should be strictly limited to nonfood crops -- to, say,
 tobacco or castor beans.
 In the developed world, where drugs can be delivered in so many other ways, it
 seems hard to justify the risk of pharming -- as with nuclear power, we really
 do have alternatives. But in the developing world, millions of people die each
 year from preventable diseases for lack of very basic drugs. That at least is
 the argument pushed by the biotech industry. Yet just as people are challenging
 the GM solution to Africa's food crisis, so, Rissler says, the Third World's
 health problems are not going to be solved by cutting-edge technology.
 The idea of helping the Third World with transgenic vaccines is little more than
 "a ruse," Rissler believes. "It's selling biotechnology on the back of the
 poor," by attempting to make it palatable to well-off folks like us. Rissler
 points out that to be medically effective drugs have to be delivered in the
 right dose. How would people know how much they were supposed to eat? A whole
 banana, half a banana? Who's to say? More critical, how could you be sure that
 people wouldn't overdose? How would you even know you were eating the right
 variety? After all, a genetically modified banana looks the same as a regular
 one. Rissler is skeptical of the medical miracle promised by companies like
 ProdiGene and suspects that a lot of the blue-sky ideas being bandied about will
 "never see the light of day as commercial products."
 Behind the hype about cheap drugs, Rissler and Ellstrand note that the pharming
 industry is quietly pursuing a much bigger goal -- engineering into plants genes
 that encode for all manner of industrially useful compounds, from enzymes to
 solvents. Since these don't qualify as drugs, they are not regulated by the
 Federal Drug Administration, and very little information is publicly available
 about what is going on here. Earlier this year the U.S. Department of
 Agriculture updated its guidelines for industrial pharming, but many scientists
 believe these are grossly inadequate.
 USDA spokesman Jim Rogers acknowledges that "Nobody's going to know all the
 possible risks. But, he says, "We mitigate these risks to what we feel is
 appropriate." In the department's view, "There are adequate safety provisions in
 place." Not according to Rissler, who opines that "The USDA's oversight is way
 too lax." Given the enormous potential dangers, Rissler insists there ought to
 be external scientific oversight as well. What most appalls Ellstrand, who sat
 on a National Academy of Sciences committee that reviewed the regulations for GM
 crops, is that companies do not have to disclose what genes they are adding, or
 even what organisms the genes derive from -- that's "confidential business
 information."
 Quietly and stealthily, our fields are being turned into industrial factories.
 This is potentially the most dangerous technology since nuclear power, yet we
 have no way of finding out what is being done. It's yet another way in which for
 the present administration, Business comes first.
 LOAD-DATE: October 11, 2002
 GRAPHIC:Credit: allison taylor
 Illustration: We have fluoride in our water and iodine in our salt; why not
 deliver codeine in corn flakes, Wellbutrin in Ho Ho's?
                      Copyright 2002 Stern Publishing, Inc.









Document Number: 765
 
                          Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
                   September 28, 2002, Saturday, Metro Edition
 Frankenfish;
 The trouble with engineered salmon
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 28A
 LENGTH: 650 words
 Last week's pledge by 200 chic chefs and grocers to boycott genetically
 engineered salmon was chiefly a publicity stunt. These folks may serve or sell a
 lot of fillets, but nowhere near enough to influence the market for
 mass-produced salmon _ a market not yet open to transgenic fish.
 Still, their statement spotlighted yet another biotechnology initiative
 that has managed, for too long, to evade the intense public debate it deserves.
 Wild salmon stocks are in trouble nearly everywhere, primarily because of
 overfishing and environmental degradation. Yet restaurants and supermarkets
 throughout the developed world have plenty of salmon steaks and fillets _
 cheaper than ever, and never out of season. In the United State alone,
 consumption has been rising 20 percent per year.
 This is the blessing of aquaculture, or fish farming, but it's a mixed one.
 Farmed fillets can't compare with those of wild fish for flavor, texture or even
 color _ if the growers didn't mix dye into the feed, the flesh would be gray
 instead of reddish-orange. But salmon is hardly the only food sector where
 quantity has come to trump quality. Besides, the gourmet-minded can pay a
 premium for wild fish if they wish.
 The bigger problems are environmental. Aquaculture operations are often
 heavy polluters, fouling waters with concentrations of feed and fish poop. They
 promote a special kind of overfishing, the indiscriminate, high-volume netting
 of marine creatures to be ground up for fish chow. And when the farm fish escape
 their pens, as they often do, they can out-compete their natural counterparts
 for food and mates.
 Transgenic salmon pose an additional and much more dangerous problem.
 Consider the first fish in line for government approval, developed by Aqua
 Bounty Farms of Massachusetts.
 Aqua Bounty's achievement is an Atlantic salmon fitted with a growth gene
 from Chinook salmon and an "antifreeze" gene from the eel-like, bottom-dwelling
 ocean pout. By accelerating growth rates, and extending the growing season
 beyond warm-weather months, the company hopes to produce a fish that bulks up at
 two to four times the normal pace.
 If these fish escape, as they surely will, they could transfer their extra
 genes to natural populations _ a nightmare prospect. Wild Atlantic salmon have
 declined to the point where they are nearly extinct. Gene transfer could bring
 the process to quick completion.
 These concerns are not merely theoretical. The National Research Council,
 in a recent report that was generally favorable to genetically engineered foods,
 ranked gene transfer from engineered fish and other animals as an especially
 serious threat, and one that continues to confound government regulators.
 Aqua Bounty insists that such fears are overblown, because all of its fish
 would be sterilized females. But experts doubt the company's ability to
 guarantee 100 percent sterility. Without such guarantees, these salmon should be
 confined to the lab.
 The salmon cannot be produced commercially without approval from the U.S.
 Food and Drug Administration, which is ill-equipped to make the decision on its
 own but promises to seek advice from agencies that regulate other aspects of
 genetic engineering. As the National Research Council points out, this
 illustrates anew the nation's fragmented and incoherent approach to assuring the
 safety of gene-manipulation technologies and their results, and to balancing the
 risks they pose against the benefits they offer.
 On that point, it's worth noting that transgenic salmon do not promise the
 potential benefits associated with transgenic crops _ lowered pesticide use, for
 example, or drought resistance or enhanced nutritional value. The only gain from
 putting pout genes into salmon is a faster yield of cheap, gray fillets, which
 are already in plentiful supply.
 SUBJECT: food; technology; editorial FISHES(91%);FINFISH FARMING(90%);
 LOAD-DATE: September 29, 2002
                           Copyright 2002 Star Tribune









Document Number: 766
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                   July 23, 2002 Tuesday Five Star Lift Edition
 BYLINE: Julia A. Moore
 SECTION: EDITORIAL ; Commentary Column; Pg. B7
 LENGTH: 679 words
 Ever play Chinese checkers? Each player races through moves and jumps to
 transfer a set of marbles from a home point to the opposite end of a pitted
 6-pointed star game board. Watching biotechnology develop in China is a lot like
 seeing a game of Chinese checkers.
 On the home front, China is rushing to be the world's biotech superpower. It is
 developing more biotechnology products than any country outside North America,
 including genetically modified food crops like rice, wheat, potatoes and
 peanuts. A survey by a team from the University of California found that Chinese
 research centers report developing 141 genetically modified plants.
 At the opposite side of the game board, China is threatening to disrupt $1
 billion in genetically modified U.S. soybean shipments into China because its
 officials claim they are worried about safety. Last year, China announced a
 fuzzy safety certification process. China also recently prohibited all foreign
 investment in its potentially lucrative biotech sector.
 When U.S. Agricultural Secretary Ann Veneman visits China later this month,
 China's confusing labeling laws on genetically modified foods will be at the top
 of her agenda. China is eager to use biotech for crops like cotton to cut
 domestic production costs and to reduce farm worker pesticide exposures. And in
 a country where one-fifth of the globe's people live on only 7 percent of the
 world's arable land, China is investing heavily -- over $100 million annually --
 in plant biotechnology, particularly in grain crops to help feed its burgeoning
 population.
 But China is also placing ambiguous safety restrictions on more than 5 million
 tons of U.S. soybean imports to protect its domestic producers while appearing
 to abide by World Trade Organization rules. In the process, China is exploiting
 environmental and health fears raised in Europe over agricultural biotechnology.
 Over the long-run, this could cost China dearly.
 Governments, industry and people around the world are asking if the costs of
 this technology and public fears about its use outweigh biotechnology's promised
 benefits of boosting global crop yields dramatically, helping to feed the
 world's hungry and reducing environmentally harmful pesticide applications. In
 the year 2000, worldwide plantings of transgenic crops -- mostly cotton, corn
 and soybeans -- exceeded 100 million acres. This marks a 25-fold increase since
 they were introduced in 1996. But 99 percent of these crops are grown in just
 four countries: the United States, Canada, Argentina and China.
 Europe has had a de facto moratorium on new GM product approvals for four years
 and is finalizing new GM food labeling and "farm-to-fork" traceability measures
 that threaten American exports. U.S. trade representative Robert Zoellick keeps
 warning that America will file a WTO suit that could ignite a trade war over
 this issue, jeopardizing over $16 billion in U.S.-European Union agricultural
 trade.
 The U.S. position is that GM food is safe. As evidence, Zoellick cites a report
 on 15 years of EU-sponsored research costing more than $60 million that shows
 that biotech food and crops appear to pose no greater health or environmental
 risks than conventional ones. Many leading developing countries -- like Brazil
 and Kenya -- have not yet approved the commercial planting of GM crops. Some
 because they feel they lack the regulatory infrastructure, and others because
 they are afraid of having their products shut out of the profitable European
 market.
 China, with its strong commitment to biotechnology, has a lot at stake in this
 contentious debate. If it maintains its ambiguous biotech policies, China could
 find its efforts to develop and eventually export biotechnology products
 severely limited. Its current actions encourage efforts to put in place new
 measures more restrictive of biotechnology than the international regimes China
 is now so adroitly exploiting.
 At the end of this biotech checker game, China could find itself unable to use
 or move its marbles.
 LOAD-DATE: July 24, 2002
 LANGUAGE: English
 NOTES: COMMENTARY; Julia A. Moore is a public policy scholar at the Woodrow
 Wilson International Center for Scholars, Smithsonian Institution, Washington.;
 GRAPHIC: Photo; Photo - (Flag of China)
                   Copyright 2002 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 767
 
                         The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
                        May 19, 2002 Sunday, Home Edition
 Eating altered genes;
 Designer crops already abundant on grocery shelves
 SECTION: News; Pg. 1A
 LENGTH: 2240 words
 It is an ordinary supermarket with ordinary food --- a shopper's bounty of
 cereals, canned foods and condiments. But Andrew Stocklinski --- Ph.D. in
 pharmaceutical chemistry, former professor at the University of Georgia, former
 researcher for a major drug company and a self-made organic farmer --- is no
 ordinary shopper.
 He's patrolling the front lines of a looming battle over what America eats.
 Stocklinski, a Watkinsville resident, shakes his head sadly as he pulls items
 off the shelf of the chain supermarket where he often shops so he can study the
 fine print of package labels. There are strawberry preserves with corn starch,
 potato chips with cottonseed oil and baby formula with soy protein. Over in the
 freezer case, there's a seafood sandwich spread with soybean oil and hamburger
 patties with textured soy.
 His eyes rove the labels on double fudge brownies, dill pickles, peanut butter,
 a bag of bagels and berry punch. They all contain ingredients derived from corn,
 soybeans, cotton or canola. And Stocklinski said that means any of them could
 contain traces of genetically modified material.
 "Genetic engineering" may conjure images of exotic cures for cancer, man-made
 strains of anthrax and human cloning. But the most widespread use of genetic
 engineering is as familiar as the farm --- and as close as the supermarket.
 Since the first commercial modified crops were introduced six years ago,
 plantings have soared. This year, GM crops, as they are known in the food
 industry, will be growing on more than one out of every four acres of U.S.
 cropland. Come fall, farmers will harvest 90 million acres of transgenic cotton,
 corn, soybeans and other crops.
 How much of it gets to the supermarket, and in what form, is a more elusive
 statistic.
 "All you can say is that a lot of these processed foods are suspect," said
 Stocklinski, gesturing with a box of corn dogs. "There is no way any shopper can
 tell for certain whether genetically modified material is present in any of
 these products. There's nothing on the label to tell you, so all we can do is
 make an educated guess."
 Consumer groups estimate that 50 percent to 70 percent of all processed foods
 sold in America contain traces of genetically modified material.
 The calculation is admittedly a crude one. This year, 74 percent of the U.S.
 soybean crop will be genetically modified. So will 71 percent of cotton, 32
 percent of corn and 61 percent of canola. Those crops are ingredients in the
 starches, sweeteners, syrups and oils found in thousands of processed foods.
 But genetic engineering plays a role in other foods, too. About half the papayas
 from Hawaii are engineered to resist a papaya virus. Most hard cheeses are
 manufactured with a genetically modified yeast that takes the place of enzymes
 from calves' stomachs. Most milk sold in the United States is produced with the
 help of a genetically modified growth hormone, which is injected into lactating
 cows to boost milk production.
 Health risks unknown
 When it comes to the health effects of genetically modified foods, the jury is
 still out. Evidence is sketchy. Suspicions, especially among food safety groups,
 are abundant.
 Experts say modified foods are too new for long-term health effects to have
 appeared in people who eat them. The American Medical Association acknowledges
 that foreign genes introduced into foods are a potential source of exotic
 allergens, antibiotic resistance or other, unknown effects on human health. But
 so far, the AMA said, there has been "no overt adverse effects on human health."
 As the use of genetically modified crops has soared, however, many countries ---
 including China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and members of the European Union --- have
 insisted that, in the absence of definitive knowledge, consumers should at least
 be able to decide what they eat. Dozens of countries now require that any foods
 with significant levels of modified material must say so on the package.
 The United States does not --- even though U.S. grown crops constitute 80
 percent of the world's transgenic crops. As American farmers have rushed to
 embrace such crops, the battle over what America will eat is shifting from the
 fields to supermarkets and corporate boardrooms.
 Several recent opinion polls show most Americans know little --- and on many
 issues appear to be evenly divided over the benefits and risks of genetically
 engineered food. But the polls clearly show 75 percent or more of U.S. consumers
 want more information about those foods --- and want it on the food they buy.
 They aren't likely to get it any time soon. The Food and Drug Administration has
 decided not to require labeling of currently available modified foods on the
 grounds they are "substantially equivalent" to conventional foods.
 Food manufacturers adamantly oppose mandatory labeling. "Such requirements could
 impose substantial costs on consumers without any added benefit," said Gene
 Grabowski, vice president of Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents
 most of the major food and beverage companies in the country.
 Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson, whose department includes
 the FDA, is more blunt. He said labels "would only frighten consumers and play
 into the hands of those who exploit fear."
 The FDA's response has been to roll out a voluntary labeling policy that allows
 manufacturers to address the modified content of their food on the package if
 they want to.
 Most major grocery chains have organic food sections where items certified as
 organic are supposed to be free of genetically modified ingredients. Health food
 stores and a few grocery chains --- such as Texas-based Whole Foods Market ---
 have taken pains to assure they sell food that is free of transgenic
 ingredients.
 Most foods in most stores, however, make no mention of the matter.
 "The current system does not provide consumers with the information they
 desire," said Gregory Jaffe of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
 "Manufacturers fear, with good reason, that they will lose customers if a label
 declares the presence of a genetically engineered ingredient." The result, he
 said, will be "a few products labeling that they do not contain such ingredients
 and virtually no products stating that they do."
 In fact, some organic food companies touting products as "GM free" or "not
 genetically modified" have received stern warnings from the FDA that the claims
 are misleading. "Free," the FDA said, is virtually impossible to verify. And the
 agency said "genetically modified" is a term that applies to conventional plant
 breeding, too.
 Many organic food suppliers take great care to assure their products do not
 contain modified ingredients and say so on their packaging. The FDA, however,
 wants them to use what it says are more accurate descriptions such as "We do not
 use ingredients produced using biotechnology" and "not genetically engineered."
 Stores take vows
 There's more to the controversy than splitting hairs over semantics.
 Supermarkets are increasingly the targets of environmental groups that oppose
 genetically modified foods. Pressured by Greenpeace and its customers, Trader
 Joe's, a California-based chain with 200 grocery stores in 15 states, last year
 agreed to gradually remove all modified foods from its shelves. The company told
 its suppliers it would buy their products only if they are free of such
 ingredients.
 Buoyed by that victory, Greenpeace this year is waging a similar campaign
 against Safeway, the nation's third-largest supermarket chain. "Safeway has a
 close relationship with its suppliers," said Greenpeace spokeswoman Kimberly
 Wilson. "If they tell them they won't accept GM foods, the suppliers, and the
 food companies themselves, will respond. They can do it if they want to."
 So far, Safeway isn't buying the idea. Spokesman Brian Dowling said the grocer
 relies on the federal government to set food safety standards. "We, the food
 industry collectively, find no reason to alter product selection," he said.
 But in an industry where a medium-size food manufacturer may have more than
 1,000 suppliers and over 8,000 ingredients flowing though processing plants
 making everything from potato chips to baby formula, that is no easy task.
 To a limited extent, however, the food industry already uses "identity
 preservation" of ingredients, for kosher and organic foods. And although
 segregating millions of tons of corn, soybeans and other crops would be a huge
 task, international trade already is forcing the industry to track modified
 crops and products --- or suffer the consequences
 China, which imports $1 billion worth of U.S. soybeans a year, halted imports of
 soybeans for three months this year because the beans didn't meet its new
 standards for labeling. With differences now ironed out, trade has resumed, but
 the impasse underscores the need to identify modified products properly. Brazil
 has been making inroads into U.S. soy exports to Europe because it doesn't allow
 modified crops.
 Failures to segregate such foods can be costly. When Japanese inspectors found
 unapproved modified ingredients in a package of potato snacks, dozens of
 companies had to recall their products. And when unauthorized modified
 ingredients from the Starlink corn, engineered to produce a pesticidal protein,
 were found in tortillas and other corn products in the United States, more than
 300 products were recalled nationwide.
 The Monsanto Co., which controls the technology used in producing most modified
 commercial crops, said this spring that traces of unapproved modified canola ---
 a variety that never had been intended for commercialization --- had somehow
 slipped into the market. The Center for Food Safety, a Washington public policy
 group, responded by asking the U.S. Department of Agriculture to take criminal
 action against the company for "genetic pollution of our food supply."
 Food experts split
 Some segments of the food industry are trying to stop any controversy before it
 occurs. McDonald's has warned potato growers that it won't buy modified spuds
 for its french fries. Starbucks has vowed not to buy modified coffees or teas if
 they ever are developed commercially. Hershey Foods has told sugar beet growers
 to forget about trying to sell the candy company any sugar made from modified
 beets.
 "It isn't because we have a safety problem," said Hershey Foods spokesman John
 Long. "We wanted to delay this until the issue related to public perception of
 GM crops has been fully resolved."
 The debate, however, seems certain to intensify. Monsanto has developed
 genetically modified wheat that it had planned to start selling next year. The
 company said the new wheat, engineered to resist the herbicide Roundup, would
 increase farmers' yield.
 Wheat, however, is one of the world's oldest crops and --- in many parts of the
 world, people tend to hold "the staff of life" in higher regard than cornmeal
 and soy protein. As word of the new wheat spread, buyers from Egypt to Japan
 have warned U.S. exporters their customers don't want it and won't buy it.
 Two-thirds of Canada's export markets have said they don't want it.
 Ripples of that reaction have spread rapidly up the food chain. Half of all U.S.
 wheat is exported, and the prospect of roiling a $3.5 billion market has been
 sending shivers of concern through America's amber waves of grain.
 U.S. Wheat Associates, which promotes wheat exports abroad, said that without
 worldwide acceptance of the technology, genetically modified wheat would hurt
 U.S. wheat exports more than it helps them. The North Dakota Wheat Commission
 has said it isn't ready for modified wheat.
 In the face of such sentiment, for acceptance, Monsanto has delayed introduction
 of the new wheat until at least 2005. The company said more time is needed to
 test the new wheat strains and to build up seed stocks. Judging by the gathering
 storm, it may also need time to sell the new wheat --- at home and abroad.
 Disagreements over the impact of modified crops on human health, the environment
 and international trade already divide public policymakers --- as well as the
 experts who advise them.
 Earlier this year, more than 3,000 scientists, including Nobel peace laureate
 Norman Borlaug, the father of the "green revolution," which brought
 self-sufficiency in food to such countries as India, endorsed genetic
 engineering as a "powerful and safe means" to help feed the world's growing
 population. In all, 19 Nobel Prize winners signed the declaration.
 But it is an issue on which not even Nobel winners can agree. George Wald,
 Harvard biologist and Nobel laureate in medicine, calls genetic manipulation the
 largest ethical problem science has faced. "Our morality up to now has been to
 go ahead without restriction to learn all we can about nature," he said.
 "Restructuring nature was not part of that bargain."
 Despite tacit acceptance of "invisible" modified ingredients such as soy
 protein, corn starch and canola oil in processed foods, consumers have yet to
 play much of a role in the controversy. But that could change as gene engineers
 turn their attention to more dramatic fare --- genetically modified salmon,
 bananas with built-in vaccines, corn that produces industrial chemicals,
 nicotine-free tobacco and cows that give silk instead of milk.
 SUBJECT: agriculture, food, science, technology GENETIC ENGINEERING(91%);
 LOAD-DATE: May 19, 2002
 GRAPHIC: Photo:
 54% have heard nothing or very little.
 58% oppose modified ingredients in the food supply.
 75% want to know whether their food has such ingredients.
 Source: Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology.
 W.A. BRIDGES JR. / Staff Photo:
 "A lot of these processed foods are suspect," said organic farmer Andrew
 Stocklinski of Watkinsville, a former University of Georgia professor who
 opposes genetic changes. / MIKE TONER / Staff Photo:
 Tall cotton: Altered crops that kill bugs and resist weedkillers are in the
 ground all over America, including hundreds of thousands of acres in Georgia.
 These seeds of change don't sit well with everybody, though. Why some have
 embraced modified foods, and others are fighting them with terror tactics.
 Graphic:
 Americans have limited knowledge of modified foods, but a strong majority would
 at least have those foods labeled, even though the Food and Drug Administration
 doesn't require it.
 44 percent have heard some or a great deal about such foods.
 54 percent have heard nothing or very little.
 2 percent don't know.
 62 percent say they have not eaten modified foods.
 19 percent say they have.
 19 percent don't know.
 58 percent oppose the introduction of modified foods into the food supply.
 26 percent favor their introduction.
 16 percent are undecided.
 65 percent favor continued research on such foods.
 26 percent oppose it.
 9 percent don't know.
 75 percent want to know whether their food has been genetically altered.
 21 percent say it's not important.
 4 percent don't know.
 Source: March 2001 poll of 1,001 Americans, conducted by the Mellman Group and
 Public Opinion Strategies for the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology.
 TYPE: Special Report
                 Copyright 2002 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution









Document Number: 768
 
                               The Washington Times
                       May 13, 2002, Monday, Final Edition
 Gene-splicing tricks doom crops
 SECTION: LETTERS; Pg. A20
 LENGTH: 335 words
 Commentary columnist Michael Fumento easily dismisses the weaker arguments
 against genetically modified crops ("Beating the 'Frankenfood' rap," May 9).
 However, he does not mention the stronger case against transgenics.
 When pesticides were introduced, they were successful. Soon, however, insects
 began to develop a resistance, and more and different pesticides had to be used.
 The same phenomenon will apply to transgenics with built-in pesticides, only
 worse. The natural pesticide spliced into our crops is in every cell of every
 plant throughout its life. Pests that survive will breed and pass resistant
 genes to their progeny. With chemical pesticides, we learned that constant
 spraying leads quickly to resistant pests. As a result, we got away from
 "calendar spraying" and started using "integrated pest management," which uses
 pesticides as a last resort. Crops with pesticide built into their DNA will soon
 destroy the usefulness of our safest pesticides.
 The other drawback that Mr. Fumento didn't mention is the ability of plant
 species to trade genes. Pesticide-resistant crops could lead to
 pesticide-resistant weeds. Herbicide-resistant crops could lead to
 herbicide-resistant weeds. As seed-savers are aware, Queen Ann's Lace is similar
 enough to carrots to cross-pollinate and ruin the next generation of carrot
 seeds. Which weeds are close enough to corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton or potatoes
 to pick up gene-spliced resistance to herbicides or incorporate natural
 pesticide into their own bag of tricks? With dozens of kinds of crops and
 hundreds of varieties of weeds, it is a question of when it will occur, not
 whether.
 Mr. Fumento is wrong to argue that the more frequent use of transgenic crops
 means they are becoming more accepted. Because no labeling of transgenics is
 required in the United States, customers aren't able to avoid them even if they
 fear that the gene-splicing tricks being used aren't in our long-term best
 interests.
 Rockville
 LOAD-DATE: May 13, 2002
                     Copyright 2002 The Washington Times LLC
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 769
 
                                The New York Times
                             February 22, 2002 Friday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Panel Urges U.S. to Tighten Approval of Gene-Altered Crops
 BYLINE:  By ANDREW C. REVKIN
 SECTION: Section A; Column 3; National Desk; Pg. 18
 LENGTH: 654 words
 The government should more carefully, and publicly, review the environmental
 impact of genetically altered plants before approving them and, to detect
 unforeseen problems, should monitor fields even after such crops are being grown
 commercially, a panel of biologists and agricultural scientists concluded
 yesterday.
 The panel, convened by the National Academy of Sciences, said the Department of
 Agriculture had not missed any big environmental risks in its review of
 genetically modified plants, a step required before the plants can be either
 field-tested or grown for marketing.
 The scientists also emphasized that their findings were intended to "improve an
 already functioning system," and noted that "the standards being set for
 transgenic crops are much higher than for their conventional counterparts."
 But, they said, biotechnology companies are rapidly developing new plants
 containing either combinations of genes, or individual genes that induce the
 plant to produce industrial chemicals, fuels and other materials. These efforts,
 the panel said, will require much more rigorous testing and review than the
 government currently undertakes.
 Other crop types, produced by nongenetic means, can pose environmental risks as
 well, the panel said. But it said the public had demanded, and should be
 granted, an extra level of precaution when organisms are genetically engineered.
 The panel's report, a summary of which was described yesterday in The Wall
 Street Journal, was requested by the Agriculture Department and took two years
 to produce. It concluded that the testing and assessment of genetically altered
 plants should be made "significantly more transparent and rigorous," with
 reviews by independent panels of experts, with more involvement of the public
 and with less secrecy.
 It noted that companies seeking permission to commercialize genetically altered
 plants in the United States were allowed to keep much more data confidential
 than in other countries.
 Officials of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, an Agriculture
 Department agency that issues permits for genetically modified crops, said the
 study validated their current program while pointing to areas to improve. Bobby
 R. Acord, administrator of the inspection service, said the agency was already
 "considering how best to further encourage public comment and receive broader
 scientific input."
 Companies producing bioengineered crops echoed the agricultural officials,
 pointing to the report's qualified endorsement of the existing regulatory
 system. "They make a number of suggestions for enhancing that process, but they
 make it very clear that a rigorous assessment is being done," said Dr. Eric
 Sachs, a geneticist who is director of scientific affairs for Monsanto.
 Environmental groups said the report could help produce what they described as
 much-needed improvements in the review process.
 "It has been a cakewalk for the industry in terms of getting products approved,"
 said Dr. Margaret Mellon, a molecular biologist and biotechnology expert at the
 Union of Concerned Scientists.
 "The real question raised by this report," Dr. Mellon added, "is whether a
 rickety system that hasn't been very rigorous but probably has served well
 enough to date is adequate enough to take us into the future." The answer
 delivered by the panel, she said, is that the system is not up to the task.
 The report noted, for example, that although the Environmental Protection Agency
 required monitoring of approved crops that have genes for pest-killing toxins,
 neither that agency nor any other is responsible for monitoring crops with other
 genetic traits.
 The committee also said agricultural officials currently approved most proposed
 plant varieties for field tests, with no limit on acreage, on the basis of a
 company's written statements. Much more review is needed, it said, along with
 involvement by independent scientists and the public.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 Terms not available from NYTimes.
 LOAD-DATE: February 22, 2002
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 770
 
                            The San Francisco Chronicle
 USDA asked to improve scrutiny of altered crops
 SOURCE: Chronicle Staff Writer
 BYLINE: Tom Abate
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. B1
 LENGTH: 512 words
 A scientific panel has urged the U.S. Department of Agriculture to tighten its
 premarket review of genetically engineered crops and to monitor them after
 planting for possible environmental effects.
 But the 320-page report, issued yesterday by a committee of the National Academy
 of Sciences, also said genetic engineering, as a tool, poses no greater
 environmental risk than traditional crop breeding, which can also introduce
 traits that can jump from the farm into the wild with unforeseen consequences.
 Fred Gould, an entomologist at North Carolina State University and chair of the
 NAS committee, said the report was intended to close "small loopholes" in the
 rules under which the USDA reviews about 1,000 new biotech crops each year.
 The panel urged the USDA to tighten rules governing field tests of new crops.
 Currently, if a company declares that it doesn't expect any environmental
 effects, and the USDA agrees, the firm can conduct the tests.
 "But there is no public or independent scientific review in this process, and no
 limit to the acreage that can be planted," the committee said.
 The NAS report also criticized the USDA for failing to monitor "the tens of
 millions of hectares of transgenic crops" that have been commercially planted in
 recent years.
 "There has been no environmental monitoring of these transgenic crops, so any
 effects that might have occurred could not have been detected," the report said.
 The committee said the USDA keeps too much information about new crops secret to
 protect the competitive interests of biotech companies and urged the agency to
 share more data with the public.
 "People don't know the ins and outs of genetic engineering, but they remember
 the Ford Pinto," said Deborah Letourneau, an environmental studies professor at
 the University of California at Santa Cruz and member of the NAS panel.
 "Credibility is really important, and companies and regulatory agencies need to
 build it."
 Critics said the report demonstrated the inadequacy of USDA regulations. "It's
 not a difficult bar to meet to get USDA approval for a genetically engineered
 crop," said Jane Rissler, with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
 But Michael Phillips, with the Biotechnology Industry Organization, said the NAS
 report exposed a double standard because the USDA doesn't regulate new crops
 bred through conventional means, even though the NAS committee found that such
 plants can have environmental consequences.
 Although the NAS panel did not call for the regulation of conventional crops,
 the report said future studies should consider whether crops bearing certain
 traits -- such as pesticide or herbicide resistance -- pose such environmental
 risks that they should be subject to review regardless of whether they are
 created in the greenhouse or the lab.
 The USDA, which requested the NAS report in response to criticism of its
 procedures, said it will review the findings before deciding what to do
 next.E-mail Tom Abate at tabate@sfchronicle.com., Chronicle wire services
 contributed to this report. /
 SUBJECT: BIOTECHNOLOGY; BUSINESS; REGULATIONS; REPORT National Academy of
 Sciences; U.S. Department of Agriculture BIOTECHNOLOGY & GENETIC SCIENCE
 LOAD-DATE: February 22, 2002
                   Copyright 2002 The Chronicle Publishing Co.









Document Number: 771
 
                         Alameda Times-Star (Alameda, CA)
                            December 5, 2001 Wednesday
 UC expert finds genetically altered corn site in Mexico
 BYLINE: By William Brand STAFF WRITER
 LENGTH: 822 words
 A University of California, Berkeley, scientist has discovered genetically
 altered DNA from "Bt corn" inside crops grown on remote mountainside plots in
 Mexico -- a finding that shows it may be too late to protect stocks of natural
 corn anywhere in North America.
 Researcher Ignacio Chapela said the discovery surprised him because the site in
 Oaxaca state's Sierra Norte is so isolated. It is at least 60 miles across
 mountainous terrain from the nearest place where bio-engineered corn is known to
 have been planted.
 Supporters of plant bio-engineering argue that corn pollen is heavy, and
 although spread by wind, it doesn't travel far. "We need to look at this
 assumption," Chapela said.
 The implications could be serious, he said. It threatens ancient, native seed
 stocks and shows it may soon be impossible to produce so-called organic or
 nonlaboratory-manipulated corn, Chapela said.
 "Maybe there are places in Peru or India or elsewhere that you could find
 nontransgenic corn stocks," Chapela said. "But I don't know for how long."
 Even scientists who support the use of gene-inserting technology and believe
 food made from the plants is safe for humans, acknowledge the spread to a
 Mexican mountainside is a wakeup call.
 "This is what corn does, it likes to migrate and cross with other kinds of
 corn," said Peggy Lemaux, a specialist in biotech cereal grains at UC Berkeley.
 "I don't think the sky is falling and I'm not so concerned about 'Bt corn.' The
 only reason you would not want to eat it would be for some philosophic reason,"
 she said.
 "But this causes us to pause and think about what we're doing with genetics,"
 Lemaux said.
 Simon Harris, Bay Area representative of the national Organic Consumers
 Association, said that with 25 percent of American corn now produced with
 transgenetic seed, the industry has been predicting that its spread is
 inevitable.
 "I don't think it is inevitable," Harris said. "This is certainly frightening
 news, but I hope that there will be some sort of public reaction that will
 result in regulating agriculture."
 Besides posing a dilemma for consumers who wish to avoid genetically altered
 food, the spread of transgenic corn creates problems for companies that export
 American corn and corn products.
 While the U.S. Department of Agriculture supports the use of many transgenic
 crops as human food, other countries do not. American exporters to Japan, for
 example, have to certify their corn contains no transgenic DNA.
 There was an emotional uproar in the United States last year when Starlink, a
 hybrid with a "Bt" bacteria gene inserted in the laboratory to make the corn
 resistant to pests, was found in tortillas, taco shells and corn chips. Starlink
 corn has not been approved for human consumption in the United States.
 Chapela, an assistant professor of microbial biology in UC Berkeley's College of
 Natural Resources, said traces of the same "Bacillus thuringiensis," or Bt
 pesticide gene, were found in one of six samples of Mexican corn. Three of the
 other samples contained DNA from other genetically altered corn, he said.
 He said the tests indicate the transgenic contamination most likely came from
 multiple pollinations over several years.
 It would be difficult to find a more remote spot than mountainsides in Oaxaca,
 Chapela said. "This place is pretty much disconnected from the rest of Mexico.
 The farmers save seed from one year to the next."
 But Chapela and graduate student David Quist found transgenic DNA in corn in
 four separate plots. Tests of seed saved from 1971 and of corn from Peru tested
 negative for genetic altered DNA, Chapela said.
 After their initial discoveries, the Mexican government ran its own tests and
 found transgenic DNA in 3 percent to 10 percent of the Sierra Norte de Oaxaca
 corn.
 Chapela and Quist's findings were published last week in the journal Nature.
 "Personally," Chapela said, "I think that we ran too fast with this technology.
 Since the 1970s, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has maintained that corn is
 corn, however the seeds are made," he said.
 "That was fine for the 1970s and 1980s as a working hypothesis. But now, as the
 data comes in, we find that indeed the spread of transgenic corn has some
 serious repercussions."
 Lemaux, the biotech specialist and a longtime supporter of genetic insertion
 techniques, said she worries about plans to use corn plants for other purposes.
 Epicyte, a San Diego biotech company, is using corn plants to produce products
 by introducing human genes into corn plants.
 Epicyte's first product, HX8, a spermicide designed to prevent the spread of the
 herpes virus, is scheduled to undergo clinical testing next year.
 "Do I want a human spermacide in corn plants?" Lemaux asked. "I don't know. I
 just know that this new report on Mexican corn shows you can't stop corn. Corn
 pollen naturally spreads. You can't stop nature."
 LOAD-DATE: June 20, 2003
             Copyright 2001 MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers









Document Number: 772
 
                                 University Wire
                                November 29, 2001
 UC-Berkeley researchers find genetically altered DNA in native corn
 BYLINE: By Aviva Goldmann, Daily Californian
 SOURCE: U. California-Berkeley
 LENGTH: 751 words
 DATELINE: Berkeley, Calif.
 Traces of genetically modified DNA have been discovered in native corn in remote
 regions of Mexico, raising worries this may lead to elimination of the natural
 diversity of corn species, according to a study published Thursday by University
 of California-Berkeley researchers in the journal Nature.
 The modified corn was found 60 miles from the nearest crop of
 government-approved genetically altered fields.
 How the genetically modified species spread is not known, and the chief worry is
 that it will overtake native species, attacking the genetic diversity that is an
 extremely valuable resource for preserving the world's food supply.
 Genetic diversity protects the entire food source from disease -- while one
 strain may be susceptible to infectious agents, other types of the same plant
 may not be. Eliminating diversity from the population may lead to the loss of
 natural protection against illness, which, in turn, could devastate the plant.
 Contamination of the native gene pool is exactly what the Mexican government
 hoped to prevent in 1998 when it prohibited the planting of transgenic corn, or
 corn that contains DNA from a foreign organism in its genome.
 Despite the moratorium, UC Berkeley researchers David Quist and Ignacio Chapela
 felt that contamination of the native corn population was inevitable, said
 Chapela, an assistant professor of microbial ecology in the environmental
 science, policy and management department.
 Because of wind patterns and other natural processes, plants spread their genes
 throughout the environment. Many biologists have been concerned that these same
 processes that spread genes from unmodified plants would spread engineered DNA.
 "As a biologist, I know that this contamination is almost a certainty," Chapela
 said. "We didn't know how long it would take, and out of a gut feeling, we were
 just setting up a method to detect this introgression when it came."
 The appearance of transgenic DNA in Mexican corn in remote regions was not
 expected for another five to 10 years, Chapela added.
 Experts previously thought that transgenic corn would not survive well on its
 own or spread widely, causing surprise when its DNA was discovered in such
 remote locations so quickly, said Quist, the principle author of the study that
 appeared in today's Nature.
 The independent spreading of the genetic material shows that genetically
 modified corn is more robust than originally thought, and has most likely spread
 to wild populations. The contamination in the remote region could have occurred
 before the ban in 1998, or afterward as a result of incomplete enforcement,
 Chapela said.
 "It's such a difficult problem to handle five million tons of unlabeled corn,"
 Chapela said.
 At the research site in Oaxaca, Mexico, far from known commercial plantings,
 Quist and Chapela identified the transgenic corn by the presence of certain
 viral DNA, inserted to modify the corn genome. The viral DNA is a marker for
 genetic modification.
 One of the modified corn species produces insecticide and another is resistant
 to an effective herbicide, allowing farmers to easily kill all weeds in a
 cornfield.
 Researchers have not determined whether or not the Oaxacan transgenic corn has
 those abilities.
 Wild plants capable of producing antiherbicide or insecticidal defenses could
 cause problems for the local environment and agriculture.
 The insecticide-producing variety has been shown to be harmful to insects and
 microbes that feed on it. This could endanger the safety of native species, such
 as the monarch butterfly, Chapela said.
 In addition, if wild genetically altered corn exhibits resistance to herbicide,
 it could become a "superweed" -- invasive and difficult to root out because of
 its lack of response to ordinary herbicides.
 The most serious effect could be the contamination of native varieties of corn,
 which could crowd out native genes. The unique traits expressed by transgenic
 plants could give them an edge, causing them to grab a larger portion of the
 gene pool, Chapela said.
 But these are speculations, and the long-term results of the introduction of
 transgenic crops are still unknown, Quist said.
 "Research on (the ecology of) transgenic crops is almost completely
 nonexistent," Quist said.
 The important questions to ask are whether the desired benefits of transgenic
 crops have been realized and whether they outweigh the potential enormous risk,
 Quist added.
 (C) 2001 Daily Californian via U-WIRE
 LOAD-DATE: November 29, 2001
                   Copyright 2001 Daily Californian via U-Wire









Document Number: 773
 
                         News and Observer (Raleigh, NC)
                      October 19, 2001 Friday, FINAL EDITION
 A primer in biotechnology
 BYLINE: Catherine Clabby, Staff Writer
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. B1
 LENGTH: 1002 words
 This year, the State Fair is serving up a little brain food
 along with its famous corn dogs, ostrich patties and other
 October delicacies.
 Bio-Frontiers, the fair's biggest educational exhibit, is
 tackling a science lesson for the masses, focusing on the complex
 area of biotechnology in agriculture.
 Exhibitors steer clear of worries over potential harms from
 genetically altered plants and any other controversy. Instead
 they are attempting to educate people on what makes
 bioengineering possible -- with a little public relations on the
 side.
 "We didn't want any part of this exhibit to be scary," said
 Heather Overton, a fair organizer who helped pull together
 Bio-Frontiers over nine months. "We want to present biotechnology
 as something regular people do."
 Visitors who pass a metal sculpture of a DNA helix to enter
 Bio-Frontiers quickly encounter the language and tools of
 microbiology. Glossaries spell out cellular terms -- mitosis,
 ribosomes, even the deoxyribonucleic acid that is DNA -- that
 might never have been read before within earshot of midway rides.
 Aventis CropScience displays white-eyed, mutant flies to
 demonstrate how altered genes change organisms. Syngenta is
 showing off a gene gun, a device that uses very high pressure and
 gold particles to push modified DNA segments into plant cells.
 Both demonstrate the fundamentals of bio-engineering. Because
 genes determine the design of all living things, altering them
 customizes an organism. That is what makes it possible to implant
 a bacteria gene into a corn plant to emit a toxin harmful to
 bugs, a technology used widely in crops in this country.
 "We're not trying to make this a propaganda-based exhibit.
 We're making it fact-based," said Wes Wyatt, the fair director.
 "I know that in the agricultural and in pharmaceutical worlds, a
 lot of good has come from biotechnology. But a lot of the public
 does not understand what it is."
 Certainly the tone under the tent is sometimes celebratory.
 One sign hung by Aventis reads: "Cross Plant Genome Research =
 More nutritious foods + more foods for more people."
 Not everyone is happy with the final product, including Ellen
 Pietroski, a member of local chapter of the environmental group
 Earth First! She posted an e-mail message on a local Internet
 listserv this week urging people to contact fair officials and
 complain that no opponents to biotechnology have a seat under the
 tent.
 "This is not a completely accepted technology in this
 country," said Pietroski, of Chapel Hill. "Different points of
 view should be expressed."
 Fair organizers anticipated their exhibit could stir up
 opposition. Fairgrounds security staff members were alerted
 before opening day that anti-bioengineering protesters could show
 up at Bio-Frontiers. And exhibit workers have been coached to
 avoid arguments with visitors. But by Thursday, protests had not
 materialized.
 Biotechnology's opponents, far more numerous in Europe than in
 the United States, consider transgenic crops as 'Frankenfood'
 that could harm people and the environment. Although research has
 not found widespread harm, opponents say the technology is too
 new to fully assess. Many deplore the practice of patenting food
 crop seeds.
 Wyatt came up with the idea to highlight biotechnology while
 hunting for a theme to replace a former fair exhibit on
 cyberspace that had fewer direct ties to agriculture. An
 organizing committee made up mostly of state agriculture staff
 considered including critics of biotechnology, but no one stepped
 forward, he said.
 In the meantime, the genetic revolution in agriculture isn't
 merely on the horizon in North Carolina. It is here. Three
 multinational corporations conduct research in this field in
 Research Triangle Park, including BASF, Aventis and Syngenta.
 Smaller companies also are active.
 North Carolina farmers plant genetically altered crops, but no
 one knows exactly how many, said Brian Briggs, a government
 relations specialist with the N.C. Farm Bureau. But some farmers,
 including tobacco and corn planters, still shy away from
 genetically modified plants out of concern that worried Europeans
 and other markets won't want to buy them, he said.
 North Carolinians also have had a front-row seat to a biotech
 controversy. It was Aventis CropScience, whose North America
 headquarters is in RTP, that marketed StarLink. That altered corn
 seed that was supposed to be confined to feed corn or industrial
 products because of a small risk that it could trigger allergic
 reactions in people. But last year StarLink was discovered in
 taco shells and other foods, which were yanked off the market.
 Fred Gould, an N.C. State University entomologist, said
 everyone needs to be informed about biotechnology as the field
 grows and pushes more crops to market. To assume the
 revolutionary field is either all good or all bad is naive, he
 said.
 "My point of view is that it's crazy to be either for or
 against agricultural biotechnology. Some plants bring increased
 good for the environment and for health, thanks to less spraying
 of pesticides. Some do not," said Gould, who heads a National
 Academy of Sciences Committee on the effects of the
 commercialization of genetically altered plants. "You have to
 look at it on a product-by-product basis."
 George Hillebrand, a retired U.S. Marine who is 74, has been
 coming to the State Fair for more than 30 years. He is accustomed
 to lingering over the crafts at the Village of Yesteryear. But on
 Tuesday, he was in Bio-Frontiers staring at a wall of fish-eye
 reflectors designed to show how each human cell carries a
 person's entire genetic code.
 He liked it. "It's the first time I've seen this much into
 science at the fair," Hillebrand said. "It's kind of
 enlightening."
 Staff writer Lorenzo Perez contributed to this story.
 SUBJECT: Bio-Frontiers GENETIC ENGINEERING(91%);BIOTECHNOLOGY & GENETIC
 LOAD-DATE: October 19, 2001
 GRAPHIC: c photo graph America's adaptation to bioengineered foods Kristopher
 Lee At the biotechnology exhibit at the State Fair, Julian Gantt, 12, of Raleigh
 listens to a technician as she explains DNA sequencing. Fair officials thought
 fairgoers should know about the role of new technology in agriculture. Staff
 Photo By Chuck Liddy
                       Copyright 2001 The News and Observer









Document Number: 774
 
                               The Washington Post
                               July 9, 2001 Monday
                                  Final Edition
 Food Fight
 BYLINE: Sebastian Mallaby
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A17
 LENGTH: 788 words
 In the global AIDS debate, activists pummeled pharmaceutical giants until they
 discounted drugs for poor countries. In the global food debate, activists assail
 agribusiness giants with precisely the opposite motive. The agribusiness folks
 want their genetic technology to relieve malnutrition in the southern
 hemisphere. But last week activists from Greenpeace vandalized a plantation of
 genetically modified corn in Brazil. The Greenpeace Web site demands that
 governments ban genetically engineered crops.
 This is murderous nonsense. Over the next two decades world population is
 projected to grow by between 2 billion and 2.5 billion. This increase, together
 with rising incomes, means that crops will have to grow by about a third,
 according to the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington. We
 could do that by chopping down forests and planting marginal lands, which would
 be environmentally awful. Or we could do it by boosting yields with new
 technology.
 Is this technology safe? No test has suggested that genetically engineered crops
 harm human health. On the other hand, a lack of plentiful cheap food harms human
 health enormously. Half the children in South Asia and a third in sub-Saharan
 Africa are malnourished. Among other consequences, these children suffer iodine
 deficiency, which causes mental retardation, and Vitamin A deficiency, which
 causes blindness.
 Some anti-genetic activists, such as Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), say the poor
 won't be able to afford new-fangled crops. Kucinich cites the "so-called green
 revolution," which was supposed to conquer hunger and in his view didn't. But
 the green revolution -- involving improved seeds, fertilizers and pesticides --
 more than doubled cereal production in South Asia between 1970 and 1995. Despite
 enormous population growth, it cut the malnutrition rate from 40 percent to 23
 percent. What the green revolution began, the gene revolution can continue.
 Kucinich and like thinkers suppose that poor countries should rediscover
 traditional culture and eschew inappropriate Western technologies. But a report
 from the U.N. Development Program, to be published tomorrow, blows a hole in
 this conceit. The threat to development is not inappropriate technology but a
 lack of technology -- medicines, Internet hookups, biotechnology. It's one thing
 for affluent consumers to eschew transgenic foods. It's another for the affluent
 to impose their choices on poor people. China has shown that genetically
 modified rice can boost yields by 15 percent in the Third World. But Greenpeace
 pressures developing countries not to follow China's lead. When Kenya faced
 famine last year, the antis urged the Kenyan government to refuse U.S. food aid
 because some of it was genetically modified.
 Last year the world's governments adopted a U.N. protocol on biosafety. More
 than 100 countries have signed on, and the ratification process is beginning.
 The protocol says countries (read: paranoid rich countries) can bar some
 agricultural imports if they fear their biotech content -- even if these fears
 are founded on a "lack of scientific certainty." Nobody quite knows whether this
 provision will be trumped by the World Trade Organization's rules. But the mere
 possibility that transgenic crops may cause exclusion from rich markets
 dissuades many developing countries from adopting them.
 Yes, transgenic crops carry risks. The Monarch butterfly is famous because the
 damage it suffered from modified corn is the closest to a smoking gun that the
 antis have come up with. But damage to the Monarch has to be weighed against the
 prospect that fewer forests will be cleared and fewer children will go hungry.
 It also must be weighed against damage to the Monarch from not embracing
 biotechnology. The alternative to butterfly-killing corn may be corn sprayed
 with butterfly-killing pesticides.
 If the skeptics would embrace the new technology, they could get on with the
 other half of their agenda. The critics are right that agribusiness giants have
 patented a disturbing chunk of this new field -- not just the new seeds, but the
 methods used to make them. That could mean that the techniques of biotechnology
 are used predominantly to develop seeds for rich consumers who can pay, rather
 than for poor farmers whose need is most urgent.
 For the moment, the industry is offering more high-tech seeds to the Third World
 than browbeaten governments feel able to accept. But one day, African scientists
 who succeed in modifying cassava -- a crop that agribusiness has all but ignored
 -- may be sued for using patented gene-transfer techniques. There's something
 for activists to worry about.
 The writer is a member of the editorial page staff.
 LOAD-DATE: July 9, 2001
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2001 The Washington Post









Document Number: 775
 
                                 The Denver Post
                          May 27, 2001 Sunday 2D EDITION
 Monarch flutters into fight over altered corn
 BYLINE: By Ann Schrader, Denver Post Science Writer,
 SECTION: A SECTION; Pg. A-19
 LENGTH: 664 words
 Delicate monarch butterflies have provoked a vigorousargument over genetic
 engineering of plants.
 Larvae of the butterfly grew more slowly and died more oftenwhen reared on
 milkweed leaves dusted with pollen from geneticallyengineered corn, says a
 study published in May 1999 by John Loseyand fellow Cornell University
 entomologists.
 The study, which appeared in the journal Nature, said pollenfrom corn
 engineered to repel unwanted insects could blow on toother nearby plants that
 are favored foods of other creatures,including the monarch.
 Other reports concluded that there is little danger to themuch-studied
 butterflies from genetically engineered corn.
 The debate about monarchs, and a separate attempt to bestowsoybeans with a
 trait from Brazil nuts, underscores the potentialfor problems - as well as
 progress - when scientists transfergenes from unrelated species.
 On the plus side, scientists foresee using geneticallyengineered plants as
 'biofactories' to produce highly purifiedoils, or to clean up heavy metals
 from contaminated areas.Bananas, potatoes and tomatoes may one day deliver
 edible vaccinesto prevent hepatitis B, E. coli and other maladies.
 But transferring a gene from an unrelated species, opponentscontend, can
 result in vast, unforeseen problems such as thosethat some have found with the
 monarch butterfly.
 Critics note that the National Center for Food andAgricultural Policy has
 estimated that about one-fifth of U.S.corn in 1999 had been doctored in a way
 that could harm themonarch.
 The crop in question is Bt corn. It has been engineered withthe ability to
 kill insects after being transformed with a genefrom a common soil bacterium -
 Bacillus thuringiensis.
 An Iowa State University study published in July found thatBt corn pollen
 'will have a negative effect' on monarch butteflylarvae feeding in and near Bt
 cornfields.
 Several other recent studies, however, found that the effectof Bt corn pollen
 on benign insects like the monarch is'negligible' when the research is done in
 'real' conditionsinstead of a lab, the American Council on Science and Health
 said.
 The Environmental Protection Agency said in October that areview of all
 available scientific studies indicates monarchs areat 'very little risk' from
 Bt corn pollen. Some authors, the EPAsaid, 'are predicting that the widespread
 cultivation of Bt cropsmay have huge benefits for monarch butterfly survival'
 by reducinginsecticides in the environment.
 Colorado sits between the two major populations of monarchbutterflies, said
 Frank Peairs, an entomologist at Colorado StateUniversity. So while some
 monarchs flutter around the state, mostgather elsewhere.
 Peairs said Bt corn is highly effective in repelling insectsand results in
 much less of the chemical being in the environment.Still, he urged caution.
 If farmers 'rely on a single method of controlling insects,you can expect them
 to overcome that method,' Peairs said. With Btcorn being so effective, 'we
 might forget about the integratedapproach of changing tillage practices and
 changing planting andirrigation methods.'
 Then there is the case of the Brazil nut.
 Groups including the Sierra Club, Greenpeace and RockyMountain Peace and
 Justice Center point to what could havehappened when scientists inserted a
 Brazil nut protein intosoybeans to create high-protein soy animal feed.
 Pioneer Hi-Bred International, an Iowa-based seed company,abandoned the
 project in 1996 when tests showed people who areallergic to nuts had reactions
 to the altered products.
 Two CSU plant scientists, Pat Byrne and Sarah Ward, said theBrazil nut
 scenario 'demonstrates the need to consider potentialhuman health effects in
 new transgenic crops, but it also shows that proper testing can identify risks.'
 SUBJECT: genetics; crops; insects; research; EPA; disputes; Colorado;
 U.S.sidebar BIOTECHNOLOGY & GENETIC SCIENCE(94%);GENETIC ENGINEERING(93%);
 LOAD-DATE: May 29, 2001
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO: A Monarch butterfly
                         Copyright 2001 The Denver Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 776
 
                        San Jose Mercury News (California)
                   May 23, 2001 Wednesday MORNING FINAL EDITION
 BYLINE: PAUL JACOBS, Mercury News
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. 1C
 LENGTH: 899 words
 A handful of biotech companies are genetically engineering plants to produce
 human proteins, turning farms into factories for medications aimed at a host of
 human diseases.
 Large Scale Biology in Vacaville uses genes from lymphoma patients at Stanford
 to grow a customized cancer vaccine in leafy plants that are close cousins to
 tobacco.
 Epicyte in San Diego uses corn to make human antibodies against herpes and human
 sperm for gels that can block sexually transmitted disease and prevent
 conception.
 These and other companies are betting that transgenic crops, which can produce
 as much as 40 pounds of a human protein per acre, will replace more expensive
 fermentation systems that are the industry standard for brewing up human
 proteins by the vat.
 "Plants are the most efficient producers of proteins on the planet," said
 Epicyte President Mich B. Hein. "They get their energy from the sun and all
 their nutrients from the soil. They make proteins essentially for free once they
 are up and going."
 Cost, however, isn't the only reason for choosing plants over the animal cells
 widely used by biotechnology companies to produce human proteins. Or for
 choosing plants over cows and goats that have been genetically transformed to
 produce human proteins in their milk.
 Some worry that cattle are vulnerable to hoof and mouth disease, which could
 quickly wipe out any herd genetically altered to produce therapeutic proteins.
 And there is concern that animal cells may harbor viruses or other contagions
 that could infect humans.
 "Proteins in plants don't have issues with mad cow disease or hoof and mouth,"
 said John McClellan, director of marketing for ProdiGene in College Station,
 Texas.
 The theory behind producing human proteins in plants -- or in animal cells,
 bacteria or yeast -- is simple: Pluck the gene, a bit of DNA that carries the
 instructions for making the protein, out of a human cell and insert it into the
 other species.
 Flood of biotech drugs
 Now, 25 years after the birth of the biotechnology industry, there are hundreds
 of human proteins -- many of them antibodies -- in various stages of testing for
 treating disease. But, for the moment, there are not enough government-approved
 manufacturing facilities for the expected flood of biotech drugs.
 In 1998, Immunex in Seattle launched Enbrel, a modified human protein grown in
 animal cells for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. The drug has been such a
 huge success -- with sales of $650 million last year -- that new patients must
 now sign up and wait their turn before starting on the drug. The waiting should
 disappear next year when the company opens a manufacturing facility in Rhode
 Island, but not every firm with a promising protein will be able to find the
 production capacity it needs.
 "The people who come out on top will be the people who secure manufacturing,"
 said Immunex spokeswoman Robin Shapiro.
 Immunex scientists are considering plants as an alternative way of producing
 future protein products, but, says Shapiro, "that's a very long way off."
 The capacity problem is a reason why companies working with genetically modified
 plants are so hopeful these days, although no plant-grown human or animal
 protein has yet won Food and Drug Administration approval. A few are in the
 early stages of testing in patients.
 "We won't really know the answer until we get the first one through," said Kurt
 Hoeprich, director of market development for plant-grown biotech drugs at Dow
 Chemical. Dow is working with Epicyte to grow corn with antibodies against
 herpes and human sperm.
 Researchers at Large Scale Biology have already shown they can make large
 quantities of human proteins in tobacco-like plants (Nicotiana benthamiana)
 grown in greenhouses in Vacaville and Kentucky. One of the proteins grown and
 extracted with a high degree of purity is alpha-galactosidase, an enzyme missing
 in patients with Fabry's disease, a rare inherited disorder that can lead to
 heart and kidney failure. The company has no plans to market the human protein;
 two other companies are racing to do that. "We're using it as a model for the
 process," said the company's CEO, Robert L. Erwin.
 The plant-based companies are aware of the growing protest movement directed
 against genetically engineered crops, although the plants targeted in those
 protests were ones altered to deliver their own pesticides. Last year, the
 agricultural biotech industry was shaken by the news that a pesticide-containing
 corn called Starlink -- approved for animal feed but not human consumption --
 had entered the food supply.
 Environmentalists are concerned the same thing might happen with plants
 containing pharmaceuticals.
 Protecting food supply
 "Who wants to have a taco that gives you a drug you don't absolutely need?" asks
 Rebecca Goldburg, a senior scientist with Environmental Defense.
 Large Scale Biology's Erwin says that using tobacco-like plants that aren't like
 any crop intended for human use and that don't have the human protein genes in
 pollen or seeds is the best answer.
 The companies that are transforming corn say they are being very careful to keep
 the pharmaceutical crops far removed from fields where corn is grown for human
 or animal consumption.
 Says Epicyte's Hein: "The bottom line is to produce in areas where the pollen
 can't spread to other crops."
 LOAD-DATE: December 2, 2001
 NOTES: Paul Jacobs can be contacted at pjacobs@sjmercury.com or (530) 756-0236.
 GRAPHIC: Photos (2), Drawing;
 Robert L. Erwin, CEO of Large Scale Biology, shows tobacco-like plants in
 various phases of growth that are used in an effort to develop a cancer vaccine.
 A genetically altered tobacco-
 like plant is grown at a Large Scale Biology greenhouse in Vacaville.
 Human Proteins In Plants
 [Diagram content not taken in the database]
                      Copyright 2001 San Jose Mercury News
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 777
 
                                 Grand Forks Herald
                       April 5, 2001 Thursday FINAL EDITION
 BYLINE: Mikkel Pates, Herald Staff Writer
 SECTION: A; Pg. 07
 LENGTH: 629 words
 Biotech crops offer bigger marketing challenges in the northern spring wheat
 belt than in the traditional corn and soybean belt, a North Dakota State
 University researcher says.
 Bill Wilson, an NDSU agricultural economist, spoke Wednesday at the NDSU
 Extension Service Biotechnology Workshop.
 The big difference is that only 20 percent of U.S. corn is exported, while 40
 percent to 60 percent of hard red spring wheat must be exported, Wilson said.
 The United States' top-ranking foreign markets for spring wheat - Japan, the
 Philippines, Taiwan, Italy and South Korea - all are averse to genetically
 modified commodities.
 Wilson said he suspects that some countries that are trying to keep GM crops out
 find it easier to get us to try to regulate nonproduction of GM crops than for
 them to try to solve the problem themselves through marketing.
 Wilson said NDSU is about finished with a study of elevator operators, aimed at
 defining any extra costs of handling genetically modified wheat.
 By far the greatest problem is contamination, Wilson said. In other words,
 somebody claiming something is non-GM, when it really is. Other costs - testing
 and certification, keeping stored units separate, under-utilization of bin
 space, increased demurrage on rail cars, barges and vessels and increased
 likelihood of being out of compliance - all pale in comparison, Wilson said.
 Normally such uncertainty is solved through purchasers buying crops on contract
 with growers, but wheat buyers are reluctant to pay premiums associated with
 those contracts.
 Assessment rises
 Wilson noted that the grain industry's own assessment of the extra cost of
 keeping GM crops separate has been rising. He said the proliferation of
 large-scale elevators to handle 110-car shuttle trains runs counter to this
 trend.
 A conventional elevator north of Grand Forks has 60 shipping (storage) units,
 and the manager has said he wishes he had more, Wilson said.
 A new 100-car elevator near Hillsboro (N.D.) has 11, Wilson said, adding that
 they're going to be incapable of the kind of segregation that may be needed if
 GM wheat must be segregated. Big problem, he said.
 While GM corn and soybeans in a few short years have risen to account for 30
 percent to 50 percent of U.S. corn and soybean acres, that is less a marketing
 risk than for hard red spring wheat grown in North Dakota and Minnesota.
 Dave Lambert, an NDSU agricultural economist and department chairman, showed how
 the adoption of genetically modified crops in several major crop categories has
 skyrocketed, whereas the adoption of hybrid corn took 20 years.
 The United States has 68 percent of the world's reported legal transgenic crops,
 followed by Argentina with 23 percent and Canada with 7 percent.
 Iowa studies show that the financial returns from growing transgenic soybeans
 and cotton primarily go to the companies that develop them.
 It is unclear whether factors such as increased seed and technology fees for
 genetically modified wheat will offset any benefits, especially because wheat
 has relatively low-cost herbicides to begin with, Lambert said.
 The workshop, in conjunction with the annual extension service state conference,
 featured a number of speakers. Don Lee of the University of Nebraska at Lincoln
 discussed the basic mechanisms of transferring genes among crops. Ted Labuza, a
 University of Minnesota scientist, talked about the regulation of transgenic
 crops.
 Another biotech conference will be held today at the Doublewood Inn in Fargo.
 Wilson and other NDSU economists will describe results of these and other
 studies on the impacts of biotechnology on production, the logistics of
 commodity and food supplies, and international small-grains markets.
 LOAD-DATE: November 29, 2001
                        Copyright 2001 Grand Forks Herald
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 778
 
                         News and Observer (Raleigh, NC)
                     March 28, 2001 Wednesday, FINAL EDITION
 Science's irresponsibility
 SECTION: EDITORIAL/OPINION; Pg. A12
 LENGTH: 301 words
 A March 11 wire-service article stated that Arthur Peacocke,
 latest recipient of the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion,
 "believes scientists must be given broad freedom to work toward
 the eradication of disease and other forms of human suffering."
 I'd like to ask, what freedoms do scientists not have?
 They were free when they created a mouse with a human ear on
 its back. They were free when they created frogs with no heads,
 rabbits that glow, lambs with human genes. In short, they have
 enough freedom to create any kind of monster they want. (I don't
 use that term in a pejorative sense. The word means "any animal,
 plant or thing of abnormal form or structure.") They are free, in
 many cases, to place transgenic crops into the field, thereby
 making surrounding crops and organisms vulnerable to gene
 pollution and horizontal gene transfer, the long-term effects of
 which no one can say.
 Where are the checks and balances to restrain the scientists
 and make them accountable?
 The large corporations give them limitless amounts of money
 and resources. The biotech industry is represented in the highest
 levels of government. The Food and Drug Administration won't even
 require labeling of genetically modified food. And the public is
 complacent and uninformed. Where are the impediments?
 Certainly genetic engineering has the potential for enormous
 good, but it also has the potential for enormous, irrevocable
 harm. Peacocke had a bully pulpit upon receiving his
 million-dollar prize. I wish he had used that pulpit to advocate
 more circumspection in the pursuit of scientific advances instead
 of elaborating positions that can only serve to strengthen the
 cause of untrammeled technology and big business.
 Ed Bremson
 Raleigh
 LOAD-DATE: March 28, 2001
 TYPE: Letter
                       Copyright 2001 The News and Observer









Document Number: 779
 
                                   FDA Consumer
                                  March 1, 2001
 Proposed Rules Issued for Bioengineered Foods
 BYLINE: Raymond Formanek Jr.
 LENGTH: 1944 words
 The shelves of just about every American supermarket are lined with foods that
 have been genetically altered to improve the product's taste, shelf life, or
 resistance to insects and other pests.
 Tomatoes, potatoes, squash, corn, and soybeans have been genetically altered
 through the emerging science of biotechnology. So have ingredients in everything
 from ketchup and cola to hamburger buns and cake mixes.
 Most of the foods we eat today are the result of crossbreeding--a technique that
 relies on the laws of inheritance first described by Gregor Mendel in the 19th
 century--to obtain desired characteristics.
 Crossbreeding is inexact. It also involves trial-and-error and lots of time.
 Although biotechnology is a more efficient way to introduce new traits, there
 are concerns. Some worry about the possibility of introducing new allergens into
 foods. Others worry about the potential effects that altered crop species may
 have on wildlife and other plants.
 However, many researchers say the ability of biotechnology to isolate and
 introduce a specific gene or just a few genes makes outcomes more predictable,
 including the ability to predict risks. Supporters say that biotechnology is a
 tool that allows scientists and farmers to reduce damage from pesticides, boost
 crop yields, and improve flavor, texture and nutritional content.
 FDA Oversight
 The Food and Drug Administration proposed mandatory rules in January that would
 tighten the scrutiny of bioengineered foods. The rules would require that
 manufacturers of plant-derived, bioengineered foods and animal feeds notify the
 FDA at least 120 days before the products are marketed.
 As part of the notification, the manufacturer would provide information showing
 that the foods or feeds are as safe as their conventional counterparts.
 Manufacturers have completed voluntary consultations on roughly 50 bioengineered
 foods using scientific guidelines published by FDA in 1992. The proposal would
 make the current practice of voluntary consultations mandatory and require
 manufacturers to submit safety and nutritional information to FDA.
 "Our basic policy with respect to bioengineered foods is that there is nothing
 inherently different with these foods," says Joseph Levitt, director of the
 FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN). "We will continue to
 examine each product on a case-by-case basis. We'll make sure that data on
 things like nutritional content or natural toxicants are there. We want to be
 sure that all the safety bases are covered."
 Levitt says the evaluation process would become "transparent" under the proposed
 rules. Information submitted by manufacturers, as well as FDA responses, would
 be posted on the CFSAN Web site at [Internet URL]
 http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/list.html .
 The FDA also has issued draft guidelines for companies that want to label their
 products to indicate that a food or feed has or has not been developed using
 bioengineering methods. Terms such as "genetically modified" (GM), "genetically
 modified organism" (GMO), and "modified" are not recommended under the
 guidelines.
 On the other hand, Levitt says a manufacturer that wants to label a product as
 "genetically engineered" may do so "but consumer focus groups we met with
 suggested that they should say why."
 "We want the labeling to be informative, but not misleading," he says.
 Public Input
 The proposed rule for notification and draft guidelines for labeling are the
 result of more than 18 months of discussion with consumers, manufacturers,
 growers and others. "We heard views across the entire spectrum," Levitt says.
 "We have literally thousands of comments."
 The proposals can be viewed on the Internet at [Internet URL]
 http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/%7Elrd/biotechm.html . FDA will issue a final rule after
 public comments are evaluated this spring.
 No Known Dangers
 Broadly speaking, growers have been selecting certain beneficial characteristics
 such as faster growth or sweeter fruit since our nomadic hunter ancestors began
 to cultivate crops thousands of years ago. Virtually every domesticated crop
 plant species today differs greatly from its original, wild form due to human
 intervention.
 Companies seeking to market any bioengineered food product conduct studies to
 show that the new food is as safe as its conventionally crossbred counterpart.
 The FDA has determined that normal safety and quality control practices used by
 plant breeders, such as chemical analyses and taste testing, generally are
 important. Nutritional and other tests also are done to provide additional
 safety assurances. Bioengineered foods actually are regulated by three federal
 agencies: the FDA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the United
 States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
 The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act gives FDA the authority to regulate all
 foods, food ingredients, and animal feeds derived from crops, including plant
 varieties developed through biotechnology. The USDA's Animal and Plant Health
 Inspection Service monitors genetically engineered plants for potential risks to
 the agricultural environment. The EPA regulates pesticides--including those
 introduced into plants through biotechnology. (See "StarLink Corn Investigation
 and Recall.").
 Future Growth
 A federally funded study by the National Research Council released in 2000
 concluded, "There is no evidence suggesting that [bioengineered food] is unsafe
 to eat." The study also found that there is "no strict distinction" between the
 health and environmental risks posed by genetically engineered plants and those
 developed through conventional crossbreeding.
 Bioengineered foods will not solve all of the world's nutritional and
 agricultural problems. However, the techniques used to develop them likely will
 play an important part in boosting food production, improving nutrition, and
 reducing the needs for herbicides and pesticides.
 DNA: The Root of Biotechnology
 The discovery that deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) was a sort of biological
 "software" in the mid-1950s set the stage for today's bioengineered foods,
 pharmaceuticals, transgenic animals, and gene therapy.
 DNA molecules contain the genetic information necessary for life. This
 information is contained in four chemical bases: adenine, cytosine, guanine and
 thymine. Specific chunks of DNA that carry the codes necessary for the
 production of a specific protein are called genes. These proteins contribute to
 the expression of a specific trait by stimulating biochemical reactions, or by
 acting as structural or storage units of a cell.
 The fact that DNA is a genetic building block in all organisms makes it possible
 to insert a gene or genes into plants instead of relying on cross-pollination.
 The inserted gene, called a transgene, may come from an unrelated plant, or even
 from bacteria, viruses or animals.
 For example, scientists have developed a variety of rice capable of synthesizing
 beta-carotene, a precursor to vitamin A, by inserting genes from a soil
 bacterium and two genes from a daffodil. Although it's the staple food for half
 the world's population, rice is a poor source of many essential nutrients and
 contains no vitamin A. The genetically engineered rice someday could help
 millions of people worldwide who suffer from vitamin A deficiency, a condition
 that leads to blindness in a quarter million children annually in Southeast
 Asia.
 A Long-Running Debate
 The debate over genetically engineered plants began almost as soon as scientists
 learned to directly alter the genes in plants in the early 1980s. Opposition to
 bioengineered foods has been especially strong in Europe and Japan.
 Concerns include ethical issues related to potential long-term health effects of
 eating bioengineered foods, labeling, and potential environmental risks. The FDA
 has reviewed all new bioengineered foods brought to market and has found no
 reason to believe that they could pose any threat to health.
 Grocers began selling the "Flavr Savr" tomato--the first genetically altered
 food product to enter the U.S. food supply--in 1994. The Flavr Savr ripened
 slower, could remain on the vine longer, and was expected to provide better
 quality than other tomatoes available in winter.
 Experiments are now under way to develop tomatoes that have enhanced levels of
 lycopene, a plant chemical that gives tomatoes their red color. Researchers say
 lycopene also may offer health benefits due to its apparent antioxidant
 properties. Antioxidants are thought to neutralize harmful molecules in the
 human body called "free radicals." These substances, which result from cell
 metabolism and other causes, may contribute to cancer and cardiovascular
 disease.
 Many genetic modifications have been designed to improve production. About half
 of the soybeans and about 25 percent of the corn grown by farmers in the United
 States have been bioengineered, according to the USDA. Most of these transgenic
 crop varieties have been designed to either better tolerate herbicides or resist
 insects without the need for extensive spraying of pesticides. An estimated
 two-thirds of the processed foods in U.S. supermarkets contain genetically
 engineered corn, soybeans or other crops.
 Biotechnology also has the potential of creating major advances in medicine.
 Scientists are looking into the possibility of producing bananas that contain
 vaccines against cholera, hepatitis B and diarrhea. Some researchers say that
 food-based vaccines could be especially useful in developing countries because
 the costs associated with refrigeration and needle sterilization would be
 greatly reduced or eliminated.
 StarLink Corn Investigation and Recall
 In September 2000, a consumer group reported that a bioengineered variety of
 corn not approved for human consumption had been found in taco shells.
 The corn, dubbed StarLink, was modified to contain a gene from the bacterium
 Bacillus thuringiensis that expresses a protein--Cry9C--toxic to certain insects
 that eat up the profits of corn growers.
 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for reviewing the
 safety of pesticide substances in bioengineered plants. The EPA approved Cry9C
 only for corn earmarked for animal feed and industrial uses. The agency did not
 approve the protein for human consumption due to lingering questions about
 Cry9C's potential to cause allergic reactions.
 Although StarLink's developer, Aventis, was required to ensure that the
 bioengineered corn did not go into food, some became mingled with corn destined
 for human consumption. The presence of an unapproved pesticide in food means
 that the food is adulterated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,
 enforced by the FDA.
 Upon learning of allegations that the taco shells contained StarLink corn, FDA
 began a full investigation. Kraft Foods, producer of the taco shells, initiated
 its own investigation and voluntarily recalled millions of taco shells as soon
 as an independent laboratory found that the shells contained the Cry9C gene. The
 FDA subsequently confirmed the presence of StarLink in the taco shells.
 Other recalls have resulted from FDA's continuing StarLink investigation. The
 agency has worked with EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to
 ensure that corn products containing the Cry9C gene are limited to approved
 uses. Aventis has agreed to buy back the 2000 StarLink crop.
 LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2002
            Copyright 2001 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 780
 
                          Telegraph Herald (Dubuque, IA)
                            February 11, 2001, Sunday
 Advanced gene-splicing technology is changing our crops ; Biotech: Supporters
 say genetically modified food is nothing new, but others are leery
 SECTION: Pg. d9
 LENGTH: 931 words
 <B> Transgenic crops fight herbicides, insects
 </B> Several transgenic-crop types have been developed in recent years.
 Among the most popular transgenics are crops that are made resistant to certain
 herbicides and insect pests.
 Herbicide-tolerant crops include those that have transplanted genes providing
 tolerance to herbicides called Roundup (glyphosate) or Liberty (glufosinate).
 These herbicides are broad-spectrum, meaning they kill nearly all kinds of
 plants except those that have the tolerance gene.
 Thus, a farmer can apply a single herbicide to his fields of herbicide-tolerant
 crops, and he can use Roundup and Liberty effectively at most crop-growth stages
 as needed.
 Another type of common transgenic crop is called "Bt," short for Bacillus
 thuringiensis.
 Bacillus thuringiensis is a soil bacterium whose spores contain a crystalline
 protein that is fatal to certain insects.
 Insecticides containing Bt and its toxins have been sold for many years.
 Bt crops differ in that a modified version of the bacterial gene has been
 incorporated into the plant's own DNA, enabling the plant's cellular machinery
 to produce the toxin.
 When the insect chomps on a leaf or bores into a stem of a Bt-containing plant,
 it ingests the toxin and will die within a few days.
 Common transgenic crops include corn plants that are protected against European
 corn-borer and corn-earworm pests. Other Bt crops include certain types of
 cotton and potatoes.
 - From Colorado State University Detractors liken genetically modified foods to
 the laboratory efforts of Dr. Frankenstein.
 Proponents argue that science is merely facilitating genetic improvements that
 humans have been striving for years to achieve.
 "The sky is the limit," said Roger Higgs, a professor of agronomy at the
 University of Wisconsin-Platteville.
 Within the past decade, about 50 crops have been produced using gene-splicing
 techniques that add pest-resistance traits to corn and cotton or make soybeans
 and wheat tough enough to stand up to herbicides.
 Proponents say such alterations are really no different than traditional
 breeding practices.
 "There has been plant breeding for the last 100 to 150 years where they take
 genes from within a species or from wild relatives," Higgs said.
 Early farmers discovered long ago that some crop plants could be artificially
 bred together or cross-pollinated to increase yields and to combine desirable
 characteristics from different parent plants in the offspring.
 Present-day gene-splicing technology has given rise to a new variety of modified
 foods called transgenics.
 A transgenic crop plant contains a gene or genes that have been artificially
 inserted instead of the plant acquiring them through pollination.
 Although agricultural scientists have traditionally altered genetics through
 natural selection, "the basic difference is that in some cases the transgenic
 crop has genes that have been brought from one species to another," Higgs said.
 Transgenic Bt corn, for example, produces its own insecticide because it
 contains a gene from a bacterium.
 Critics argue the safety of gene-splicing and other genetically modified foods
 is unproven
 "I think they're a nightmare," said Mike Breitbach, of Breitbach's Farmer's
 Market in Dubuque. "The future on this is very difficult to see."
 Breitbach's store features a variety of organically grown items. He worries that
 gene-splicing could have long-term effects on crops such as corn.
 "There's going to be no such thing as a 'pure' crop because of how pollen in
 corn crosses," Breitbach said. "I don't think the public knows enough about what
 goes on in the food industry to make choices about this."
 Higgs said genetic modification is not new. Some forms of gene-splicing have
 been used for decades.
 "In the 1960s, a new crop was developed called triticale," he said.
 Formed by the combination of 14 chromosomes of rye with 28 chromosomes of durum
 wheat, Higgs noted that triticale's development escaped the controversial nature
 of some current transgenic crops.
 "Nobody said anything about that," Higgs said.
 For the most part, Higgs said most genetically modified foods have met a
 positive reception.
 "The American people are generally accepting of these products," he said. "Some
 people who don't like it will never like it."
 Breitbach decries a lack of long-term study of genetically modified foods.
 "There's no way to time-test these things," he said. "Where's the control
 group?"
 Last year, the potential dangers of some genetically modified foods prompted a
 food recall.
 Taco Bell-brand taco shells were withdrawn from the market because they
 contained a genetically engineered corn called StarLink that is not approved for
 human consumption.
 Use of the corn is restricted to animal feed because of unresolved questions
 about whether it causes human allergies.
 Higgs said safety is a primary concern when developing genetically engineered
 foods.
 "Obviously, we have to be careful," he said. "Obviously the regulatory people
 have to maintain their vigilance."
 The nutritional benefits of some genetically modified foods have gained the
 approval of some in the health profession.
 "The dietetic-association position paper on this is that biotech foods are
 useful," said Becky Graeve, a registered dietitian at Mercy Medical
 Center-Dubuque
 Benefits of genetically enhanced foods include "enhancing the quality and
 nutritional value and the food variety available," Graeve said.
 "I think it's here to stay," Higgs said.
 LOAD-DATE: February 17, 2001
                         Copyright 2001, Telegraph-Herald









Document Number: 781
 
                     U.S. Department of Agricultural Research
                                  February 2001
 Protecting Farmers' Investment in Bt Cotton
 LENGTH: 1396 words
 In the past, farmers have used toxic chemicals such as calcium arsenate, Paris
 green, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and toxaphene to rid their cotton
 crops of insects. Today, however, farmers are buying transgenic seeds that have
 built-in pest control. ARS researchers are pitching in to ensure that American
 farmers have made a sound investment and to ensure global competitiveness.
 Cotton pests, like pests of many crops, have developed some resistance to many
 of the insecticides used to control them. Insects persist, almost mockingly, in
 spite of farmers' fierce attempts to snuff them out.
 Tobacco budworm (Heliothis virescens) and bollworm (Helicoverpa zea) are two of
 the most destructive pests in cotton and other crops, with costs of control,
 production, and lost yield of up to $300 million per year in the United States
 alone. To add to our arsenal of control agents for these and other lepidopteran
 pests, in the late 1980s industry began to develop crops with built-in pest
 control from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) genes, which produce proteins toxic to
 several insects, including tobacco budworm and bollworm.
 Cotton was one of the first crops to benefit from biotechnology-supplied pest
 protection, and Bt cotton is now one of the most widely used transgenic crops.
 It is currently grown throughout the United States, China, India, and Australia.
 More than 2 million acres of Bt cotton are grown in the United States alone.
 Other crops, including corn, potatoes, and soybeans, also now contain Bt genes.
 But Bt resistance is cropping up, too. "In addition to synthetic
 insecticide-resistance development worldwide, several pests have developed
 resistance to foliar Bt, including Indianmeal moths, diamondback moths, and at
 least nine other insects," says entomologist D.D. Hardee, who heads ARS'
 Southern Insect Management Research Unit in Stoneville, Mississippi. Because
 toxins are present in cotton for the entire life of the plant and in all parts
 of the plant, scientists are concerned that tobacco budworm and bollworm may
 rapidly develop resistance to Bt cotton. Since Bt cotton's commercial release in
 1996, Hardee's unit has been tracking bollworm and tobacco budworm tolerance to
 Bt proteins as part of a Bt-resistance monitoring program.
 "Tobacco budworm is the key pest for which Bt cotton is used, because it has
 rapidly developed resistance to previous insecticides. Even though bollworm is
 more Bt-tolerant, it's easily managed with less expensive insecticides and
 hasn't shown much propensity for developing resistance to insecticides.
 Nevertheless, we think it's essential that both insects be monitored
 simultaneously," says Hardee.
 "We solicit voluntary participation in our program from all cotton-growing
 states. Entomologists at universities, other ARS units, and private industry, as
 well as growers and consultants have responded," says Hardee. "But we need even
 more people to send us samples because our challenge is always getting enough
 insects from all areas."
 When insect samples arrive in Stoneville, they're sent to ARS entomologist Larry
 Adams, who raises them through one complete generation on a diet without toxic
 proteins. The next larval generation from field colonies is then placed on a Bt
 diet and compared with the Stoneville laboratory colony. ARS entomologist
 Douglas V. Sumerford receives the same colonies for detailed resistance
 monitoring using a rapid and sensitive assay he developed to help identify pests
 with tolerance.
 "We evaluate the second generation with an artificial diet containing Bt protein
 levels so we can distinguish among larvae in their ability to tolerate Bt
 proteins," says Sumerford. "The more tolerant to Bt protein the pest is, the
 faster it'll grow on the artificial diet and the more likely it'll survive
 higher doses of Bt in the artificial diet. We check the weights of individual
 larvae, and if a worm is growing fast on the diet, we look for cues indicating a
 genetic basis for tolerance."
 Sumerford is checking for genetic differences between individuals and families.
 He's developing a genetic map to pinpoint insects that could become resistant to
 Bt. One adult female can lay 400 to 500 eggs, and a moth can fly several miles.
 Sumerford says, "We want to know if the resistance trait can be spread to other
 regions. This kind of information combined with the genetic map will help us
 better monitor any changes in field populations."
 "Resistance monitoring is so critical," he adds. "In past years, some cotton
 growers considered quitting farming, because of the expense involved in
 controlling tobacco budworm once it developed resistance to pyrethroid
 pesticides. Our information will help develop remedial action plans for farmers
 and help preserve the Bt technology."
 Another part of the monitoring program, carried out by entomologist John J.
 Adamczyk, Jr., is assessing Bt cotton varieties to see how well they control
 insects. In 1996, only one Bt cotton variety was commercially available; today,
 more than 25 are.
 "Many varieties are marketed on their insecticidal qualities, but we want to do
 further analysis to help growers make a sound investment," says Adamczyk.
 He says that by using assays, he and his colleagures have found that some
 varieties express Bt proteins better than others, and certain parts of plants
 express the proteins better than others. They now want to learn if differences
 in insect control could also be due to incidents like a farmer's accidentally
 mixing Bt and non-Bt seeds or to environmental factors like irrigation or soil
 salinity. They hope to take high-yielding varieties with the best Bt protein
 levels and incorporate them into a variety-development program.
 "We're investigating the next generation of Bt cotton, an experimental variety
 that has two Bt genes. It should be commercially available in 2003," says
 Adamczyk. "Under an experimental use permit from the U.S. Environmental
 Protection Agency, we are profiling the season-long activity of this
 double-Bt-gene product against various caterpillar pests. Even if there is no
 cross-resistance between the two Bt genes, we still need to make sure that both
 Bt proteins are giving year-round control."
 Since the resistance monitoring program started, the Stoneville group hasn't
 detected any change in the tolerance of tobacco budworm to Bt cotton. They must
 gather data from more areas of the Cotton Belt before they can be certain about
 bollworm.
 "In the meantime, this technology significantly reduces insecticide use," Hardee
 notes, "and since Bt is present in the entire plant for the life of the plant
 and only affects target pests feeding on the cotton, beneficial insects are left
 unharmed."
 To attempt to delay the development of Bt resistance, federal regulations allow
 growers to choose one of the following three Bt-growing plans:
 * Plant a maximum of 80 percent Bt cotton along with 20 percent non-Bt, with the
 option of spraying the latter as needed with anything but foliar Bt
 insecticides.
 * Plant a maximum of 95 percent Bt cotton along with 5 percent non-Bt, but the
 latter cannot be sprayed with any insecticides.
 * Plant a maximum of 95 percent Bt cotton along with 5 percent non-Bt, with the
 latter planted in the same field with the Bt and sprayed only if the 95 percent
 is sprayed with non-Bt foliar insecticides.
 "The regulations are an attempt to prolong the effectiveness of Bt cotton for
 decades," says Hardee, "and they are subject to change after the 2001 growing
 season."
 A new publication, "Bt Cotton & Management of the Tobacco Budworm-Bollworm
 Complex," is available from Hardee's group.--By Tara Weaver-Missick,
 Agricultural Research Service Information Staff.
 This research is part of Plant, Microbial, and Insect Genetic Resources,
 Genomics and Genetic Improvement, an ARS National Program (#301) described on
 the World Wide Web at  http://www.nps.ars.usda.gov. D.D. Hardee, Douglas V.
 Sumerford, John J. Adamczyk, Jr., and Larry C. Adams are in the USDA-ARS
 Southern Insect Management Research Unit, P.O. Box 346, Stoneville, MS 38776;
 phone (662) 686-5231, fax (662) 686-5421.
 "Protecting Farmers' Investment in Bt Cotton" was published in the February 2001
 issue of Agricultural Research magazine.
 LOAD-DATE: July 2, 2002
            Copyright 2001 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 782
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                December 10, 2000, Sunday, FIVE STAR LIFT EDITION
                               Correction Appended
 BYLINE: Tina Hesman; Of The Post-DispatchASSAY; SCIENCE; TECHNOLOGY;
 SECTION: NEWS, Pg. A1
 LENGTH: 1601 words
 It's a victory.
 No. It's a setback.
 The push-and-shove in this case isn't the legal and political wrangling over the
 presidential election, but a raging debate over the science and future of
 genetically engineered foods.
 In the past 18 months, agricultural biotechnology has taken several punishing
 blows.
 First was the revelation that the supposedly "green" technology could actually
 harm the environment by killing off monarch butterflies and other benign
 insects.
 Then, in September, a variety of genetically altered corn not approved for human
 consumption was found in taco shells. That incident led to the temporary closing
 of some food manufacturing plants and recalls of more than 300 grocery and
 restaurant products containing corn.
 Consumer confidence began to waver in both the safety of biotech foods and in
 the government regulatory process, and anti-biotech activists proclaimed that
 the end of genetically engineered crops was nigh.
 Not so fast, said biotech supporters. As they have since the introduction of
 genetically engineered crops in the mid-1990s, industry advocates counted on
 science to save them from the fears of the public.
 In mixed victories last week, scientists ruled on the safety of biotech crops
 for man and monarch.
 Yet, lingering questions have many observers wondering if biotechnology will be
 the agricultural revolution of the 21st century or if fears about the new
 technology will sink genetically engineered crops for good.
 The scientific view
 Researchers gathered last week in Montreal for an entomology conference seemed
 convinced that science can save biotech. But they say that will happen only if
 the general public is educated about the benefits genetically engineered crops
 -- also called transgenic crops -- bring to the environment and the dinner
 table.
 "We've just been doing a poor job of educating consumers about the benefits and
 the risks of transgenic crops," said Galen Dively, an entomologist at the
 University of Maryland in College Park.
 Dively was one of a group of scientists that examined the effect of genetically
 engineered corn pollen on monarch butterflies this summer. Last year a study by
 Cornell University researchers suggested that monarchs could be killed if they
 ate milkweed leaves dusted with pollen from genetically engineered corn.
 The corn contains a protein from a common soil bacteria called Bacillus
 thuringiensis. The protein, called Bt toxin, kills the European corn borer, but
 it is also poisonous to other moths and butterflies.
 Environmentalists and monarch lovers, stirred by publicity surrounding
 publication of the study in the prestigious British journal Nature, began to
 call for a ban on biotech crops.
 But industry and academic scientists claimed that the experiment was flawed and
 set out to determine if the monarch was in danger from the genetically modified
 corn pollen.
 At an informal conference Wednesday, scientists said the results from two
 summers of research indicate that the answer is a resounding "probably not."
 But that finding was largely overshadowed by a report released the day before
 that found that the corn contaminating taco shells has the potential to cause
 food allergies in people. The report, issued by the Environmental Protection
 Agency's scientific advisory panel, said that a different form of Bt toxin in
 StarLink corn had "medium likelihood" of causing allergies. The panel also said
 so little of the protein, called Cry9C, is likely to be found in food that the
 chance of anyone actually developing such an allergy is low.
 The panel called for further scientific study as both biotech proponents and
 critics claimed the report as a victory for their side.
 The resistance question
 Technology has always come under fire at its first adoption, scientists at the
 Montreal meeting said. "When hybrid corn came on the market, people opposed it
 because they thought it was a big conspiracy by industry," Divel y said.
 Biotech crops are now getting the same treatment, he said.
 Many scientists express frustration with arguments made against biotech crops.
 They say anti-biotech activists hold the plants to much higher standards than
 conventional agricultural products -- without much justification.
 One argument against the use of plants engineered to contain the Bt toxin is
 that pest insects could develop resistance to the pesticide. Bt toxin is widely
 used by organic farmers, and if insects become resistant to it, the farmers will
 be robbed of one of their most important tools, critics say.
 Some scientists say that argument is ludicrous.
 "You don't say that we're not going to use an insecticide because someday pests
 will be resistant," said Bruce Tabashnik, an entomologist at the University of
 Arizona in Tucson who is studying the pink bollworm's ability to become
 resistant to pesticide proteins engineered into cotton.
 The average person can't see the benefits of the current class of biotech crops
 because there is no direct effect on their health, pocketbook or sense of taste,
 Dively said. He predicts that once prettier, tastier vegetables start showing up
 in produce bins at the local markets, most people will want the genetically
 engineered products.
 Right now most genetically engineered crops carry traits that are useful for
 farmers -- built-in insecticide or resistance to herbicides that let farmers
 kill weeds without damaging their crops. What most people don't realize is that
 those properties also benefit consumers and butterflies by reducing the amount
 of pesticides used in growing the crops, Dively said.
 On the farm
 Many farmers have embraced biotech crops. Nearly a quarter of the corn, more
 than half the soybeans, and more than 60 percent of cotton grown in the United
 States is genetically engineered.
 But some farmers have become disillusioned since the StarLink controversy.
 "Farmers that bought into the hype are just outraged because all of the
 wonderful promises made about the future of these crops are not coming to
 fruition," said Bryce Oates of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center, a group that
 opposes biotech crops on the ground that they are not economically sound for
 small family farmers.
 Faced with high production costs and low market prices for their grain, farmers
 are an easy mark for the biotech industry's sales pitch, Oates said.
 "They're going to be looking for a savior," he said. "Companies like Monsanto
 and Pioneer seize the opportunity to take advantage of that."
 Farmers are not so easily duped, said Stuart Reeve of the National Corn Growers
 Association. "If a farmer doesn't make money on (a biotech crop) one year, he
 won't be back for it the next," he said.
 Gerald E. Wilde, an entomologist from Kansas State University in Manhattan, said
 consumers must recognize the benefits of genetically engineered crops, such as
 how they help reduce the use of pesticides. One survey has estimated that
 pesticide use was reduced by 28 percent in 1998 because of Bt corn.
 "If the public just keeps a halfway-open mind . . . hopefully the science will
 win out," Wilde said.
 Scrutiny of industry
 Keeping an open mind is difficult when biotech companies conceal the facts about
 biotech crops, said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. He advocates stronger government
 regulation of biotech crops. Right now biotech products aren't subject to
 scrutiny beyond that given to conventionally grown crops, Durbin said.
 Durbin is pushing for legislation that would require labeling and further safety
 testing before the products come to market.
 "Some of the people in the industry don't want this to happen, but I think
 they're kidding themselves," Durbin said.
 Some consumers agree. Audrey Burns, 69, of St. Louis, said she wants biotech
 foods to be labeled so she can avoid them.
 "I'm not ready to buy anything like that because it hasn't been tested enough
 yet," Burns said.
 Burns said she thinks the biotech companies don't support labeling because they
 have something to hide.
 It's just that sort of perception that is likely to sink the biotech industry if
 it doesn't come out in favor of labeling and increased government regulation,
 said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio.
 "Biotech is now reduced to rear-guard action to try to block further federal
 regulation," he said.
 Kucinich is proposing House legislation similar to Durbin's Senate proposal. The
 more open companies are about what they are doing and why, the more confidence
 consumers will have in biotech products, Kucinich said.
 That's a position with which Monsanto executives say they agree. The company has
 pledged to make more of its scientific data available to the public, said Hugh
 Grant, Monsanto's agriculture chief.
 "This will become a prerequisite for doing business with these new
 technologies," he said.
 Grant said that even in Europe where the animosity toward genetically engineered
 foods has been the greatest, science is beginning to allay consumer fears.
 Monsanto doesn't see the need for labeling. It also doesn't see a need for
 further testing.
 "These are products that have been more extensively tested than any food
 products in history," Grant said.
 Still many people, including consumers, farmers and government officials,
 continue to press scientists for more definitive answers. "There are too many
 unanswered questions to eat, drink and be merry," Kucinich said.
 As both biotech advocates and opponents are discovering, it may take a while for
 science -- always a work in progress -- to answer those questions.
 LOAD-DATE: December 13, 2000
 LANGUAGE: English
 NOTES: BIOTECH SAFETY DEBATE To reach reporter Tina Hesman: E-mail:
 thesman@post-dispatch.com Phone: 314-862-2143
 CORRECTION-DATE: December 12, 2000
 CORRECTION:  The Cry9C protein found in StarLink genetically engineered corn has
 not been proven to cause allergies in people, though scientists suspect it might
 be an allergen. The article below includes inaccurate information.
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO (1) COLOR PHOTO by WENDI FITZGERALD / POST-DISPATCH - Inspector
 David Ayers lowers himself into a bin Friday to gather corn for testing for the
 presence of StarLink, a genetically engineered corn. Ayers, who is with the U.S.
 Department of Agriculture, was on a farm owned by brothers Bernie and Steve
 Gordon in Rantoul, Ill. The Gordons recently learned that seed they purchased
 last spring contained StarLink, which is not approved for human consumption.
  (2) PHOTO by WENDI FITZGERALD / POST-DISPATCH - Farmer Bernie Gordon (top)
 watches as Maynard Birkey (right) and grain inspector David Ayers collect a
 sample of Gordon's corn crop from the grain bin near Rantoul, Ill. The corn will
 be tested for the presence of StarLink, a genetically engineered corn. Birkey
 works for Fisher Farmers Gran and Coal Co. of Dewey, Ill. Gordon's 150,000
 bushel corn crop is tainted with StarLink.
  (3) PHOTO by WENDI FITZGERALD / POST-DISPATCH - At his office in Champaign,
 Ill., inspector David Ayers begins testing corn for the presence of StarLink, a
 genetically modified corn. A test will show a protein that is specific to
 StarLink.
                   Copyright 2000 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 783
 
                               The Washington Times
                    September 08, 2000, Friday, Final Edition
 Transgenic food furor
 BYLINE: Linda Seebach
 SECTION: PART A; COMMENTARY; Pg. A16
 LENGTH: 782 words
 Detractors call them "Frankenfoods": crops containing genes transferred from
 other species.  Worry about that or not, as you will, but you have to admire the
 ingenuity of the term and its effectiveness in rousing irrational fears.
 Nothing equally catchy has been coined by advocates for development of
 genetically modified organisms; "GM crops" sounds entirely too industrial.
 Professors at Colorado State University, whose new Web site aims to offer a
 balanced presentation of the controversy as well as links to other online
 resources both critical and favorable, have opted for the unemotional
 "transgenic."
 The authors are Pat Byrne, Sarah Ward and Ann Fenwick of the Department of Soil
 and Crop Sciences and Lacy Fuller of the Center for Life Sciences. The site is
 www.colostate.edu/programs/ lifesciences/TransgenicCrops at CSU, in Fort
 Collins, Colo.
 They are, they say in their introduction, "engaged in plant genetics research
 and teaching" at CSU.  "They receive no funds from companies involved in
 transgenic crop development, nor are they affiliated with groups campaigning
 against such crops."
 Fair enough.  But as experts who actually work in the area, neither are they
 afflicted with the antitechnology hysteria that predominates in this discussion.
 There are risks - it would be more accurate to say, based on experience so far,
 that there could be risks - from genetic engineering of transgenic plants.
 There are also benefits, already substantial and potentially enormous.  As with
 every scientific advance, there are tradeoffs between risks and benefits, and
 the best policy usually lies somewhere between ignoring all risks and trying to
 avoid them.
 If you think this debate has nothing to do with you, you are almost certainly
 wrong.  In 1999, more than half of the soybeans planted in the United States,
 and a quarter of the corn, were transgenic varieties. They're not segregated in
 production, so if you haven't eaten them directly you have eaten them in
 products like soy protein or corn oil used widely in prepared foods, or
 indirectly in meat from animals whose feed contained them.
 "We have all been eating transgenic food products for some time," the authors
 say.  "There is as yet no single case reported of anyone suffering health
 effects as a result."
 The transgenic varieties popular with farmers are resistant to herbicides or
 produce their own pesticides.  If farmers plant crops resistant to a particular
 herbicide, such as those marketed by Monsanto under the brand "Roundup Ready,"
 they can spray their fields with Roundup (glyphosate) and the weeds die while
 the crop flourishes.
 Insect-resistant crops such as corn, cotton and potatoes have been engineered to
 produce a toxin from the soil bacterium Bacillus thurigiensis that kills insects
 like the corn borer, the cotton bollworm and the Colorado potato beetle, the
 authors say.  Bt toxins are considered safe for birds and mammals, and safer for
 nontarget insects than other pesticides. In fact, Bt sprays are widely used by
 organic farmers.
 There is nothing more organic than genetic modification.  The reason there are
 genes like these is that plants and the things that eat them have been in an
 evolutionary war for far longer than humans have been on the scene.
 The advantages of these crops -especially from the point of view of those who
 abhor them - is that they markedly decrease the amount of chemicals needed in
 farming, and by increasing the productivity of the land reduce the demand for
 converting other kinds of land to farmland.
 Having crops that are easier and cheaper to grow and easier on the environment
 is a clear benefit, but so is having better crops.  One of the most promising is
 "golden rice."
 Yellow in color thanks to genes borrowed from the daffodil, it contains
 beta-carotene, which the body uses to make Vitamin A.
 Because rice is a staple food in Asia, and as currently grown does not contain
 Vitamin A, millions of children suffer from Vitamin A deficiency. Many die or go
 blind.
 Plants designed to contain edible vaccines could prevent childhood disease,
 especially in poor countries where children often have little access to medical
 care.  And transgenic grass could grow into lawns that required not only less
 fertilizer, but less mowing and less water.
 This fight is coming to a neighborhood near you; last month, for example, the
 Open Space Department in Boulder, Colo., banned genetically modified crops from
 agricultural lands it leases out.
 But that's Boulder for you.  Others will want to weigh the risks and benefits
 before deciding, and now they have a great place to start.
 Linda Seebach is a nationally syndicated columnist.
 LOAD-DATE: September 8, 2000
 GRAPHIC: Illustration, NO CAPTION, By Anya Johnson/Los Angeles Times Syndicate
                     Copyright 2000 The Washington Times LLC
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 784
 
                        Charleston Gazette (West Virginia)
                             August 14, 2000, Monday
 Know agriculture ? Take this quiz
 BYLINE: Donella Meadows
 SECTION: Editorial; Pg. P4A
 LENGTH: 761 words
 IN SOME ways the world food situation hasn't changed for decades. There are
 still millions of starving people. There are still places where so much food is
 grown that it has to be thrown away. Fertilizers and pesticides pollute the
 countryside; soil erodes; groundwater tables drop. Every year when the new
 statistics come out, I flip through and think, "Ho hum." It's easy to become
 inured to tragedy, if it goes on long enough on a big enough scale.
 This year, though, I took time to read the fine print in the food and
 agriculture section of Worldwatch Institute's annual book "Vital Signs." I found
 some surprises, which I will convey here in the form of a quiz, to see whether
 they are news to you too.
 1. The world's top grain-producing nation is: a. China. b. The United States. c.
 India. d. Russia.
 The answer is China by a long shot (1999 harvest 395 million tons). Next comes
 the United States (333 million tons), then India (185 million tons). Russia used
 to be a grain power; now its output is in free fall, wheat harvest down by over
 30 percent, corn harvest less than half what it once was. When your economic
 system collapses, a lot goes down with it. And, as China demonstrates, the
 reverse is also true.
 By the way, the numbers above demonstrate clearly that America does not "feed
 the world." U.S. farmers grow about one-sixth of the world grain harvest, most
 of which we consume at home. We do have the world's largest production excess;
 therefore we are the biggest grain exporter. Our exports - about 5 percent of
 world production - go primarily to feed animals in Europe and Japan.
 2. The share of the world grain crop fed to animals is: a. 70 percent. b. 55
 percent. c. 37 percent.
 The answer is c. More than a third of the grain harvest is used for animal feed.
 Almost all the rice is eaten directly by people, but 70 percent of the corn and
 about half the wheat goes to pigs, chickens and cows, in that order.
 3. The crop that covers the largest area in the United States is: a. Corn. b.
 Wheat. c. Soybeans
 Soybeans, the fastest growing crop in the world. World production has increased
 nine-fold since 1950. Half of that is grown in the United States. Brazil is the
 next largest producer, then Argentina, then China, where soybean cultivation
 originated. Only about a tenth of the soybeans grown are eaten directly by
 humans. The rest are crushed and pressed, yielding almost a third of the world's
 cooking oil and more than half the oil-seed meal used in animal feed.
 4. The amount of grain produced per person in the world is going: a. Up. b.
 Down.
 If that question hadn't had "per person" in it, the answer would have been "up."
 But grain output PER CAPITA peaked in 1984 and has fallen by about 10 percent
 since. The world's farmers are not keeping up with population growth. There seem
 to be three reasons for that: the collapse of Soviet production, the steady
 decline in African production, and the leveling off of yields in the
 highest-yielding places, such as Europe and the United States.
 5. The fastest-growing agricultural technology is: a. Genetically modified
 crops. b. Organic farming.
 This is a trick question, because the answer just reversed itself. Last year it
 would have been genetically modified crops, which expanded in just four years
 from zero to almost 100 million acres (almost all in the United States,
 Argentina and Canada). Organic farming, after decades of persistent growth, is
 estimated to cover only 17 million acres worldwide.
 However, having run into market resistance and in some countries government
 regulation, farmers are reversing their headlong rush to biotech. The area
 planted to transgenic crops is 15-25 percent less this year than last. Organic
 area continues to grow by about 20 percent per year.
 The use of genetically modified crops appears to have reduced slightly the use
 of insecticides on cotton and corn, but increased greatly the use of herbicides
 on soybeans. The growth of organic farming, of course, reduces the use of
 fertilizers and pesticides on everything.
 Under its large, steady trends, world agriculture is changing. Depending on what
 you look at, you can perceive pending good news or impending disaster. The
 mighty can fall; the lowly can rise. The balance between food to eat and mouths
 to feed continues to be wildly different from place to place and very tenuous
 worldwide. Small surprises can turn into big ones.
 Meadows is an adjunct professor at Dartmouth College and director of the
 Sustainability Institute in Hartland, Vt.
 SUBJECT: world farm food hunger statistic national FOOD CHARITIES(91%);
 LOAD-DATE: August 15, 2000
                       Copyright 2000 Charleston Newspapers









Document Number: 785
 
                      Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA)
                              July 31, 2000, Monday
 Biotech research plows untrodden frontiers
 BYLINE: Todd Wilkinson, Special to The Christian Science Monitor
 SECTION: USA; Pg. 4
 LENGTH: 1184 words
 HIGHLIGHT: From glue to lawns, researchers labor daily in work that rarely
 sparks protests.
 Far away from the shadow of Dolly the sheep and the roar of protests in cities
 like Minneapolis and Seattle, biotech researchers like Joan Combie aren't
 thinking about moral and ethical dilemmas.
 They're working to revolutionize patio and palate - with weed-resistant lawns
 that need less mowing and ice cream that won't melt as fast in the summer sun.
 In the process, they're putting environmentalists in something of a quandary.
 Many, such as the protesters amassed this week in Philadelphia for the
 Republican National Convention, point to genetic research as a bad experiment
 about to go awry.
 But experts say bio-engineering could revolutionize consumer waste in ways that
 recycling cannot. It could also reduce the pressure to clear virgin forests and
 make food more readily available and inexpensive in poverty-stricken countries.
 And then there's Ms. Combie, who is in the middle of a sticky experiment with
 broad implications.
 Combie is developing a new form of industrial-strength glue. Someday, it could
 provide an environmentally friendly (not to say profitable) alternative to the
 synthetics used on carpets in office buildings that have been blamed for
 outbreaks of sickness.
 She and her partner, Fred Albert, are among thousands of researchers around the
 world quietly making daily breakthroughs in work that rarely spurs angry
 demonstrations or the kind of media hype generated by cloned livestock and ears
 of corn.
 "There's nothing really exciting about glue," Combie confesses with a chuckle.
 "But cloning a sheep, that's newsworthy. Unfortunately, I think the
 controversial stuff surrounding bio-engineering takes up more than its share of
 newspaper space."
 Last week, Minneapolis became the latest battleground in the fray over
 bio-engineering as hundreds of protesters took to the streets in an attempt to
 disrupt an international scientific conference on biotechnology.
 The confrontation there between marchers and police could be repeated this week
 in Philadelphia, where activists plan to decry transgenic crops that have been
 banned by the European Union over public health concerns.
 Fruit juice, clean clothes
 The irony, bioengineering advocates say, is that the protesters in Minneapolis
 likely went home and enjoyed the benefits of genetic tinkering.
 It might have been in something as simple as clean clothes (courtesy of improved
 detergents) or a glass of fruit juice whose flavor had been enhanced.
 "Apart from these common consumer products, I would bet that at some point in
 time the lives of those protesters have been bettered by biotechnology,
 certainly in the area of medicines," says Preston Scott, executive director of
 the World Foundation for Environment and Development in Washington, D.C. "Their
 increased life expectancy is no accident."
 In addition to care-free lawns, researchers believe they are on the cusp of:
 *Unleashing a form of ancient, microscopic bacteria to eat toxins at mining
 sites in cleanups that could save taxpayers millions of dollars annually.
 *Extracting the natural agents that enable microbes to endure high doses of
 ultraviolet rays and transform it into sun cream for beachgoers and possibly an
 armor that could shield astronauts traveling to other planets.
 *Manufacturing "organic" nanochips as small as a speck of dust that can store as
 much information as millions of personal computers.
 *Altering the genes of mosquitoes to prevent them from carrying diseases such as
 malaria and even change their diet so they snack on animals rather than people.
 The trend with biotech, experts say, is to deliver more products in a smaller
 space, essentially to make it cheaper in the long run for companies to do
 business with products that also yield less waste.
 That ethos is quite attractive to some environmentalists, but they say troubling
 questions remain about the wisdom of tinkering with forms of life.
 Critics say that by the time a problem is identified it's already too late to
 ameliorate the damage. Concern over such things as the the pollen dust of Bt
 corn killing monarch butterflies, which prompted the protests in Minneapolis, is
 only the tip of the iceberg.
 A few months ago, the World Bank commissioned a blue-ribbon panel to examine the
 risks of genetically modified crops on human health and natural ecosystems.
 The conclusion was that transgenic crops represent a rapid acceleration of the
 hybridization process that has been going on for centuries with everything from
 orchids to house pets. The report concluded there is, as yet, no compelling
 evidence to suggest transgenic crops have caused major problems.
 "I don't want to criticize the protesters. They are asking the right questions,
 but maybe some of those questions have already been answered," says David Kaye,
 spokesman for biomedical research firm Amgen, based in Thousand Oaks, Calif.
 Prospecting for enzymes
 As scientists try to genetically decode known species and splice together
 beneficial properties, the real frontier lies in identifying specific enzymes in
 previously unknown micro-organisms.
 That search accounted for $ 2.5 billion in research and development worldwide in
 1999, and genetic scientists believe that enzymes represent potentially $ 50
 billion in untapped revenue.
 One of the global leaders in enzyme bio-prospecting is San Diego-based Diversa
 Corp. Diversa especially is extracted to screening genetic material found in
 "extremophiles," organisms that live in extreme cold, heat, or darkness.
 The company is compiling its own genetic library that tracks properties found
 along certain genetic sequences.
 "The immediate impact of biotechnology companies, like Diversa, is that by
 transforming old-economy industries ... they can improve people's daily lives,"
 says Hillary Theakston, Diversa's investor relations analyst.
 The boom in biotech has given way to a rush of small research companies trying
 to cash in. Fourteen years ago, when Montana Biotech was founded, there were few
 firms specializing in genetic engineering.
 Now, in the Bozeman area alone, there are dozens of companies united under the
 umbrella of the Gallatin Valley Technology Alliance, forming partnerships with
 parties ranging from NASA to multinational companies.
 "There's a minority of issues that are stirring up controversy but some of the
 really exiting things are going unnoticed by the public," Combie says.
 As for the demonstrations, Mr. Scott has his own take. "I see the protests as a
 political-social phenomenon," he says.
  "It obviously involves a group of people who feel disenfranchised, not only
 politically but intellectually. They are against the technological wizards, who
 in many cases work for corporations and hold the cards and make decisions that
 affect all of us. The gap has compelled them to hit the streets."
 (c) Copyright 2000. The Christian Science Publishing Society
 LOAD-DATE: July 30, 2000
             Copyright 2000 The Christian Science Publishing Society









Document Number: 786
 
                                 Grand Forks Herald
                        July 31, 2000 Monday FINAL EDITION
 BYLINE: Kevin G. Hall, Knight Ridder Newspapers
 SECTION: A; Pg. 01
 LENGTH: 805 words
 The global battle over genetically modified food is spilling into Brazil, South
 America's largest economy.
 And the consequences will be huge for U.S. exporters to Brazil of nearly $2
 billion a year in food products and commodities such as corn and soybeans.
 They'll be big for Brazil, too, forcing it to choose between the United States
 and Europe as its target export market.
 Currently, Brazilian law permits imports of genetically modified seeds on a
 case-by-case basis. But lawsuits have stymied every effort to do so. Brazil also
 has a new law requiring labels on genetically modified consumer foods. But so
 far, the commission named to carry out the law has failed to agree how it should
 work.
 What Brazil decides has importance to American consumers, too. Soybeans, a key
 export, are used as protein additives and in cooking oils, and are crushed into
 meal to thicken or bind food products. If Brazil joins the United States and
 Argentina in allowing genetically modified products to be grown and imported, it
 will be harder for consumers anywhere to be sure their breakfast cereals, loaves
 of bread or chicken breasts contain no genetically modified ingredients.
 The issue has arisen because U.S. farmers now routinely use genetically modified
 seeds to grow corn, cotton or soybeans that are more resistant to pests or hardy
 enough to withstand certain pesticides. The practice also is commonplace in
 Canada and has spread to Mexico and Argentina.
 European environmental groups, often supported by a heavily subsidized farm
 sector and chemical manufacturers, have managed to keep some genetically
 modified food imports out of Europe or to require that they be labeled.
 Now that's happening in Brazil, the world's second-largest soybean producer, for
 whom Europe is a major market. Brazil's chief competitor there is the biggest
 producer, the United States.
 Brazil also is a major importer of feed grains, and its population of 165
 million makes it South America's biggest consumer market. It imports about $70
 million in consumer foods from the United States, possibly including some that
 contain genetically modified ingredients.
 The problem is not so much technical. There is the question of public opinion,
 disinformation about the products, says Claudio Machado, an agriculture
 researcher at Brazil's acclaimed University of Sao Paulo.
 We are in favor of transgenics because it lowers our costs, says Osmar Giovelli,
 whose family business, Industrias de Oleos Vegetais, grows and crushes soybeans
 in the southernmost state of Rio Grande do Sul. Transgenics is shorthand for
 genetically modified products.
 Giovelli has a special certification program in place to sell transgenic-free
 products to the niche health-food market. But since neighboring Argentina's
 exports almost are all transgenic, it is hard to keep genetically modified seed
 out of Brazil.
 Researchers estimate that as much as 15 percent of Brazilian soybeans may be of
 transgenic stocks smuggled in or blown across the border from Argentina.
 Opponents of genetically modified foods argue that not enough is known about
 their long-term effects or about how transgenic feeds affect farm animals
 consumed by humans.
 While favoring unrestricted access for transgenic products, I can understand why
 Brazil is taking a good look at this, says Linda Thrane, a spokeswoman for U.S.
 agribusiness giant Cargill Inc. in Minneapolis. Cargill exports chicken feed to
 Brazil.
 Another U.S. ag giant, Monsanto Co., has won Brazil's approval to test modified
 soybean seeds, but the offer remains tied up in court.
 Developing standards Brazilian Agriculture Minister Marcus Vinicius Pratini de
 Moraes says publicly that transgenic feed corn for animals has no effect on
 their genetic structure. He praises transgenic crops as safer for the
 environment because they require less pesticide. He blames unnamed makers of
 agricultural chemicals for financing environmentalist opposition in hopes of
 selling more crop protection products.
 Brazilian agriculture officials are developing a labeling standard for consumer
 foods with genetically modified contents. But what percentage of a product must
 be genetically modified to require such a label has not been resolved.
 If we try to say something is free of genetic modification, we will have to
 label everything, says Edmundo Klotz, president of the Brazilian Food Industry
 Association, which represents grocery store chains. In some sense, every product
 on a store shelf over the last six years will probably have some genetically
 modified component.
 LOAD-DATE: January 29, 2002
 GRAPHIC: Wayne Elfman, staff artist, Lee Hulteng, KRT, and Knight
 Ridder Tribune
                        Copyright 2000 Grand Forks Herald
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 787
 
                          Portland Press Herald (Maine)
                              July 31, 2000, Monday,
 Newly developed plants could feed and clothe the world;
  That is, if vandals with machetes -- and protesters with placards -- don't kill
 off their promise first.
 BYLINE: M.D. Harmon
 SECTION: EDITORIAL, Pg. 9A
 LENGTH: 829 words
 A news article last week told how a group of "eco-vandals" had hacked down about
 3,000 hybrid poplar trees on a farm in Milo, apparently under the mistaken
 impression that the trees were "genetically modified" (GM) plants.
 A similar attack on actual GM corn being grown for research took place in Old
 Town in August 1999.
 The Milo eco-overenthusiasts didn't appear to have enough awareness to notice
 the difference between hybridization and the implantation of genes from other
 types of plants, but that's not the point. These folks are akin to the dangerous
 "Deep Green" radicals who have pounded spikes into trees to injure loggers.
 That's because what the vandals do to food and other plants is also potentially
 harmful to human beings.
 Humans have been modifying plants and animals for millennia. Remember Mendel and
 his peas? Corn from maize? Dog breeds of an amazing variety from the wolf? We
 have been altering the genetic makeup of organisms through breeding all through
 history. What is happening now is just an acceleration of a well-accepted
 practice.
 Caution is indeed in order because of unknown long-term effects, but genetic
 modification is not an unusual process. In fact, where testing shows no
 problems, producing GM foods and plants like cotton is an ecological issue where
 right and left should join forces to feed and clothe the world's poor.
 As the cover story in the July 31 issue of Time notes, GM foods comprise the
 major way science hopes to feed people worldwide in the 21st century. The
 article told the story of a "golden rice" that contains beta carotene, a Vitamin
 A-producing supplement that could prevent hundreds of thousands of cases of
 childhood blindness in underdeveloped countries.
 However, distributing the rice, and other foodstuffs and plants, has run into
 obstacles -- not from consumers, but from protectionist foreign governments and
 environmental activists, including a group here in Maine that has demonstrated
 at supermarkets.
 Raising fears is easy to do and can cause long-lasting damage (recall the Alar
 scare, when a harmless substance used to preserve apples was demonized in the
 media and thousands of growers lost millions of dollars due to the phony
 reports).
 Consumers should hold off drawing conclusions about such "Frankenfood" scare
 stories until actual tests are complete. According to Time, "Reports (of tests
 of GM plants) coming in are not necessarily that scary." In fact, although scare
 stories abound, almost no scientifically valid tests have confirmed any true
 environmental dangers.
 Nobody wants to introduce something into the ecosystem that would harm people.
 The most serious concern abut GM foods seems to be the introduction of allergens
 -- substances causing allergic reactions -- into crops that are free of them.
 Still, given sufficient testing, the burden of proof should be on those who want
 to block these potentially helpful plants. Many crops have the promise of being
 able to resist insect predators and diseases by themselves, without the spraying
 of pesticides or antifungal preparations.
 And it is precisely the attacks by eco-vandals on research crops (real or
 imagined) that prevent the testing we must perform to know if such plants can
 fulfill their great promise.
 It has been said that the story of civilization is a record of the slow triumph
 of those who want to build something over those who want merely to conquer and
 destroy. The attempt to improve our foodstuffs and other useful plants is a
 civilization-building effort, and the destructive activities of machete-wielding
 vandals is uncivilized in the extreme.
 Despite these attacks, "transgenic" crops are spreading. According to Dennis
 Avery of the Hudson Institute, the United States will plant "nearly 75 million
 acres this year devoted to corn, soybeans, canola and other crops. Argentina
 will plant 17 million acres, mostly corn and soybeans, and Canada 10 million
 acres, mostly canola. China, Australia, South Africa, Mexico, Spain, France,
 Portugal, Romania and Ukraine also are planting transgenic crops."
 Avery adds, "A new 'super-rice' incorporates a corn gene for a higher rate of
 photosynthesis -- so it yields 35 percent more grain per acre. Frost-tolerant
 crops will survive temperatures perhaps 10 degrees colder than traditional
 crops, meaning higher yields for Canada and Russia, and more double cropping for
 the United States and China."
 Avery cites a report issued by the academies of science in Brazil, China, India,
 Mexico and the United States, along with the British Royal Society. He says it
 calls such foods "crucial to overcoming hunger for 800 million food-short
 residents of poor countries, and preventing the deaths of 6 million children
 under 5 who die each year from malnutrition."
 That's a promise to investigate, not mindlessly trample underfoot.
 M.D. Harmon, an editorial writer and editor, can be reached at
 MHarmon@pressherald.com or 791-6482.
 LOAD-DATE: August 1, 2000
                  Copyright 2000 Blethen Maine Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 788
 
                        San Jose Mercury News (California)
                    July 30, 2000 Sunday MORNING FINAL EDITION
 BYLINE: KEVIN G. HALL, Knight Ridder
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. 3F
 LENGTH: 841 words
 DATELINE: RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil
 The global battle over genetically modified food is spilling into Brazil, South
 America's largest economy.
 And the consequences will be huge for U.S. exporters to Brazil of nearly $2
 billion a year in food products and commodities such as corn and soybeans.
 They'll be big for Brazil, too, forcing it to choose between the United States
 and Europe as its target export market.
 Currently, Brazilian law permits imports of genetically modified seeds on a
 case-by-case basis. But lawsuits have stymied every effort to do so. Brazil also
 has a new law requiring labels on genetically modified consumer foods. But so
 far, the commission named to carry out the law has failed to agree how it should
 work.
 Brazil's debate comes as U.S. opponents have launched a new American initiative
 against biotechnological foods and the industry has just concluded a $50 million
 U.S. campaign to promote their safety and usefulness.
 What Brazil decides has importance to American consumers, too. Soybeans, a key
 export, are used as protein additives and in cooking oils, and are crushed into
 meal to thicken or bind food products.
 If Brazil joins the United States and Argentina in allowing genetically modified
 products to be grown and imported, it will be harder for consumers anywhere to
 be sure their breakfast cereals, loaves of bread or chicken breasts contain no
 genetically modified ingredients.
 The issue has arisen because U.S. farmers now routinely use genetically modified
 seeds to grow corn, cotton or soybeans that are more resistant to pests or
 hearty enough to withstand certain pesticides. The practice is also commonplace
 in Canada and has spread to Mexico and Argentina.
 European environmental groups, often supported by a heavily subsidized farm
 sector and chemical manufacturers, have managed to keep some genetically
 modified food imports out of Europe or to require that they be labeled.
 Now that's happening in Brazil, the world's second-largest soybean producer, for
 whom Europe is a major market. Brazil's chief competitor there is the biggest
 producer, the United States.
 Brazil also is a major importer of feed grains, and its population of 165
 million makes it South America's biggest consumer market. It imports about $70
 million in consumer foods from the United States, possibly including some that
 contain genetically modified ingredients.
 Thus far, the Brazilian government has appeared to side with U.S. scientists and
 regulators who say genetic modification does no harm. But polls in Europe, the
 United States and Brazil show consumers are wary.
 "The problem is not so much technical. There is the question of public opinion,
 disinformation about the products," said Claudio Machado, an agriculture
 researcher at Brazil's acclaimed University of Sao Paulo.
 "We are in favor of transgenics because it lowers our costs," said Osmar
 Giovelli, whose family business, Industrias de Oleos Vegetais, grows and crushes
 soybeans in the southernmost state of Rio Grande do Sul. Transgenics is
 shorthand for genetically modified products.
 Giovelli has a special certification program in place to sell transgenic-free
 products to the niche health-food market. But since neighboring Argentina's
 exports are almost all transgenic, it is hard to keep genetically modified seed
 out of Brazil.
 Researchers estimate that as much as 15 percent of Brazilian soybeans may be of
 transgenic stocks smuggled in or blown across the border from Argentina.
 Opponents of genetically modified foods argue that not enough is known about
 their long-term effects or about how transgenic feeds affect farm animals
 consumed by humans.
 While favoring unrestricted access for transgenic products, "I can understand
 why Brazil is taking a good look at this," said Linda Thrane, a spokeswoman for
 U.S. agribusiness giant Cargill Inc. in Minneapolis. Cargill exports chicken
 feed to Brazil.
 Another U.S. agricultural giant, Monsanto Co., has won Brazil's approval to test
 modified soybean seeds, but the offer remains tied up in court.
 Brazilian Agriculture Minister Marcus Vinicius Pratini de Moraes has said
 publicly that transgenic feed corn for animals has no effect on their
 geneticstructure. He has praised transgenic crops as safer for the environment
 because they require less pesticide. He blames unnamed makers of agricultural
 chemicals for financing environmentalist opposition in hopes of selling more
 crop protection products.
 Brazilian agriculture officials are developing a labeling standard for consumer
 foods with genetically modified contents. But what percentage of a product must
 be genetically modified to require such a label has not been resolved.
 "If we try to say something is free of genetic modification, we will have to
 label everything," said Edmundo Klotz, president of the Brazilian Food Industry
 Association, which represents grocery-store chains. "In some sense every product
 on a store shelf over the last six years will probably have some genetically
 modified component."
 LOAD-DATE: January 30, 2002
 NOTES: Notebook From Rio De Janeiro
 GRAPHIC: Photo;
 These groceries carry seals from Carrefour supermarket in Brazil stating they
 were farmed by natural means.
                      Copyright 2000 San Jose Mercury News
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 789
 
                          Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
                     July 19, 2000, Wednesday, Metro Edition
 Report urges alternatives to chemical pest management
 Sharon Schmickle; Staff Writer
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 7A
 LENGTH: 723 words
 Although thousands of farmers are tending a new generation of crops with
 defenses against pests built into the plants' genes, conventional chemicals
 remain the most ready tools that farmers use to fight pests, especially in fruit
 and vegetable crops. And that won't change for at least a decade, said a report
 released Tuesday by the National Research Council.
 Pests will continue to thrive and no single pest-control strategy will work
 reliably for every farmer, the report said. Indeed, "magic bullet fantasies"
 have generally led to resistant pests and other problems.
 Plants that are genetically modified to resist pests probably are safer for
 the environment than synthetic chemicals, but at this point the key word is
 "probably," said May Berenbaum, who chaired the panel of 15 scientists that
 produced the report. She heads the department of entomology at the University of
 Illinois in Urbana.
 "The operating assumption is that transgenic crops are environmentally
 compatible, but in fact there have been few well-designed studies to support
 that assumption," Berenbaum said Tuesday.
 Organic foods are the alternative for more and more shoppers. If the
 organic market sustains its current growth rate _ about 20 percent per year _ it
 could constitute 20 percent of all food sold in the United States 10 years from
 now. But only about 0.1 percent of agricultural research is devoted to organic
 farming practices, and stepped-up funding for more research will be critical to
 future growth, the report said.
 Heavy on the pesticides
 Meanwhile, it noted, pesticides play an important role in conventional
 crops by protecting quality and yields, and the nation's farmers spend nearly
 $12 billion a year on them.
 Fruits and vegetables get more pesticides per acre than corn and other
 major crops. Vegetables, for example, represent less than 2 percent of the
 nation's crop acreage, but they received 17 percent of the total pesticides used
 in recent years, the report said. Potatoes are particularly pesticide-intensive,
 it said, getting 43 pounds per acre in 1997, the most recent year analyzed in
 the study. But other vegetables, apples and citrus crops get heavy doses as
 well.
 Historically, pesticide manufacturers have focused on developing safer
 products for major crops, because that's where the profits are, the report said.
 It called upon the government to fund more pest-management research for crops
 that heretofore have been relatively neglected _ vegetables, fruits and other
 specialty crops.
 Pesticide residues on foods are a "continuing concern," the report said.
 But many of the riskiest chemicals have been removed from the market or at least
 restricted during the past two decades. In June, for example, the Environmental
 Protection Agency restricted use of the insecticide Lorsban on apples and grapes
 and banned its use on tomatoes in an effort to limit residues. And the 1996 Food
 Quality Protection Act set up a new system for scrutinizing chemicals that pose
 risks, particularly to children.
 Government agencies that monitor fresh and processed produce find residues
 on less than 20 percent of the foods, and the residues they do detect rarely
 exceed established tolerance limits, the report said.
 Risks to workers
 More worrisome to the scientists who compiled the report was the risk to
 workers who handle pesticides and crops, particularly fruits and vegetables.
 "Worker safety in specialty crops is a serious concern," according to the
 report. Farm workers typically don't know when or what pesticides have been
 applied to fields, it said, so they must rely on employers who don't always
 follow federal worker-protection standards. The report called for stepped-up
 federal funding to assess compliance with the current regulations, study worker
 health and safety,and improve monitoring of working conditions in the field.
 In general, the report called upon government agencies to sponsor studies
 of pest behavior on actual farms and to establish incentives for farmers to look
 beyond chemicals for pest management. Among other suggestions: enhanced
 crop-insurance programs for farmers who adopt environmentally sound
 pest-management practices;and special taxes on high-risk pesticide practices.
 SUBJECT: report; farm; agriculture; insect PESTICIDES(90%);AGRICULTURAL
 LOAD-DATE: July 19, 2000
                           Copyright 2000 Star Tribune









Document Number: 790
 
                      June 7, 2000, Wednesday, FINAL EDITION
 Public good is driving both sides of genetic debate
 BYLINE: John Yaukey; Gannett News Service
 SECTION: LIFE; Pg. 6D
 LENGTH: 1482 words
 ITHACA, N.Y. -- Cornell University rice breeder Susan McCouch
 makes a fairly cutting observation about the increasingly vociferous
 debate over genetically engineered crops: While many of the crops
 are being developed to feed developing nations, opponents of the
 technology are almost exclusively well-fed Westerners.
 "When you're not hungry, you're often not very interested in
 food solutions," she says. "There are a lot of people who don't
 have that luxury."
 For years, scientists have kept a mostly low profile in the often-heated
 discourse on bioengineered agriculture, hoping the public eventually
 would see the technology as a relatively safe way to make food
 more nutritious and able to grow in hostile environments.
 Instead, the opposition has dug in, the debate has grown more
 intense, and now the gloves are coming off.
 The stage is set for a volatile debate in the USA in which each
 side accuses the other of pursuing an agenda at the cost of the
 public good.
 Concerned that opponents could threaten progress in agricultural
 biotechnology, scientists are wielding a powerful moral argument
 to support their research: hunger overseas.
 The biotechnology industry has come out with a $ 50 million advertising
 campaign depicting its products as life-enhancing.
 Critics increasingly heard
 Meanwhile, the opposition has turned up the heat on its campaign.
 Some have taken to raiding labs and destroying experimental crops.
 But it's the thoughtful critics who have been the most effective,
 raising public fears by accusing researchers and the biotechnology
 industry of everything from scientific hubris and greed to carelessness.
 They consist mainly of environmental coalitions, social activists
 and technology watchdog groups.
 The critics say scientists are playing with a technology that
 could produce toxic foods as they shuffle genes, and possibly
 the allergens associated with them, from one plant to another.
 For example, peanuts contain a common allergen that could be moved
 into other plants during a gene transfer.
 There also are fears that genetic engineering could damage the
 environment by creating destructive plants.
 "I'm concerned that in this country right now we are too willing
 to let this technology make a lot of mistakes," says Margaret
 Mellon of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
 The critics are not speaking entirely of hypotheticals. Many cite
 a recent Cornell study that suggests the pollen from a genetically
 altered corn plant already in use could harm the larvae of monarch
 butterflies. The controversial study was done in a lab, not under
 the real conditions of the field.
 "If more testing supports that initial finding," Mellon says,
 "it's a problem we've come to realize 20 million acres too late."
 But according to initial field studies reported in Tuesday's Proceedings
 of the National Academy of Sciences, scientists found no evidence
 of harm to black swallowtail butterflies placed near a field planted
 with genetically engineered corn.
 In the past quarter-century, scientists have developed and refined
 the cut-and-paste techniques used to transplant genes in plants.
 One process entails moving genes from one species to another by
 inserting them into a pathogen, which infects the new plant cells
 with the foreign genes.
 The infected cells then grow into plants with new traits, such
 as insect resistance or salt tolerance.
 The other method uses an air-powered "gene gun" that shoots
 tiny bits of metal coated with the foreign DNA into plant cells.
 The foreign DNA is incorporated into the plant cells' nuclei and
 is expressed in the plants that grow from those cells.
 "Transgenic" crops have been sold in the USA since 1996 and
 are planted on millions of acres. Anyone who has squirted Chinese
 takeout with soy sauce has probably consumed such a product.
 Thus far, they have a spotless safety record.
 Three U.S. government agencies are charged with regulating biotech
 crops: the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug
 Administration and the Department of Agriculture. All three have
 concluded that there's no evidence such crops are a threat to
 human health.
 Proponents, opponents see a risk
 Indeed, the politics of the issue seem to concern them most at
 this point.
 Regulators and other government officials have tried to placate
 biotechnology opponents by promising to stiffen the federal approval
 protocols, now based mainly on safety data provided by the biotech
 companies, while also trying to referee the debate.
 "Two subjects on which we greatly need a more reasoned discussion
 are risk and precaution," Alan Larson, undersecretary of State
 for economic, business and agricultural affairs, said in a recent
 briefing on biotechnology. "We need to avoid the misleading quest
 for absolutes. There is no human activity I know of that is risk-free."
 Many scientists maintain that the greatest risk in the equation
 is delaying the technology.
 Some have reported breakthroughs that they say could save millions
 of people in the developing nations from disease. For example,
 scientists are learning how to genetically engineer bananas that
 produce vaccines. Much of the problem with vaccinating in developing
 nations stems from the high cost and complex logistics of cold
 storage. Banana vaccines could be grown locally so they would
 be cheap and could be stored at room temperature.
 Dozens of other crops are being genetically engineered to withstand
 the harsh growing conditions of impoverished nations.
 "If we don't do this kind of work, the affluent of the world
 will get along just fine," says Charles Arntzen, director the
 Cornell-based Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, a leader
 in developing the banana vaccine. "They can afford nutritious
 food and vaccines. The people of Cambodia and Africa can't, and
 won't be able to any time soon."
 Scientists say the situation is only going to get worse. By 2020,
 according to the International Food Policy Research Institute,
 world demand for rice, wheat and corn will increase by 40%.
 Farmers have shuffled genes from one plant to the next for thousands
 of years through crossbreeding, and many scientists say genetic
 engineering is not much different.
 But that's not how the other side sees it.
 They say traditional crossbreeding transfers genes between genetically
 similar plants. Genetic engineering, they say, moves genes between
 organisms that could never otherwise crossbreed, in some cases
 from animals to plants.
 And with genetic engineering, they say, there is little opportunity
 for nature to step in to correct mistakes; scientists must catch
 their own errors.
 "There is the very real possibility that this technology could
 create mistakes that are irretrievable," says Hunter Lovins,
 a lawyer and co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a non-profit
 resource policy consulting group. "Some could be disastrous."
 The primary concerns with genetic engineering in plants are that
 a transferred gene could migrate unintentionally via pollen scattering
 from a transgenic plant to a related species and alter the ecosystem,
 or that a plant designed to kill a particular pest could end up
 killing beneficial insects like bees.
 Public opinion and market acceptance will play a major role in
 how all this plays out in the USA, and both sides concede that's
 still an unknown.
 Two ways to transfer traits
 For centuries, farmers have shuffled desirable genes from one
 plant to another by crossbreeding. Scientists can now do the same
 thing much faster through genetic engineering. The two methods
 to get a desired gene into a target plant:
 Agrobacterium
 Scientists use agrobacterium, a soil micro-organism that acts
 like a genetic courier, carrying DNA from one plant cell to another.
 Here's how it works:
 1 - The part of the DNA to be transferred is chemically extracted
 from a plant cell's nucleus.
 2 - The DNA is inserted in the agrobacterium.
 3 - The agrobacterium inserts the foreign DNA into the plant cell
 through an infectionlike process. The cell divides and grows as
 it would normally, forming "plantlets," or little plants,
 which grow little roots. The plantlets are placed into soil.
 Gene gun
 The gene gun is a much more violent process using a blast of air
 and bits of metal, much like a shotgun. The process begins with
 extracted DNA.
 1 - Microscopic pellets of gold or tungsten are washed in the
 DNA with the desired trait, then fired into the plant cells.
 2 - As the particles pass through the plant cell, some of the
 DNA is left behind and mixes with the DNA of the cell, adding
 the desired trait. The cell then divides normally and develops
 into plantlets.
 LOAD-DATE: June 07, 2000
 GRAPHIC: GRAPHIC, Color, Janet Loehrke, GNS, Source: USA TODAY, GNS research;
 PHOTO, Color, Robert Barker, Cornell; PHOTO, Color; McCouch: Genetic crops not a
 'luxury.' Arntzen: 'Affluent will get along fine.'
                       Copyright 2000 Gannett Company, Inc.









Document Number: 791
 
                                The New York Times
                   May 16, 2000, Tuesday, Late Edition - Final
 Crop Genetics On the Line In Brazil;
 A Rule on Seeds May Have Global Impact
 BYLINE: By ANTHONY DePALMA with SIMON ROMERO
 SECTION: Section C;Page 1;Column 2;Business/Financial Desk
 LENGTH: 1783 words
 He was dazzled by the vast fields of soybeans in Brazil, and the efficiency of
 the farms in Argentina frankly frightened him. But nothing that Harold H. Dyer,
 an Iowa farmer, saw on his working vacation in South America last year surprised
 him more than finding out that his competitors freely used genetically modified
 soybeans in ways that would have landed him in a heap of trouble.
 He knew that most farmers in Argentina planted modified soybean seeds, but he
 did not know that they saved seeds from one year to plant the next, a practice
 that is legal in Argentina but not in North America. The Argentinians told him
 they never pay a technology fee for the seeds, which cost American farmers an
 extra $6.50 a bag.
 And in Brazil, where such seeds are still outlawed, Mr. Dyer was convinced --
 though no one came right out and said so -- that the seeds were being smuggled
 in. The Brazilian government insists that no genetically altered soybeans are
 grown there, but Mr. Dyer said he saw soybean fields that were as free of weeds
 as the parts of his own 2,500-acre farm in Iowa and Missouri where he sows the
 superseeds.
 "They have to live by their rules, of which there aren't any, and we have to
 live by ours, which are numerous," said Mr. Dyer, 75, who also runs several
 grain elevators in Iowa and Missouri. "It's not fair, and I would like for it to
 be changed, but that's the way it is."
 Brazil is in the process of deciding whether to make the new technology legal.
 And there is a growing sense that what happens in Brazil -- the world's No. 2
 soybean producer, after the United States -- could tip the balance on
 genetically altered crops around the world.
 Should Brazil officially reject biotechnology's lure, it would be a big setback
 for American companies that have already been hurt financially by fierce
 resistance in Europe from consumers and large companies that refuse to buy
 modified produce. But if Brazil's huge agricultural sector joins the biotech
 fold, experts say, it may someday be difficult for consumers anywhere to find
 any food free of genetically modified material.
 That is because the United States, Brazil and Argentina, the No. 3 producer,
 together grow 80 percent of the world's 157 million metric tons of soybeans, an
 extraordinarily versatile crop that is pressed into oil, processed into food,
 and added to countless foods.
 "Once Brazil starts harvesting transgenic soybeans, there will be no turning
 back," said Joao Carlos Carvalho, president of Agropecuaria Basso, a Brazilian
 company licensed to sell the seeds if they are approved.
 The situation in Brazil also shows how difficult it is to control this new
 technology in the absence of any global regulatory mechanism. The Brazilian
 government approved the use of modified seeds developed by Monsanto in 1998, but
 a consumer group challenged the approval in federal court in Brazil. Delmiro
 Silva, a spokesman for Monsanto in Brazil, expects a ruling sometime this year.
 Technically, it is still illegal to plant high-technology seeds in Brazil. This
 is such a sensitive issue that the minister of agriculture, Marcus Vinicius
 Pratini de Moraes, would respond only to a written question. "The commercial
 planting of genetically modified soybeans in Brazil is not permitted," he wrote.
 Frequent government testing, he added, confirmed that the harvest is free of
 genetically modified organisms.
 Still, many agricultural experts, Brazilian and American alike, suspect that
 modified seeds are being smuggled in from Argentina. Dwain L. Ford, chairman for
 international affairs at the American Soybean Association, estimates that up to
 30 percent of Brazil's soy crop could already be genetically modified.  South
 American farmers are thus using the new technology without paying for it or
 necessarily understanding how to control it.
 "There are no strict controls on highways or in warehouses, so no one really
 knows how many seeds have been smuggled in," said David Brew, a partner at
 Brasoja Corretora de Cereais, a grain trading company in Porto Alegre, Brazil.
 "Now the concern is that the smuggling has resulted in the trafficking of
 second-generation seeds as well."
 While suspicious consumers stopped such farming in its tracks in Europe, the
 rush to biotech on this side of the Atlantic appears to be picking up steam. The
 big biotech companies, led by Monsanto, have made the Western hemisphere a vast
 proving ground for farmer acceptance of the seeds, government regulation of the
 crops and the limits to which intellectual property rights can be claimed.
 The companies' progress has been formidable. In 1996, altered crops were planted
 on little more than four million acres worldwide. Today, altered soy, corn,
 cotton, canola and other crops are grown on nearly 100 million acres, 99 percent
 of it in just three countries: the United States, Argentina and Canada.
 Although American consumers generally have been less upset than Europeans by the
 new crops, the Clinton administration plans to tighten regulations on the
 development and marketing of genetically modified plants and foods.
 The reason farmers in many countries, even a few in Spain, France and Portugal,
 embrace the new technology despite consumer fears is simple: lower costs. With
 declining prices and an oversupply of soy, farmers look for every advantage.
 By altering the seeds, Monsanto enables plants to withstand the widely used weed
 killer Roundup, which Monsanto also manufactures. Farmers who use Roundup Ready
 seed save on chemicals and labor because they can apply a single herbicide
 without harming the soy plants.
 A study by Auburn University found that farmers who use the seeds can cut costs
 4 percent, reduce the need for pesticides, and save time as well. For someone
 like Mr. Dyer, this is incentive enough to switch entirely this year.
 But he will have to live by several conditions imposed by Monsanto, at least in
 North America. Farmers must pay a fee for each bag of seed. They must agree not
 to save seed for the following year, a practice farmers have used for years. And
 they must agree that if they ever stop using the seed, Monsanto investigators --
 farmers call them gene police -- can walk their fields to take plant samples.
 Monsanto has fought hard to define its intellectual property rights broadly, and
 to defend them vigorously. Thousands of calls have come into its informers'
 hotline about farmers planting saved seed. Monsanto has brought charges against
 "a fraction of a fraction" of the roughly 250,000 farmers who have ever used
 Roundup Ready seed, a spokesman said, declining to be more specific. Nearly all
 quietly pay their fines.
 But in Saskatchewan, Monsanto is bringing a farmer to court for illegally
 growing genetically altered canola. The farmer, Percy Schmeiser, acknowledges
 that Monsanto investigators found altered plants on his land, but he insists he
 did not plant them. They were grown, he said, from seed that had blown off
 passing grain trucks or drifted in on the wind.
 "I never had anything to do with Monsanto," Mr. Schmeiser said. "They were
 simply trying to see how far they could exercise property rights over farmers --
 even those who hadn't planted their seed."
 When he refused to pay the fines, Mr. Schmeiser was taken to court by Monsanto.
 The case, scheduled to be heard before summer, is widely seen as a test of
 Monsanto's intellectual property rights.
 "If I lose my case," Mr. Schmeiser said, "every farmer in North America will
 become a serf." Monsanto declined to discuss the case.
 In South America, Monsanto has been far less vigilant. In 1995, its application
 for a patent on Roundup Ready seed in Argentina was rejected. It appealed, but
 went ahead with plans to introduce the seed. Without a patent, Monsanto had no
 legal right to charge a fee or inspect farms to see if unauthorized seed was
 being planted.
 With no patent, a black market flourished, forcing Monsanto to lower prices to
 less than half what it charges American farmers.
 Today, as much as 90 percent of Argentina's soy crop may be genetically altered,
 the highest percentage in the world.
 Monsanto's decision to enter this market without patent protection puzzled many
 people, including its fiercest critics.
 Jeremy Rifkin, president of the Foundation on Economic Trends -- which is suing
 Monsanto in federal court for for what the group contends are antitrust
 violations -- said Monsanto has long argued that it cannot make money unless it
 controls intellectual property rights. But its decision to sell the seeds in
 Argentina anyway, he said, shows "they don't have to do that."
 Monsanto says it will eventually have adequate patent protection in Brazil.
 Executives insist that despite the experience in Argentina, patent protection
 remains essential.
 "But we have to deal with realities as well," said Robert L. Harness, director
 of international government affairs at Monsanto. "The consideration entering
 Argentina was that we wanted to obtain patent protection. We also wanted to
 provide our new technology to this market. We wish the situation were different,
 but it's not."
 In Brazil, police have raided fields in the states of Rio Grande do Sul and Mato
 Grosso do Sul, where officials have said they intend to declare their states
 free of modified seeds.
 The attraction is clear. European customers have reportedly already started
 asking for Brazilian soybeans because modified seeds are illegal there.
 But segregating vast quantities of a commodity produced at thousands of farms
 would be daunting even in the United States. The ability of a developing country
 like Brazil to pull off such a task is questioned, even by Brazilians.
 "Is someone going to sift through each truck of soybeans that arrives at port
 for export?" said Mr. Carvalho, president of Agropecuaria Basso.
 Linda Thrane, a spokeswoman for Cargill, the large American commodities company,
 said the company "certainly wouldn't represent soybean shipments from Brazil as
 being 100 percent nongenetically enhanced."
 Opinion about the future is deeply divided in South America, as elsewhere. While
 some see salvation in keeping the seeds out, many farmers are eager to enjoy an
 edge in a tight global market.
 "How can we compete against the Americans and the Argentinians if they're
 allowed access to this technology and we're not?" said Armando Carlos Roos, a
 soybean farmer in Rio Grande do Sul. "Everyone knows transgenic soybeans have
 been smuggled in from Argentina," he said, and the pressure to use the new
 technology, legally or not, is intense. "I will go broke if I don't get to use
 transgenic beans. It's as simple as that."
 http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: May 16, 2000
 GRAPHIC: Photo: Soybeans are loaded for export at the Brazilian port of Santos.
 Genetically altered seeds are outlawed in Brazil, the world's No. 2 soybean
 exporter. (The New York Times; photograph by Paulo Fridman)
 Chart
 Farmers are planting more genetically modified crops each year . . .
 Graph shows the total area of transgenic crops from 1995-99.
 . . . led by soybean seed resistant to a particular herbicide . . .
 Share of genetically modified crop, worldwide in 1999
 . . . grown primarily in the United States, Brazil and Argentina
 Percentage of genetically modified soybeans in each country
 *Industry estimate
 (Sources: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech
 Applications; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations via Mann
 Library, Cornell University)
                    Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 792
 
                        San Jose Mercury News (California)
                  April 26, 2000 Wednesday MORNING FINAL EDITION
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. 7B
 LENGTH: 1190 words
 AS someone in total agreement with your editorial on Elian Gonzalez (Opinion,
 April 25), I find it necessary to reassert a solemn fact. The raid on Lazaro
 Gonzalez's Miami home had nothing whatever to do with ethnicity or the Cuban
 regime, but solely with upholding our country's law.
 The hypocritical Republican hierarchy could not have chosen a more
 self-destructive method of proving, yet again, that anything goes in politics;
 nor a more certain way to ensure a Democratic victory in November. I was amazed
 to hear Sen. Trent Lott vilify Attorney General Janet Reno's "Gestapo tactics."
 In short, Sen. Lott ain't so much, Sen. Delay is aptly named, and Sen. Hyde
 should.
 William Walling
 Sunnyvale
 THANK you for the sanity of your editorial on Elian Gonzalez. I heard someone
 say that "having ideological differences with another country does not entitle
 you to sever parental rights." It truly is that simple.
 Connie Awuzi
 Mountain View
 Infamous photograph
 REUNITED?? Have you folks in the newsroom gone nuts? I am referring, of course,
 to the April 23 front-page headline, with its accompanying photograph of the
 jack-booted government thug, aiming a German-made assault rifle at two unarmed
 terrified civilians. A much more appropriate headline would have been
 "Kidnapped!" Someone call 911!
 This one photograph should drive home to all Americans what the Second Amendment
 is all about: keeping government in check. When the general populace is
 well-armed, such repressive government acts become much more difficult to pull
 off.
 I urge voters to tape this picture on their refrigerators, and above it write,
 "Four more years -- Gore 2000." With any luck, we will end the era of
 government-sanctioned terror in November.
 Doug Farrar
 Los Altos
 Fallon and the flag
 SOUTH Carolina's Confederate flag and San Jose's Fallon statue. Do we have a
 correlation?
 One is a symbol of a Southern government that oppressed blacks. The other is a
 symbol of an imperialistic government that was oppressive toward Latinos in
 Sen. John McCain said he compromised his principles by not speaking up against
 the flag. Will San Jose's city council and citizens follow the same road on the
 statue?
 Oh, yes, a compromise was reached some time back. Four monuments representing
 diversity would now accompany the offensive Fallon statue to make it more
 palatable. Are four non-offensive diversity monuments equal to one offensive
 one? How many would we need to accompany a swastika or the KKK banner in the
 heart of San Jose?
 Manuel Barrera
 San Jose
 Don't swallow biotech line
 WITH her whole-hearted endorsement of genetically engineered foods (Opinion,
 April 13), Joanne Jacobs has bought the biotech industry's message hook, lineand
 sinker.
 Contrary to Jacobs' assertion, the National Academy of Sciences report she cites
 does not say "there's nothing to fear from [genetically engineered] foods." The
 report actually proposes numerous regulatory changes to protect health and the
 environment. It specifically acknowledges concerns about foods that could reach
 the market under the current system.
 Jacobs also errs wildly in suggesting that transgenic crops don't require
 pesticides. Most of these crops, in fact, are designed to be resistant to
 herbicides. Like conventional pesticides, genetically engineered crops cause the
 development of resistance in pests, thus continuing the cycle of reliance on
 new, stronger poisons. This is one of the reasons pesticide activists around the
 world are fighting transgenic crops, not embracing them.
 The biotech industry would have you believe all kinds of claims about
 genetically engineered foods. Like the foods themselves, we shouldn't buy them.
 Skip Spitzer and Kristin Schafer
 Pesticide Action Network
 San Francisco
 How to hire housekeepers
 HAVING employed housekeepers for almost 20 years and having done substantial
 research into the "going rate" for housekeepers in the Bay Area, I can tell you
 that the $20-$25 per hour figure quoted in "Cashing in on the dot-com boom"
 (Page 1A, April 21) is misleading. My research tells me that the current going
 rate for housekeepers hired directly (as opposed to through an agency) is in the
 $11-$16 per hour range.
 The reason for the discrepancy is revealed by the source of your data -- an
 agency for housekeepers and nannies. In my experience, agencies charge inflated
 rates for the employees they place because they need to keep a substantial
 portion for themselves.
 The best way to eliminate the middleman is to hire housekeepers directly by
 advertising in the newspaper. Then, the employer pays a lower rate while putting
 a much higher paycheck into the pocket of the housekeeper.
 Kathy Fitzgerald Sherman
 Mountain View
 Biased against police
 YOUR editorial regarding the police auditor's report (Opinion, April 18) was a
 poor attempt at criticizing officer-involved shootings.
 The role of the auditor is to ensure the public that misconduct complaints
 against the police receive an independent review. To infer that the auditor have
 a role in the investigation of these shootings is suggesting that the current
 process is inadequate. Officer-involved shootings are investigated by the
 department and the district attorney's office, and reviewed by the Santa Clara
 County Grand Jury. It is a comprehensive process with emphasis placed on every
 detail. No questions are left unanswered, and the inclusion of another party is
 not going to alter the findings.
 The editorial also alludes to an inference that those officers involved in
 shootings are possibly in violation of policy or guilty of a criminal action.
 Had that been the case in any of these shootings, the public would have been
 duly noticed.
 Why the Mercury News finds it necessary to look for an LAPD-type scandal in San
 Jose is very frustrating to our department. Chief William Lansdowne has made
 every effort to cooperate with the community and media, and yet it never seems
 to be enough. Although I realize that members of your editorial staff cannot
 visualize the impact of a deadly confrontation, they certainly find it easy to
 criticize us from the safety of their offices.
 As police officers, we are placed in a no-win situation when an instantaneous
 decision must be made to shoot. Fire your weapon and be criticized, or don't
 fire and should the suspect injure an innocent person, get criticized anyway. It
 seems your paper is looking for answers in a perfect world, while forgetting
 that the real world is where we work.
 James T. Tomaino
 President, San Jose Police
 Officers' Association
 THE Mercury News does not seem to understand that the overwhelming majority of
 the citizens of San Jose know they have a fine police department and support it
 fully.
 A few weeks ago I encountered a young off-duty police officer in a local
 restaurant. In the course of an exchange of pleasantries, I happened to remark
 that I often fire off rebuttals to your editorial and "news" condemnations of
 the police. With unvarnished candor, he said, "They hate us." You do and it
 shows.
 Robert E. McNulty
 San Jose
 LOAD-DATE: January 29, 2002
 NOTES: Letters, E-Mail & Faxes
                      Copyright 2000 San Jose Mercury News
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 793
 
                           The San Francisco Chronicle
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. B9; LETTERS TO BUSINESS
 LENGTH: 1015 words
 Editor -- Your March 31 article "A Town Diseased and Torn" by David Lazarus
 suggests that the residents of Willits are being exposed to widespread toxic
 contamination.
 In reality, the affected area is small and presents no significant health risk
 to residents. This conclusion results from the work conducted by the independent
 Willits Environmental Remediation Trust, established by the federal court in
 1997 to investigate and clean up the Remco site.
 The reams of data collected by the trust to define the environmental conditions
 at the site conflict with your figure titled "Contamination Areas in Willits."
 These data indicate that: 1. hexavalent chromium is largely contained beneath
 the facility; 2. residents' use of clean city water reduces any chance of
 exposure; and 3. there is no hexavalent chromium in the ditch which your article
 identified as contaminated. Additionally, surface sampling reveals no evidence
 that significant airborne emissions of hexavalent chromium occurred.
 The trust is also working diligently to clean up the site. To date, the trust
 has: 1. removed over 30,000 gallons of liquid and 34 tons of solid waste; 2.
 cleaned, backfilled and sealed over 50 sumps, trenches, tanks and pits; and 3.
 installed and is operating a shallow groundwater extraction and treatment
 system.
 ANNE M. FARR, Ph. D.
 Trustee,
 Willits Environmental
 Remediation Trust
 Granite Bay, Placer County
 Editor -- Tom Abate is right when he notes that genetic engineers are
 increasingly relying on public relations to push the claim that biotech crops
 are essential for feeding the Third World. What the American public won't see in
 the $50 million ad campaign just launched by the biotech industry is the
 response from the developing world.
 Last year Monsanto, the world's leader in engineered crops, ran ads in Europe
 that featured images of African children under the banner 'Let the Harvest
 Begin."
 In June, delegates from 23 African nations at a United Nations conference signed
 an angry rebuke to these ads, stating, "We strongly object that the image of the
 poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational
 corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally
 friendly, nor beneficial to us." They also warned that genetically engineered
 crops would undermine Africa's capacity to feed its people.
 Similarly, over 50 family farm and rural advocacy organizations from Latin
 America signed a statement last year denouncing the notion that genetic
 engineering is a solution to hunger, saying "We reject genetic engineering
 because it is an ethically questionable technology. . . . the introduction of
 transgenic crops destroys productive traditional farming systems and local rural
 economies."
 Truly sustainable approaches to food security must benefit small, family
 farmers, consumers, and the environment. Genetic engineering fails on all
 counts.
 Greenpeace Genetic
 Engineering Campaign
 San Francisco
 Editor -- I have followed Tom Abate's articles on genetic engineering, and am
 pleased there is a public dialogue on this issue.
 But as society evaluates genetic engineering, we must realize it is a process,
 and not a product. Our society normally regulates products, not processes.
 For example, the assembly line is a process that makes consumer goods faster,
 cheaper and better. Many goods I find beneficial (radios, toasters, computers).
 But the process also produces products like machine guns that I do not like. My
 energies need to go into regulating products I do not like, rather than
 regulating the process of the assembly line.
 Genetic engineering is a process that allows us to do things faster, cheaper and
 better. It offers tremendous potential for good in both the developed and the
 developing world. That does not mean that all products of genetic engineering
 will be a benefit to our society. The public and regulators should look
 carefully at the characteristics of individual genetically engineered products
 rather than attempting to regulate the process of engineering.
 Professor of entomology
 University of California at Davis
 Editor -- I am a San Francisco employment law attorney writing to bring to your
 attention an error in the reporting of your March 24, 2000 story, "Sweat Equity:
 Tech workers sue to get paid for long hours," by Laura Hamburg. Unfortunately,
 your story repeated a misstatement that seems to be making the rounds of the
 nonlegal press about how California law treats overtime pay for employees
 working in the computer industry.
 Your story reported that prior to Jan. 1, 2000, changes in California's wage
 laws, employees working in the computer industry were exempt from overtime pay
 under certain conditions, such as if they were paid $27.63 per hour or more. In
 fact, California never has exempted such employees from overtime pay unless they
 qualified as administrative, executive, or professional employees, as those
 terms are defined by law.
 Federal law does contain an exemption for what are known as "computer
 professionals," but California never has adopted that exemption, whether before
 or after Jan. 1, 2000. In other words, California has never adopted a rule
 stating that just because a highly-compensated employee works in the computer
 industry, he or she is exempt from overtime pay requirements.
 That said, I found the article interesting and appreciate The Chronicle's
 coverage of employment issues. MARGARET E. MURRAY
 Partner,
 Folger Levin & Kahn
 San Francisco
 Address all correspondence to Letters to Business, San Francisco Chronicle, 901
 Mission St., San Francisco, CA 94103, or send e-mail to bizletters@sfgate.com.
 Include your name, address and phone number. Anonymous letters will not be
 published. We reserve the right to edit letters for clarity.
 LOAD-DATE: April 24, 2000
                   Copyright 2000 The Chronicle Publishing Co.









Document Number: 794
 
                           Akron Beacon Journal (Ohio)
                      April 18, 2000 Tuesday 1 STAR EDITION
 BYLINE: Joanne Jacobs
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A9
 LENGTH: 850 words
 DATELINE: SAN JOSE, Calif.:
 Americans gobble down untested herbal nostrums that promise to stimulate brains,
 calm nerves, ease aches, smooth digestion. Consumers spend millions on every new
 weight-loss "miracle" pill, however improbable its claims.
 Just don't put any genetically engineered corn in the Cheetos. That might not be
 healthy.
 There's nothing to fear from foods produced by gene-splicing techniques --
 according to an independent panel named by the National Academy of Sciences. The
 report is at www.nas.edu
 The scientists said there's no evidence transgenic plants create any more risks
 than plants produced by the cross-breeding techniques used for centuries.
 The study focused on plants, such as corn and soybeans, that have been
 genetically engineered for protection against insects and viruses.
 Transgenic crops have been grown commercially since 1995 with no known health
 problems.
 You'd think consumers would want worm-free food without the worry of pesticide
 residues and virus-resistant potatoes. Who wants a french fry with the flu?
 Future health benefits are significant: Cholesterol-lowering cheese,
 allergen-free peanuts, immunity-boosting bananas and so on.
 But what about the butterflies? In a lab experiment, monarch caterpillars'
 larvae died when fed enough pollen from pest-protected corn. "More recent
 studies suggest that pollen density in the field might be too low to pose a
 threat to the butterflies," the report said. Butterflies and other "beneficial"
 insects are likely to fare better in transgenic fields than in conventional
 fields where pesticide must be sprayed, the scientists concluded. "When used in
 place of chemical pesticides, pest-protected crops could lead to greater
 biodiversity in some geographical areas."
 The panel called for more research on long-term health and environmental issues
 and risk-management strategies. Unfortunately, research is being hampered by
 "activists" who have destroyed transgenic crops -- and often conventional
 hybrids -- in university fields.
 Regulatory agencies -- the Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug
 Administration, and Environmental Protection Agency -- have done a good job, the
 report said. It recommended clarifying the process and opening it to the public
 to build credibility.
 A similar panel in Britain, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, conducted an
 18-month study, concluding a year ago: "We have not been able to find any
 evidence of harm."
 There is nothing to fear but fear itself. But fear could kill a promising
 technology such as Roundup on a tomato plant. Companies won't pay for research
 if there's no market for the seeds. Farmers won't pay for seeds if consumers
 won't buy the food. Consumers won't be any healthier if farmers go back to old
 seeds and chemical sprays. Farm workers will be less healthy, exposed to more
 chemicals.
 The hope for transgenic crops that need less fertilizer and water will wither.
 Fertilizer runoff is killing marine life -- fisheries, coral reefs and Florida's
 manatees -- in more than a third of U.S. coastal areas, another National Academy
 of Sciences study said last week. What about the manatees?
 In Asia and Africa, the stakes are higher: Environmental devastation and
 starvation unless agriculture becomes much more efficient and less reliant on
 chemicals.
 Plants could be engineered to grow in salty soil, to survive drought, to resist
 disease, to provide more nutrition. Raising crop yields means more people -- and
 there will be more people -- can be fed on less land. Last week, Monsanto
 announced it would give a "working draft" of the genetic code of rice to
 international researchers working to improve nutrition and enable farmers to
 grow rice with less water and less fertilizer on less land.
 Transgenic "golden rice," now under development, promises to save millions of
 lives and to prevent blindness for hundreds of thousands of children.
 Gene-splicing has added more Vitamin A and iron.
 The Green Revolution of the '60s and '70s boosted crop yields, but its heavy
 emphasis on fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides made it too costly in some
 areas, and polluting in others.
 "In sub-Saharan Africa, roughly 5 million hectares of forest are lost every
 year, primarily to new clearance for low-yield agriculture," writes Robert
 Paarlberg, a Wellesley professor in the May-June Foreign Affairs. "The ultimate
 environmental payoff from transgenic crop technologies could include fewer
 watersheds destroyed, fewer hillsides plowed, fewer trees cut, and more species
 saved."
 Unlike the philanthropic Green Revolution, the biotech revolution is led by
 private, profit-making companies. No markets, no profit. No profit, no progress.
 The biotech industry is working on an ad campaign to sell Americans on the
 health and safety of transgenic crops. My advice: Forget about showing the
 friendly Iowa farm family with their amber waves of transgenic grain. Put a
 celery gene in a cacao plant and sell us Genetically Enhanced(TM) calorie-free
 chocolate. "We spliced out the calories and spliced in the goodness!"
 Americans will buy that.
 DEPARTMENTS(67%);CHOLESTEROL(53%); Transgenic Food Crops Plants
 LOAD-DATE: January 29, 2002
 NOTES: Jacobs is a member of the San Jose (Calif.) Mercury News editorial
 board.: Commentary
 GRAPHIC: Drawing, T. Brinton, NewsArt;
 Transgenic crops
                       Copyright 2000 Akron Beacon Journal
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 795
 
                        Austin American-Statesman (Texas)
                             April 18, 2000, Tuesday
 Nothing to fearfrom altered food
 BYLINE: Joanne Jacobs
 SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A7
 LENGTH: 961 words
 Americans gobble down untested herbal nostrums that promise to stimulate brains,
 calm nerves, ease aches, smooth digestion. Consumers spend millions on every new
 weight-loss "miracle" pill, however improbable its claims.
 Just don't put any genetically engineered corn in the Chee-tos. That might not
 be healthy.
 There's nothing to fear from foods produced by gene-splicing techniques --
 according to an independent panel named by the National Academy of Sciences. The
 report is at www.nas.edu.
 The scientists said there's no evidence transgenic plants create any more risks
 than plants produced by the cross-breeding techniques used for centuries.
 "We found no strict distinction between the health and environmental risks posed
 by plants modified through modern genetic engineering techniques and those
 modified by conventional breeding practices," said committee chair Perry
 Adkisson, emeritus chancellor and entomology professor at Texas A&M. "The
 breeding process is not the issue; it is the product that should be the focal
 point of regulation and public scrutiny."
 The study focused on plants, such as corn and soybeans, that have been
 genetically engineered for protection against insects and viruses.
 Transgenic crops have been grown commercially since 1995 with no known health
 problems.
 You'd think consumers would want worm-free food without the worry of pesticide
 residues and virus-resistant potatoes. Who wants a french fry with the flu?
 Future health benefits are significant: Cholesterol-lowering cheese,
 allergen-free peanuts, immunity-boosting bananas and so on.
 But what about the butterflies?
 In a lab experiment, monarch caterpillars' larvae died when fed enough pollen
 from pest-protected corn. "More recent studies suggest that pollen density in
 the field might be too low to pose a threat to the butterflies," the report
 said.
 Butterflies and other "beneficial" insects are likely to fare better in
 transgenic fields than in conventional fields where pesticide must be sprayed,
 the scientists concluded. "When used in place of chemical pesticides,
 pest-protected crops could lead to greater biodiversity in some geographical
 areas."
 The panel called for more research on long-term health and environmental issues
 and risk management strategies. Unfortunately, research is being hampered by
 "activists" who've destroyed transgenic crops -- and often conventional hybrids
 -- in university fields.
 Regulatory agencies -- the Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug
 Administration, and Environmental Protection Agency -- have done a good job, the
 report said. It recommended clarifying the process and opening it to the public
 to build credibility.
 A similar panel in Britain, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, conducted an
 18-month study, concluding a year ago: "We have not been able to find any
 evidence of harm."
 There is nothing to fear but fear itself. But fear could kill a promising
 technology like Roundup on a tomato plant. Companies won't pay for research if
 there's no market for the seeds. Farmers won't pay for seeds if consumers won't
 buy the food.
 Consumers won't be any healthier if farmers go back to old seeds and chemical
 sprays. Farmworkers will be less healthy, exposed to more agricultural
 chemicals.
 The hope for transgenic crops that need less fertilizer and water will wither.
 Fertilizer runoff is killing marine life, including fisheries, coral reefs and
 Florida's manatees, in more than a third of U.S. coastal areas, a different
 National Academy of Sciences study said last week. What about the manatees?
 In Asia and Africa, the stakes are higher: Environmental devastation and
 starvation unless agriculture becomes much more efficient and less reliant on
 chemicals.
 Plants could be engineered to grow in salty soil, to survive drought, to resist
 disease, to provide more nutrition. Raising crop yields means more people -- and
 there will be more people -- can be fed on less land.
 Last week, Monsanto announced it would give a "working draft" of the genetic
 code of rice to international researchers working to improve nutrition and
 enable farmers to grow rice with less water and less fertilizer on less land.
 Transgenic "golden rice," now under development, promises to save millions of
 lives, and to prevent blindness for hundreds of thousands of children.
 Gene-splicing has added more Vitamin A and iron.
 The Green Revolution of the '60s and '70s boosted crop yields, but its heavy
 emphasis on fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides made it too costly in some
 areas, and polluting in others.
 "In sub-Saharan Africa, roughly 5 million hectares of forest are lost every
 year, primarily to new clearance for low-yield agriculture," writes Robert
 Paarlberg, a Wellesley professor in the May-June Foreign Affairs.  "The ultimate
 environmental payoff from transgenic crop technologies could include fewer
 watersheds destroyed, fewer hillsides plowed, fewer trees cut, and more species
 saved."
 Unlike the philanthropic Green Revolution, the biotech revolution is led by
 private, profit-making companies. No markets, no profit. No profit, no progress.
 The biotech industry is working on an ad campaign to sell Americans on the
 health and safety of transgenic crops. My advice: Forget about showing the
 friendly Iowa farm family with their amber waves of transgenic grain.  Put a
 celery gene in a cacao plant and sell us Genetically Enhanced(TM) calorie-free
 chocolate. "We spliced out the calories and spliced in the goodness!"
 Americans will buy that.
 Jacobs is a member of the San Jose Mercury News editorial board. You may contact
 her at JJacobs@sjmercury.com.
 LOAD-DATE: April 19, 2000
                   Copyright 2000 The Austin American-Statesman









Document Number: 796
 
                           Reuters Health Medical News
                              April 6, 2000 Thursday
 Biofoods considered safe, but US must increase efforts to protect health
 BYLINE: By Julie Vorman
 LENGTH: 748 words
 DATELINE: WASHINGTON Apr 6
 Genetically altered foods sold in grocery stores are safe, but US agencies that
 regulate gene-spliced plants must work harder to protect health and the
 environment, the National Academy of Sciences said on Wednesday.
 In a long-awaited report that is expected to influence the US policy debate over
 whether biofoods need more stringent regulation, the Academy emphasized that no
 evidence exists to suggest that biofoods are unsafe.
 But it also called for long-term monitoring to detect any effects on health or
 the environment.  The 260-page report was immediately criticized as biased by
 two Congressmen and some environmental and consumer groups, who contend that
 members of the science panel had financial links to the biotechnology industry.
 The food industry hailed the study as confirming its view that potato chips,
 puddings, salad dressings and other foods made with altered crops are safe.
 Fearful of a consumer backlash similar to what happened in Europe, the
 agribusiness industry this week launched a $50 million public relations campaign
 to persuade Americans that gene-spliced crops have benefits that have been
 overlooked.
 Several US green and consumer groups, however, have pressed the federal
 government to require more testing and hold the altered crops to the same strict
 standards of food additives or pharmaceuticals.
 The National Academy of Sciences report took a carefully crafted view, calling
 for more research into several complicated issues.  It did not address biofood
 labeling or international trade issues.
 "Public acceptance of these foods ultimately depends on the credibility of the
 testing and regulatory process," said Perry Adkisson, chancellor emeritus at
 Texas A & M University and the head of the National Academy of Sciences panel.
 "The federal agencies responsible for regulating transgenic plants have
 generally done a good job," he said.
 "Given the current level of public concern and following our review of the data,
 it is the committee's belief that the agencies must bolster the mechanisms they
 use to protect human health and the environment," Adkisson added.
 As the report was unveiled, two dozen demonstrators wearing white lab coats
 marched outside the academy's headquarters to protest industry ties of some of
 the study's authors.  The protesters complained that one of the original members
 of the panel resigned a few weeks after the study began to take a job with the
 Biotechnology Industry Organization, a trade group.
 Four of the scientists on the panel received research funds from the industry,
 and a lawyer on the committee represents biotech companies.  Top executives of
 the National Academy of Sciences, which is often called upon by cabinet members
 or Congress to sort out thorny scientific issues, insisted that the report was
 fair.
 "We stand behind the committee we appointed," said E. W. Colglazier, chairman of
 the academy.  "We feel they have done a very credible and independent job."
 Food and agribusiness groups said that they welcomed the findings.  "The
 findings by the NAS solidify the fact that sound science and common sense should
 continue to guide the US regulatory approach to biotechnology," said Stacey
 Zawel, a vice president of the Grocery Manufacturers of America.
 The report also backed up the industry's claim that altered crops can reduce use
 of pesticides, said Val Giddings, a vice president of the Biotechnology Industry
 Organization.
 The academy scientists urged the US Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture
 Department and Food and Drug Administration to "quickly come to an agreement" on
 each agency's role in regulating gene-spliced plants.
 Long-term monitoring of the environmental impact of transgenic crops is also
 needed to spot any problems that may not have been predicted in company tests,
 the report said.
 The scientists took no position on the controversial report issued last summer
 by Cornell researchers, which indicated that monarch butterflies were hurt by
 pollen from Bt corn, a variety engineered to resist a destructive bug.
 The issue needs more research, including "rigorous" field evaluations and
 testing to see if the same results occur in actual farm fields, the panel said.
 Likewise, more study is needed about the potential risks of transgenic plants,
 it said.
 "The committee did not identify anything that we would call a mistake," said
 Stanley Abramson, a Washington attorney on the panel.  "Our recommendations are
 designed to help the EPA and its sister agencies do a better job."
 LOAD-DATE: July 11, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newswire
                          Copyright 2000 Reuters Health
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 797
 
                           South Bend Tribune (Indiana)
             February 5, 2000, Saturday INDIANA, MICHIGAN, MISHAWAKA,
 Biotech crops plant doubt among farmers
 BYLINE: WAYNE FALDA; Tribune Staff Writer To reach Wayne Falda:
 wfalda@sbtinfo.com (219) 235-6326
 SECTION: BUSINESS, Pg. b10
 LENGTH: 1117 words
 The intensifying international debate over transgenic--or genetically
 modified--corn and soybeans has been taking new twists and turns with each
 passing week, but for local farmers like Douglas Millar the jockeying among
 nations is just distant noise.
 "Most of the corn grown around here is used at the New Energy (ethanol plant),
 so that is a non-issue," said Millar.
 Or is it?
 Mindful of the ever-changing developments over the issue, Nathan Kimpel,
 president New Energy Corp., takes a cautionary position. "We have not put on any
 restrictions as other corn processors have, but we don't guarantee that will be
 true in the future," he said.
 While corn-derived ethanol goes into cars, New Energy's corn byproduct -- called
 distiller's dried grain, or DDG -- is fed to livestock. The cattle, chickens and
 hogs end up in supermarket meat cases. All of New Energy's dried grain is used
 domestically.
 "We don't know what lies ahead as far as the export of our byproduct, DDG, but
 there is always the possibility that our position may have to change in the
 future," Kimpel said. "But right now we accept all corn."
 Local soybeans have a greater chance of being exported, but the transgenic
 variety of soybeans -- the popular Roundup Ready soybean -- has been approved
 for import into Japan and the European Union, the United States' biggest
 customers.
 "I don't look for that to be rescinded. I'll never say never, but it looks like
 that will not happen," Millar said.
 His caution is well advised these days.
 This week's announcement by Texas-based Frito-Lay Inc. that it would not accept
 genetically altered corn for its Doritos, Fritos and Tostitos chips took many
 people, including Millar, by surprise.
 "I didn't expect that," said Millar, who sells both transgenic and conventional
 Pioneer Co. seed to other farmers.
 Frito-Lay's ban on genetically altered corn would not have any particular impact
 on a farmer's decision on what variety of corn to plant this spring. But the
 announcement is taken as yet another sign that the debate over transgenic corn
 could heat up in the United States, where concern has not been evident in the
 six years that transgenic corn and soybeans have been available to farmers.
 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved many types of transgenic
 foods as safe to eat. Indeed most of the cheese bought in grocery stores or
 sprinkled on pizzas is manufactured with a genetically modified rennin, the
 enzyme that curdles milk, noted Purdue University agricultural economist
 Marshall Martin.
 "Most cheese is a product of biotechnology," he said.
 There are two kinds of genetically modified crops used by local row crop
 farmers: those that are modified to use genes to confer herbicide resistance and
 those containing spliced genes that kill insects.
 Corn and soybeans that are unaffected by herbicides, such as Monsanto's Roundup,
 have been approved for use by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
 Except for specialized food-grade corn and soybean varieties, over 90 percent of
 the crops grown locally are processed for use as animal feed.
 Corn containing genes spliced with the bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis,
 or Bt, is lethal to the European corn borer when it feeds on the leaves of the
 corn plant.
 Bt corn is also approved by the Europeans and many other countries. Not
 approved, however, are those varieties of corn with multiple genetic materials
 spliced into their genes. These "stacked" varieties are banned overseas.
 The international controversy "will not affect what I will do personally,"
 Millar said. He intends to plant 300 acres of corn this year, 40 percent of it
 Bt corn. His 300 acres of soybeans will all be the Roundup Ready variety.
 Elevator operators like William A. Beier at The Anderson's terminal in White
 Pigeon are being extra discrete these days, advising their farmer customers to
 consider planting conventional crops this year as insurance in case the furor
 over transgenic crops takes other unexpected turns.
 "It looks like this is getting to be a bigger issue. It's one of the things I've
 been concerned about all winter, so I caution people who think the problem will
 go away," Beier said.
 Martin and his colleagues at Purdue are advising farmers to play it safe, too.
 "There is very little reason for an Indiana farmer to grow Bt corn," Martin
 said.
 The exception may be the farmer in southwestern Indiana, where infestations of
 European corn borers have caused substantial crop losses.
 "There are many years -- 1998 and 1999 are two good examples -- where we didn't
 have any corn borer problems," Martin said.
 Unless weeds are a problem in a particular field, Martin questioned whether
 farmers need to plant Roundup Ready soybeans, too. "Maybe they don't need to use
 it this year," he offered.
 Millar said he will plant some Bt corn on his New Carlisle-area farm just in
 case corn borers become a problem in 2000.
 His planting intentions are in line with a recent requirement by the
 Environmental Protection Agency that farmers plant conventional corn along with
 their Bt corn as a way to minimize the chances that a "super" strain of
 Bt-resistant corn borers could evolve from the Bt field.
 The danger of an insect developing this resistance to Bt "is an issue that is
 legitimate," Martin said.
 The EPA has jurisdiction over the planting of Bt corn because the crop "by
 definition is an insecticide, because it kills insects," Martin said.
 But the EPA's rule also creates another question. "How long do you want to
 prevent resistance development -- 10 years? 20 years? 30 years?" Martin asked.
 The issue becomes a stew of economic, biological and regulatory considerations.
 The concern over the safety of food-grade crops and unforeseen environmental
 problems arising from the use of transgenic crops was behind a United
 Nations-sponsored agreement Jan. 29 requiring the labeling of exported crops
 that may contain genetically modified organisms -- GMOs.
 Martin, who last month was named by Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman to a
 38-member advisory committee on biotechnology, said he is still sorting out the
 complexities of the Montreal agreement.
 But it is just the latest development of the ever-changing dynamics that began
 less than five years ago when products like Roundup Ready soybeans hit the
 market. The crop is now planted on nearly 60 percent of U.S. soybean acreage.
 "That is a very rapid ramp-up of new technology," Martin said.
 The equally rapid backlash against transgenic crops gives elevator managers like
 Beier reason to pause.
 "Very few people ever expected this issue that we have in front of us today," he
 said.
 SUBJECT: Area; Agriculture; Biology; Technology; Genetic BIOTECHNOLOGY &
 LOAD-DATE: February 10, 2000
 GRAPHIC: Tribune Photos/AMY SMOTHERMAN
 Bruce Foster of Niles dumps a load of corn at The Anderson's Elevator in White
 Pigeon. Because of the raging debate over genetically modified crops, many
 experts are suggesting farmers play it safe this year by planting at least some
 conventional corn and soybeans.
 There is no visible difference between soybeans that have been genetically
 modified, right, and standard soybeans. The difference is in the genetic makeup,
 and that difference has created a growing international backlash against
 transgenic crops.
                  Copyright 2000 South Bend Tribune Corporation









Document Number: 798
 
                        Austin American-Statesman (Texas)
                            January 8, 2000, Saturday
 Seed companies may reap what they sow after gene flare-up
 BYLINE: Christina Cheddar
 SECTION: Weekly Business Review; Pg. 4
 LENGTH: 752 words
 NEW YORK -- With the controversy over genetically modified foods spreading
 across the globe and taking a toll on the stocks of companies with
 agricultural-biotechnology businesses, it's hard to see those companies as a
 good investment, even in the long term.
 But analysts think biotech products will play a significant part in future
 agriculture. "The ag-biotech sector looks attractive going forward, and it will
 look even better," said Gene Pisasale, a portfolio manager with Wilmington Trust
 Corp. He believes that when rational scientific evidence is debated, stock
 valuations for companies with ag-biotech businesses will get "more reasonable."
 A genetically modified organism, or GMO, is developed by inserting a gene from
 one organism into another organism to create a specific trait. Using this
 technology, ag-biotech companies have created plant varieties with built-in
 resistance to insects, as well as soybeans that can withstand herbicide sprays.
 The backlash against transgenic products stems from the perceived uncertainty
 over their safety -- and there is nothing an investor hates more than
 uncertainty, said analysts. The power of this negative sentiment is so strong
 that it has dampened stock prices of seed companies whether they genetically
 alter their seeds or not.
 For example, shares of Seminis Inc., a Saticoy, Calif., fruit and vegetable seed
 maker, have been hurt by the debate, although the company doesn't sell any
 transgenic products, said Salomon Smith Barney analyst Jim Wilbur. The company,
 which was spun off from Savia SA in June, ended its first day of trading at
 $15.06 1/4. Since that time, the stock has fallen more than 60 percent to trade
 between $5 and $6.
 Seed companies have been slow to combat negative public opinion, said analysts,
 who believe Monsanto Co. has clearly been the company taking the most hits in
 the public arena. "Monsanto spearheaded the battle for everybody and is
 perceived as the big, bad beast," said Stephens Inc. analyst Berry Summerour.
 The seed business has knocked about $10 to $15 off Monsanto's stock price,
 estimates Robert Goodof, a buy-side analyst at Loomis Sayles & Co. in Boston. He
 believes investors are valuing Monsanto's agricultural operations at zero right
 now. Without the agricultural business, Goodof thinks Monsanto shares are worth
 about $55. Monsanto traded at $38.37 1/2 on Friday afternoon, more than 40
 percent off its 52-week high of $63.25.
 Analysts believe the benefits farmers and consumers stand to gain from GMO
 products will inevitably lead to more GMO products on supermarket shelves, more
 profits for seed companies, and eventually higher stock valuations. The question
 they ask is, how long will it take?
 Several things will need to occur before these stocks pick up, according to Sano
 Shimoda, founder of BioScience Securities, an Orinda, Calif., research firm that
 focuses on agricultural biotech firms. Those events include more research, which
 Shimoda believes will prove these products are safe; wider publication of that
 research, and further commercialization of new products.
 As he tries to predict which way the debate will head, Loomis Sayles' Goodof
 will be watching signposts such as the developments in Brazil, the world's
 second-largest soybean producer. The Brazilian government has yet to approve the
 planting of bioengineered seeds like Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" soybeans, which
 can survive a dousing of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. The GMO debate has moved
 into the Brazilian courts, and a decision may come within the next couple of
 weeks, said Goodof.
 Demand for the seeds is so high that farmers are smuggling the seeds into the
 country, said Goodof. The volume of contraband seeds entering the country has
 prompted an aggressive campaign by the Brazilian government to eliminate the
 transgenic crops: If caught, the farmer's crops are destroyed.
 Despite this threat, farmers still are willing to take the risk because low
 commodity prices have forced them to keep their costs as low as possible. While
 farmers pay a premium for Bt corn, they save money on insecticides because the
 product protects itself from pests.
 Although Shimoda doesn't think doubts about the safety of GM products will ever
 go away entirely, he thinks five years from now the industry will be on the
 comeback trail. The technology's potential is too big to be shelved, said
 Shimoda. He predicts the next two years will be a very bumpy road, but slowly
 attitudes will shift.
 LOAD-DATE: January 9, 2000
                   Copyright 2000 The Austin American-Statesman









Document Number: 799
 
                             The Philadelphia Inquirer
                      DECEMBER 15, 1999 Wednesday SF EDITION
 BYLINE: Julie Vorman, REUTERS
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. C01
 LENGTH: 782 words
 A group of farmers sued Monsanto Co. yesterday for allegedly selling genetically
 altered crops without first ensuring they were safe for consumers and the
 environment.
 The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, aims to stop industry leader
 Monsanto from adding genes to give soybeans, corn and other plants resistance to
 pests without more rigorous testing.
 Monsanto said its products are safe and that it would fight the suit.
 "We're people who use these products, too," said David Snively, an attorney for
 Monsanto. "We're not going to introduce something into the market that is unsafe
 for families."
 The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, which could amount to hundreds of
 millions of dollars, said Jeremy Rifkin, head of the Foundation on Economic
 Trends, which is backing the lawsuit filed by two Indiana farmers, two Iowa
 farmers, and a French soybean farmer.
 The suit also accused Monsanto of anticompetitive practices to control the
 patents and sale of altered seeds. Named in the suit as alleged coconspirators
 with Monsanto were Novartis A.G., DuPont Co., AstraZeneca P.L.C. and Dow
 Chemical Co.
 The case comes at a time when Americans have expressed some uneasiness about the
 rapid increase in transgenic crops and the snack foods, salad dressings and
 baked goods made from them. On Monday, the Food and Drug Administration held the
 last in a series of meetings to hear what changes - if any - are needed in how
 biotech foods are regulated and labeled.
 The issue also is a priority in world trade talks. Japan, the European Union,
 South Korea, and others have moved to require labels on foods made with
 transgenic crops to satisfy consumer worries about long-term health and safety.
 "This lawsuit alleges that the company had a responsibility to make sure that
 any safety representations about the product were backed up," said Rifkin.
 For example, he said, Monsanto should have done more testing for Bt corn in
 other countries to determine whether the crop posed any risks in other climates
 and soil types.
 "This lawsuit will refocus the global debate," Rifkin said. "It puts the
 spotlight directly on the life-science companies and the future of agriculture.
 It's no longer just a trade issue between the United States and the European
 Union."
 Rifkin is an environmental activist who has published several books about
 transgenic crops and has petitioned the FDA to impose stricter standards for
 testing and approval.
 Also supporting the lawsuit is the National Family Farm Coalition, which
 represents more than 20,000 U.S. growers who have concerns about genetically
 modified crops.
 American farmers, who eagerly embraced biotech crops during the last three
 years, will spend the winter deciding what seeds to buy for spring planting.
 Some are worried that conventional crops could command a premium over transgenic
 ones, reflecting the preference of overseas buyers.
 In 1999, half of the soybeans and one-third of corn grown by U.S. farmers were
 genetically modified varieties.
 Monsanto said it spent tens of millions of dollars and years to field-test each
 new plant variety for safety. Company scientists test how quickly a modified
 plant is broken down inside an animal's stomach, whether the nutritional
 components have changed, and the impact on the environment.
 Although fewer than a dozen companies dominate the development and sales of
 genetically altered seeds, there is fierce competition among them, Monsanto's
 Snively said.
 "We're as competitive an industry as one can imagine," he said. "Monsanto's
 products have had widespread acceptance in the marketplace because they have
 performed well."
 Farmers like the crops because they need fewer chemical pesticides and produce
 better yields and quality, he said.
 In recent weeks, Monsanto has begun trying to build bridges with European
 environmentalists, who have been especially worried about long-term health and
 safety issues. Monsanto chairman Robert Shapiro pledged in October to discuss
 biotech crops with Greenpeace and others who have a stake in the issue.
 The company also is pushing ahead with the next generation of altered crops
 engineered to benefit consumers.
 Last week, Monsanto announced it had developed a genetically engineered rapeseed
 plant that could help the estimated 800 million people in Third World nations
 who suffer from blindness and other diseases associated with Vitamin A
 deficiency.
 Rifkin said vitamin-enhanced crops may pose more problems.
 "What are the repercussions for foraging birds, insects and other animals when
 they digest plants that are acting as pharmaceutical factories?" Rifkin said.
 "We just don't know."
 (71%);TRADE DEVELOPMENT(64%); Us Agriculture Lawsuit Genetics Food Business
 And Industry
 LOAD-DATE: October 22, 2002
                   Copyright 1999 Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 800
 
                           South Bend Tribune (Indiana)
            December 11, 1999, Saturday INDIANA, MICHIGAN, MISHAWAKA,
 Farmers wary of biotech crops
 Consumers' worries place markets in doubt
 BYLINE: WAYNE FALDA; Tribune Farm Writer
 SECTION: BUSINESS, Pg. b8
 LENGTH: 932 words
 NILES -- Don Radewald and Lawrence Wilhelm aren't taking any chances.
 Poor commodity prices and the international uproar over genetically modified
 corn and soybeans are causing them to back away from any seed variety that could
 be tainted with the "Frankenfood" label.
 Radewald called his seed supplier prior to harvest and told him to keep
 traditional, cross-pollinated varieties in stock.
 The Niles-area farmer said it is a good possibility he may opt to go back to the
 traditional varieties until the furor dies down.
 But that could be years away, if ever.
 Wilhelm, a Three Oaks-area farmer, had mixed feelings about whether to plant
 Roundup Ready soybeans and other transgenic varieties, called GMOs for
 genetically modified organisms.
 His dilemma ended Wednesday when Iowa State University grain marketing
 specialist Robert Wisner outlined the latest ominous news to a packed room of
 concerned farmers at the Niles campus of Southwestern Michigan College.
 Last week South Korea, the second-largest importer of U.S. products, announced
 that starting in March 2001 it would implement a labeling program for
 unprocessed corn and soybeans.
 "That is significant because all of the labeling programs so far are focused on
 the retail level," Wisner said. "We need to watch that development very
 closely."
 Reaction against GMO commodities has been intensifying in Europe. "Now it has
 spread to the Pacific Rim," Wisner said.
 Legislation was introduced in Congress this November that would require food
 companies to disclose genetically modified ingredients on food labels.
 Opponents to transgenic farm commodities in the European Union are pushing to
 add labeling to livestock feed. "If that happens, it will have a major impact on
 the soybean market," Wisner said.
 Brazil, the United States' biggest competitor for soybeans, bans transgenic
 crops and may be paying its farmers to tear out GMO soybeans.
 Consumers in the United States have been lukewarm about the controversy. Were
 that to change, Wisner said, "the picture will look a lot different than it does
 right now," he said.
 That was it for Wilhelm.
 After hearing about the possibilities of a bigger tempest, Wilhelm changed his
 mind about planting GMO seed next year. "It is simply not worth the risk,"
 Wilhelm said.
 Who wants to get in a middle of a dog fight and get bit? "Not me," Radewald
 responded. "I have to make money. That is what it comes down to."
 It would sting to back away from Roundup Ready soybeans, said Radewald, who
 called the variety "outstanding."
 "Roundup is an excellent broad-spectrum weed-killer," he said.
 Reverting to older and more environmentally harmful weed-killers is a step
 backward, he said.
 Once a farmer's agenda was straightforward enough.
 He would plant a crop in the spring. Then, armed with some marketing savvy, he
 would sell his crop with the hope that he would have enough money to raise a
 family, pay the bills and get ready for the next crop.
 The international uproar over genetically modified corn and soybeans has thrown
 farmers and grain buyers into a tizzy.
 "This is a rapidly changing situation. It is very complex. We simply don't know
 where this is going to end up," Wisner said.
 "I think it's important for farmers to make decisions (based) on an evolving
 market, not just where we are this year," he cautioned.
 The picture is complicated by the fact that detecting GMO from non-GMO
 commodities involves a slow and expensive test.
 A test that promises rapid results is far from accurate.
 "I have no confidence in this quick test at all," said Rick Hollister, a grain
 buyer with The Anderson's elevator in White Pigeon.
 Many, including Wisner, said multinational seed companies miscalculated by
 unveiling the latest in biotechnology before everyone was satisfied they were
 safe.
 They sold biotechnology to the farmer, but not to the consumer, Wisner said.
 "We didn't know how this would unfold," he said.
 For 10 years--long before the Flavr Saver tomato came onto the market with a
 foreboding "splat"--agriculture's intelligentsia have been watching the advances
 of biotechnology with a certainty "that it would usher in a new era in
 agriculture," Wisner said.
 The initial concern with designer crops was not over public acceptance. It was
 over how to move from a grain-handling system designed to take commodities in
 bulk to one where specialized crops had to be identified, segregated and sold to
 a specific buyer for a specific purpose.
 The situation has not been too troublesome for area grain elevators -- yet.
 Hollister said The Anderson's doesn't penalize or reward farmers who sell
 traditional or GMO crops. All it asks is that farmers who sign forward contracts
 specify at the time of delivery whether they are bringing in GMO crops.
 "Again, that's today. It could change tomorrow," he said.
 Already two grain buyers have indicated they would not take GMO crops "but that
 hasn't been a big discount to us -- yet," Hollister said.
 If major companies begin to switch to buying only non-GMO corn, for instance,
 "that will change my market overnight on how we handle GMO and non-GMO corn," he
 said.
 Monsanto's market development representative John E. Kaufmann agreed that
 farmers should pay attention to the changing picture, but added that a vast
 majority of GMO commodities are being used without trouble.
 New Buffalo farmer Joe Fleck decided to back away--slowly. His 1999 soybean crop
 was 100 percent Roundup Ready variety. "Now this year I will probably go 50-50,"
 he said.
 SUBJECT: Area; Agriculture; Photo With Story; Biology; Genetic GENETICALLY
 LOAD-DATE: December 13, 1999
 GRAPHIC: Tribune Photos/WAYNE FALDA
 Don Radewald is a big fan of Roundup Ready soybeans, but he notified his seed
 dealer two months ago that he may switch back to conventional hybrids due to the
 controversy sparked by genetically modified crops.
 His tractor is idle for now, but next year Don Radewald is certain he will be
 using it to pull a seed planter. What he does not know is whether he will opt
 for conventional seed or transgenic varieties.
                  Copyright 1999 South Bend Tribune Corporation









Document Number: 801
 
                       December 02, 1999, Thursday ,FINAL
 SECTION: NEWS, Pg.A11
 LENGTH: 412 words
 The United States and other nations that produce genetically modified foods won
 a round yesterday in talks on agriculture when it was revealed that the European
 Union had agreed to establish a WTO working group on biotechnology.
 It may seem a small step, but critics of the U.S. position claim it is a cynical
 attempt to force genetically modified food down the world's throat.
 Environmentalists, joined by environmental ministers from France and Britain,
 denounced the development as a strategy to do an end-run around a United
 Nations' effort to establish a more comprehensive treaty regulating genetically
 modified products.
 Trade officials disagreed.
 Franz Fischler, the EU's commissioner for agriculture, said at a news conference
 that this was an opportunity to talk. Europe remains committed to principles
 that emphasize precaution and informed consumers, he said.
 "The concerns voiced on the streets of Seattle underline our concerns," Fishler
 said.
 The European Union has steadfastly fought to get international trade regulation
 of transgenic crops included in the United Nation's Biosafety Protocol. The U.N.
 effort is a series of international treaty talks aimed at protecting indigenous
 plants and animals from commercial exploitation or contamination due to the
 exchange of agricultural products.
 Last February, the United States, Canada, Argentina and other countries
 producing genetically modified food successfully fought U.N. regulation and
 pushed for a WTO ruling on biotech.
 At risk here, said Charles Arden-Clarke, director of the international trade and
 investment division of the World Wildlife Fund in Geneva, is the Biosafety
 Protocol itself.
 Gichinge Ndirangu, a Kenyan food-rights campaign coordinator with a group called
 ActionAid, said many developing nations are fearful that if WTO rules on
 genetically modified foods are established prior to completing the Biosafety
 Protocol there will be little room for discussing the "non-trade" implications
 of genetically modified crop trade.
 "We want the WTO and the EU to recognize the primacy of the (Biosafety
 Protocol)," Ndirangu said. "We do not feel the WTO has the competence to address
 this issue."
 Exactly how the WTO plans to address the issue of international trade in
 genetically engineered food is unclear because no details of the draft proposal
 have been officially released by the global trade organization. News of the
 agreement was leaked to environmental groups.
 LOAD-DATE: December 6, 1999
 GRAPHIC: Photo
 P-I: Arden-Clarke
 Copyright 1999 Seattle Post-Intelligencer









Document Number: 802
 
                        November 23, 1999, Tuesday ,FINAL
 SECTION: NEWS, Pg.A1
 LENGTH: 1810 words
 There is going to be a food fight at the World Trade Organization meeting next
 week.
 Agriculture has become a major stumbling block at the trade talks, caused by a a
 U.S.-European split over genetically modified food and long-standing disputes on
 agricultural subsidies.
 The subsidy debate at WTO will be mostly a matter of trade and economics. The
 debate over genetically modified foods, however, is an argument over matters of
 science and risk assessment.
 The Europeans want more regulation of these foods based on concerns that
 genetically altered crops could wreak havoc on the environment and human health.
 French farmers recently demonstrated their distaste for American agri-biotech by
 dumping manure on the grounds of several McDonald's restaurants in France.
 Curt Hennings is a Washington state farmer who thinks the European reaction to
 genetically modified foods is thinly disguised protectionism.
 "There's been no evidence of real harm from any of these products," Hennings
 said. Agricultural biotechnology promises to reduce costs and improve yields,
 offering American farmers a significant competitive advantage. That's what's
 behind the fear-mongering, he said.
 "I think this has a lot of potential as a new tool in food production," Hennings
 said. "Biotechnology will allow us to better compete internationally and not
 rely so much on pesticides and chemicals."
 Amy Stilwell, spokeswoman for the U.S. Trade Representative's office in
 Washington, D.C., said relaxing European restrictions on biotechnology is a
 primary goal at the WTO.
 "We are concerned it amounts to protectionism," Stilwell said of European
 restrictions.
 European loss of confidence in food safety, prompted by such incidents as the
 outbreak of "mad cow disease" in the United Kingdom, has contributed to concern
 over genetically modified foods, Stilwell said, even though the problem with
 tainted beef is unrelated.
 But there may be more to European concerns.
 Several studies have pointed to possible risks, including gastrointestinal and
 immune system problems in rats fed potatoes genetically modified to contain a
 natural pesticide known as Bt. Industry is taking European concerns seriously.
 Gerber Baby Foods announced it won't use genetically modified foods and
 agri-giant Archer Daniel Midlands recently told farmers it wants them to keep
 genetically modified grain separate from the regular harvest.The United
 States, which is by far the largest producer of genetically modified crops, has
 been arguing against European trade barriers, contending there is no convincing
 evidence of harm. European officials, however, argue that not enough studies
 have been done and that lack of evidence of harm is not proof of safety.
 But under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (which is what led to the
 creation of the WTO), countries are not supposed to exclude agricultural
 products from their market unless there is scientific evidence of health or
 environmental risks.
 The United States and the European Union disagree on what "genetically modified"
 means scientifically.
 Gene transfer through traditional cross-breeding of related crops is a practice
 with thousands of years of experience. The new technology of genetic engineering
 allows scientists to specifically target single genes and trade genes between
 different species that don't naturally interbreed - even between animals and
 plants."I don't see what the big difference is," said farmer Hennings. "A
 gene is a gene."
 For example, the winter wheat growing along the road that leads to Hennings'
 farm on the Columbia Plateau north of Washtucna is a genetic mutant of sorts. It
 was created by artificially introducing genes from goat grass, to fight fungal
 rot, and other useful genes from Japan and Turkey wheat varieties.
 But these genetic modifications of winter wheat were accomplished many years ago
 through traditional hybrid breeding methods - not by the tools of modern
 biotechnology.
 Phil Bereano, a University of Washington professor who studies technology and
 public policy, said the powerful tools of genetic engineering create far greater
 potential for damage.
 Several studies have documented how potentially catastrophic genetic engineering
 can be, because it can accomplish powerful transformations by transferring genes
 from species to species, he said.
 One widely cited example is a study reporting deaths of Monarch butterflies due
 to exposure to pollen from a genetically modified corn plant. The plant was
 modified to produce a natural pesticide that kills leaf-eating pests. In a lab
 study, a scientist showed pollen from the plants killed Monarch caterpillars.
 Such "collateral damage" from genetically modified crops should be expected,
 Bereano said, which is why these plants should be treated differently.
 Dr. James Cook, an expert on wheat and root disease at Washington State
 University, said it's either naive or dishonest for critics to point out the
 risks of biotechnology in agriculture in isolation from its benefits.
 "Agriculture today is enormously disruptive to the environment," Cook said.
 Butterflies, worms and many other creatures are already being destroyed in
 massive amounts thanks to current farming methods, he said.
 "Through genetic engineering, we should be able to make it so growers can move
 toward no-till farming and use less chemicals," Cook said.
 Cook wants to insert a fungus-fighting gene into wheat and barley. The gene,
 found in some fungi, produces an enzyme that can dissolve fungal cell walls.
 Inserting it into wheat or barley could help protect crop roots.Today, Cook
 said, farmers combat fungus root rot by fumigating and tilling the soil - a
 practice with severe environmental consequences due to chemical use and
 accompanying soil erosion and runoff. It is misleading to argue against
 biotechnology based on the belief that current practices are more natural and
 benign, he said.
 Labeling is another sore point that may come up at WTO. Many European countries
 already label genetically modified foods. The United States has argued against
 it.
 Jeffrey Bergau, a spokesman for Monsanto, said American consumers have more
 faith in their system of food safety than do many Europeans who lack the
 equivalent of an agency like the federal Food and Drug Administration. Labels
 could be misleading because this implies something is inherently different or
 unsafe about genetically modified foods even when there is no evidence of
 substantial difference or risk, Bergau said.
 Bereano and others, however, note that consumer polls in the United States show
 strong support for such labels. Daniel Glickman, Secretary of the U.S.
 Department of Agriculture, has said he believes consumers will eventually demand
 labels on GM food.Rep. Jack Metcalf, R-Wash., is among a number of elected
 officials who believe consumers want labels. Earlier this month, Metcalf joined
 Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., in proposing
 legislation to label genetically modified food.
 Much of the U.S. corn and soy crops, grown across about 50 million acres in the
 Midwest, are already genetically engineered. By some estimates, more than half
 the processed foods on the grocery store shelf likely would need to be labeled.
 But how all this will play out at the trade talks in Seattle is up in the air,
 said Keith Rockwell, spokesman for the WTO in Geneva.
 "These issues are still very much under discussion," Rockwell said.
 Many say it's doubtful any of the issues will get resolved during the meeting,
 especially given previous international talks on the subject.
 Last February in Cartagena, Colombia, the United Nations sponsored the
 Convention on Biological Diversity, otherwise known as the Biosafety Protocol.
 The U.N. talks, aimed at protecting indigenous plants and animals worldwide,
 never went anywhere.
 "It was because of genetic engineering," said Beth Burrows, a participant in the
 talks and director of the Edmonds Institute, a local public interest research
 group devoted to ecosystem study.
 The biodiversity talks stalled because Europeans wanted the UN treaty to
 regulate exchange of transgenic crops and plants. The United States opposed such
 regulation and the talks stalemated, Burrows said.
 Having blocked those treaty talks, she said, the United States now wants to make
 the WTO's trade-oriented position on genetically modified foods take priority
 over all other treaties. So far, the WTO has issued no ruling on GM foods.
 "The U.S. wants to do an end run around European concerns about the biological
 safety of GM products," Burrows said.
 In addition to biodiversity concerns, there are also arguments over intellectual
 property.
 That's code for "patenting seeds," noted Dr. Stephen Jones, director of WSU's
 winter wheat program. Corporations like Monsanto are patenting seed simply by
 adding a gene to crops that farmers worldwide have improved through selective
 breeding over thousands of years, Jones said.
 "As a scientist, I'm not afraid of genetically modified foods," he said. "What
 I'm afraid of is how this technology lends itself to further concentrating
 corporate control over agriculture."That is a concern shared by Henning. Even
 though he favors the use of biotechnology in agriculture, as a canola farmer he
 knows he may someday need to use Monsanto's patented Roundup Ready canola seed,
 which is resistant to a Monsanto-produced herbicide. The advantage is that the
 herbicide can be used with less danger of damaging the crop.
 "Farmers are becoming beholden to just a few companies," Hennings said. He
 doesn't use the seed now because the weeds that plague his fields can be
 controlled with herbicides cheaper than Roundup. That could change, he says.
 Roundup Ready canola is one of the first genetically modified crops to be
 introduced in Washington state, so far in very limited acreage. Roundup Ready
 canola was engineered to incorporate a gene from the petunia plant, which is
 resistant to the toxic effects of Roundup.
 Hennings said Roundup Ready is a highly effective product. But Japan recently
 announced it will no longer buy any genetically modified canola and the few
 farmers who first tried it this year may get stuck with their harvest, he said.
 If the public rejects genetically modified food in general and undermines
 development of biotech in agriculture, American farmers will likely continue to
 lose ground in the global marketplace, Hennings said. That translates into fewer
 farmers and more corporate control over agriculture as well, he added.
 "What's at risk here isn't just about food safety or the environment. What's at
 risk is the way we farm, our independence, and the control of the food supply,"
 Hennings said.P-I reporter Tom Paulson can be reached at 206-448-8318 or
 tompaulsonseattle-pi.com
 LOAD-DATE: December 6, 1999
 GRAPHIC: Photos & Charts
 (1) MIKE URBAN / P-I: ((Color)) Tom Okita works to increase the starch content
 of rice through genetic modification at Washington State University. "Basically,
 we're trying to make bigger seeds," he said.MIKE URBAN / P-I PHOTOS: Curt
 Hennings farms canola seed. He uses no genetically modified crops but favors
 their development, with the caveat: "Farmers are becoming beholden to just a few
 companies."
 (2) Stephen Jones, director of WSU's winter wheat program, doesn't fear
 genetically modified foods, but rather corporate control that comes with
 patenting of vital crops.(3) BY COUNTRY, BY CROP
 Copyright 1999 Seattle Post-Intelligencer









Document Number: 803
 
                        November 21, 1999, Sunday ,FINAL
 SECTION: EDITORIAL, Pg.F2
 LENGTH: 799 words
 Corn that is genetically modified to include a natural insecticide, cotton that
 has been engineered to tolerate herbicides - if you've been reading about such
 new transgenic crops, you may be asking yourself, "Why do we need this stuff?"
 After all, American farmers already turn out plenty of high-quality food at low
 prices.
 Yes, it's true that most genetically modified crops now available are barely
 distinguishable from what they supplant, and so far they have not led to such
 promised advances as big reductions in the need for agricultural chemicals. And
 while there is no evidence that genetically engineered crops in the field have
 caused any harm to human health or done any damage to the environment, planting
 them obviously entails a risk of unwanted ecological effects.
 So shouldn't the genetic engineering of crops be stopped? That is what many
 critics, here and in Europe, are saying. And if the current generation of crops
 were all that the genetic engineering of agriculture would produce, that view
 would be correct, because risks, while small, would outweigh benefits.
 But the important thing to keep in mind is that the transgenic crops in the news
 today are just the first manifestations of a fundamental new idea. Much better
 versions are coming.
 Initially, many new ideas seem of modest value or even appear to be a step
 backward. The first cell phones seemed like a niche product for millionaires.
 The first heart-bypass operations, statistically speaking, seemed no more
 effective than if the patients had refused treatment.
 But the second and third generations of advances based on these ideas were
 spectacular. This is likely to be the pattern that genetically engineered crops
 will follow.
 The transgenic crops in the news today were conceived by researchers 10 to 20
 years ago. The next advances may represent the difference between those
 suitcase-size "portable" computers of the early 1980s and the slim laptops of
 today.
 For example, the Rockefeller Foundation is sponsoring research on so-called
 golden rice, a crop designed to improve nutrition in the developing world.
 Breeders of golden rice are using genetics to build into the rice forms of
 vitamin A that the body can absorb; vitamin A deficiency is a common problem in
 poor countries. A second phase of the project will increase the iron content in
 rice to combat anemia, a widespread problem among women in underdeveloped
 countries.
 Golden rice, expected to be for sale in Asia in as little as five years, may
 offer dramatic improvements in nutrition and health for millions of people, at
 just shy of zero cost to farmers and consumers.
 Similar initiatives using genetic manipulation are aimed at making crops more
 productive by reducing their dependence on pesticides, fertilizers and
 irrigation, or by increasing their resistance to plant diseases. Other projects
 hope to solve such problems as peanut allergies by removing the genes for
 allergens from the plants.
 Today 800 million people in poor nations are chronically undernourished,
 according to the United Nations, and the populations of those countries are
 expected to grow by an additional 2 billion to 3 billion people before the
 global population peaks in the next century.
 Changing the way food is distributed cannot solve the need for increased
 agricultural output. But the second and third generations of genetically
 engineered crops might.
 Then there are the health care possibilities. For example, the standard
 three-shot course required for hepatitis B inoculations in the United States
 typically costs about $200. Most people in poor nations can't afford that, a
 reason hepatitis B is exacting a terrible toll in Africa.
 But researchers at Cornell University are working to transfer the genetic code
 for the hepatitis B vaccine into bananas. If they are successful, hepatitis B
 inoculations could cost as little as 10 cents per dose and would require no
 medical personnel to administer them.
 This project is one reason that while skeptics in the West are looking askance
 at genetic engineering, the World Health Organization convenes this month in
 Geneva to see how the technology can help improve global health.
 Of course, the genetic engineering of crops must be carefully regulated. A new
 system of independent testing and federal oversight might be required, replacing
 the current hodgepodge in which the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food
 and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture have overlapping,
 conflicting responsibilities.
 But it would be a mistake if the underwhelming results of the first generation
 of transgenic crops led to laws or boycotts that blocked the second and third
 generations. After all, it is the world's poorest people who would have the most
 to lose.
 LOAD-DATE: December 6, 1999
 NOTES: Gregg Easterbrook is a senior editor of The New Republic and author of
 "Beside Still Waters: Searching for Meaning in an Age of Doubt." Copyright 1999
 The New York Times.
 Copyright 1999 Seattle Post-Intelligencer









Document Number: 804
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
               October 27, 1999, Wednesday, FIVE STAR LIFT EDITION
 BYLINE: David Kennell
 SECTION: EDITORIAL, Pg. B7
 LENGTH: 822 words
 Archer Daniels Midland recently told suppliers and farmers that gene-altered
 crops had to be segregated from traditional (non-altered) crops. This follows
 comparable positions by other large grain processors and food companies
 scrambling to maintain market share in the face of strong worldwide opposition
 to transgenic crops.
 A transgenic plant or animal has had gene(s) from another species introduced at
 a random site into its genome. Genes from chickens incorporated into a potato
 genome created a transgenic potato. Why the opposition? Consider a few arguments
 favoring them.
 * Science vs Ignorance. A favorite position is that opposition to transgenic
 crops reflects fears resulting from ignorance and emotion. If only scientists
 could educate the public. Not so. Many scientists have expressed scientific
 concerns about the rapid unleashing of hundreds of transgenic plants. Past
 issues regarding public health and safety have found scientists on both sides
 until sufficient facts ended debate, e.g., tobacco before the 1950s or nuclear
 fission energy until the 1970s. For thousands of years breeding techniques have
 been limited by transfer of genes between closely related sexually compatible
 plants or animals. Consequences from this sudden human intervention across
 species boundaries are unknown and account for disagreements among scientists.
 * Roundup doesn't hurt us. This summer, George Johnson explained how glyphosate
 (the "active" ingredient in Roundup, the world's bestselling herbicide) kills
 weeds by blocking aromatic amino acid synthesis needed for growth. Roundup-ready
 plants have an introduced a foreign gene that boosts synthesis to make them
 resistant. Humans don't synthesize those amino acids, and he concluded that
 glyphosate or "Roundup doesn't hurt us."
 The issue is complicated because commercial Roundup is typically only about 40
 percent glyphosate and 60 percent "inert" surfactants, many toxic themselves.
 Two recent epidemiological studies in Sweden linked exposure to various
 herbicides, including Roundup, to increases in fatal non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in
 humans, among the fastest-increasing malignant diseases in the U.S.
 Roundup-ready plants have allowed larger applications since these
 epidemiological studies, since the farmer need not restrict his spraying to
 weeds. Also, nature selects weeds with increased resistance, requiring higher
 doses.
 Other recent studies from Israel and Taiwan concluded that exposure to Roundup
 can lead to acute pulmonary disorders and laryngeal injury. In terms of ecology,
 glyphosate is toxic to many life forms such as bacteria, fungi, fish and higher
 plants with potential for disrupting soil and water ecosystems. Some soil
 microorganisms are killed by glyphosate while others are growth-stimulated.
 Although used in massive amounts worldwide (26 million pounds back in 1996),
 there have been relatively few publications on Roundup's toxicity (1993-1999
 survey). More epidemiological and ecological studies are called for.
 * Pest-resistant plants vs pesticides. The enormous environmental damage caused
 by pesticides has been documented. Some support planting transgenic
 pest-resistant crops to reduce pesticide use. In 1997, two-thirds of
 bio-engineered crops were for pesticide resistance. A soil bacterium produces
 the Bt insect toxin, a natural pesticide. During millions of years of evolution,
 nature has achieved a balance between insect and microbial populations.
 Introduction of the Bt gene into every cell of crop plants (corn, cotton,
 soybeans and many others) has amplified its presence enormously and upset the
 natural equilibrium. At least eight species of insects have already developed
 for Bt resistance.
 Dow Chemical scientists predicted that Bt will soon lose its effectiveness by
 selection of resistant insects. Meanwhile, beneficial insects, such as Monarch
 butterflies, will be at risk, not to mention soil-inhabiting insects and
 micro-organisms that degrade plant debris. Transgene Bt remains toxic up to
 three times longer in soil than does natural Bt. While it may provide a
 "quick-fix," it could lead to even greater reliance on more powerful pesticides
 to counter insects that have developed resistance.
 The way to decrease pesticide use is to practice sustainable agriculture with a
 return to crop rotations, to restore soil quality by diversification of crops,
 insects and soil microorganisms. A teaspoon of healthy soil should have about a
 billion bacteria, 100 million fungi and protozoa, thousands of microarthropods
 and other organisms that convert organic plant and animal waste to plant
 nutrients and protect plants against disease. Diversity on the organic farm
 eliminates the need for most fertilizers, pesticides or transgenic crops with
 better yields and a brighter future.
 One principle generally agreed to by all scientists: Loss of biodiversity courts
 disaster.
 LOAD-DATE: October 27, 1999
 LANGUAGE: English
 TYPE: Commentary Column
                   Copyright 1999 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 805
 
                          Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
                     October 18, 1999, Monday, Metro Edition
 Genetic engineering of foodstuffs sows debate over labeling;
 Advocates of labeling say not enough is known about the effects of
 biotechnology.
 Sharon Schmickle; Staff Writer
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 1A
 LENGTH: 1196 words
 Down a cola, an order of fries or a veggie burger these days, and the odds are
 high that you're swallowing the harvest of genetically engineered plants. Even
 the syrup that's used to sweeten the soft drink is likely to have come from corn
 enhanced with genes that fight insects in the field.
 Should those beverages and foods carry labels saying that is so? A
 long-simmering debate over that question is coming to a head in Congress as well
 as at the upcoming World Trade Organization talks, at which rules for global
 trade will be discussed.
 One camp argues that a broad new labeling law makes no sense because the
 food isn't that unusual _ many of our agricultural products have long resulted
 from genetic modification. This argument holds that current U.S. policy already
 requires labels asneeded _ for example, on foods that might trigger allergic
 reactions.
 The other side insists that too little is known about manipulating genes in
 crops and that consumers should know whether they're eating genetically altered
 food.
 "American citizens must have the right to choose what foods they and their
 families eat," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, last week at a Senate
 agriculture committee hearing on the issue.
 He is pushing a bill that would require labels on foods made with
 genetically engineered ingredients. He is backed by consumer and environmental
 groups that have picked up the drumbeat from Europe, where labeling laws are
 taking shape and food marketers are rushing to tout "GMO-free" foods (made
 without genetically modified organisms).
 But if industry groups have their way, the labeling move will fail.
 "We cannot allow this kind of unsubstantiated and unscientific thinking to
 prevail," said Gary Kushner, counsel to the Grocery Manufacturers of America, in
 his testimony at the Senate hearing. "Food companies, lawmakers, scientists,
 farmers and regulators must work to ensure that activists with a political
 agenda do not kill the promise of biotech foods."
 Modest proposals
 Transgenic crops weren't widely available to farmers until 1996. But the
 plants have spread like prairie fire across America's fields as farmers learned
 that the seeds of the new technology could boost yields and cut the need for
 expensive pesticides. By 1998, 45 percent of the soybeans and one-third of the
 corn planted were genetically engineered. The bulk of their harvest is mingled
 with mainstream commodity supplies, although some grain buyers have called for
 the crops to be segregated.
 As a result, more than 70 percent of processed foods would require "GMO"
 tags under a broad labeling law, according to a draft paper to be released this
 week by agricultural economist C. Ford Runge and research assistant Lee Ann
 Jackson, both of the University of Minnesota's International Center for Food and
 Agricultural Policy.
 Runge is among a growing group of trade experts trying to build a
 compromise before the ministry-level World Trade Organization convenes in
 Seattle next month. A worldwide patchwork of labeling laws would seriously
 disrupt trade, to the detriment of farmers and food processors who have adopted
 the new technology, including many in Minnesota.
 Runge advocates an international labeling system for foods produced without
 genetic engineering. In other words, companies could tout traditional genetics
 as a specialty feature. And consumers who care could seek out their own levels
 of comfort at the supermarket, much as shoppers are offered organic foods.
 To do it the other way around _ to require labels saying "This product may
 contain GMOs" _ wouldn't tell consumers anything, Runge and Jackson argue in
 their paper. Cigarette warning labels, by comparison, convey known health risks,
 they said. But it's not known whether eating genetically modified foods carries
 risks.
 They call for food processors, seed companies, governments and
 international organizations such as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
 United Nations to help establish a niche market for consumers who want non-GMO
 foods.
 At a minimum, international standards would be needed, they said, so that
 the label "This product contains no GMOs" would mean the same thing in Mexico
 City as it does in London or Minneapolis. Start-up costs also would be incurred
 in creating two systems: one for segregating the food ingredients and another
 for monitoring to assure that the label is truthful. Once a stable niche market
 was established, the system could be more self-supporting, they said.
 But consumer and environmental groups have begun campaigning against any
 compromise in their call for labeling all foods with genetically altered
 ingredients.
 The lesson from the organic food movement has been that groceries produced
 without pesticides can be hard to find and expensive, said Mark Silbergeld, a
 co-director in Washington, D.C., for the Consumers Union of the United States,
 in his testimony submitted for the Senate hearing.
 Silbergeld also said that the union is participating in an effort by a
 "large number" of citizen organizations to prevent the United States from using
 the World Trade Organization as a forum for challenging the labeling
 requirements of other governments. The United States has maintained that trade
 rules already in place could cover biotechnology products and that no further
 rules would be needed.
 But the citizen organizations don't trust that the government will remain
 inactive if U.S. companies run into trouble selling biotechology farm products
 overseas. They have have long accused the government of using its considerable
 power to represent the trade interests of large corporations.
 First define 'normal'
 In essence, the debate has become a war to define "normal" at the grocery
 store and in the farm fields.
 Labeling opponents argue that genetic engineering has become a normal,
 everyday technology after two decades of research and nearly a decade of
 applications. With the GMO genie already out of the seed bag, delivering goods
 guaranteed to be unaltered could be tricky, said L. Dan Thompson, president and
 chief executive officer of Minnesota Corn Processors, a cooperative owned by
 5,400 farmers, in his testimony at the Senate hearing. The Marshall-based co-op
 turns corn into syrup, starch and ethanol.
 If biotechnology were abandoned today, "it would take many years to work
 existing supplies out of the system," Thompson said. "[And] absolute guarantees
 that food was produced without biotech input [would be] impossible."
 The other side stresses the abnormality _ the novelty _ of the technology.
 "There is no evidence that the genetically engineered foods now on the
 market present safety problems," Silbergeld acknowledged in his testimony. "At
 the same time, neither can it be said that they have been proven safe. These
 products have been in use for too short a time, and the regulatory framework is
 too fragmented and too reliant on industry self-regulation to say that either
 experience or the government assures safety."
 SUBJECT: article; food; science; technology; safety GENETIC ENGINEERING(95%);
 LOAD-DATE: October 19, 1999
                           Copyright 1999 Star Tribune









Document Number: 806
 
                           The Times Union (Albany, NY)
                   October 3, 1999, Sunday, THREE STAR EDITION
 Genetically altered food crops remain surprisingly tough sell
 BYLINE: EDIE LAU; and PAUL SCHNITT Sacramento Bee
 SECTION: CAPITAL REGION, Pg. D11
 LENGTH: 639 words
 HIGHLIGHT: Instead of consumer support, producers see resistance, vandalism
 A passionate and sometimes sharply ideological debate over food with altered DNA
 has brewed for years, but has been confined mostly to Europe. Product advocates
 figured Americans would be an easy sell. After all, changing the genetic makeup
 of crops potentially could reduce the use of chemical pesticides, increase
 yields and make foods more nutritious.
 Now the debate, which traces its roots to the Flavr Savr tomato invented in
 Davis, Calif., in 1994, is on the verge of exploding in the American
 marketplace. At stake are hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate and
 government research and investment, scientists' careers and the very gene pool
 of future agricultural ecosystems.
 Challenges to ''transgenic'' crops are coming from multiple fronts:
 Recent evidence suggests that genes engineered into crops may have unwelcome
 side effects, including killing good insects as well as pests and transferring
 herbicide resistance to weeds.
 The European Union requires labels on food derived from transgenic crops. Under
 pressure from European retailers and consumers, Campbell Soup Co. decided this
 summer to forgo selling transgenic food products there. Gerber Products Co.
 intends to eliminate transgenic ingredients in its baby foods worldwide -- even
 though Gerber's parent, Novartis Corp., is a bioengineering giant.
 Vandalism of presumed transgenic crops, first seen in Europe, reached the United
 States this summer. Activist groups Reclaim the Seed and Cropatistas claim
 they've damaged fields in Maine, Vermont and California. The incidents include
 crop destruction at the University of California-Berkeley and on two private
 farms near Lodi, Calif.
 At the University of California at Davis, vandals struck twice recently. The
 researchers involved said they lost about 1.5 acres of conventional corn and
 about a half-acre of sugar beets, a fraction of which were transgenic.
 ''Many of us are somewhat surprised at how the situation has turned in the past
 year,'' said Kent Bradford, a UC Davis plant physiologist and director of the
 Seed Biotechnology Center, a new program to streamline the making of transgenic
 plants.
 What surprises Bradford is the timing of the protests, starting just when it
 seemed transgenic crops would become an agricultural staple.
 Perhaps unknowingly, Americans routinely eat food made with genetically modified
 ingredients. ''People are still healthy; nothing dramatic has happened,'' he
 said. ''We assumed we were sort of over the hump.''
 Genetically modified crops penetrated the marketplace swiftly. Corn and soybeans
 provide the most pointed example. In 1995, the entire U.S. crop was
 conventional. This year, 54 percent of soybeans and 33 percent of corn, growing
 on almost 66 million acres of farmland, are genetically altered.
 Promoters of genetic engineering often argue that agriculture has relied for
 generations on selective breeding to enhance desired traits and eliminate
 undesirable traits, and that the new technology merely does the job faster. But
 gene-altering techniques are fundamentally different because they enable people
 to give plants DNA from outside the plant kingdom.
 The most common altered crops either make their own insecticide, are resistant
 to specific herbicides or both. The insecticidal plants, for example, contain
 toxins naturally produced by a soil bacterium that are lethal to specific
 insects and no others.
 The research pipeline is full of possible new products. AgrEvo is testing
 herbicide-tolerant rice on the UC Davis campus and at about a dozen private
 paddies in the Sacramento Valley. Among numerous other UC Davis biotech studies
 are projects to make apples crunchier and juicier; to retard rot in melons; and
 to grow fruit and nut trees in compact sizes so that they use less water and are
 easier to pick.
 LOAD-DATE: October 5, 1999
                      Copyright 1999 The Hearst Corporation









Document Number: 807
 
                                 University Wire
                                September 30, 1999
 Police investigate spate of UC-Berkeley crop destruction
 BYLINE: By Joshua Bloomekatz, Daily Californian
 SOURCE: U. California-Berkeley
 LENGTH: 607 words
 DATELINE: Berkeley, Calif.
 UC police have begun investigating the destruction of experimental crops at a UC
 Berkeley research site earlier this month and have since heightened security at
 several other research locations, according to university and police officials.
 Police have increased their patrols of the Oxford Tract on Oxford and Virginia
 streets after environmental activists destroyed corn plants there on Sept. 15.
 Authorities are now considering using alarms and surveillance to catch the
 culprits, said UC police Capt. Bill Cooper.
 In the past two weeks, UC police have reported at least four separate incidents
 of trespassing at the Oxford Tract in Berkeley and the Gill Tract in Albany.
 The sites are more susceptible to attack because they are open fields as opposed
 to secure fields, said Rosemary Lucier, spokesperson for the College of Natural
 Resources.
 Police are providing workshops on security for students, professors and staff at
 the College of Natural Resources, many of whose projects are located at the
 research sites, Lucier added.
 In addition to the recent attacks on UC Berkeley sites, an environmental group
 destroyed experimental crops at UC Davis Tuesday. Police there are also planning
 to increase security by using high-tech surveillance, said Sgt. Kanting of the
 UC Police Department at Davis.
 Previously, environmental activists were only targeting a select type of crop,
 called transgenic crops. But now they are targeting all types of crops, said Lt.
 Mike Adams, who is also with UC Police Department at Davis.
 The broad scope of the attacks has made it more difficult to monitor the
 research sites, Adams said.
 The UC police on the Berkeley campus have linked the attacks and are
 communicating with UC police in Davis, Cooper said. Nonetheless, finding the
 culprits has been a difficult task.
 "It's kind of difficult in a case like this because there is not a lot of
 evidence," Cooper said. "For this kind of thing the suspects can range from
 young to old."
 Physical evidence has been recovered from both of the UC Davis sites, Adams
 said. UC police also recovered evidence from the UC Berkeley research site on
 Oxford.
 The police did say that multiple suspects were involved in the destruction of
 the genetically altered crops.
 Genetically engineered crops have been destroyed three times at UC Berkeley
 research sites in the past year.
 A group named "Reclaim the Seeds," claimed responsibility for damaging three
 genetically engineered crop research sites, including one at the Oxford tract at
 UC Berkeley this month and another the site at UC Davis on Tuesday.
 Another group, called "California Croppers," has declared its members were
 responsible for two earlier incidents on UC Berkeley research facilities. The
 attacks occurred last September and this August at the Gill Tract.
 Those involved in crop destruction are recognizing that the government has
 failed to do their job in regulating the genetic engineering of crops, said
 Jeffrey Tufenkian, a spokesperson for an environmental watchdog group called
 Genetix Alert.
 "They are providing a wake-up call," Tufenkian said.
 He added that there have been 11 incidents throughout the United States in the
 last three months in which environmental activists have destroyed genetically
 altered crops.
 Other groups involved in anti-genetic engineering activism include "Seeds of
 Resistance" in Maine, the "Bolt Weevils" in Minnesota and the "Cropatisas,"
 "Lodi Loppers" and "California Croppers" in California, Tufenkian said.
 Additionally, there are similar groups in India and parts of Europe.
 (C) 1999 Daily Californian via U-WIRE
 LOAD-DATE: September 30, 1999
                   Copyright 1999 Daily Californian via U-Wire









Document Number: 808
 
                         Bismarck Tribune (North Dakota)
                    September 19, 1999, Sunday, METRO EDITION
 Farmers losing options; Plant species nearing extinction
 SECTION: Pg. 01A
 LENGTH: 590 words
 Associated Press
 WASHINGTON -- With thousands of plant species nearing extinction, the world's
 farmers are losing valuable crop alternatives. In the United States, more than
 80 percent of seed varieties sold a century ago no longer are available,
 according to a report released Saturday.
 Even crops that may not be producing or seem undesirable could one day help
 fight against human disease, develop more-resistant varieties or respond to
 future conditions, said Worldwatch Institute researcher John Tuxill, the
 report's author.
 The report says more plant species are threatened in the United States than any
 other country -- 4,669, or 29 percent of all varieties. Next is Australia with
 2,245 species threatened, followed by South Africa with 2,215.
 Worldwide, more than 30,000 plant species are threatened.
 The report echoes long-held concerns about dwindling plants in nature and says a
 decline in cultivated varieties is a serious loss for agriculture.
 While genetic engineering in agriculture is on the rise, with farmers around the
 globe planting three times as much land in "transgenic" crops this year as last,
 some natural varieties have disappeared forever, Tuxill said.
 "Although we have achieved unprecedented skill in moving genes around, only
 nature can manufacture them," he said in the report, "Nature's Cornucopia: Our
 Stake in Plant Diversity."
 "If a plant bearing a unique genetic trait disappears, there is no way to get it
 back," Tuxill said in an interview. "And you never know what's going to be
 useful down the road."
 The genetic resistance of some U.S. high-yield wheat, for example, came from a
 seed collected in Turkey that was being rejected by local farmers in favor of
 more attractive varieties, Tuxill said.
 It is not just obscure plant types that are disappearing, the report says in
 describing problems around the globe. Varieties of common crops also are on the
 decline:
 * Less than 20 percent of vegetable seed varieties listed in a 1904 U.S.
 national inventory are available commercially today.
 * China has lost nearly 90 percent of its traditional wheat varieties since
 World War II.
 * Mexican farmers are raising only 20 percent of the corn varieties cultivated
 in the 1930s.
 * Heavy commercial demand in various regions is depleting varieties of wild
 plants used for medicinal and other purposes.
 Many governments and organizations are addressing the problem, Tuxill said.
 One grass roots approach is the Seed Bank Exchange of Decorah, Iowa, which has
 12,000 farmer and gardener members around the United States who share seeds.
 Since the nonprofit association published its first catalogue of seeds available
 commercially nationwide in 1987, it has seen 1,059 disappear, said Aaron Whealy,
 who runs part of the operation.
 But, with effort by its members to share heirloom varieties and private
 collections, in the same period it added 1,889 varieties, he said.
 Newly cultivated or recultivated seeds available next year will be the Mexico
 Midget Cherry Tomato, the Hollybrook Luscious Cantaloupe and Pikes Peak Squash.
 The bank maintains 20,000 vegetable seed varieties and actually grows 2,000 of
 those each year for seed production and sale.
 But just saving seeds is not enough, said Tuxill. Some plants, including
 potatoes and bananas, have to be continuously propagated to survive or require
 that tissue samples be preserved.
 More innovative efforts by governments, scientists, farmers and others are
 needed to manage and protect all plant species, he said.
 LOAD-DATE: September 22, 1999
                      Copyright 1999 The Bismarck Tribune,
                       a division of Lee Enterprises, Inc.









Document Number: 809
 
                         News and Observer (Raleigh, NC)
                    September 8, 1999 Wednesday, FINAL EDITION
 Splice of life
 SECTION: FOOD; Pg. F1
 LENGTH: 1812 words
 You didn't see it, smell it or taste it, but a quiet revolution has changed your
 food. It's called genetic engineering, the splicing of part of one organism's
 DNA into another's.
 Since the first transgenic crops were planted in 1996, they have become an
 inextricable part of the nation's food supply: About one-third of the corn grown
 in the United States has been genetically engineered, mostly to fight off pests,
 and half of the nation's soybeans have been altered to make them more resistant
 to weedkillers.
 Corn and soybeans, in various forms, find their way into a variety of foods.
 When Consumer Reports magazine had the DNA of several common foods analyzed for
 an article in the September issue, it found genetically engineered ingredients
 in three powdered infant formulas, several soy burgers, tortilla chips, taco
 shells, muffin mix, bacon-flavored bits and McVeggie Burgers.
 In fact, an estimated 60 to 65 percent of what Americans eat contains
 genetically engineered material, according to the Grocery Manufacturers of
 America.
 Proponents of genetic engineering say it's the only practical way to feed the
 world, because it makes it possible to raise bigger and better
 crops more efficiently and in more places. Plants engineered to be resistant to
 pests and herbicides require less tilling of the soil and less chemical
 treatment.
 Environmental activists worry about several potential problems: development of
 "super" pests and weeds, increased human resistance to antibiotics, harm to
 beneficial or benign insects, requirements that farmers use a certain brand of
 seed and buy new patented seed every year.
 But the immediate concerns for most consumers are safety and labeling: Is
 genetically engineered food harmful? How do you know if you're eating food that
 has been genetically altered? The short answers: Probably not, and, in most
 cases, you can't. Labeling of genetically engineered food is not required in
 this country as it is in most of Europe.
 Safety first:
 Genetically engineered food appears to be safe. At least, there are no studies
 showing that it isn't.
 "The safety issue is paramount, and the products are safe," says Todd
 Klaenhammer, professor in food science and microbiology at N.C. State
 University. "I regard these foods as safe, and the U.S. consumer should be aware
 of the extreme regulatory scrutiny placed on these products to assure their
 safety."
 The American Medical Association has endorsed the technology, saying in a policy
 statement that the "health and economic benefits of recombinant DNA technology
 greatly exceed any risk posed to society."
 Food biotechnology is regulated in this country by three agencies: the Food and
 Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department
 of Agriculture. The FDA reviews biotechnology's effect on food safety. The USDA
 evaluates products for potential risk to other plants and animals. The EPA
 examines any products that can be classified as pesticides.
 Consumer advocates are concerned that none of this regulation includes direct
 testing of genetically engineered foods on humans. That's because the FDA's
 policy accepts most newly created crops as equivalent to their unaltered
 predecessors, regardless of the process used to create them.
 "The key factors in reviewing safety concerns should be the characteristics of
 the food product, rather than the fact that new methods are used," according to
 the FDA's policy statement on biotechnology.
 Many scientists and regulators look at genetic engineering as a continuum, a
 fast-forwarded version of early botanists Luther Burbank's and Gregor Mendel's
 experiments with plant hybridization. Cross-breeding was never regulated as a
 process, they say, so why should genetic engineering be held to a higher
 standard? If the result is the same, what's the problem?
 But today's cross-species splicing - fish genes into vegetables, bacteria into
 corn and nuts into soybeans -raises new concerns about unknown or newly created
 allergens and the final results of mixing different species.
 Take the case of the Pioneer soybean. In 1995, the Pioneer biotech company put a
 Brazil nut gene into a soybean to boost its protein level. The odds weren't high
 that this change would create an allergen, potentially fatal to those with nut
 allergies who ate the soy product. Tests on the new soybean, intended as animal
 feed, showed that it did have the harmful protein and the project was halted.
 The near miss is a reassuring, or frightening, case in point to people on both
 sides of the issue. The Pioneer test is one of the few ever done on genetically
 engineered food in this country. FDA policy requires that new products be tested
 for eight known allergens: milk, eggs, wheat, fish, shellfish, tree nuts,
 peanuts and soy.
 But testing is not required for other categories or unknown allergens, and that
 concerns groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, which
 advocates more FDA testing.
 "Maybe a few hundred people are allergic to bananas.," says Jane Rissler, a
 senior staff scientist for the group. "Suppose you put a banana gene into wheat.
 People who have the allergy would then have to avoid bread that contained banana
 genes. Many of these proteins are taken from things we don't typically eat, so
 we don't know if people are allergic to them."
 Even USDA Secretary Dan Glickman, in light of the European Union's refusal to
 allow imports of genetically engineered food, called for long-term testing by
 his department and an independent scientific review of the agency's approval
 process.
 Labeling the issue:
 FDA policy does not require labeling just because a food has been genetically
 engineered. Labeling would only be required if the new product differed
 significantly from its predecessor - if it introduced a known allergen or had
 more or less of a nutrient, for example.
 Food manufacturers and many regulators oppose labeling genetically modified
 food, saying it would just confuse consumers and cause needless worry.
 "The real challenge with labeling is not that the food industry doesn't want to
 tell people," says Lisa Katic, director of scientific and nutrition policy for
 the Grocery Manufacturers of America. "This is something very complicated and
 uses terms that people don't understand."
 Thomas Hoban, an N.C. State sociology professor who has been tracking consumer
 attitudes toward biotech issues for a decade, agrees.
 "When we talk to them in focus groups, people say they are almost overwhelmed
 with information, and by choice," Hoban says. "About 79 to 80 percent in our
 latest survey supported the FDA policy on labeling. They don't want a lot of
 extraneous information."
 But it's a matter of informed choice for Hope Shand, research director of Rural
 Advancement Foundation International, an advocacy group for rural farmers and
 communities, based in Pittsboro.
 "The industry has been allowed to police itself," Shand says. "We simply don't
 know enough. It's not a matter of health concerns. It's just a basic right to
 know."
 For instance, the idea of eating plant food that has been injected with animal
 genes bothers some vegetarians and those who follow strict dietary guidelines
 because of their religious beliefs.
 A lawsuit filed against the FDA in May 1998, and joined by an ecumenical group
 of 284 plaintiffs at last count, calls for mandatory safety testing and labeling
 for genetically engineered food. The lack of labeling, they say, makes it
 impossible for religious people to observe dietary laws and customs. The lawsuit
 is "crawling along," The Wall Street Journal reported in August
 Scientist John Ryals scoffs at this concern. Animals, especially insects,
 exchange genetic material with plants all the time in the natural world, he
 says.
 "It's naivete about where food comes from," says Ryals, a molecular biologist
 and chief executive officer at Paradigm Genetics, a biotechnology research
 company in Research Triangle Park. More than animal genes are part of the plant
 food supply, he points out, as acknowledged by government guidelines about
 "acceptable" levels of animal contamination in such common foods as bread and
 ketchup.
 "How much of a rat is in ketchup?" he asks. "They're not at a high level, but
 they're there. There's no way you can guarantee against that. That's just the
 way it is."
 Another argument against labeling is that, because these crops are so pervasive
 in the market, DNA analysis can't be done (or would be prohibitively expensive).
 But U.S. foods have been analyzed since 1996 at Genetic ID, an Iowa company that
 certifies foods as "GMO-free" or "non-GMOs" (not genetically modified
 organisms), mostly for companies exporting their products to Europe and other
 parts of the world where labeling is required.
 "Monsanto says it's not possible," Genetic ID spokeswoman Brynne Sissom says,
 "but it definitely is possible."
 Glickman of the USDA has called for voluntary labeling, but others think it
 should be mandatory. A lawsuit filed by the nonprofit Center for Food Safety
 demands that the FDA reclassify genetic modification as an additive that would
 require labeling, according to a July 14 story in The New York Times. More than
 half a million people so far have petitioned the FDA to demand labeling of
 genetically modified food, the newspaper reported.
 What, me, worry?
 Everyone has weighed in on the genetic engineering issue, from Britain's Prince
 Charles (against) to former president, and peanut farmer, Jimmy Carter (for).
 From Hoban's survey data, it seems that most Americans don't know much about
 biotechnology, but they're for it. In a 1999 survey, only 33 percent replied
 that they had heard "a lot" or "something" on the subject. But 77 percent were
 willing to buy produce engineered to be protected from insects.
 Those with doubts can try to avoid genetically engineered food by buying organic
 produce, avoiding highly processed foods and scouting for information. For
 instance, the Mothers for Natural Law keeps at its Web site (www.safe-food.org)
 a database of brand name foods that do not contain genetically engineered
 ingredients.
 To people like Ric Orlando, a chef in Woodstock, N.Y., who is active in Chefs
 Collaborative 2000, professional cooks who promote eating local and seasonal
 products, and the Pure Foods Campaign, a nonprofit group of people opposed to
 genetically altered food, this kind of effort is essential.
 "Let's say I have two apples," Orlando says. "One is organic and one has been
 genetically engineered and sprayed with six or seven chemicals to make it get a
 little redder and a little rounder. Which one am I going to give my kids?
 Consider the money vs. the value of what you're getting. Remember this is your
 body and your family that you're feeding."
 (News researcher Susan Ebbs contributed to this report.)
 LOAD-DATE: September 8, 1999
 GRAPHIC: 2 c photos Dick Christensen, greenhouse manager, checks the status of
 genetically engineered corn at Novartis in Research Triangle Park. Novartis
 grows its plants to produce seed that is then sold to farmers. Staff Photos By
 Robert Miller
                       Copyright 1999 The News and Observer









Document Number: 810
 
                            Bangor Daily News (Maine)
                            September 7, 1999 Tuesday
 Bon appetit
 LENGTH: 556 words
 To Asia and much of Europe, add Brazil as registering its
 doubts about the safety of genetically modified foods.A San Paulo
 judge ruled recently that Monsanto must perform a one-year
 environmental impact study before selling its transgenic crop in
 Brazil.The spreading resistance to these agricultural products
 demand that political leaders stop marginalizing the concerns of
 environmentalists on this issue and begin taking action.
 Genetically engineered food has had genetic material of a
 non-related species included to produce a certain desirable trait.
 Critics argue that the added genes may increase natural toxins or
 reduce nutrients in some foods.These modified foods may also cause
 allergic reactions from foods previously considered nonallergenic.
 Taking action does not mean swinging a machete at test plots of
 GE food, as was done recently at the University of Maine.It does
 mean listening more closely to the people who buy these products
 and giving them more of a choice in what they buy.
 That will require at least three changes:
 Genetically engineered ingredients -- including soybeans, soy
 oil, corn, potatoes, squash, canola oil, cottonseed oil, papaya,
 tomatoes, and dairy products -- appear in a wide variety of foods.
 Letting consumers decide whether they want to eat them requires a
 lot more information than is currently available.Congress should
 instruct the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of
 Agriculture to work together to establish new safety standards for
 all GE foods.No new foods should be allowed on the market until
 they meet these standards; foods already being grown should be
 given a timetable for compliance.
 Until those standards exist, consumers ought to get a choice
 of whether to consume these foods.The only way to do that is to
 label the products that contain them.A labeling proposal failed in
 the Maine Legislature last year, but should be brought back next
 session.Legislative support should grow as it becomes obvious that
 this is a widespread concern that includes both growers and
 consumers.
 Labeling means that GE foods must be kept separate from
 traditionallygrown commodity crops, and that tracing foods from
 fields to market is essential.This is particularly important for
 sales to Europe and Japan, which have economic and cultural reasons
 for being suspicious of U.S. products, anyway.The mixing of GE and
 non-GE foods also ends up hurting American farmers using more
 traditional seeds.
 Perhaps the most succinct response to this complex problem came
 recently from Gary Goldberg, chief executive officer of the
 American Corn Growers Association."GMOs (genetically modified
 organisms) have become the albatross around the neck of farmers, he
 said, on issues of trade, labeling, testing, certification,
 segregation, market availability and agribusiness concentration.
 Until all these issues are answered, it is best for production
 agriculture to examine alternatives to GMOs. "
 Whatever the final results of long-term testing on the health
 effects of GE foods, U.S. farmers have a problem now.Rather than
 try to these foods on nations that do not want them, a more
 flexible national policy that respected consumer demands would
 better serve everyone.
 LOAD-DATE: September 07, 1999
                         Copyright 1999 Bangor Daily News









Document Number: 811
 
                              August 2, 1999, Monday
 Not all is known about GM ag products
 SECTION: EDITORIAL, Pg. A-9, LETTERS
 LENGTH: 370 words
 To the Editor:
 The article regarding genetically altered food (Intell, July 23) may be of more
 than passing interest to county residents. The article briefly discussed the
 threat that "GM" or genetically modified agricultural products pose to organic
 farmers. It did not, however, much explore the potential threat that GM poses
 not only to organic farmers, but to all horticulturalists and, indeed, perhaps
 to the entire general population.
 While GM can immediately create extremely beneficial results in a variety of
 agricultural products, especially corn and soybeans, the eventual results of GM
 are largely unknown. There is no doubt that a genetically modified corn, known
 as "BT corn," containing genes from Bacillus thuringiensis, produces a toxin
 that kills the dreaded European corn borer. It is equally clear that genetically
 modified soybeans can be made immune to certain powerful weed killers that
 contain glyphosate and isopropylamine salt. A field of "Roundup Ready" soybeans
 may thus be sprayed with these weed killers, effectively killing the weeds
 without apparent harm to the soybeans or their consumers.
 Last year, 95, or about 20 percent of some 475 farms in Lancaster County,
 planted BT corn. Statewide, BT accounted for about eight percent of the corn
 crop.
 Presently, farmers have a choice of about 20 GM crops variously immune to the
 effects of insects, disease or herbicides. Additional crops of this kind await
 final development. The ultimate effects of these crops on animals, other plants
 and human beings also await further investigation.
 These GM crops today appear to offer an almost miraculous agricultural
 opportunity. A generation ago an almost miraculous insecticide known as DDT
 appeared to offer a similar opportunity. The miraculous DDT agricultural
 opportunity of the post-World War II era slowly metamorphosed into ecological
 disaster as the insecticide's ultimate effects became clear.
 Further information about genetically modified crops may be found through the
 Cornell University research team studying transgenic crops (e-mail them at
 jel27@ornell.edu) or from various transgenic web sites and the London Financial
 Times at www.ft.com. G. Carroll Lindsay Strasburg
 LOAD-DATE: October 14, 1999
 Copyright 1999 Lancaster Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 812
 
                            Birmingham News (Alabama)
                               July 18, 1999 Sunday
 BYLINE: Larry Quick
 SECTION: LIFESTYLE; Pg. 9E Vol. 112 No. 109
 LENGTH: 567 words
 Lots of our native hardwood  trees like oaks and hickories,  are experiencing
 late summer  leaf spot early this year.  These leaf diseases occur on a regular
 basis.
 Homeowners become alarmed  when they notice large quantities of  brown, blotchy
 leaves falling to the  ground. There is good news and bad  news here.
 The bad news is that there is nothing that can be done to stop the leaf  drop
 this late in the game. The horse  is out of the barn so to speak.
 The good news is that these pesky  leaf diseases will not cause any significant
 harm to your trees. They are  more of an aesthetic problem than a  real health
 problem in a worst-case  scenario; the trees might defoliate a  month or before
 the normal fall season.
 You probably will miss out on  some fall color, but your trees should  be OK.
 Trees use their leaves to capture sunlight and turn solar energy  into chemical
 energy, which is then  used to manufacture and store up  carbohydrates.
 Your average shade tree has  stored plenty of carbohydrates by  mid-July.
 Dropping 1/3 of its leaves  this time of year is of little concern  to our
 tough, native tree species.   Tomatoes slow to ripen
 Summertime in the South means  fresh squash, tomatoes and okra.
 If you've never grown yellow  squash, try some. There is still  plenty of time
 to get a mess or two  before fall arrives.
 Tomatoes seem to be very slow to  ripen this year - probably due to all  of the
 cloudy, wet weather. Many tomato plants are beginning to show  signs of summer
 diseases also.  Lower leaves become spotted and  turn yellow, eventually falling
 off  the plant. Spray with an all-purpose  fungicide or at least pick off and
 destroy the infected leaves.
 It's a little late to grow okra this  year, but try some in the garden next
 year if you have space. Okra is a  member of the Hibiscus family, just  like
 cotton. Its attractive blooms develop into the pods that make gumbo   what it
 is! Let a few mature and dry  on the plant.
 They make interesting additions to  fall flower arrangements.   Altering Mother
 Nature
 Genetically engineered crops are  becoming more common across the  farms of
 America.
 A recently released study by Cornell University researchers has  caused quite a
 stir in the on-going debate about these "transgenic" crops.
 Bt corn, which has the gene of a  bacterium engineered into it was  shown to
 cause 50 percent mortality  to Monarch butterfly larvae. Pollen  from the corn
 was dusted onto milkweed leaves, which are the host  plant for the Monarch.
 Although at first glance the study  can be alarming, we should know  that
 Monarchs have for the most  part finished their larval feeding and  growth by
 the time corn has begun  to release its pollen. Also factored  into the equation
 should be the fact  that corn pollen does not travel far.
 Milkweed plants would need to be  almost directly under the corn plants  to get
 dusted with pollen.
 The reason Bt corn was developed  was to prevent caterpillars from  feeding on
 corn. It works.
 Is it good? Is it bad? Is it risky to  tinker with Mother Nature? These
 questions and many others will face  all of us in years to come. Research,
 careful observation and debate will  hopefully guide us down the right  road.
 Larry Quick is county agent for  the Alabama Cooperative  Extension System in
 Jefferson  County. His column runs several  times a month in the House &  Garden
 section.
 LOAD-DATE: January 26, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 1999 The Birmingham News
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 813
 
                                Chicago Sun-Times
                 July 12, 1999,MONDAY,Late Sports Final Edition
 'Perfect' corn may set stage for its destruction;
 Overplanting could soon lead to pest developing resistance
 SECTION: NEWS;Pg. 6
 LENGTH: 958 words
 When Kane County farmer Steve Pitstick planted genetically engineered corn for
 the first time in 1996, he saw how much difference one little gene makes.
 Pitstick planted "transgenic" corn next to a field of regular corn. Transgenic
 corn contains a foreign gene that makes the plant poisonous to an insect pest
 called the European corn borer.
 Pitstick's regular corn was infested with corn borers. Leaves were riddled with
 holes, as if hit by a shotgun. Ears dropped off stalks. Stalks crumpled. Yields
 plummeted 30 bushels an acre, a 19 percent drop.
 By contrast, Pitstick's transgenic corn looked perfect and produced a bumper
 crop of 160 bushels an acre--without pesticides.
 "It was fantastic," Pitstick said. "We had technology we potentially could
 profit from. And it was environmentally friendly."
 With such results, it's little wonder biotechnology has caught on so quickly.
 Introduced commercially in 1995, transgenic corn last year accounted for 25
 percent of the corn in the United States. The percentage is expected to grow to
 50 percent in two or three years.
 But the success of transgenic corn might carry the seeds of its destruction.
 Experts warn that if farmers plant too many acres, the corn borer will develop
 resistance to the plant poison. They note that more than 500 insects and mites
 have developed resistance to overused pesticides.
 "It's a great technology for farmers," said University of Illinois insect expert
 Kevin Steffey. "But abuse of the technology will result in bad things."
 The corn borer does more than $ 1 billion in damage to corn in the United States
 each year. The damage begins after a moth lays its eggs on corn leaves. After
 hatching, a young caterpillar feeds on leaves. As the caterpillar grows, it
 tunnels into stalks and munches on ears.
 Pesticide sprays work only during a seven-day window, which can vary from field
 to field. Even when used correctly, sprays are only partially effective. Many
 farmers don't bother.
 Transgenic corn produces its own pesticide, Bacillus thuringiensis--Bt for
 short--a bacterium that lives in soil. The microbe produces toxins that kill
 certain insects, including the corn borer. Bt corn contains a gene from the
 bacterium that enables the corn to make the natural pesticide. A few bites of Bt
 corn are enough to kill a corn borer.
 If Bt corn is overused, corn borers could develop resistance to Bt, and the corn
 would become just as vulnerable to corn borers as regular corn. And Bt sprays,
 long used by gardeners and organic farmers as a safe alternative to chemical
 pesticides, also would be rendered useless.
 "We would be the big losers," said Mark Kastel of Organic Valley, a co-op of
 organic farmers in Wisconsin. "We can't bring in synthetic poison as an
 alternative."
 Organic farmers have joined Greenpeace, the Center for Food Safety and other
 groups in a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The suit
 demands the agency withdraw its approval of Bt crops, including corn, cotton and
 potatoes.
 "EPA showed a blatant disregard for federal law and its own regulations by
 approving Bt crops without fully assessing their environmental safety," said Joe
 Mendelson of the food safety center.
 The EPA's response: "The biotech products we review fully comply with all legal
 requirements designed to ensure that they are environmentally sound and
 environmentally beneficial."
 Agricultural experts say farmers can prevent, or at least delay, Bt resistance
 by planting some of their fields with regular corn. The University of Illinois
 Extension advises farmers to set aside at least 25 percent of their corn in
 non-Bt "refuges." If a corn borer from a Bt field develops resistance, the
 theory goes, it would mate with a susceptible corn borer from a refuge, and
 their offspring wouldn't be resistant.
 Beginning next year, major seed companies will require farmers to agree in
 writing to set aside at least 20 percent of their corn in non-Bt refuges. But
 there is no practical way to enforce refuges.
 If farmers ignore the guidelines, resistance could occur within a few years.
 Even if they follow the guidelines, resistance could develop within 15 years,
 Steffey said.
 A second drawback to Bt corn is the expense. Pitstick said Bt corn costs $ 12 an
 acre more to plant. With corn now selling for about $ 2 a bushel, Bt corn must
 boost yields by at least six bushels an acre for Pitstick to break even.
 If corn borers are out in force this year, Bt corn will pay for itself. But if
 1999 turns out to be a year of light infestation, Bt corn will prove costly.
 Pitstick farms 1,500 acres in western Kane County, near Maple Park. About half
 of the acres are in corn, half in soybeans. Pitstick has been growing transgenic
 soybeans since 1997.
 Transgenic soybeans contain a foreign gene that enables the plant to tolerate
 Roundup, a powerful herbicide. Spray a field with Roundup, and just about every
 plant except transgenic soybeans will die. Monsanto Co. also has developed
 "Roundup Ready" corn, cotton and canola.
 Roundup quickly breaks down into natural components such as carbon dioxide. It
 thus is easier on the environment than pesticides used on regular soybeans.
 Unlike those pesticides, Roundup does not build up in the soil or contaminate
 groundwater. Indeed, Roundup is so safe, many gardeners use it.
 Pitstick is baffled by environmentalists' opposition to transgenic crops, which
 he believes are better for the environment than conventional crops.
 He points to his children's backyard trampoline and swimming pool, near the edge
 of an insecticide-free field planted with Bt corn.
 "My kids are 50 feet from the field," he said. "I'm closer to being a green
 person than environmentalists."
 SUBJECT: series; second; What's for dinner; crops; genetic engineering; genes;
 addition; corn; corn borer; Bt; farming; farmers; opposition; AGRICULTURE;
 LOAD-DATE: July 13, 1999
 LANGUAGE: English
 GRAPHIC: Steve Pitstick has grown genetically engineered soybeans since 1997.
 They account for half of his 1,500 acres in Kane County. LEFT: Steve Pitstick
 examines some of his transgenic corn, which contains a gene that makes the
 plants poisonous to European corn borers. But experts fear that in time the
 borer will become resistant to the poison, posing a major problem for farmers.
 ABOVE: A foreign gene enables Pitstick's soybeans to tolerate Roundup, a
 powerful herbicide that kills just about every other plant.
                      Copyright 1999 Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.









Document Number: 814
 
                            Bangor Daily News (Maine)
                              June 17, 1999 Thursday
 Transgenic farming has downside
 Recent article in Nature has some questioning value of altered plants
 BYLINE: Clair Wood
 LENGTH: 733 words
 On Jan. 14, the Bangor Daily News reported that Monsanto Co.
 had ended its efforts to register genetically modified seed corn in
 the state.This makes Maine the only state that does not allow the
 transgenic corn to be grown.
 The modified seed carries a gene from the bacterium Bacillus
 thuringiensis that produces a toxin lethal to pests such as the
 corn borer, thereby reducing or eliminating the need for chemical
 pesticides.
 A boon to farmers, a downside to the Bt corn was reported
 recently by John Losey and Linda Raynor of Cornell University.In
 the May 20 issue of Nature, they said the transgenic corn is
 indirectly responsible for the death of monarch butterfly
 caterpillars feeding near fields where it is grown.The caterpillar
 feeds on milkweed that is often found growing near cornfields.
 Pollen from the Bt corn coats milkweed leaves, where it is
 ingested by the caterpillar with often fatal results.Growers
 assert that the losses to monarch populations are insignificant,
 but critics are using the findings to bolster their argument that
 transgenic plants are unsafe to both humans and the environment.
 A similar controversy arose last summer when a researcher for
 Scotland's Rowett Research Institute said a genetically altered
 potato he helped developwas unsafe.The potato has a gene taken
 from the jack bean that produces an insecticide.
 The reseacher, Arpad Pusztai, tested the altered potato on rats
 and found it suppressed their immune systems.He went on national
 British TV to announce, "If you gave me the choice now, I wouldn't
 eat it. " The institute immediately suspended Pusztai, denied him
 access to his laboratory and records, and announced the 68-year-old
 Pusztai, a biochemist, had decided to retire.
 A firestorm of protest sprang up across Britain with widespread
 demands for a complete moratorium on all genetically modified
 foodstuffs.Protesters attacked exhibits of transgenic foods and
 destroyed fields where tests of new strains were being conducted.
 Today, there is scarcely a country in Europe without strong and
 vocal opposition to transgenic crops.There is less opposition in
 the United States, but it is growing stronger daily.Critics of
 transgenic crops cite concerns about human health and damage to the
 environment while advocates point to the undeniable economic
 benefits and increased yields to be had from gene-altered plants.
 Last August, Nigel Williams reported in Science that the United
 States has approved 30 transgenic crop plants with more in the
 pipeline.Nearly one-third of U.S. soybeans are now genetically
 modified to be resistant to herbicides so they may be sprayed with
 weed killer without harm.This is up from zero acres in 1996.
 A 1998 Business Week report said that U.S. farmers sowed more
 than 32 million acres of modified Monsanto seed last year, and
 Monsanto estimates that the global market for genetically modified
 crops in 2005 will exceed $ 6.6 billion, with a lion's share in the
 United States.
 Both sides of the argument can cite strong points in their
 favor.Profits aside, genetically modified crops have a vast
 potential for feeding the burgeoning populations of developing
 nations.Nearly 75 million acres of genetically modified crops,
 such as soybeans, corn, sweet potatoes and canola, were planted
 around the world in 1998.
 Proponents hail genetically altered crops as providing a green
 revolution similar to the one brought about by plant breeding in
 the 1960s.But it is the same traits that make geneticallyaltered
 plants valuable to agriculture that also make them dangerous Trojan
 horses in the environment, critics say.
 The inserted gene can "jump" from a crop plant to nearby weeds,
 producing "superweeds" impervious to herbicides.Insects may
 develop resistance to pesticides by feeding on plants with built-in
 insecticide genes.And, as the monarch butterfly demonstrates,
 transgenic plants may have entirely unexpected environmental
 consequences.
 Transgenic food crops have too great a potential to feed a
 hungry world to be discarded.The clock cannot be turned back to
 the days when they did not exist.Equally certain is that they will
 have some unforeseen and negative consequences.We can only hope
 that the pluses will outweigh the negatives in the long run.
 LOAD-DATE: June 17, 1999
                         Copyright 1999 Bangor Daily News









Document Number: 815
 
                          The Record (Bergen County, NJ)
                       June 7, 1999; MONDAY ; ALL EDITIONS
 SOURCE: Wire services
 SECTION: OPINION; Pg. L03
 LENGTH: 1675 words
 THE TERM"GENETIC POLLUTION" officially entered the public lexicon
  on May 20. Scientists at Cornell University reported in the journal
  Nature that the pollen from genetically engineered corn containing a
  toxin gene called Bt killed 44 percent of the monarch butterfly
  caterpillars who fed on milkweed leaves dusted with it. By contrast,
  caterpillars fed with conventional pollen all survived. The results are
  all the more shocking given the fact that nearly 25 percent of the U.S.
  corn crop now contains the Bt transgene and the Corn Belt states of the
  Midwest are where half of the monarch butterflies are produced each
  year.
 In the wake of the monarch butterfly study, a growing number of
  scientists now say they wonder about the potential environmental effects
  of scores of other genetically engineered crops being introduced into
  the agricultural fields. Indeed, some critics are asking, why weren't
  these and other studies done before introducing genetically engineered
  corn, soy, cotton and other crops over millions of acres of farm land?
 The fact is, genetically engineered crops are radically different
  from conventional crops because they contain genes in their biological
  makeup from completely unrelated species. For example, scientists have
  introduced an anti-freeze gene from flounder fish into the genetic code
  of a tomato plant to protect the plant from cold spells. While
  scientists have long been able to cross close relatives in the plant
  kingdom, the new genetic tools allow them to cross all of the biological
  boundaries, adding genes from viruses, bacteria, and other animals and
  plants into the genetic code of traditional food crops.
 Ecologists are unsure of the impacts of bypassing natural species
  boundaries. Consider, for example, the ambitious plans to engineer
  transgenic plants to serve as pharmaceutical factories for the
  production of chemicals and drugs. Foraging animals, seed-eating birds,
  and soil insects will be exposed to a range of genetically engineered
  drugs, vaccines, industrial enzymes, plastics, and hundreds of other
  foreign substances, for the first time, with untold consequences.
 Over the next 10 years, life science companies plan on introducing
  thousands of laboratory-conceived transgenic plants over millions of
  acres of farmland around the world. Ecologists tell us that the risks in
  releasing these novel crops into the biosphere are similar to those
  we've encountered in introducing exotic organisms into North America.
 While many of these non-native creatures have adapted to the North
  American ecosystems without severe dislocations, a small percentage of
  them have wreaked havoc on the flora and fauna of the continent.
 Whenever a genetically engineered organism is released, there is
  always a small chance that it, too, will run amok because, like
  non-indigenous species, it has been artificially introduced into a
  complex environment that has developed a web of highly integrated
  relationships over long periods of evolutionary history.
 Much of the current effort in agricultural biotechnology is centered
  on the creation of herbicide-tolerant plants. To increase their share of
  the growing global market for herbicides, life-science companies like
  Monsanto and Novartis have created transgenic crops that tolerate their
  own herbicides. Monsanto's new herbicide-resistant patented seeds, for
  example, are resistant to its best-selling chemical herbicide, Roundup.
 The companies hope to convince farmers that the new
  herbicide-tolerant crops will allow for a more efficient eradication of
  weeds. Farmers will be able to spray at any time during the growing
  season, killing weeds without killing their crops. Critics warn that
  with new herbicide-tolerant crops planted in the fields, farmers are
  likely to use even greater quantities of herbicides to control weeds, as
  there will be less fear of damaging their crops in the process of
  spraying. The increased use of herbicides, in turn, raises the
  possibility of weeds developing resistance, forcing an even greater use
  of herbicides to control the more resistant strains.
 New pest-resistant transgenic crops, such as Bt corn, are also being
  introduced for the first time. Monsanto and Novartis are marketing
  transgenic crops that produce insecticide in every cell of each plant. A
  growing body of scientific evidence points to the likelihood of creating
  "super bugs" resistant to the effects of the new pesticide-producing
  genetic crops.
 Some ecologists warn of the danger of what they call "gene flow",
  the transfer of transgenic genes from crops to weedy relatives by way of
  cross-pollination. New studies have shown that transgenic genes for
  herbicide tolerance and pest and viral resistance can spread by way of
  pollen and insert themselves into the genomes of relatives, creating
  weeds that are resistant to herbicides, pests and viruses.
 The insurance industry has quietly let it be known that while it
  will provide coverage for negligence and short-term damage resulting
  from the introduction of genetically engineered crops into the
  environment, it will not offer liability coverage for long-term
  catastrophic environmental damage because the industry lacks a risk
  assessment science, a predictive ecology, with which to judge the
  risks.
 The industry understands the Kafkaesque implications of a government
  regime claiming to regulate the new field of biotechnology in the
  absence of clear scientific knowledge of how genetically modified
  organisms interact once introduced into the environment. Who, then, will
  be held liable for losses if a transgenic plant introduction were to
  trigger genetic pollution over an extended terrain for an indefinite
  period of time? The life science companies? The government?
 The introduction of novel genetically engineered organisms also
  raises a number of serious human health issues that have yet to be
  resolved. Most of these new crops contain genes from non-food-source
  organisms. With 2 percent of adults and 8 percent of children having
  allergic responses to commonly eaten foods, consumer advocates argue
  that all novel gene-spliced foods need to be properly labeled so that
  consumers can avoid health risks.
 The British Medical Association has become so concerned about the
  potential health effects of consuming genetically modified foods that it
  has just called for an open-ended moratorium on the commercial planting
  of genetically engineered food crops until a scientific consensus
  emerges on their safety. And the European Commission recently announced
  a freeze on licenses for genetically engineered plants after learning about the
 monarch butterfly study.  A worldwide moratorium should be declared now on
 releasing
  genetically engineered food crops and other gene-spliced organisms into
  the environment pending further study of the potential environmental and
  health risks and liability issues at stake. It would be irresponsible
  and foolish to continue seeding farmland with genetically engineered
  food crops when we have yet to develop even a rudimentary risk
  assessment science by which to regulate these new agricultural products.
  Jeremy Rifkin is the author of"The Biotech Century: Harnessing the Gene
  and Remaking the World." This appeared in the Los Angeles Times.
 LOAD-DATE: June 7, 1999
 LANGUAGE: English
             Copyright 1999 North Jersey Media Group Inc., All Rights
                                     Reserved









Document Number: 816
 
                            Bangor Daily News (Maine)
                               May 28, 1999 Friday
 Bt corn vs. butterflies
 LENGTH: 232 words
 Your excellent article on new evidence of the toxicity of
 transgenic corn to monarch butterflies (BDN, May 22-23) neglected
 to mention that Maine is the only state in the nation to have
 denied registration to those varieties of corn "plant pesticides"
 when themanufacturers failed to answer questions about the
 environmentalimpact and the need for these crops in Maine.
 Congratulations are again in order to the Board of Pesticides
 Control for its foresight.
 Nearly 30 years ago, Congress passed the National Environmental
 Policy Act, requiring environmental impact statements to be written
 before every major federal action "significantly affecting the
 quality of the human environment. " The Environmetnal Protection
 Agency has given permission for more than 58 million acres of
 transgenic crops to be planted, approximately one third of which
 incorporate the Bt toxin, without preparing any Environmental
 Impact Statement.
 Earlier this year, Maine Organic Farmers andGardeners
 Association and Aroostook County potato farmers Jim and Megan
 Gerrits joined a host of farmers, organic growers associations, and
 environmental organizations in suing the EPA to compel compliance
 with this most basic of its legal responsibilities, and to suspend
 registration of the Bt crops until a full environmental risk
 analysis has been completed.
 Sharon Tisher
 Orono
 LOAD-DATE: May 28, 1999
                         Copyright 1999 Bangor Daily News









Document Number: 817
 
                       The Star-Ledger (Newark, New Jersey)
                              May 26, 1999 Wednesday
 Growing doubts about the food farms are producing
 BYLINE: Lawrence Hall
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. 19
 LENGTH: 692 words
 Planting is a joyous chore, though it can be arduous, whether you are seated in
 a tractor or on your knees in the garden.
 Recently I took a vacation from writing just to plant. So far, I have put in a
 half-dozen dwarf peach trees in an orchard and 10 blackberry plants in a berry
 patch and transplanted more than 100 herbs and flowers to a newly designed,
 4,000-square-foot vegetable plot.
 Over the next two months, I will plant more fruit trees, berry plants and
 vegetables in addition to performing other chores. I have my work cut out for
 me.
 It's worth the effort because I know the integrity of the stuff I will consume
 and market. I don't have much confidence in the produce that's transported from
 throughout the world to our supermarkets. The taste simply doesn't compare to
 home-grown produce.
 From the initial planting, I pray that all my toil will bear fruit, with a
 harvest sufficient to satisfy stomach and soul.
 There is something magical about taking a tiny seed or transplant, interring it
 in nature's womb, attending to its needs and watching it grow.
 Planting is an act of faith, and nurturing life from a seed teaches reverence
 for all living things. How sad that most children are deprived of the experience
 of planting a seed in the ground.
 Farmers and gardeners have engaged in this ritual for thousands of years,
 nurturing vegetables, fruits, flowers and herbs into bloom. Much of that time,
 they relied on the sun's rays, the rain and the gravitational pull of the moon
 as well as age-old agricultural practices and farmers' almanacs.
 Over the centuries, growing has become a more sophisticated enterprise. Modern
 techniques have brought greater crop yields at the expense of ruined top soil
 and other environmental damage.
 During this century, agriculture has been revolutionized through a vast array of
 genetically altered crops, soil amendment, fertilizers, sprays, tonics and pest
 management techniques.
 Farmers and gardeners have been beguiled by an arsenal of fungicides, emulsions,
 sun shields, chemicals, powders, growth hormones and pesticide-resistant crops.
 Only a few days ago, I saw an ad in American Vegetable Grower for an insecticide
 power used to deter whiteflies from eating certain vegetables. The product is
 applied in the soil a week before planting, and the plant absorbs the stuff.
 When a whitefly feeds on the plant, the insecticide attacks the insect's nervous
 system. The insect is paralyzed and dies because it cannot eat.
 The insecticide, made by a leading aspirin company, is supposedly harmless to
 the environment and to humans. However, serious questions have been raised about
 genetically modified crops that are resistant to diseases and pests.
 Genetically altered seeds have been on the market for almost five years now, and
 it's estimated that 45 million acres of U.S. farmland are planted with modified
 soybeans, corn, cotton and potatoes, capable of resisting herbicides and
 producing their own pesticides.
 Genetically altered seed could lead to a lack of variety in crops and pose
 environmental problems. Some critics claim genetically modified crops could have
 a domino effect on the food chain and threaten wildlife.
 In February, Monsanto was fined closed to $30,000 by a British court for
 "genetic pollution." The company was charged with failing to prevent pollen from
 genetically modified crops from being released into the environment.
 Last week, a Cornell University research study revealed that the wind-borne
 pollen from genetically altered corn is deadly to monarch butterflies. The study
 is part of a growing debate over the consequences of relying on transgenic crops
 Ross Welch, a plant physiologist with the Agricultural Research Service, thinks
 we need to change the way crops are modified. The advent of high-yield crops and
 genetically altered produce has coincided with a tremendous shortage of trace
 elements and vitamins in millions of people.
 "These high-yielding foods do not provide enough of the micro nutrients - iron,
 zinc, iodine, essential trace elements and vitamins - that are just as critical
 to health, though needed in much smaller quantities," says Welch.
 LOAD-DATE: June 6, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: nsl
                     Copyright 1999 Newark Morning Ledger Co.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 818
 
                                The New York Times
                    May 21, 1999, Friday, Late Edition - Final
 A Warning From the Butterflies
 SECTION: Section A;Page 26;Column 1;Editorial Desk
 LENGTH: 481 words
 "Bt" is short for Bacillus thuringiensis, the name of a naturally occurring soil
 bacterium that produces a toxin capable of killing some insects while leaving
 others unharmed. For farmers who closely monitor their crops and are willing to
 manage its application with care, Bt has been a resounding success since the
 early 1960's. But for those same reasons, Bt has never been widely adopted by
 conventional farmers, who prefer longer-lasting pesticides and whose fields are
 so large that effectively timing the use of Bt is impractical.
 Bt is now available to conventional farmers in the very crops they grow, in
 genetically modified versions of potatoes, cotton and corn that are designed to
 express the Bt toxin. In the United States this year, nearly 20 million acres of
 Bt corn will be planted. That sounds, on the surface, like a good thing. But
 researchers at Cornell University have discovered in a laboratory study that the
 pollen from Bt corn, when eaten by larvae of monarch butterflies, killed nearly
 half and stunted the rest. The Corn Belt happens to be critical ground for
 monarchs, which live on milkweed, a plant found all across the Midwest.
 Nobody yet knows if the pollen is killing a substantial number of butterflies in
 the real world, but this is deeply disturbing news. It reminds us just how
 little we know about the impact of genetically modified crops in nature and how
 little the regulatory process can tell us, so far, about their effect.
 But there is another potential problem. One of the things that makes Bt safe and
 effective when applied as a spray is that it breaks down quickly, lessening the
 opportunity for insects to develop resistance to it. But in a transgenic crop,
 like Bt corn, it is prevented from breaking down. Some studies have shown that
 continuous exposure to Bt quickly creates resistant insects, thus destroying the
 effectiveness of the pesticide.
 The only way to avoid the development of resistance is to interplant Bt corn and
 non-Bt corn in a checkerboard pattern, creating a refuge for insects that can
 interbreed with resistant insects, rendering them less resistant. Something like
 this pattern has been required for the use of Bt corn in Canada. But for large
 commodity farmers, this planting scheme, of course, negates many of the gains
 that transgenic Bt crops were supposed to create.
 It will be a tragedy if the use of transgenic corn, potatoes and cotton by
 conventional farmers ends up destroying the effectiveness of a safe, natural
 pesticide that is of great value to many small farmers and all organic farmers
 -- to a whole sector of the agricultural world that has relied on close,
 attentive management practices as an alternative to chemical pesticides. It is
 important to make sure that monarch butterfly populations are not harmed by
 transgenic crops. It is just as important to save Bt itself.
 http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: May 21, 1999
 TYPE: Editorial
                    Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 819
 
                                Chicago Sun-Times
                May 20, 1999,THURSDAY,Late Sports Final Edition
 High-tech corn killing butterflies;
 Genetic engineering leads to toxic pollen
 SECTION: NEWS;Pg. 3
 LENGTH: 456 words
 Pollen from genetically engineered corn kills monarch butterfly larvae,
 researchers reported Wednesday.
 The hybrid corn incorporates genes from a bacterium that makes it lethal to the
 destructive European corn borer but safe for beneficial insects such as
 honeybees and ladybugs, which prey on other pests. The toxin also has no effect
 on people.
 Even though monarchs are not an endangered species, "they are considered to be a
 flagship species for conservation," said entomologist Linda Rayor, a Cornell
 University researcher and co-author of the study. "This is a warning bell."
 The Cornell researchers, in a paper published in the journal Nature, say the
 toxin emerges as crystals in the corn's pollen, which can become wind-borne
 hundreds of feet from the edge of a cornfield. That's bad news for the monarch,
 even though it does not eat corn leaves in its caterpillar state.
 Instead, the caterpillars eat milkweed, which commonly grows on the edge of
 cornfields and has sticky leaves that act as a pollen magnet. Monarchs favor the
 weed because it contains bitter, toxic chemicals that makes them unpalatable to
 predators.
 John Losey, an assistant professor of entomology at Cornell and lead
 investigator for the study, said the monarchs' migratory patterns bring them to
 the Corn Belt in late May or early June, exposing caterpillars to Bacillus
 theringiensis pollen as a new generation emerges from eggs to begin feeding on
 milkweed.
 In lab tests, monarch caterpillars eating milkweed leaves dusted with pollen
 from the altered corn plants ate less, grew more slowly and died more quickly.
 After four days, 44 percent of them had died. None of the caterpillars that
 didn't feed on the pollen died.
 The toxin in the transformed pollen, the researchers found, goes into the gut of
 the caterpillar, binding to specific sites. At those spots, holes in the gut
 wall are created, releasing pathogens into the insect's body.
 Losey noted that the study is just a first look at a complex situation. "Pollen
 from Bt-corn could represent a serious risk to populations of monarchs and other
 butterflies, but we can't predict how serious the risk is until we get a lot
 more data," he said.
 "And we can't forget that Bt-corn and other transgenic crops have a huge
 potential for reducing pesticide use and increasing yields."
 Among the first of more than 18 Bt-engineered crops to be approved for
 commercial use in the United States, the corn has become a commercial success in
 just a few seasons.
 Bt corn is manufactured by agricultural giants Novartis AG, Pioneer Hi-Bred
 International Inc. and Monsanto Co. It was approved by the Food and Drug
 Administration and hit the market in 1996.
 Contributing: Associated Press
 SUBJECT: corn; pollen; butterflies; caterpillars; death; toxin; FOOD; SCIENCE
 LOAD-DATE: May 20, 1999
 LANGUAGE: English
 GRAPHIC: Monarch butterflies are not endangered but are regarded as a "flagship
 species for conservation," says Cornell entomologist Linda Rayor. ;SCRIPPS
                      Copyright 1999 Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.









Document Number: 820
 
                          Deseret News (Salt Lake City)
                              May 20, 1999, Thursday
 Genetically altered corn threatens butterfly, researchers say
 BYLINE: By Carol Kaesuk Yoon New York Times News Service
 SECTION: WIRE; Pg. A02
 LENGTH: 335 words
 All around the country, farmers are about to finish sowing millions of acres of
 a genetically altered form of corn that protects itself from pests by producing
 a toxin in its tissues. But researchers report on Thursday that this
 increasingly popular transgenic plant, thought to be harmless to non-pest
 insects, produces a wind-borne pollen that can kill monarch butterflies -- a
 species that claims the corn belt as the heart of its breeding range.
 Researchers said that the laboratory study, conducted by a team from Cornell
 University, provides the first evidence that pollen from a transgenic plant can
 be harmful to non-pest species. As such, the study is likely to become part of
 the growing debate about whether genetically engineered crops may have
 unforeseen effects on the environment. The study, published on Thursday in the
 journal Nature, was written by Dr. John E. Losey, an entomologist, Dr. Linda S.
 Rayor, a behavioral ecologist, and Maureen E. Carter, a biologist.
 Transgenic crops have proven tremendously popular with American farmers in
 recent years. This season the new pest-resistant corn, introduced by seed
 companies just three years ago, is being planted on an estimated 10 million to
 20 million acres out of an 80-million-acre corn crop nationwide. Known as Bt
 corn, it carries a gene derived from a bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, that
 produces the Bt toxin, killing corn borer pests that try to eat the plant.
 The Bt toxin itself is already known to be lethal to many butterflies and moths.
 Researchers said this suggests that butterfly or moth species other than the
 monarch could be affected by the transgenic plant, particularly those that live
 on plants like milkweeds that are often found in and around corn fields and
 could be dusted by Bt corn pollen. But researchers note that the effect of Bt
 corn pollen on populations of wild insects is unknown.
 Academic researchers praised the study as a first step toward understanding a
 previously unsuspected risk.
 LOAD-DATE: May 20, 1999
                  Copyright 1999 The Deseret News Publishing Co.









Document Number: 821
 
                                The New York Times
                   May 20, 1999, Thursday, Late Edition - Final
 Altered Corn May Imperil Butterfly, Researchers Say
 BYLINE: By CAROL KAESUK YOON
 SECTION: Section A;Page 1;Column 3;National Desk
 LENGTH: 1070 words
 All around the country, farmers are about to finish sowing millions of acres of
 a genetically altered form of corn that protects itself from pests by producing
 a toxin in its tissues. But researchers report today that this increasingly
 popular transgenic plant, thought to be harmless to nonpest insects, produces a
 wind-borne pollen that can kill monarch butterflies -- a species that claims the
 Corn Belt as the heart of its breeding range.
 Researchers said the laboratory study, conducted by a team from Cornell
 University, provides the first evidence that pollen from a transgenic plant can
 harm nonpest species. So the study is likely to become part of the growing
 debate about whether genetically engineered crops may have unforeseen effects on
 the environment.
 Transgenic crops have proved tremendously popular with American farmers in
 recent years. This season the new pest-resistant corn, introduced by seed
 companies three years ago, is being planted on an estimated 10 million to 20
 million acres out of an 80-million-acre corn crop nationwide. Known as Bt corn,
 it carries a gene derived from a bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, that
 produces the Bt toxin, killing corn borer pests that try to eat the plant.
 The researchers fed monarch caterpillars leaves of milkweed, their only food,
 which had been dusted with Bt corn pollen, regular corn pollen or no pollen.
 Half of those fed Bt corn pollen died within four days, while all those fed
 regular corn pollen or no pollen survived. The study, published today in the
 journal Nature, was written by Dr. John E. Losey, an entomologist, Dr. Linda S.
 Rayor, a behavioral ecologist, and Maureen E. Carter, a biologist.
 The Bt toxin itself is already known to be lethal to many butterflies and moths.
 Researchers said this suggests that butterfly or moth species other than the
 monarch could be affected by the transgenic plant, particularly those that live
 on plants like milkweeds that are often found in and around cornfields and could
 be dusted by Bt corn pollen. But researchers note that the effect of Bt corn
 pollen on populations of wild insects is unknown.
 Academic researchers praised the study as a first step in understanding a
 previously unsuspected risk.
 "Nobody had considered this before," said Dr. Fred Gould, an insect ecologist at
 North Carolina State University. "Should we be concerned? Yes."
 Dr. John Obrycki, an entomologist at Iowa State University, called the new study
 "solid" and said: "You now have a novel means of distributing Bt toxins in the
 environment. This is a technology that's being promoted and we haven't really
 considered all the consequences."
 Representatives from Novartis Agribusiness Biotechnology, Monsanto and Pioneer
 Hi-Bred International Inc., the top sellers of Bt corn, challenged the
 significance of the findings for monarch caterpillars, or larvae, outside the
 laboratory. Researchers estimate that Bt corn is worth hundreds of millions of
 dollars annually.
 Taking issue with the methods and conclusions of the study, Rich Lotstein, vice
 president of public affairs for Novartis, said, "Even if Dr. Losey's results are
 real, which they could be, the exposure is still minimal, and the impact is
 extremely small, if any."
 Dr. Lotstein said that as part of the Environmental Protection Agency approval
 process, predatory insects and honeybees were found not to be harmed by Bt corn.
 Researchers, including the authors, say it is still unknown how much of an
 impact Bt corn pollen is having on wild monarch populations.
 "I would be very surprised if there are no monarch larvae being killed," Dr.
 Losey said. But as to how many are being killed, he said, "That's the big
 question."
 Researchers say they do know from a study published last year that it is the
 Corn Belt, states like Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio, that produces about
 half of the monarchs that migrate each year to Mexico.
 And across that geographic expanse, said Dr. Karen Oberhauser, an ecologist at
 the University of Minnesota, there was certainly potential for corn pollen and
 monarch caterpillars to cross paths.
 How much milkweed is close enough to cornfields to risk receiving a dusting of
 pollen is unknown. But as Dr. Marlin Rice, an entomologist at Iowa State
 University, put it, in many farm states, "if you're a monarch, odds are you're
 going to be close to a cornfield."
 Monarchs are not considered endangered, but Dr. Lincoln Brower, monarch
 biologist at Sweet Briar College in Sweet Briar, Va., said the butterfly faced a
 growing number of pressures. The No. 1 threat, he said, is still logging in the
 butterfly's winter resting grounds in Mexico. Other threats include roadside
 mowing and the use of herbicides on milkweeds.
 Whatever level of threat Bt corn pollen turns out to pose, it is almost
 certainly less damaging to monarchs and insect diversity in general than the
 spraying of insecticides. But Dr. Obrycki said that in many areas of the
 country, farmers did not typically spray for corn borer.
 Still others viewed the new study as a broader sign of the danger of transgenic
 crops and the need for tighter regulation.
 Dr. Margaret Mellon, director of the agriculture and biotechnology program at
 the Union of Concerned Scientists, said: "Why is it that this study was not done
 before the approval of Bt corn? This is 20 million acres of Bt corn too late.
 This should serve as a warning that there are more unpleasant surprises ahead."
 Dr. Phillip O. Hutton, chief of the microbial pesticides branch of the
 Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates the commercial availability of
 Bt corn, declined to comment on the new study, saying it had not yet gone
 through the agency's scientific review. In addition to Bt corn, the agency has
 approved Bt potatoes and Bt cotton.
 Despite the potential threat to monarch butterflies, which neither help nor hurt
 crops, farmers may find it difficult to lay aside Bt corn.  Previously, farmers
 had to scout their crops diligently for signs of corn borers and spray at just
 the right time in an infestation to kill them. Now they can plant Bt corn and
 let the internally produced toxins do all the work.
 "It's an amazing technology," said David Linn, a corn and soybean farmer in
 Correctionville, Iowa, who plants Bt and regular corn. "Does it kill more
 monarchs or not? That's so far down on the list of things we have to decide
 about."
 http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: May 20, 1999
 GRAPHIC: Photos: Monarch caterpillars eating a milkweed leaf that was dusted
 with pollen from corn that had been genetically altered to kill pests. A study
 says the pollen can kill the butterflies, which breed in the corn belt. (Kent
 Loeffler/Cornell University)(pg. A25); Photo (Associated Press)(pg. A1)
                    Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 822
 
                           The San Francisco Chronicle
 Gene-Spliced Corn Imperils Butterfly;
 Caterpillars in study die after eating bioengineered plant pollen
 BYLINE: Glen Martin, Chronicle Staff Writer
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A1
 LENGTH: 1037 words
 Scientists have discovered that pollen from genetically manipulated corn could
 be killing native butterfly caterpillars in the Midwest, casting a shadow over
 the emerging industry of bioengineered crops.
 Although the discovery, reported today in the journal Nature, must be confirmed
 by more field studies, the authors of the study said it is a warning that
 agricultural biotechnology may have unintended environmental consequences.
 In the laboratory study, a group of Cornell University entomologists found that
 pollen from corn infused with genes from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis
 (Bt) is toxic to monarch butterfly larvae when lightly sprinkled on milkweed,
 the natural food source for the caterpillars.
 Bt is a natural bacterium that is fatal to caterpillars and other larvae. When
 its genes are spliced into those of corn, a plant results that produces Bt
 toxins in its tissues, killing corn borers and other worm-like pests. Bt corn is
 considered safe for human consumption.
 Under laboratory conditions, almost half of the monarch caterpillars that ate
 milkweed dusted with Bt corn pollen died after four days, the Cornell team
 found.
 That compares with a 100 percent survival rate for caterpillars that ate
 milkweed that either was free of pollen or was sprinkled with pollen originating
 from corn that did not have Bt genes.
 The implications of the study are ominous. Half of North America's eastern
 monarch butterfly population is concentrated in the "corn belt." And about 20
 percent of the U.S. corn crop, or about 8 million acres, is planted in
 bioengineered Bt corn, a figure that grows every year.
 While the plant strains have been credited with greatly reducing pesticide use,
 any "drift" of pollen could prove devastating for native butterflies and moths.
 Bt is harmless to most insects, but it obliterates caterpillars and other
 larvae.
 Linda Rayor, one of the authors of the study, observes that corn is wind
 pollinated -- meaning its pollen is carried by the wind rather than by bees and
 other insects.
 "When you have a toxin freely dispersed by the wind, it could affect any moth or
 butterfly larvae feeding near a cornfield," Rayor said. "Our article isn't meant
 to be alarmist -- but it is a warning, a flag of concern."
 The study could mean that monarch butterflies are at particular risk.
 Populations of these big, orange and black migratory butterflies have been in
 steep decline because of pesticide use and habitat destruction.
 Some environmentalists said the study is an indication agribusiness should go
 slowly in promoting transgenic crops.
 "I think this clearly shows transgenic corn could be a serious threat to
 monarchs," said Rebecca Goldburg, a senior scientist with the New York-based
 Environmental Defense Fund. "I doubt if it would push them over the edge by
 itself, but it adds substantially to the other risks they face."
 But Sarah Hake, a plant geneticist specializing in corn, said she is unsure if
 the study is valid for field conditions.
 "There is a lot of wind outdoors, and corn pollen doesn't usually stick to
 plants in heavy concentrations, particularly if any distance is involved," said
 Hake, who directs the Plant Gene Expression Center in Albany, California, for
 the U.S. Department of Agriculture. "I think it would be difficult to mimic the
 actual concentrations you'd see under natural conditions. We need to see field
 research on this now before we can draw any firm conclusions."
 Rayor said Cornell researchers plan to conduct field research this summer, but
 added that her group took pains to reproduce pollen concentrations expected for
 milkweed located about 60 yards from a cornfield. Corn pollen typically drifts
 60 to 100 yards from the plant under windy conditions.
 Even if Bt corn could be adversely affecting certain butterflies, say some
 scientists, those effects must be weighed against the dire environmental effects
 of heavy pesticide use.
 The Bt bacteria, which occurs naturally and breaks down rapidly in the
 environment, was developed as an alternative to chemical pesticides. Anecdotal
 reports indicate that Bt cornfields are much richer in insect and avian life
 than Bt-free corn that is sprayed regularly with poisons.
 "I essentially believe those reports," said Arthur Shapiro, a professor of
 entomology, ecology and evolution at the University of California at Davis.
 "There is no such thing as a risk-free technology. Everything involves
 trade-offs, and we need to make the best decisions we can based on the best
 information we have."
 Jay Byrne, a spokesman for Monsanto Co., a St. Louis chemical and agricultural
 products firm that produces Bt corn, said his company supports further research
 on the matter.
 "We need to objectively assess the risk," Byrne said, "and we have to do
 everything possible to reduce any risk that exists. But along with many
 scientists, we are not convinced that laboratory conditions are the same as
 field conditions. And we should also remember that Bt crops are reducing
 pesticide use by hundreds of thousands of gallons annually. That is a very
 substantial environmental benefit."
 John E. Losey, the primary investigator of the Cornell report, agreed with
 Byrne.
 "We need to look at the big picture here," he said. "Pollen from Bt corn could
 represent a serious risk to monarchs and other butterflies, but we can't predict
 how serious that risk is until we have a lot more data. And we can't forget that
 Bt corn and other transgenic crops have a huge potential for reducing pesticide
 use and increasing yields."
 Increasingly, farmers are planting a genetically altered form of corn that
 protects itself from pests by producing a toxin. The plants were thought to be
 harmless to nonpest insects. But researchers report that the plants produce a
 wind-borne pollen that can kill monarch butterflies. The pollen is blown onto
 milkweed, which is food for the monarch butterfly (top right) and the similar
 queen butterfly (larvae at right). The crop could prove to be a serious threat
 because the nation's corn belt is the heart of the monarch's breeding range.
 RESEARCH; SAFETY; BIOTECHNOLOGY; Bacillus thuringiensis; Monsanto Co.;
 LOAD-DATE: May 20, 1999
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO (3), GRAPHIC, PHOTO: (1) Monarch butterfly courtesy Local Birds
 Inc., (2) Milkweed and caterpillar photo courtesy Bobby Gendron/Butterfly
 Encounters, GRAPHIC: JOE SHOULAK/THE CHRONICLE
                   Copyright 1999 The Chronicle Publishing Co.









Document Number: 823
 
                               May 16, 1999, Sunday
 Genetically Engineered Crops at Vanguard of Agriculture Disputes
 BYLINE: By Lance Nixon
 LENGTH: 1862 words
 CLAREMONT, S.D.--For Mike McCranie, the one good thing about a snowstorm that
 hit before he'd finished combining last year is that it didn't knock his corn
 down -- a fact he attributes largely to genetic engineering.
 Since 1997 he's planted an increasing amount of so-called Bt corn, genetically
 altered to make it lethal to corn borers. As a result, his corn has strong stems
 and stayed upright despite snow and wind.
 Bt corn -- the common name for corn that has been genetically altered to have
 the insecticide properties of a certain soil bacterium -- is one of two
 genetically altered crops the Claremont farmer is using. The other is Roundup
 Ready soybeans, so called because they stand up to the herbicide Roundup. For
 McCranie, the products illustrate the huge changes genetic engineering is making
 in agriculture.
 "The technology can be compared to the introduction of the plow. Or maybe a
 better comparison would be going from horses to tractors. I think that's the
 kind of change it's going to make in agriculture."
 Alan Scott of Britton, an area agronomist for Pioneer Hi-Bred International
 Inc., agrees this is a time of enormous change, with genetic engineering, or
 biotechnology, offering the ability to tailor crops to resist a pest or chemical
 or to produce food or fiber with specific traits -- corn that is higher in oil,
 for example, or feeds that reduce phosphorous in animal waste. "At this point it
 seems to be the next revolution in farming, as we see it."
 A Monsanto promotional video about genetic engineering is titled "Seeds of
 Innovation" -- and that's the apparent view of many. President Clinton awarded
 the National Medal of Technology in April to four Monsanto scientists for
 developing a simple and reliable method of transferring desirable genes into
 plant species.
 Monsanto's Internet site notes that genetically engineered crops are being grown
 in five industrialized and three developing nations.
 If there's a revolution under way, area farmers probably started experiencing it
 in 1996. That's when both Bt corn and Roundup Ready soybeans -- two crops that
 occupy a huge acreage in the area -- were made commercially available. And
 although genetically engineered varieties of several other crops are in
 commercial use in the United States this growing season -- tomatoes, potatoes,
 squash, cotton, canola, chicory, papaya -- corn and soybeans are still the ones
 area producers are discussing.
 Here's background on Bt corn and Roundup Ready soybeans, gleaned from university
 or private industry Internet sites:
 Bt corn takes its name from Bacillus thuringiensis, a naturally occurring soil
 bacterium. It was identified as having the properties of an insecticide in the
 early 1900s and starting in the 1930s was used in gardening, agricultural and
 forestry. The naturally occurring strains of Bt remain especially important as a
 biological pesticide used by organic farmers.
 What's different about Bt corn is that the insecticide properties of the
 bacteria have actually been made part of the corn. It's done by extracting the
 portion of DNA that creates the Bt toxin from Bt bacteria and transferring it to
 the corn. The result is a genetically altered corn that produces its own Bt
 toxin.
 The European corn borer -- with a population cycle that peaks every five to
 seven years in area states -- dies shortly after eating the Bt altered plant.
 When insects don't bore through the stalks, more nutrients can enter the plant,
 making for larger yields in some cases.
 A 1996 study at four University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Stations
 found Bt hybrids from one seed company outperformed their unprotected
 counterparts by five to 12.5 bushels per acre. But the same study -- which
 included Bt corn from two seed companies -- concluded, "Yields varied markedly.
 Presence of Bt was not a guarantee of higher yields, with some non-Bt hybrids
 having higher yields even when infected by corn borer."
 McCranie said his Bt corn yielded about 15 bushels more than his conventional
 corn two years ago, when corn borer numbers were high. Last year, with fewer
 insects, his Bt corn yielded about seven bushels better than his other corn.
 McCranie calculated the advantage was still enough to make the more pricey Bt
 seed worth the cost.
 Depending on the hybrid, a 50-pound bag of Bt corn seed costs about $ 24 more
 than conventional corn. Depending on variety and seeding rate, that breaks down
 to perhaps $ 7 to $ 10 more per acre than conventional corn, Scott estimated.
 Roundup Ready soybeans were developed after scientists found a gene tolerant to
 Roundup herbicide in a bacterial source commonly found in soil and transferred
 it to the soybean plant. Roundup works by interfering with production of a
 protein that is found only in plants. Conventional soybeans can't stand up to
 Roundup. Roundup Ready soybeans differ from conventional varieties in that they
 have a single added protein, an enzyme tolerant to the herbicide Roundup.
 Farmers who use the genetically altered soybeans spray for weeds with Roundup
 herbicide, thus increasing yields.
 The cost of Roundup Ready soybeans is about $ 8 more than conventional soybeans
 for a 50-pound bag of seed. That breaks down to about $ 10 to $ 11 more per
 acre, Scott estimated.
 But the new technology raises questions -- even with people who embrace it, like
 McCranie. "I don't classify myself as a tree hugger, but I do have concerns
 about all this technology coming at us," he said, adding that he worries about
 the possibility of a supernoxious weed or pest developing resistance to what
 seems now like a great new tool.
 Greenpeace and the International Organization of Organic Agricultural Movements,
 or IFOAM, voiced those concerns as early as September 1997. They worried that
 introducing the Bt gene into corn, cotton and potatoes -- three crops that
 covered about 3 million acres in the United States in 1997 -- could "create
 resistance within the populations of the targeted insects and thus create the
 need for new chemical or biotechnological pesticides -- a well-known effect with
 many chemical insecticides."
 McCranie, who gets his Bt corn from a Pioneer Hi-Bred dealer, said it's partly
 with that thought in mind that he's careful to observe company guidelines about
 leaving a "refuge area" -- that is, he reserves 10 percent of a Bt-planted field
 for conventional corn. By such areas, the seed industry is trying to maintain a
 base population of insects that remain vulnerable to the Bt corn.
 "It's time-consuming to leave that refuge area if you've got your planter full
 of Bt corn," McCranie said. "It's something we need to adhere to because we want
 this technology to last as long as possible. We don't want the corn borers to
 build up a resistance."
 If insects do become resistant, Greenpeace and IFOAM point out that organic
 farming -- a $ 4.2 billion industry in the United States alone -- may be left
 without a biological pesticide it's relied on for years.
 For McCranie, one of the best things about Bt corn is that he doesn't have to
 spray for corn borers. "That in itself is an advantage to the environment. When
 you use an insecticide, you not only get rid of the corn borer, you get rid of
 the helpful insects, too."
 He sees a similar advantage in Roundup Ready soybeans because Roundup is less of
 a worry to the environment than some herbicides. Manufacturer Monsanto's
 information about the chemical on the Internet says Roundup's active ingredient
 is glyphosate, which binds tightly to soil on contact, making it "extremely
 unlikely" that it will get into groundwater or be picked up by the roofs of
 off-site vegetation. Soil microorganisms break it down over time into natural
 products such as carbon dioxide, Monsanto says.
 Still, with either crop, wind drift -- of chemical spray or of Bt corn pollen --
 poses potential new problems.
 That's the point the Fullerton, N.D.-based Northern Plains Sustainable
 Agriculture Society noted in an April newsletter, saying "new technologies ...
 always bring new liabilities."
 The newsletter says courts already have recognized liability if spray drift
 destroys another crop. It goes on to say the new development with biotechnology
 is "genetic drift" -- if pollen from a field of Bt corn finds its way into a
 field of traditional corn, for example. That could financially damage organic
 farmers or those who grow for so-called "clean" or "below detectable level"
 markets.
 "An increasing number of farmers have found premium markets for crops that have
 not been genetically modified, and they stand to lose those premiums if the
 genetically modified crops out-cross and contaminate them," the newsletter said,
 noting that testing programs are already in place to verify that crops are
 "genetically natural."
 Theresa Podoll, executive director for the Northern Plains Sustainable
 Agriculture Society, said organic farmers want to avoid confrontations with
 neighbors who raise genetically engineered crops. The newsletter suggests the
 solution may be as simple as neighbors visiting back and forth to learn when
 each is planting, and staggering maturity dates so that Bt corn is not
 pollinating at the same time as natural corn.
 It also suggests that farmers who plan to grow transgenic crops check with their
 insurance companies to ensure they are protected by liability coverage for lost
 crops or markets; that they get the latest information on genetic drift from the
 extension service; and that farmers try to contain spray, using hooded ground
 sprayers if possible.
 Bob Hall, an extension crop specialist at South Dakota State University, said
 those are valid concerns -- and not only for organic farmers. He said spray
 drift from a field of Roundup Ready soybeans could as easily damage a neighbor's
 conventional soybeans that aren't destined for the organic market.
 In either case, Hall said the advent of biotechnology poses new challenges, even
 while it promises to enhance yields or add value to crops. "A lot of this stuff
 is going to be quite emotional. It looks like farmers are going to have to
 coordinate among themselves how they do things. You've got to be a good manager
 and you've got to be on your toes."
 Industry perspectives on genetic engineering are available on the Internet. For
 starters, try www.monsanto.com, or a related site, www.RoundupReady.com. A good
 one that includes a wealth of material about Bt corn and European corn borer is
 http://204.233.143.129/usa/crop-management/nc/ecbintro.htm. For university and
 extension reports -- and there are plenty -- simply do a search on Bt corn or
 Roundup Ready soybeans on any Internet search engine.
 More on the organic industry's concerns about genetic engineering can be found
 at http://ecoweb.dk/ifoam, the Web site of the International Federation of
 Organic Agriculture Movements. More about consumer concerns about genetic
 engineering -- including resistance to genetically engineered products in
 European markets, in particular -- is available at www.greenpeace.org.
 Visit the American News On-line on the World Wide Web at
 http://www.aberdeennews.com/
 INDUSTRY: Agriculture/Food NAICS424910 FARM SUPPLIES MERCHANT WHOLESALERS
 LOAD-DATE: May 18, 1999
                Copyright 1999Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News
                      Copyright 1999Aberdeen American News









Document Number: 824
 
                              April 12, 1999, Monday
 Biotechnology May Turn Farms into 'Farmaceutical' Delivery Systems
 BYLINE: By Kevin Bonham
 LENGTH: 1973 words
 WATERTOWN, S.D. -- That last ear of sweet corn you sank your teeth into last
 fall might have been genetically modified to resist plant diseases as it grew
 last summer.
 You probably gave little or no thought to where or how it was grown. But the
 fact is, about 25 percent of the corn grown in the United States in 1998 was
 genetically engineered.
 Now, chew on this thought.
 In the very near future, maybe three or four years down the road, that
 mouth-watering sweet corn you enjoy on a family picnic might provide a vaccine
 that can eliminate your risk of contracting rabies.
 Or, the potatoes you serve at the dinner table may provide enough of the right
 kind of protein in the blood to fight off viral diseases such as infectious
 hepatitis or even AIDS.
 This isn't "The Jetsons," the space-age television cartoon series from the 1960s
 that showed the Jetson family popping a capsule into a microwave oven to create
 a four-course turkey dinner.
 It is, however, cutting-edge technology that is being tested today, says Arnold
 Foudin, assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and
 Plant Health Inspection Service. He talked about what he sees in his crystal
 ball in a talk last month at a Farmers Forum, hosted by a group of South Dakota
 Extension Service county offices.
 "Plants as delivery systems for vaccines and pharmaceuticals is where we are,"
 he says. "We can't get blood from turnips, but we'll be able to get blood
 protein in potatoes."
 Foudin's job is to review all applications for commercial development of
 genetically modified organisms.
 The pace of expansion is staggering. About 25 percent of the 19,500 research
 plots approved in the United States since 1987 were planted in 1998. He
 anticipates another record this year.
 "Herbicide resistance is still the number one characteristic," he says. "But the
 picture is changing rapidly. We're seeing change in the things that are being
 field tested from on-the-farm characteristics to value-added crops.
 Consumers in the United States probably already have difficulty avoiding biotech
 products. Here are a few examples, according to a report from Purdue University:
 -- Genetically engineered corn is used in familiar foods, such as breakfast
 cereals and taco shells. It is used to produce corn syrup, which is used as a
 sweetener in many foods such as soft drinks, baked goods and candies.
 -- Transgenic soybeans are used in hundreds of products, including cooking oil,
 margarine and candles.
 -- In 1997, about one-third of all dairy cattle in the United States were given
 bovine somatotropin, a hormone created through biotechnology, to increase milk
 production.
 -- The genetically engineered enzyme chymosin now is used in about 75 percent of
 the cheese produced in the United States.
 Other breakthroughs are on the horizon.
 "This is the kickoff of what I believe is the real change, the evolution that is
 coming down to the farm," Foudin says. "Plants as delivery systems for vaccines
 and pharmaceuticals are no longer theoretical. We are getting the applications
 in the mail."
 Here are some examples of field tests that already have begun or are planned in
 the next year or two, according to applications under review or already approved
 by APHIS:
 -- Rabies-vaccine corn, from a seed company. "In much of the world, rabies is a
 substantial problem with no mechanisms to economically and reliably deliver the
 vaccine, so raise a vaccine corn," Foudin says.
 -- Blood-protein potatoes. The applicant wants to produce blood protein in
 potatoes. Research is under way to produce potatoes that will include blood
 protein that can be used to fight off viral diseases and disorders, such as
 infectious hepatitis and AIDS. "You've never caught anything from a potato or a
 cabbage," Foudin says.
 -- Diarrhea-vaccine bananas, from an applicant originally from Texas A&M
 University, now from Cornell University. The researchers want to create a plant
 delivery system for an anti-diarrhea vaccine. Statistics show that 2 million to
 3 million children overseas die every year of bacterial diarrhea annually.
 "We're hoping to test it in the next year," he says.
 Foudin's speech was delivered, coincidentally, at about the same time that
 headlines throughout rural America and beyond trumpeted the planned merger of
 DuPont Co. and Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc.
 Because of his position with the federal agency, Foudin is on the leading edge
 of industry change. He uses a crystal ball image to paint his version of the
 future of biotechnology in agriculture.
 "Why would DuPont Co., the world's largest chemical company, pay $ 7.7 billion
 for a seed corn company like Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc.?" he asked the
 group of farmers and businesspeople.
 The answer lies partly in something he heard last year from a vice president for
 DuPont. He explained that, today, nutraceutical-functional foods are a $ 25
 billion industry. Within the next three to five years, it will grow to $ 100
 billion annually.
 "What will the public pay for food commodities with scientific information ...
 that it would decrease the occurrence of heart attacks by a substantial amount
 or that it would decrease cancer by substantial amounts?"
 Foudin offers some insights, gleaned from applications and pending permits at
 One company, he says, is in the intermediate stages of doing rice genome
 research. Now, it wants to move more than 100,000 lines of genetically
 engineered rice to the United States. Other applications involve corn, soybean
 and cotton genomes.
 "People are finding out not only how to move those single genes, but they are
 learning how to read the book, write simple sentences, write paragraphs,
 chapters, and I think shortly in the next century, they will be writing full
 books," he says.
 Genetically modified organisms in the United States date back less than 20
 years. Here is a quick historical peek:
 -- 1983 -- First genetically engineered plant was created.
 -- 1987 -- First genetically engineered plants grown in fields under USDA
 supervision.
 -- 1990 -- First genetically engineered plants were grown under USDA supervision
 for commercialization.
 -- 1996 -- Approximately 6 million acres of genetically engineered plants were
 grown in the U.S.
 -- 1997 -- Approximately 25 million acres were grown.
 -- 1998 -- Genetically engineered plants grown in the United States expanded to
 58 million acres.
 Transgenic field tests now are being conducted with 52 different plants. Corn
 leads the way, with thousands of different tests.
 Currently, wheat represents only about 1 percent of what has been tested in
 fields. However, Foudin believes wheat and other grains soon will be a large
 part of the nutraceutical movement in farm fields.
 "We have no doubt that within the next 36 to 48 months, we will see development
 of commercial lines of wheat with genetically engineered disease resistance made
 available to the public," he says.
 States that grow cotton top the list, since about 50 percent of the nation's
 cotton production now is genetically modified. Meanwhile, in 1998, about 38
 percent of the nation's soybeans and 25 percent of the corn were genetically
 engineered.
 APHIS does not keep track of the number of acres each state has planted with
 transgenic plants. However, it does provide information on the number of test
 plots or fields per crop in each state.
 The upper Midwest is not a leader in the transgenic field.
 So far, applications for about 300 field tests on about 10 different crops or
 plants have been approved for North Dakota and South Dakota, Minnesota and
 Montana. About one-fifth of those field tests are for value-added uses.
 Minnesota is the regional pace setter, followed by North Dakota.
 Last year, for example, Minnesota had about 200 test plots of transgenic crops,
 of which one-fourth were being tested for value-added qualities. Half of the
 state's test fields involved corn, followed by potatoes and sugar beets.
 North Dakota had about 90 transgenic test plots, including about 40 for potatoes
 and about three dozen for canola and sunflowers. The state also had more than a
 dozen rapeseed test plots devoted to value-added research.
 Corn accounted for about two-thirds of South Dakota's three dozen test plots,
 including about a half-dozen for value-added properties.
 Montana had about 30 test plots, with about two-thirds used for potatoes or
 sugar beets.
 The United States is not alone in biotech research. In New Brunswick, Canada,
 scientists are experimenting with blue-berries, in hopes that, one day, the
 fruit that is so abundant there will contain enough antioxidants to prevent
 cancer. They also are testing genetically engineered cranberries designed to
 cure urinary tract infections.
 While research into biotechnology and nutraceuticals explodes in the United
 States and Canada, the industry does not have an unobstructed road ahead.
 The industry has its share of critics and others who warn to proceed with
 caution.
 A large-scale battle is brewing in Europe over the use of transgenic foods sold
 in supermarkets and restaurants.
 Recently, at least two large supermarket chains agreed to stop selling
 genetically modified food products, following pressure from consumers who are
 wary of the industry.
 In Australia, a national committee appointed to investigate the genetically
 modified organism industry recently submitted a report recommending the
 government not approve any biotech foods for market until assurances are made
 that they pose no health risks.
 Foudin is a firm believer in caution. More than a dozen applications for field
 tests were denied or withdrawn last year in the Dakotas, Minnesota and Montana.
 "In the next decade, there will be a Bill Gates in the ag industry," he says.
 "There will be hucksters, too, trying to sell you that magic bean, that magic
 corn seed."
 Foudin is not alone in his optimism for biotechnology in the 21st century.
 Research is under way in universities and pharmaceutical companies around the
 world.
 Peter Goldsbrough, professor of horticulture at Purdue, believes biotechnology
 holds great promise for agriculture. He sees biotech-derived foods growing on
 the market.
 "Biological processes are so complex and diverse that somewhere there's an
 organism that is able to inhibit the growth of the soybean cyst nematode, the
 leading soybean pest," he says in a recent report. "We will find that organism,
 identify the gene or genes that are involved, and put them into our soybeans."
 Foudin sees the field developing even further early in the 21st century. He
 speaks of research into building machines at the levels of molecules and atoms.
 "Recently one was described as a hollow tube of molecules that have an opposite
 charge on both ends. They will stick charged atoms at the center and it will be
 kind of shot out of the tube," he says.
 "How would they use it? Instead of going down to your heart surgeon, you would
 go down to your green grocer and get a prescription for a certain kind of
 broccoli that will perform like a Roto-Rooter and go into your veins and get rid
 of that cholesterol plaque.
 "Does it sound crazy? It might be," he says. However, he says it could happen in
 as little as five to eight years.
 Foudin suggests that industry trend is part of the reason for the recent rash of
 mergers between agricultural and nonagricultural businesses, such as chemical
 and pharmaceutical companies.
 "DuPont is understanding that in the future your field will be the synthetic
 chemical plant of the world. Corporations worldwide have seen the light. They
 are moving at warp speed. If only 5 percent of the 5,000 field tests are
 commercialized, that will be 250 million genetically engineered products."
 Visit Agweek on the World Wide Web at http://www.agweek.com
 INDUSTRY: Agriculture/Food
 LOAD-DATE: April 19, 1999
                Copyright 1999Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News
                          Copyright 1999Agweek Magazine









Document Number: 825
 
                                Chicago Sun-Times
                April 11, 1999,SUNDAY,Late Sports Final Edition
 but at what cost?;
 Feeding the world--;
 --Marshall Martin, agricultural economist at Purdue
 SECTION: SUNDAY NEWS;Pg. 26
 LENGTH: 1505 words
 Geneticists are on the verge of revolutionizing agriculture and medicine in much
 the same way computers have transformed business. Labs around the world are
 working on crops that could feed a growing planet, plants that could clean up
 contaminated soils, and pigs whose organs may one day get transplanted into
 people.
 But to do these things, scientists are fooling with nature's basic building
 blocks. As they do, they are kicking up dissent around the world as one nation
 tries to sell its genetically altered foods to another's grocers.
 The food fight between the United States and Europe--over hormone-treated beef
 and genetically altered soybeans--could be just a prelude to arguments to
 come. That's because the greatest risks probably don't lie with today's simple
 genetic alterations. Future rounds of exotic agriculture pose bigger threats
 because they will put organisms to completely new uses. The fundamental
 question: How much should science manipulate nature to care for mankind?
 And there's no going back, scientists say. Consider the U.S. experience. While
 Europeans debate how far to proceed with the new technology, Americans are
 quietly ingesting the new foods, often without knowing it.
 "The genie can't be put back," said Marshall Martin, an agricultural economist
 at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind. "Anyone who eats pizza or cheese on
 their hamburger has consumed genetically modified food. . . . We pulled the cork
 out of the bottle in a sense with the discovery of DNA."
 For example, three-quarters of America's cheese gets its start with a
 bioengineered enzyme. Nearly one out of six dairy farmers injects cows with a
 genetically engineered growth hormone to increase milk production. And
 genetically modified crops are increasingly taking over farmlands--with 70
 million acres planted worldwide, 60 million of it in North America.
 This planting season promises more inroads. For example, half of America's
 soybeans, perhaps more of its cotton, and a third of its corn could be
 genetically modified--a remarkable adoption rate in the four years since the
 new seeds were introduced.
 Other countries are also moving rapidly to incorporate the technology. Last
 year, about 650,000 farmers in China planted genetically modified cotton. And
 this year Monsanto, which produces the cotton seed, expects to double that
 number.
 Even the European Union has approved bioengineered soybeans and corn. Small
 quantities of corn, genetically modified to resist pests, are being grown in
 Spain and, if approved by France's high court, could start showing up in the
 fields of Europe's largest corn producer.
 Biotech companies such as Monsanto hope that resistance to the technology will
 crumble once European farmers begin to adopt the new strains. That move is
 likely, companies say, because the newfangled crops typically improve yields and
 cut costs.
 "It's likely to be adopted because the value of the benefits will be
 recognized," said Philip Angell, a Monsanto spokesman.
 Take cotton, one of the world's most pest-prone crops. By incorporating the
 genes of a natural insecticide, scientists have created a pest-resistant strain
 that requires fewer chemicals. It has been "massively beneficial," said Val
 Giddings, a vice president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization in
 Washington.
 In the three years since they began using it, U.S. farmers have saved the
 equivalent of 850,000 gallons of pesticides.
 Cutting pesticide use saves money. According to new figures released by one of
 Britain's leading plant-research centers, bioengineered soybeans saved farmers
 an average $ 30 a hectare because they used 40 percent less herbicide.
 Pest-resistant corn saved $ 42 per hectare. (A hectare represents about 2 1/2
 acres.)
 Despite these benefits, environmentalists worry that the new crops pose a bigger
 hazard to human health and the environment. They've caught the ear of many
 Europeans.
 The environmental group Greenpeace, for example, has mounted an effective
 campaign across Europe to block the sale of genetically modified food. In
 February, it persuaded biotech giant AgrEvo not to conduct field trials of such
 crops in Austria.
 In January, it organized anti-bioengineering protests at the national offices of
 three European food companies in nine countries. Thanks to a Greenpeace lawsuit,
 France's highest administrative court in December upheld its preliminary ban on
 genetically modified corn from a Swiss firm.
 The debate rings loudest in Britain, where memories of the government's
 mishandling of "mad cow" disease remain fresh. The issue has gone all the way to
 the top: Prime Minister Tony Blair is risking his popularity to support
 genetically modified foods, while Prince Charles said he will never eat any of
 them.
 Further confounding the issue have been the findings of Arpad Pusztai, a
 Scottish researcher. Last summer he was quietly feeding potatoes to rats. Then
 he went public with concerns about the genetically modified rations he was
 using. On one hand, the researcher claims he's enthusiastic about
 bioengineering's potential, but he warns that it has to be done right because
 genetically modified potatoes stunted the growth of rats and depressed their
 immune system.
 Pusztai has not released his full results for review by other scientists--a
 traditional practice. And when an internal audit committee evaluated his study,
 it disputed the findings. But 20 scientists have come forward since, saying
 Pusztai may have a point.
 Whatever the outcome, even biotech executives acknowledge the controversy is
 likely to continue. "I think we have to be very, very careful about how these
 technologies are applied," said Richard Gill, senior vice president and general
 manger of BTG International Inc., a tech-transfer company with offices in the
 United States, Britain, and Japan.
 For the U.S. soybean industry, the stakes are especially high, because more than
 half of all soybeans grown here are shipped overseas. What's more, about 85
 percent of the growth in demand for soybeans is in foreign markets, with Asia
 alone accounting for almost 42 percent of the demand growth.
 What alarms U.S. soybean boosters is that 40 percent of their product is going
 to Europe, where opposition is the loudest.
 "When you look at Europe, you get depressed, you really get depressed," said Jim
 Hershey, an international marketing director for the American Soybean
 Association in St. Louis.
 The European Union has passed a law requiring special labeling on food products
 containing components derived from transgenic crops, and it is expected to
 approve similar legislation governing livestock feed. There is even talk of
 requiring the special labeling for meat products from livestock fed grain made
 from the high-tech crops.
 Opponents who like to describe biotech crops as "Frankenstein food" would like
 similar rules in this country--segregating genetically modified food in the
 field, through processing, and even in the supermarket. Biotech-based food would
 have to bear special labeling.
 Proponents, of course, view that as unnecessary and expensive.
 Greenpeace and other groups opposed to the new class of crops have sued the
 Environmental Protection Agency, calling for it to rescind its approval of
 biotech corn products. Designed to thwart the European corn borer, biotech
 products were introduced to the market three years ago, and biotech corn now
 accounts for about 40 percent of U.S. corn acreage.
 Dairy farmer associations and consumer groups also continue to battle the
 milk-boosting growth hormone.
 "Americans are expressing their concern with genetic engineering and
 agribusiness in general, not in a political way but in the marketplace," said
 Ben Lilliston of the Center for Food Safety.
 That's why organic products are growing so rapidly, he said, and why some
 200,000 citizens complained when U.S. agricultural officials proposed including
 bioengineered food as organic.
 Concern is justified, scientists say, because no one can predict how nature will
 react when new organisms appear. "We're not talking about killer tomatoes. We're
 talking about plants that will pick up genes," said Norm Ellstrand, a geneticist
 at the University of California at Riverside.
 Genes can only transfer to relatives. So genetically modified corn in Iowa
 doesn't pose much danger because it has no wild relatives there. But planted in
 central America, it could create super-weeds that could out-compete the corn.
 And the risks increase as more of these genetically modified plants get released
 into the wild and interact.
 The biggest question hangs over plants containing many new genes so they can
 take lead out of contaminated soil or create ingredients for medicines.
 "The next generation of crops is going to be engineered for truly novel traits.
 . . . And we don't know how those combinations are going to play out," said
 Louis Myers, a biotech specialist at Fish & Richardson, a law firm.
 Contributing: Des Moines Register
 SUBJECT: crops; genetic engineering; research; ; AGRICULTURE; SCIENCE AND
 LOAD-DATE: April 12, 1999
 LANGUAGE: English
 GRAPHIC: University of Illinois entomologist Kevin L. Steffey speaks to Urbana
 farmers about the use of Bt corn, a genetically modified variety that thwarts
 corn borers.  Activists John Kinsman (left) and Mike Durschmid called for an
 international boycott of Monsanto in 1996 when many genetically engineered crops
 hit the market.  About 40 percent of U.S. corn grown is genetically modified.
 See also related story page 26. ;CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
                      Copyright 1999 Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.









Document Number: 826
 
                         San Antonio Express-News (Texas)
                          April 5, 1999, Monday ,METRO
 Concerns growing about genetically engineered crops
 LENGTH: 810 words
 A monster may be lurking in your bowl of cereal or in that bagel. At least, that
 is the claim of a persistent - and growing - chorus of opponents to a new class
 of crops developed with the use of biotechnology and other high-tech tools.
 "Frankenstein food" - that's what they call the cereal, bread, pasta and other
 products containing components derived from the new-fangled field crops.
 Rubbish, say proponents, who contend there is no difference between
 biotech-based crops and conventionally bred crops. "There is a lot of
 misunderstanding about the safety of corn enhanced by biotechnology," said Susan
 Keith, an official with the National Corn Growers Association in Washington.
 Merely misunderstood or not, the high-tech crops that have taken U.S.
 agriculture by storm since being introduced to the market just a few years ago
 are running into growing resistance in key export markets, prompting concerns in
 the grain trade about the outcome of the battle to block biotech-based crops.
 Purveyors' initial confidence that the new crops would readily win worldwide
 approval has been replaced by frustration with the slowness of acceptance in
 markets such as Europe. "It's scary," said Keith, an Iowa native who has tracked
 the issue closely for the corn grower association. In her view, at stake are
 U.S. "corn exports, corn processing, and to the extreme, our meat exports." For
 the soybean industry, the stakes are even greater, since more than half of all
 U.S. soybeans are shipped overseas. What's more, about 85 percent of the growth
 in demand for soybeans is in foreign markets, with Asia alone accounting for
 almost 42 percent of the demand growth. At this point, Europe is king, consuming
 about 40 percent of all soybean exports. But consumer opposition there to
 genetically engineered crops, coupled with a regulatory process that moves like
 cold molasses, worries industry officials. "When you look at Europe, you get
 depressed, you really get depressed," said Jim Hershey, an international
 marketing director for the American Soybean Association in St. Louis. The
 biotech battle pits leading farm trade groups, major seed companies and large
 grain exporters against a broad-based coalition of environmentalists,
 consumer-rights activists and organic food advocates. Proponents believe the new
 class of crops is the key to feeding an exploding global population, while
 opponents contend that transgenic plants could wreak havoc on the ecosystem and
 the food chain. If critics have their way, the two types of crops will have to
 be segregated from field through food manufacturing, and products containing
 components derived from biotech-based crops will have to bear special labeling -
 prospects the other camp calls unnecessary and expensive. So far, opposition has
 been most pronounced in Europe. But it is cropping up in other countries,
 including Japan, South Korea, Thailand and Australia. And opposition is becoming
 more vocal at home. "It's getting progressively worse," said Kenneth Hobbie,
 president of the U.S. Grains Council, which promotes global markets for U.S.
 grain. Those pushing for greater acceptance of the new crops spend a lot of time
 talking with food manufacturers, policymakers and consumer groups in Europe and
 other foreign markets. They say it's an educational process that has shown some
 results. "But then another brush fire pops up, and right now it's blazing very
 hot in the U.K.," Hershey said. Food safety and consumers' right to know what's
 in their food are part of the debate. But also at stake are the
 multimillion-dollar investments made in biotech-based seed products by companies
 like Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc., Monsanto Co. and Novartis. After
 winning approval from U.S. regulators for their high-tech seeds, the companies
 then face protracted approval processes overseas - for the importation of both
 seed products and crops grown from the seeds. Everyone in the grain trade - from
 farmers and grain handlers to grain processors and exporters - will be affected
 by the outcome, industry experts said. The issue has surfaced in global trade
 negotiations, export channels and the courts. Greenpeace and other groups
 opposed to the new class of crops have sued the Environmental Protection Agency,
 calling for it to rescind its approval of biotech corn products. Designed to
 thwart the European corn borer, biotech products were introduced to the market
 three years ago, and biotech corn now accounts for about 40 percent of U.S. corn
 acreage. And the European Union has passed a law requiring special labeling on
 food products containing components derived from transgenic crops, and it is
 expected to approve similar legislation governing livestock feed. There is even
 talk of requiring the special labeling for meat products from livestock fed
 grain made from the high-tech crops.
 LOAD-DATE: April 8, 1999
                     Copyright 1999 San Antonio Express-News









Document Number: 827
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                February 21, 1999, Sunday, FIVE STAR LIFT EDITION
 BYLINE: The Associated Press
 SECTION: NEWS, Pg. A3
 LENGTH: 353 words
 Environmental activists briefly boarded a ship carrying genetically modified
 U.S. corn Saturday in Colombia as part of a protest campaign against so-called
 'Frankenstein foods.
 The environmental group Greenpeace said five members from Argentina, New
 Zealand, Australia and Colombia had used jet skis to reach the cargo ship
 Abydos, which was traveling from New Orleans, shortly before it docked at
 Colombia's Caribbean port of Santa Marta.
 Shore-based protester Isabelle Meister of Switzerland said the group had spoken
 briefly with the ship's captain to complain about the lack of import and export
 controls on genetically modified foods. The protesters then left the ship.
 News media in Britain, where a debate is raging on such foods, have dubbed the
 crops Frankenstein food in a reference to the fictional mutant monster.
 "We're protesting against transgenic crops being dumped on these countries
 without them even being told," Meister said in a phone interview. "This was a
 peaceful protest to draw attention to the issue."
 Scores of other demonstrators in the port unfurled banners saying "No genetic
 imperialism."
 Meister said she did not know how large the U.S. cargo was but said Colombia has
 imported more than 1.6 million tons of U.S. corn between March 1998 and January
 1999, about 20 percent of which was genetically modified.
 The protest came as the United Nations held a week-long conference on
 genetically modified foods in the nearby Colombian resort of Cartagena.
 More than 500 delegates from 150 countries are trying to write a protocol that
 would establish strict guidelines for the importation, exporting and use of
 genetically modified crops.
 The biotechnology industry, including Monsanto Co. of St. Louis, has pumped
 billions of dollars into engineering new high-yield and disease-resistant
 strains of crops, especially corn, soy and cotton, by mixing genes and DNA from
 other plants and even animals.
 Critics say the crops could cause environmental damage by cross-pollinating with
 wild species and could harm plants, insects and animals right up the food chain.
 LOAD-DATE: July 7, 1999
 LANGUAGE: English
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO Photo by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS - People dressed as an ear of corn
 and a tomato protest Wednesday in Cartegena, Colombia, against genetically
 altered crops. A conference on genetically modified foods is being held there.
                   Copyright 1999 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 828
 
                             Buffalo News (New York)
                     January 6, 1999, Wednesday, CITY EDITION
 BYLINE: Molly Ivins
 SECTION: VIEWPOINTS, Pg. 3B
 LENGTH: 748 words
 Monsanto Co., a naive and innocent little chemical corporation, was engaged in a
 benevolent scheme to make a better world through genetically engineered crops --
 practically without thinking of profit. Last year, the company offered its
 humanitarian products to what should have been a grateful peasantry around the
 world, but alas, unpleasant things began to happen.
 In India, farmers torched Monsanto's test plots of genetically engineered cotton
 in an outburst of fury called "Operation Cremation Monsanto." In Ireland,
 ungrateful protesters sabotaged fields of genetically engineered potatoes.
 French farmers staged a raid on a cache of modified seeds, sprayed it with fire
 extinguishers and then urinated on it.
 Gee. Quel Luddites. How can it be, you ask, that all over the world people are
 raising Cain about GMOs (genetically modified organisms), while in this country
 we hear not one discouraging word? (Well, perhaps one or two -- the St. Louis
 Post-Dispatch, in Monsanto's hometown, ran an excellent investigative article
 last month on the company's misadventures around the globe.)
 The rest of the world thinks we're making perfect fools of ourselves over the
 Monica Lewinsky scandal, too, so that just shows you how much the rest of the
 world knows. In fact, you might have heard more about worldwide protests over
 GMOs if it weren't for Monica. The Center for Media and Public Affairs just
 announced that the Lewinsky scandal got more network news air time than the
 combined total for the Asian and Russian economic crises, Iraq, embassy bombings
 in Africa, Middle Eastern peace, nuclear testing in India and Pakistan, and John
 Glenn in space.
 Another reason we hear so little about GMOs in this country was explained by
 Bill Lambrecht in his Post-Dispatch article: Americans have no entry into a
 regulatory system that was fixed during the Reagan administration.
 "In 1986, Monsanto and allies persuaded President Reagan's administration to
 adopt a framework that would operate with no new legislation. This strategy
 assured that genetic engineering would, for the most part, remain out of the
 domain of the Congress and therefore away from the forum where people sound
 their concern."
 The Food and Drug Administration has been our most aggressive regulator on food
 safety issues, but the FDA has limited authority because genetic traits are not
 considered food additives.
 But what exactly is the problem? If Monsanto can make vegetable seeds that are
 resistant to bugs, what's not to like?
 Some of Monsanto's problems are traceable to greater European skepticism about
 science in general. And the continent just went through the experience of mad
 cow disease, in which 11 million cattle had to be slaughtered; that certainly
 increased people's suspicions about food safety and their doubts about the
 adequacy of government regulation.
 One nightmarish product Monsanto plans to acquire is "The Terminator," a new
 genetic technology designed to render the seeds of crops sterile. It was
 invented to block farmers from saving seeds, ensuring that they buy the
 jazzed-up, genetically improved varieties.
 Just imagine if that little genetic fix should somehow get loose and start
 jumping species. In October at the World Bank in Washington, scientists and farm
 economists voted to condemn the technology and prohibit it in projects of the
 Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, the world's largest
 ag research network.
 According to Agence France-Presse, "Critics of biotechnology worry that seeding
 farmland with transgenic crops could spread genetic pollution, upset the balance
 of nature and release uncontrollable food allergens." Jane Rissler with the
 Union of Concerned Scientists told Agence France-Presse, "The purpose of
 biotechnology is to increase the profits of the manufacturers by persuading
 farmers to use more herbicides."
 But aren't these fears just that -- fears without evidence? The problem is that
 Monsanto has a record. The Post-Dispatch noted that the company manufactured
 virtually all the PCBs in the United States until they were finally banned in
 1976, and taxpayers are still shelling out to clean up PCB-riddled waste sites.
 Monsanto also manufactured Agent Orange, which is linked to cancer and
 reproductive problems in Vietnam War vets.
 In other words, this is a company that has put its faith in technology before
 without bothering to properly research the consequences. Fort Worth
 Star-Telegram
 LOAD-DATE: January 8, 1999
                         Copyright 1999 The Buffalo News









Document Number: 829
 
                           The Roanoke Times (Virginia)
                 November 12, 1998, Thursday, NEW RIVER EDITIONS
 SECTION: VIRGINIA, Pg. B5
 LENGTH: 473 words
 Virginia Tech researchers produced yields of 100,000 plants per acre, 15 times
 that of tobacco grown for cigarettes.
 Field trials with medicine-producing tobacco show that it can be grown on a
 commercial scale, a Virginia Tech scientist announced Wednesday.
 In fact, Carole Cramer said the results of her experiments were much better than
 expected, giving increased hope of a new life in the next millennium for
 Virginia tobacco farmers.
 "All results point to this being very promising," said Cramer, a plant
 physiologist.
 Cramer and a handful of cutting-edge scientists across the country have been
 able to introduce specific genes into tobacco plants to produce human proteins
 necessary for fighting and preventing disease. The proteins, biotechnology
 experts believe, will be used to make the next generation of pharmaceuticals and
 vaccines.
 This summer, two separate field trials in Blackstone and Washington County were
 undertaken to find the most cost-effective and efficient ways of growing the
 transgenic crop, Cramer and other scientists said. Using tobacco with a genetic
 marker gene rather than a human protein, the researchers produced yields of
 100,000 plants per acre - five times what they expected and more than 15 times
 that of tobacco grown for cigarettes.
 "Obviously, there's a great potential for new jobs," said state Sen. William
 Wampler Jr., R-Bristol, who sponsored a $ 200,000 amendment to help fund the
 field trials, "and the possibility of diversifying the tobacco crop."
 "This could mean that small family farms could stay in the family for another
 generation," Wampler added.
 The large density of the experimental crop could offer struggling farmers
 another benefit: It would be planted by seed directly in the ground, instead of
 transplanted from hothouse seedlings.
 "It reduces up-front costs and labor required to get a crop going," Cramer said.
 The summer studies showed that flue-cured tobacco - grown mostly in Southside
 Virginia - is the best variety for producing large quantities of target
 proteins, but burley tobacco - more common in Southwest Virginia - also
 performed well.
 Researchers believe tobacco plants could one day produce preventives and cures
 for strokes, tooth decay and even cancer. CropTech, a Blacksburg company spun
 off from Cramer's research, believes the economic impact may eventually equal
 that of the cigarette industry. Tobacco is by far Virginia's largest cash crop,
 with $ 180 million in gross receipts in 1997.
 CropTech has genetically engineered tobacco plants so far grown only in
 greenhouses. Cramer hopes next summer's field trials will include limited
 quantities of plants with target proteins that CropTech hopes to convert to
 pharmaceuticals on a commercial scale.
 Ian Zack can be reached at 381-1665 or ianz@roanoke.com
 LOAD-DATE: December 3, 1998
                         Copyright 1998 The Roanoke Times









Document Number: 830
 
                            Bangor Daily News (Maine)
                            September 14, 1998 Monday
 Transgenic plants raise fears of Europeans
 BYLINE: Clair Wood
 LENGTH: 784 words
 The past decade has seen over 30 different genetically altered
 plant species approved for testing and use in the United States.
 Inserting genes from one species into another has resulted in
 plants with a better taste and appearance, that can withstand cold
 and drought, and are resistant to a wide variety of diseases.
 When transgenic plants first appeared on market shelves, it was
 predicted that the vast majority of Americans would not buy them
 and would demand that they be banned.This has not proven to be the
 case.
 In 1996, Dr. Thomas Hoban, a professor at North Carolina State
 University, published the results of a four-year study involving
 4,000 people.He found that the average citizen knows or cares very
 little about transgenic foods on their grocery shelves.Over
 three-quarters of those polled said they would buy transgenic foods
 that were superior to traditional varieties.This is in startling
 contrast to European consumers who, writes Nigel Williams in a
 recent issue of Science, are both aware of, and strongly opposed
 to, the growing of transgenic crops.
 This year, Britain has seen a battle between David, in the
 person of a small organic farmer, and Goliath, as represented by
 the National Institute of Agricultural Botony.The farmer, Guy
 Watson, fought a losing court battle to prevent the NIAB from
 planting genetically altered maize next to his farm, where he
 feared that its pollen would contaminate his own organic maize.
 NIAB may have won the battle while losing the public relations war.
 A poll conducted this summer found that 77 percent of Britains
 want transgenic crops banned, while 61 percent refuse to eat
 genetically altered foodstuffs.Prince Charles, an ardent organic
 farmer, also attacked transgenic plants, saying, "I happen to
 believe that this kind of genetic modification takes man into
 realms that belongs to God and to God alone. "
 Nor are these attitudes restricted to Britain, writes Williams,
 pointing out that Austria, Luxembourg and Norway have refused entry
 to transgenic crops approved by the European Union for growing in
 affiliated countries.
 The basisfor this deep distrust of genetically altered
 foodstuffs are many and complex, says Williams.To many, who still
 harbor memories of the Nazi era, any genetic change in the name of
 science is suspect.Another reason is the farming acreage involved.
 In the United States, only 28 percent of the land is under
 cultivation and wildlife largely exists elsewhere.Europe has 80
 percent of its lands cultivated, so farmers and wildlife have to
 coexist with each other.
 Brian Johnson, of the conservation group English Nature, says
 Europeans are more aware than Americans of the potential
 devastating impact on wildlife made possible by the spread of
 transgenic plants.
 "There's no requirement to look at the effects of a genetically
 modified crop on other organisms," says Johnson."It's a very
 flawed process. "
 Perhaps the biggest reason for the opposition is that most
 European biotech firms are owned wholly, or in part, by giant U.S.
 companies.Many Europeans see little point in their taking risks to
 themselves or the environment in order to increase the profits of
 U.S. firms.
 All of this is bad news to U.S.-based multinationals who
 complain that the European Union takes too long to approve its
 products for sale in its member countries.Tim Galvin of the U.S.
 Department of Agriculture has even given vague hints of a trade war
 developing if the process is not speeded up.
 But even as biotech companies look to government intervention
 on their behalf, they have started a public relations blitz to win
 the European consumer over to transgenic foodstuffs.Advertising
 campaigns in Britain and France back the popular procedure that is
 nearly impossible to conform to accurately.An industry
 spokesperson says, "We're trying to get to the bottom of what
 people are concerned about and give these concerns a realistic
 response. "
 The campaign has a long way to go.Many experimental plots of
 transgenic crops were destroyed by protestors this summer and, in
 July, a display of genetically modified wheat at Britain's premier
 agricultural show was trashed.
 English Nature's Johnson expresses the wait and see attitude of
 most Europeans when he says, "We'll support the development of safe
 genetically modified crops proven not toharm the environment. "
 Until then, biotech firms, who have gotten a free pass in the
 United States, will find the going much tougher in Europe.
 Clair Wood taught physics and chemistry at Eastern Maine Technical
 School for 13 years.
 LOAD-DATE: September 14, 1998
                         Copyright 1998 Bangor Daily News









Document Number: 831
 
                          Plain Dealer (Cleveland, Ohio)
                      September 11, 1998 Friday, FINAL / ALL
 BYLINE: by L. VAL GIDDINGS
 SECTION: EDITORIALS & FORUM; Pg. 10B
 LENGTH: 264 words
 To leave bare a claim that transgenic crops "were able to fertilize other plants
 at a rate 20 times greater" than that of other plants serves to mislead readers.
 ("Genetic engineering raises a threat of 'superweeds'" Sept. 3).
 The Nature report cited confirms only that in that particular study, under the
 particular conditions and circumstances tested, some enhanced outcrossing seems
 to have occurred. The reason for this is not revealed. The authors took pains to
 note that they did not "know the genetic mechanism underlying" their
 observations, and thus "the generality of (the) study was unclear." Elsewhere,
 the authors note morphological differences in the flowers of their study plants,
 the cause of which they did not investigate. They thus left key variables in
 their study uncontrolled, further eroding its relevance.
 Outcrossing is equally recognized to be unlikely in most crop plants. For good
 reason, plant biotechnologists are not in the practice of inserting harmful
 traits into crop plants, much less ones that would create environmental problems
 should they outcross. If herbicide tolerance moved from genetically engineered
 crops into feral varieties or wild relatives, control still would be as simple
 as using a different herbicide, or an old-fashioned hoe.
 Crops developed through biotechnology are subject to enormous commercial quality
 control and governmental regulation. And while some of these new varieties
 promise substantial nutritional benefits, others take giant strides toward
 helping modern agriculture tread more gently on the land.
 LOAD-DATE: September 12, 1998
                    Copyright 1998 Plain Dealer Publishing Co.









Document Number: 832
 
                        Charleston Gazette (West Virginia)
                             August 03, 1998, Monday
 Outrage greets alliance with Monsanto
 BYLINE: Donella Meadows
 SECTION: Editorial; Pg. P4A
 LENGTH: 1005 words
 IT'S not a combination I would ever have expected to see: Monsanto and
 the Grameen Bank. A huge corporation, one-time maker of some of the
 most pernicious chemicals ever to hit the environment, now an
 aggressive pusher of gene-spliced commodities, in partnership with a
 bank for the poorest of the poor.
 Here's an excerpted account put out by the Rural Advancement
 Foundation International of Canada, one of many development
 organizations that reacted to the news with outrage.
 "The Grameen Bank's June 25 announcement that it will accept $ 150,000
 from Monsanto Corp. to launch the Grameen Monsanto Center for
 Environment-Friendly Technologies is stirring a storm of controversy.
 The surprise move was unveiled jointly by Muhammad Yunus, managing
 director of the Grameen Bank, and Robert Shapiro, Monsanto's CEO. The
 company's initial grant is for soft loans to Bangladeshi farmers to
 buy agricultural technologies including Monsanto's herbicides and
 hybrid rice, maize and cotton seeds.  Monsanto has spent $ 8.1
 billion in the past two years buying biotechnology companies. Its most
 recent acquisitions [make it] the world leader in cotton seed sales -
 an important Bangladesh export crop - and number two in maize seed.
 "While Monsanto has stated that it will not provide transgenic crop
 seed because Bangladesh does not have a regulatory framework for
 genetically modified organisms, the Grameen/Monsanto announcement is
 expected to put pressure on the government to adopt biosafety rules
 amenable to Monsanto's extensive line of herbicide-tolerant crops.
 Yunus and Shapiro have said, however, that the joint venture will
 begin by selling hybrid seeds to poor farmers. Hybrid rice and maize
 are incapable of breeding 'true' in the second generation. The seeds
 are either sterile or they produce unwelcome genetic 'throwbacks.'
 Although some scientists regard hybrids as a boon to crop yields,
 there is a growing opinion that the real advantage is that farmers are
 forced every year to buy new seeds.
 "Traditionally, Bangladeshi farmers not only save seed for replanting,
 but women breed diverse seed types suited to their immediate
 ecosystems and economies. Hybrid seeds could more than quadruple seed
 costs as well as end the process of farmers adapting plants to their
 resource-poor soils."
 Yunus started the Grameen Bank in 1983 by offering loans of usually
 less than $ 100 to villagers, mainly women, who would never qualify for
 commercial credit. The bank gives peasants an alternative to the
 exorbitant interest rates of local money-lenders and encourages the
 purchase of chickens, or a cow, or a rice-husking machine or materials
 for weaving mats. The resulting small businesses often double or
 triple the income of their owners. The loan repayment rate has been an
 astonishing 98 percent - higher than that of most commercial banks.
 RAFI goes on to say, "The bank's success has turned Muhammad Yunus
 into a kind of bankers' Mother Theresa. A World Bank-sponsored
 conference on micro-credit in Washington last year accorded Yunus
 rock-star status, and corporate gurus from George Soros to Ted Turner
 have flocked to his side." Another who joined the flock, apparently,
 was Shapiro, who manages to blend a noble vision of his company
 feeding the world with a calculated vision of farmers dependent on
 Monsanto products.
 Hope Shand of RAFI-USA says that by allying with Grameen, Monsanto
 "bought a cheap distribution and finance system that not only reaches
 into half the villages of Bangladesh but also guarantees that the poor
 will repay their loans."
 Since the announcement of the Monsanto deal, Yunus has been bombarded
 by criticism. Here is one example, an e-mail message sent to him on
 July 4 by Vandana Shiva, an outspoken critic of bioengineered seed:
 "When a few decades ago, you gave a few hundred takkas from your
 pocket to rural women in Bangladesh who were in the grip of a famine,
 you started a movement that used micro-credit to enable them to use
 their skills, their knowledge, their resources to build local markets
 for their products.
 "When you announced your joint venture with Monsanto, you took a step
 to betray the interests of the women you have served so far. The
 scheme will create markets for Monsanto's products, not products
 based on the creativity of Bangladeshi peasants.
 "Contrary to your announcement, Monsanto's technologies are not
 environment-friendly or sustainable. They pose a threat to ecosystems
 and agriculture. They will push Bangladeshi peasants into debt as they
 have to spend more money on herbicides, seeds, royalties and
 technology fees.
 "You have made a name for yourself in the annals of history through
 your innovation and commitment to the poor.  I am sure you will not
 want your efforts to be hijacked as a marketing strategy by Monsanto.
 The $ 150,000 that Monsanto is giving to start the Grameen Monsanto
 Centre is a miserable 0.6 percent of the $ 1.6 billion that it is
 spending in an advertisement campaign against the consumers in Europe
 who have rejected Monsanto's genetically engineered foods. I am sure
 you do not want to go down in history as the man who took the side of
 a corporation against citizens worldwide."
 On July 27, the BBC announced, "A bank which pioneered the philosophy
 of small credit for the poor in Bangladesh has announced that it is
 pulling out of a controversial joint venture with the world's largest
 agrochemical company, Monsanto. The managing director of the Grameen
 Bank, Mohammed Yunus, said he was abandoning the project because of
 opposition from environmental groups."
 I would have preferred him to take his own responsibility for that
 decision, but it was the right decision.
 Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental studies at Dartmouth
 College.
 SUBJECT: world bank chemical business industry agriculture research national
 LOAD-DATE: August 04, 1998
                       Copyright 1998 Charleston Newspapers









Document Number: 833
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                  July 19, 1998, Sunday, FIVE STAR LIFT EDITION
 BYLINE: Jeremy Rifkin
 SECTION: EDITORIAL, Pg. B3, COMMENTARY COLUMN
 LENGTH: 916 words
 While the 20th century was shaped largely by breakthroughs in physics and
 chemistry, the 21st century will belong to biology. Scientists are deciphering
 the genetic code of life. Global life science companies are beginning to exploit
 the discoveries in myriad ways. Genes are already being used in such fields as
 energy, bioremediation (bugs that eat pollution), building and packaging
 materials, pharmaceuticals and medicine. The biggest impact, however, is likely
 to be in agriculture.
 Life science companies such as Monsanto promise a biological renaissance.
 Critics worry that seeding farmland with transgenic food crops could spread
 genetic pollution and damage the biosphere. The critics are right.
 It is true, as supporters of genetic engineering say, that human beings have
 been remaking the Earth for as long as we have had a history. Until recently,
 however, our ability to manipulate the environment has been tempered by the
 restraints of species boundaries. We have been forced to work narrowly, crossing
 only close relatives in the plant or animal kingdoms.
 But scientists can now manipulate the natural world at the most fundamental
 level - the genetic one. They can take genes from unrelated species and create
 life forms. Scientists have taken the gene that emits light in a firefly and
 inserted it into the genetic code of a tobacco plant; the mature plant glows 24
 hours a day. Other researchers have introduced an anti-freeze gene from the
 flounder fish into the genetic code of a tomato plant to protect it from cold
 spells.
 Over the next 10 years, life science companies plan to introduce hundreds of
 laboratory-conceived transgenic plants over millions of acres of farmland. The
 risks in releasing these genetically engineered crops are similar to those in
 introducing exotic organisms. While many have adapted to new ecosystems without
 severe dislocations, a small percentage of them have wreaked havoc. Gypsy moth,
 Dutch elm disease, starlings and Mediterranean fruit flies come to mind.
 Whenever a genetically engineered organism is released, there is always a small
 chance that it will run amok. Like exotic species, it has been artificially
 introduced into local ecosystems that have developed a complex web of
 relationships over evolutionary history.
 Much of the effort in agricultural biotechnology centers on creation of
 herbicide-tolerant plants. To increase their share of the growing global market
 for herbicides, companies such as Monsanto and Novartis have created transgenic
 crops that tolerate their own herbicides. For example, Monsanto's,
 herbicide-resistant patented seeds are resistant to its best-selling chemical
 herbicide, Roundup.
 The life science companies hope to convince farmers that herbicide-tolerant
 crops will allow for a more efficient eradication of weeds. If farmers can kill
 weeds without destroying their crops, they may use more herbicides. The
 increased use of herbicides, in turn, raises the possibility of weeds developing
 resistance, which will force an even greater use of herbicides.
 New pest-resistant transgenic crops are also being introduced. Several plants,
 including Ciba Geigy's pest-resistant "maximiser corn" and Rohm and Haas'
 pest-resistant tobacco, are already available. New evidence points to the
 likelihood of creating "super bugs" resistant to pesticide-producing genetic
 crops.
 The new generation of virus-resistant transgenic crops poses the equally
 dangerous possibility of creating new viruses. Some ecologists also warn of the
 danger of "gene flow" - the transfer of transgenic genes from crops to weedy
 relatives by way of cross-pollination. Transgenic genes for herbicide tolerance,
 and pest and viral resistance might escape and insert themselves into the
 genomes of weedy relatives, creating weeds resistant to herbicides, pests and
 viruses.
 Such fears were heightened in 1996 when a Danish research team observed the
 transfer of a transgene from a transgenic crop to the genome of a wild weed -
 something biotech companies have ignored as a remote or nonexistent possibility.
 The insurance industry, however, has made clear it would not insure the release
 of genetically engineered organisms into the environment against the possibility
 of "long-term" catastrophic environmental damage. Who, then, will be held liable
 for losses if a transgenic plant introduction triggered genetic pollution for an
 indefinite period? The life science companies? Government?
 The debate could affect humans more directly. Most new genetically engineered
 crops contain genes from non-food organisms including viruses, bacteria, insects
 and exotic animals. With 2 percent of adults and 8 percent of children allergic
 to common foods, consumer advocates argue gene-spliced foods need proper
 labelling. The Food and Drug Administration has fallen short of requiring
 across-the-board labelling; The New England Journal of Medicine concluded FDA
 policy "would appear to favor industry over consumer protection."
 The industry has all but dismissed such criticisms. The biotech companies may be
 right. But what if they are wrong?
 A worldwide moratorium should be declared on releasing genetically engineered
 food crops and other gene-spliced organisms into the environment pending further
 study. It would be irresponsible and foolish to begin seeding farmland with such
 crops when we have yet to develop a rudimentary risk-assessment science by which
 to regulate these new agricultural products.
 LOAD-DATE: July 19, 1998
 LANGUAGE: English
                   Copyright 1998 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 834
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                  June 28, 1998, Sunday, FIVE STAR LIFT EDITION
 BYLINE: Bill Lambrecht; Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau
 SECTION: NEWS ANALYSIS, Pg. B1
 LENGTH: 2409 words
 * Americans in Paris find that government and public resistance to genetically
 modified crops remains a roadblock to business.
 An hour into Europe's newest exercise in democracy, feisty Claire Falhon showed
 French authorities that their citizens' conference on genetic engineering might
 take strange twists.
 Falhon was one of 14 French people picked randomly to guide her gover nment's
 policies on one of Europe's boiling controversies: what to do about genetically
 modified crops and food arriving from the United States.
 Soon after the conference began, Falhon wagged her finger at one of the experts,
 a representative of St. Louis-based Monsanto Co.
 "You're very interested in selling your products, we know that," she lectured.
 "But what about getting advice from our doctors first?" Falhon, 29, works as an
 administrator in a suburban Paris medical clinic.
 Members of the French Parliament looked nervous. They'd hired a pollster to pick
 the 14 from a population of 60 million people and brought the group to Paris for
 tutoring on three occasions. They'd kept their identities secret to keep away
 the press and the special interests.
 Finally, at the opening of a three-day gathering at the French National Assembly
 last weekend, democracy European style was on display.
 "What will happen in 10 or 20 years is the fear of people," said Michel
 Martinet, 49, a dentist from wine country. "The problem is that you're putting
 genes on plots of land that can spread all over the world."
 Citizens conferences are a recent tool of European nations struggling to come to
 grips with a new technology banging at their doors. Denmark and Britain have
 convened citizen panels on genetically modified crops. In the United States,
 several news organizations sponsored variations called deliberative polls in the
 1996 presidential campaign.
 The goal: promoting citizen participation and, it is hoped, the quality of
 democratic government.
 "This is a return to democracy and you are our grand jury of experts," Jean-Yves
 Le Deaut, a member of the French Parliament and president of its science office,
 told the special citizens.
 Global stakes
 The Paris conference was more than an exercise in democracy. The outcome may
 influence long-overdue French government decisions that have enormous
 implications for U.S. businesses and farmers.
 In Europe, the attitude toward genetic engineering is far different than in the
 United States, where the public pays scant attention.
 Yet in just three years, the amount of U.S. land planted in modified crops has
 soared from none to more than 50 million acres. It's mainly in cotton, corn and
 soybeans with new genes that enhance the resistance to pests in crops, let them
 withstand more direct herbicide spraying, or both.
 In the 15-member European Community, transgenic plantings this year are 4,000
 acres at most.
 Europe is important not just as a lucrative market for the United States: The
 rest of the world is watching to see what Europe does. Biotechnology companies
 won two European victories this spring: On June 7, the Swiss defeated a
 referendum that would have banned all genetic researc h and products. On May 12,
 the European Parliament approved legislation letting companies holding patents
 on genetic material as in the United States.
 But regulatory hurdles remain in Europe as its people and governments debate not
 just the safety but also the social implications of altering the building blocks
 of life. England's Prince Charles, a mainstream public figure by most standards,
 asserted this month that changing the genetic makeup of plants "takes mankind
 into realms that belong to God and to God alone."
 As the citizens panel convened, activists in seven French cities chained
 themselves to grocery carts loaded with products thought to have genetically
 modified ingredients from U.S.-grown crops. They wanted the products labeled or
 removed.
 In Ireland, saboteurs a week ago struck an experimental plot at Wexford, where
 Monsanto is growing genetically modified sugar beets, tearing out plants and
 causing what a Monsanto spokesman called "wanton damage." It was the vandals'
 second visit in a week.
 Now, many eyes are turned on France for more reasons than the World Cup: It's
 the nation blocking cultivation across Europe of several modified crops, among
 them a Monsanto variety of corn.
 More is at stake than billions in profits long-term: France's refusal on a
 technicality to sign a European Commission document is blocking $ 200 million
 worth of shipments of U.S. corn to Spain and Portugal, grain that could head
 down the Mississippi River tomorrow. The matter could explode any day into a
 full-blown trade dispute with the United States.
 French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin said he wanted to consult his people.  In
 France, a country rich in culture and opinion, leaders often find decisions hard
 to reach. As former French president Charles de Gaulle once remarked: "How can
 you govern a country with 300 varieties of cheese?"
 Day One: anti-U.S. sentiments
 What happens when you pick 14 people from a vast pool to digest one of society's
 most complicated issues?
 The panel was split equally between men and women from all parts of France. They
 ranged in age from Francois Rey, 20, a political science student from north of
 Marseille to Mireille Roine, 58, a retiree from France's north. Also among them
 were housewives, a bank clerk, an insurance inspector, an accountant, a merchant
 and a librarian.
 They got expenses but no pay for spending four weekends away from their
 families, France's fetching springtime and World Cup soccer matches under way in
 their country. During a break, farmer Georges Schirm, tells why he didn't mind:
 "We owe it to our Republic."
 When the conference resumes, Schirm challenges another Monsanto expert about
 controlling genetically engineered plants. The citizens have questions about the
 fate of new genes in the environment. Can they harm other plants?
 Might the gene for insect resistance being incorporated into corn destroy the
 effectiveness of naturally occurring pest-control organisms from which they
 come? Could a "marker gene" used by Monsanto and others to test whether genetic
 engineering was successful cause resistance to antibiotics? Are we threatening
 biological diversity?
 Daniel Rahier, a French botanist working for Monsanto, tells the panelists that
 studies in the United States have concluded that those risks are just about
 zero.
 Schirm shakes his head. "If you are able to convince our authorities of that,
 then we will have GMOs (genetically modified organisms) like the United States.
 And you are a powerful company."
 To Monsanto, its rival Novartis and pro-GMO farm groups, the deck of experts
 looks stacked. Pierre-Henri Gouyon, the University of Paris professor who showed
 up in a black leather Guns 'n Roses vest, tells the citizens that a ban on
 modified crops would allow French scientists to conduct their own studies.
 The companies breathe easier when an Marie-Jose Nicoli, a consumer advocate,
 says her organization wants independent research but doesn't oppose GMOs
 outright.
 But pro-GMO forces in the room are stunned when J.L. Pujol, a representative of
 the French Environment Ministry, asserts the risks of modified crops outnumber
 the benefits. "We have to slow down because we can't reverse these procedures,"
 he says.
 Guy Riba, a scientist at France's national farm research agency, says he sees
 little risk of problems in transgenic corn and soybeans. But unexpectedly, he
 blasts the United States for forcing modified crops on Europe.
 A quiet member of the citizens panel, bank employee Francine Maeght, 50, refers
 to American genetic engineers as "sorcerer's apprentices."
 The French seldom look charitably at the United States. After World War II, many
 French minimized the U.S. role in the emancipation of France and viewed the
 Marshall Plan as an effort to control them. French intellectuals in their Left
 Bank cafes routinely accuse American companies of trying to spoil their
 civilization. When Coca-Cola came to France in the 1950s, protesters took to the
 streets changing coca-colonization.
 After the first day of the discussion, Monsanto's Stephane Pasteau, a
 veterinarian and microbiologist in France, says: "I do not have a good feeling.
 It is so anti-America. So anti-Monsanto."
 Day Two: shifting tone
 It's no wonder Monsanto executives refer to business across the Atlantic these
 days as the "European wars." Monsanto sent five people to the conference and to
 gear up, the company ran full-page ads in every major French newspaper for nine
 straight days.
 The extraordinary ad campaign drew a rebuke from France's former environmental
 minister. On the eve of the conference, Corinne Lepage, a member of the
 Conservative Party, wrote in the Paris newspaper Le Monde that companies were
 seeking to brainwash the French by "elaborate techniques of battle."
 On the conference's second day, Greenpeace's Arnaud Apoteker tells the citizens
 that multinationals should not hold the power to control the genetic growth of
 the planet. But the citizens are after answers, not opinions.
 Georges Schirm wants to understand why companies believe they should be
 permitted to take out patents on genetic material. A Novartis representative
 replies that in democracies, protecting your invention is a fundamental right.
 Marc Planche, 32, the insurance inspector, asks whether developing nations stand
 to gain from modified crops. He's told that new farming tools can help everyone.
 The citizens' thinking seems to evolve as questions pour forth:
 - Is genetic engineering reversible in plants? (Yes and no. You can return to
 traditional plantings, but once a plant is altered, it's altered.)
 - Does heating destroy the results of genetic engineering? (No. Some amount of
 modified DNA likely will remain.)
 Jean-Yves Le Deaut, who is running the conference, adjourns in midafternoon so
 that the citizens can spend a few hours deciding what they think the government
 ought to do.
 Day Three: conclusions and champagne
 Only in Paris would the government schedule a morning news conference that
 included tables of caviar and delectable treats with silver bowls chilling
 magnums of champagne.
 The citizens didn't work just a few hours; they met through the night, until
 8:30 a.m., arguing how to fashion recommendations. Le Deaut praises them and
 apologizes for tense moments the preceeding days.
 "They have had no fear to ask questions that were a bit direct sometimes," he
 says. "This is just the evolution of democracy."
 Given their tough questions, the French citizens adopted - by European
 standards, anyway - a middle ground. They took turns reading their conclusions:
 - Health. Roine, the retiree, says the panelists saw little risk to humans but
 couldn't conclude that there might not be risk in the future. They want studies
 by scientists in no way connected with companies and citizens to be represented
 in government decisions.
 - Environment. Student Francois Rey says the citizens didn't find risks to the
 environment other than the "marker genes," which the panel wants banned. His
 words captured the panel's hopes as well as its skepticism. "In the end, if it
 improves the tastes and qualities of vegetables, we might be in favor," he says.
 - Economics. The citizens came to the important conclusion that transgenic crops
 may be needed to keep French farmers competitive in world markets. Insurance
 inspector Marc Planche, 32, says the group divided on another key point: Some
 wanted a moratorium on transgenic crops and food in France, some didn't. The
 panelists were unanimous in demanding not just clear labeling on modified food
 but a system of tracking that governs imported crops.
 - Responsibility. The panel demanded changes in French law so that companies
 would be responsible if transgenic crops bring damage.
 Monsanto's Pasteau, who had looked crestfallen two days earlier, is relaxed. He
 calls he conclusions "pretty balanced."
 Democracy assessed
 Amid toasts, France's first citizens conference is pronounced a success on two
 fronts. On the democracy front, the aim of such gatherings is promoting a
 better-informed citizenry. These citizens digested technical, conflicting
 information and achieved consensus on many points.
 Of course, you don't always know where democracy will lead. Falhon, who began as
 the firebrand of the group, in the end argued behind closed doors against a ban,
 she confided afterward.
 "At the economic level, we have to protect ourselves against competition of
 international companies," she said. "It's up to us to create laws to protect our
 consumers."
 Meanwhile, farmer Schirm, who spoken resolutely of the duties of citizen to
 government, left disgusted. "It reinforced my skepticism in matters of how
 political decisions are made," he said.
 On the genetic engineering front, the citizens showed that accord, albeit
 nonbinding, can be found on one of the most provocative issues of this century's
 end. Their demands for more studies and hoops could slow an already gummed-up
 process. Then again, on a political level, transgenic supporters in the French
 government can argue that their citizens didn't endorse a ban.
 In the final going, the seductiveness of the technology emerged. While the
 citizens clearly were wary about today, they talked of the hopes of second- and
 third-generation products: healthier vegetables; feeding the hungry; engineering
 plants to remove harmful nutrients from polluted waterways.
 Le Deaut, who is an influential French politician, will report formally to his
 government Tuesday on what took place. He will discuss whether the French should
 back away from a technicality that is blocking transgenic plantings throughout
 Europe and the $ 200 million in shipments of U.S. corn.
 For various reasons, in the United States a full-throated public debate about
 genetic engineering has never taken place - although renewed discussions are
 sprouting. But it is much different in Europe, genetic eng ineering's gateway to
 the rest of the world, where people and their governments are looking soberly at
 the prospect of altering the world's food supply.
 What happened in Paris, Falhon observed as she and Europe's newest
 decision-makers headed for home, "is only the beginning of a great debate."
 LOAD-DATE: June 28, 1998
 LANGUAGE: English
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO (1) Color Photo Headshot - Claire, Falhon, one of 14 French
 people picked randomly to guide her government's policies on genetically
 modified crops and food.
  "You're very interested in selling your products, we know that. But what about
 getting advice from our doctors?"
  (2) Color Photo Headshot - Stephane Pasteau, veterinarian and microbiologist
 for Monsanto in France.
  "I do not have a good feeling. It is so anti-America. So anti-Monsanto."
  (3) Photo by Bill Lambrecht / Post-Dispatch- Etienne Vernet, of the French
 environmental group Ecoropa, stands next to a poster that parodies genetically
 modified foods in the United States. Ecoropa boycotted a citizens conference on
 biotechnology, claiming it was a sham.
                   Copyright 1998 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 835
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                  June 28, 1998, Sunday, FIVE STAR LIFT EDITION
 BYLINE: Bill Lambrecht; Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau
 SECTION: NEWS ANALYSIS, Pg. B4
 LENGTH: 998 words
 After slashing bags of seed corn with pocket knives and spilling the contents
 onto the floor, Rene Riesel and his band of farmers snatched fire extinguishers
 from the wall and sprayed the mess with foam.
 "It was no longer natural anyway, so we wanted to perfect the denaturalization,"
 Riesel said, recalling details of a raid by 100 farmers in January near
 Toulouse, in southwestern France.
 Their target: a supply of genetically engineered corn that Novartis, the Swiss
 company, was permitted to sell in France for the first time starting this year.
 The seed was a variety of insect-resistant corn like Monsanto Co., of St. Louis,
 is seeking approval to grow in Europe. The Novartis product that was attacked is
 the only transgenic seed approved for planting in the 15 European Community
 nations.
 Fear generated by the dramatic raid is part of why Europe's first commercial
 experience with modified seed has been a flop. Novartis predicted that 70,000
 acres of modified corn would be planted this spring; no more than 4,000 acres
 were sowed, a Novartis spokesman said last week.
 Riesel and two fellow raiders were put on probation and ordered to pay damages
 of more than $ 80,000. Riesel, 48, a sheep and grain farmer from the town of
 Vallongue in southern France, is unrepentant, to say the least.
 "We think it was successful because of all the publicity we got," he said. "We
 wanted to spark a debate among farmers, and we did."
 Novartis' Philippe Gay has a much different view of the sabotage. Gay said that
 his employees were roughed up and damages totaled far more than $ 80,000. "It
 was pretty nasty," he said.
 A different system
 In the U.S. corn belt, farmers would find such anarchy hard to imagine. Modified
 seed is popular in the United States, so popular in the upper Midwest that
 farmers in Minnesota and North Dakota have smuggled in Canadian varieties
 unavailable in the United States, according U.S. government officials.
 Why the different attitude?
 First, the European critics say that they grow such an abundance already that
 they don't need transgenic seed. Second, farming is a different business in
 Europe, where labor unions have organized many farmers and where a tight
 regulatory system imposes production quotas.
 Yet another reason is that farmers, much like European consumers, have lost
 faith in regulators and scientists after a long bout with "mad cow disease,"
 believed to be caused by feeding cattle bone meal from other animals. The
 scientists and regulators said that the feeding method posed no dangers to
 humans.
 Lastly, the critics resent what they see as foreign interests, particularly in
 the United States imposing new methods they don't trust.
 Tom McDermott, Monsanto's European spokesman, sees the Europeans' shortage of
 experience as the reason they've rejected modified crops. They haven't seen the
 benefits of reduced costs and better insect control, he said, and "therefore the
 technology lacks any firm base of support."
 Farmers tell of fears
 Near Laval, a farm town 300 miles west of Paris, farm leader Jean Yves Griot
 says that French farmers might one day be forced into using genetically modified
 seed to compete at an international level.
 For now, fear of the unknown, fear of sabotage and, as he put it, "fear of
 Monsanto," is why Griot doesn't expect farmers in his region to seek transgenic
 seed anytime soon.
 At Mancelier, the name of his farm, Griot, 55, runs a dairy operation and raises
 grains with the help of a partner and his sons, Barnaby, 25, and Mathias, 24.
 Griot says he is mystified by the pressure that American farmers seem to feel to
 increase their crop yields.
 It's not a matter of fearing technology, Griot said. He has a degree in
 engineering and in his 150-year-old stone farmhouse, he is plugged into the
 Internet. His wife, Elizabeth, is a physician.
 Later, a dozen farmers gathered nearby to watch the demonstration of a
 computerized hay baler. Only one, Denis Boulanger, seems to have have an op en
 mind when it comes to transgenic seed.
 It is Boulanger's task in his cooperative of 2,000 farmers to find markets for
 grain. It would be foolish, he says, for farmers to reject genetic engineering,
 especially since you already can find products with U.S.-grown altered
 ingredients on European grocery shelves.
 "We have to be careful with GMOs (genetically modified organisms). We have to
 wait to see what the scientists say. But we can't say no," said Boulanger, 40.
 Persuasive tactics
 The National Corn Growers Association and the American Soybean Association -
 both headquartered in St. Louis - have sent delegations of U.S. farmers to
 Europe in hopes of peruading their European counterparts.
 They keep an eye on developments in Europe. Earlier this month, soybean
 spokesman Robert Callanan heard about it soon after England's Prince Charles
 denounced transgenic crops.
 "For a world leader to come out and condemn genetic engineering like he did was
 pretty silly and irresponsible," Callanan said. "I just wonder how Princess
 Diana would have reacted." Diana was Prince Charles' former wife.
 In France, moderate farm groups are trying to forestall a drive to impose a ban
 on transgenic crops. Didier Marteau, of France's National Federation of Seeds
 and Agriculture, says that French farmers can't afford a moratorium.
 "We have to worry about being late in France and Europe," he said. "Even if
 there is a moratorium, it will not stop the importation of GMOs."
 Meanwhile, Riesel has gone through as much change as the engineered crops he
 condemns. Instead of tending sheep in rural France, he is making speeches in
 Paris to groups 10,000 strong and distributing photocopies of his anti-GMO
 manifesto across the country. His aim, he says, is enlisting support from
 segments of the French population other than farmers.
 "When you're dealing with questions this important, the whole society must make
 the decisions," he said.
 LOAD-DATE: June 29, 1998
 LANGUAGE: English
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO Photos By Bill Lambrecht / Post-Dispatch
  (1) LEFT: Rene Riesel, a sheep and grain farmer from the town of Vallongue in
 southern France, joined about 100 other farmers in January in cutting open sacks
 of genetically altered corn seed and spraying them with fire extinguisher foam.
 "We think it was successful because of all the publicity we got," he says.
  (2) ABOVE: Farm leader Jean Yves Griot says that French farmers might one day
 be forced into using genetically modified seed to compete at an international
 level.
                   Copyright 1998 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 836
 
                           The Herald-Sun (Durham, NC)
                             March 12, 1998 Thursday
                                  Final Edition
 Fluorescent gene keeps track of altered plants
 BYLINE: Associated Press
 SECTION: DURHAM; Pg. C10
 LENGTH: 331  words
 GREENSBORO -- Until now, discerning a genetically altered plant from an
 unaltered one required a battery of tests and lab work.
 But UNC Greensboro Professor C. Neal Stewart Jr. has come up with an ingenious
 solution -- make the impostors glow in the dark.
 Stewart, a biologist, and a group of his students have taken their research to
 Orlando, Fla., where it is part of an exhibition at Disney World called ``Plants
 of the 21st Century.''
 To the naked eye, the plants in Stewart's lab at UNC Greensboro appear
 identical.
 But turn out the lights, switch on an ultraviolet lamp, and the difference
 glows. Tobacco plants that have been genetically altered turn a fluorescent
 green while the unaltered plants appear reddish.
 The greenish color results from a fluorescent protein inserted along with genes
 designed to change the DNA blueprint of the plant. The fluorescent gene, first
 cloned six years ago, is neutral and operates strictly as an identifying calling
 card.
 Stewart's work offers practical benefits as agriculture enters the age of
 genetically engineered crops, otherwise known as ``transgenic'' plants. Already,
 Stewart said, the United States grows 10-12 million acres of transgenic crops,
 mainly corn and cotton. The various genes that scientists add make the crops
 grow faster and more resistant to insects and diseases.
 But farmers who sow transgenic plants need to know whether nature's
 cross-pollination process has carried these genes to nearby weeds. The result
 could be what Stewart calls ``a weeder weed,'' resistant to insects and
 predators and harmful to the environment.
 Using Stewart's research, farmers could shine an ultraviolet light on the weeds
 to determine which have been genetically altered through pollination. The weeds
 could then be destroyed.
 Stewart has several patents pending on the gene process. If it turns out to be a
 commercial success, he will share royalties with Mycogen Seeds of San Diego,
 which is footing the bill for the patent-application process.
 LOAD-DATE: August 20, 2004
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 1998 The Durham Herald Co.









Document Number: 837
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                February 15, 1998, Sunday, FIVE STAR LIFT EDITION
 BYLINE: Bill Lambrecht; Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau
 SECTION: NEWS, Pg. A1
 LENGTH: 1707 words
 * In the United States, genetically engineered crop acreage has expanded rapidly
 since 1995. A few examples of such crops, with the percent of acres planted that
 has been genetically engineered: Corn 12%, Soybeans 30%, Cotton 40%.
 Monsanto's upcoming field trials with genetically engineered crops could leave
 Mr. Potato Head dizzy with change.
 The company already has incorporated a gene to ward off insects into its
 commercially available NewLeaf potato. Now it has informed the government of
 research to stack potatoes with a half-dozen more genes to:
 * Protect them from fungus.
 * Change their metabolism.
 * Prevent bruising.
 Add solid content so that french fries cook with less oil.
 "We are improving Americans' favorite vegetable," trumpeted Alyssa A. Hollier,
 of NatureMark, the Monsanto unit in charge of transgenic potatoes.
 Some would argue that altering food does something other than improve it.
 Nonetheless, Monsanto and rivals in the life-science industry are moving swiftly
 with research and new plantings that promise to make 1998 a pivotal year in
 biotechnology.
 Records at the Department of Agriculture show that since Dec. 31, Monsanto has
 given notification of 75 field trials with genetically engineered crops at 400
 sites, four times the number of trials planned by its nearest rival. These
 trials are designed to improve transgenic crops now available and to pave the
 way for a new era of designer foods. (Transgenic plants are those that have had
 genes transferred from other plants to breed different characteristics.)
 Arnold S. Foudin, deputy director of the Agriculture Department's biotechnology
 unit, described the number of field trial notifications as "a tidal wave that
 has reached a plateau."
 As recently as 1995, the United States had no cropland planted with genetically
 engineered seeds.
 But this year, acreage of genetically altered crops could double in 1998 - to
 about 60 million acres in the United States - according to industry predictions.
 About half are crops with Monsanto-supplied genes.
 In November, Monsanto and DeKalb Genetics Co. won approval to begin selling
 herbicide-tolerant corn that allows farmers to spray chemicals directly on the
 plant. This spring, Monsanto is expected to get the go-ahead from the
 Agriculture Department to sell the first tomato genetically altered to resist
 insects.
 Obstacles remain, especially in Europe, where skepticism runs deep when it comes
 to altering the fabric of plants and animals. Here and abroad, s ome scientists
 want more safeguards when breeding insect-resistance into crops. And critics
 raise questions about the long-term unknowns in the science and about a handful
 of companies gaining a grip on the food supply system from farm gate to dinner
 plate.
 But signs point to an emerging Brave New World of farming in which most of our
 food derives from the tinkering of genes.
 "Last year was the year that put to rest the question of whether this could be a
 commercial success," said Foudin, "and 1998 could be the first year in the drive
 to replace nonengineered crops."
 Roots in Jerseyville
 The hundreds of new field trials show how far biotechnology has traveled since
 the first test was conducted by Monsanto on tomatoes on June 2, 1987, on
 one-third of an acre on a farm south of Jerseyville, Ill.
 Since then, field trials have taken place on more than 14,000 plots in the
 United States plus many more in foreign lands. Last year, the Agriculture
 Department changed its rules so companies testing most genetically engineered
 crops simply could notify the government without submitting to a lengthy
 approval process.
 The nature of the tests has changed dramatically, too. For years, companies
 tested one gene in one plant. Now they are working toward adding multiple genes
 - as many as six or eight - in what is referred to as "gene-stacking."
 Most genetically engineered crops last year were soybeans altered to resist
 herbicides. Monsanto's notifications show that the company is experimenting with
 genes for herbicide resistance in wheat, alfalfa and beets.
 Monsanto and rivals, among them the DuPont Co. and Novartis, have begun to
 invest heavily in food technology research aimed at altering the nature of what
 sits on our dinner table. Novartis is working toward corn with amino acids that
 are healthful to humans.
 DuPont bought Ralston Purina Co.'s Protein Technologies International in St.
 Louis last year and acquired a 20 percent share of pioneer Hi-Bred International
 Inc. In its field trials, DuPont is working with genes to make corn produce more
 oil, which could make it more valuable as an animal food.
 Mike Riccuito, a DuPont spokesman, said the company also is aiming to produce
 human foods with genetically engineered soybeans. "We want to make it better by
 taking the 'beany' taste out," he said.
 Monsanto's notifications show an effort to add carbohydrates to corn. A "product
 pipeline" supplied by the company says that by 2000, it hopes to produce canola
 oils that are better for the heart and corn fiber oil that can be used as a food
 ingredient and dietary supplement to promote cardiovascular health.
 Resistance resisted
 Last week, an Environmental Protection Agency advisory panel convened in
 suburban Washington for two days of hearings into potentially harmful effects of
 engineering crops with Bacillus thuringiensis insect resistance, or Bt for
 short. Around 9 million acres of corn, cotton and potatoes were planted last
 year with the Bt gene, a synthetic version of a natural insecticide that comes
 from bacteria. And more field trials are being conducted that will lead to new
 Bt products.
 Breeding insect resistance has an important benefit - reducing the amount of
 pesticides sprayed on crops. But skeptics worry that the widespread use of the
 synthetic version could, over time, cause pests to develop resistance to Bt and
 in so doing destroy the tool that farmers, gardeners and organic growers have
 depended on for decades.
 A report this month sponsored by the Union of Concerned Scientists recommended
 that the EPA require management plans that include refuges around fields with
 transgenic crops.
 Fred Gould, an insect expert at North Carolina State University and author of
 the report, said that people who have had cockroaches can understand how pests
 develop resistance to sprays.
 "We felt like there was this giant leap taken from limited controlled field
 tests to the point where the government was saying, 'It's OK now,' " said Gould,
 a member of the advisory panel. The panel of scientists will make its own
 recommendation to the EPA in March, which may be too late for new rules this
 planting season.
 Central Illinois farmer Tim Seifert said he resents suggestions from some
 scientists that corn farmers plant no more than 50 percent of their acreage in
 genetically engineered Bt corn. Seifert, who grows Monsanto's product near
 Auburn, was alerted by Monsanto to the hearing and showed up to give his
 opinion.
 "They tell us that in the next century, farmers will have to grow 600 acres of
 corn per bushel (instead of 150) to feed the world or we'll have to tear up the
 rainforests for planting," Seifert said in an interview. "Then what would all
 the environmentalists say?"
 Debate in Europe
 In France, a cadre of farmers went on trial this month for breaking into a
 storehouse and slashing bags of gene-altered corn seeds of Novartis. Last fall,
 Irish protesters dug up fields of genetically engineered sugar beets.
 European nations are in the midst of debates about the wisdom and the morality
 of the technology that is pounding at their doors. France is holding a series of
 public conferences to make recommendations, and the Swiss will vote in a
 referendum in June on banning gene-splicing altogether.
 In the United States, the debate is muted, perhaps by a sense of inevitability.
 But it is sounding in some quarters. In December, Maine became the first state
 to ban genetically engineered crops when the state's Board of Pesticides Control
 voted to prohibit introduction of three varieties of corn with the Bt gene.
 Nine days ago, the Agriculture Department was forced to delay its new rules for
 organic foods after receiving more than 4,000 responses - overwhelmingly
 negative - on a draft report that left open the possibility that organic foods
 could be gene-altered, irradiated or fertilized with sewage sludge.
 Kathleen DiMatteo, executive director of the Organic Trade Association, said
 "the dike's been opened, and genetic engineering is going to grow faster than
 anybody can stop it.
 "But what we want to do is preserve a piece of the agricultural pie that doesn't
 use genetic engineering. Then, if it goes wrong, there will be people who
 understand what to do."
 Margaret Mellon, a microbiologist at the Union of Concerned Scientists,
 contended that the question not being asked is whether people want or need all
 the transgenic foods in the pipeline.
 "The direction of the technology is not toward feeding the world but toward
 coming up with a highly synthetic food supply that is tailored to meet the
 needs, real or perceived, of well-heeled consumers," she said.
 Rob Horsch, a Monsanto vice president, countered that genetic engineering can
 improve the quantity and the quality of food. He heads Monsanto's Agracetus
 operation in Middleton, Wis.
 "Agriculture is going to play a more important role in mankind's impact on the
 environment and dealing with life on a small planet than it has before," Horsch
 said.
 Genetically engineered crops approved in the U.S.
 Canola, Corn, Cotton, Papaya, Potato, Raddichio, Soybean, Squash, Tomato
 Source: Department of Agriculture.
 Building blocks of life
 Genetic engineering manipulates material in chromosomes of plants and animals
 that transmit hereditary characteristics.
 Genes are described as the building blocks of life. Transgeneic plants have had
 genes transferred from other plants to breed other characteristics.
 Monsanto scientists take credit for transferring the first genes between plants
 in 1992, using the petunia and a relative of tobacco.
 LOAD-DATE: February 16, 1998
 LANGUAGE: English
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO, Color Photos
  (1) (Corn)
  (2) (Soybeans)
  (3) (Cotton)
                   Copyright 1998 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 838
 
                      Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania)
                   February 4, 1998, Wednesday, SOONER EDITION
 SECTION: SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & MEDICINE, Pg. A-3
 LENGTH: 652 words
 As farmers plan the 1998 planting season, experts yesterday warned that wide use
 of genetically engineered crop plants may spawn insects resistant to ''Bt,'' one
 of the world's most effective natural pest control agents.
 ''Usefulness of this important pesticide is threatened,'' said Margaret Mellon.
 ''Bt has been put into crops that will be planted on up to 10 million acres this
 year. This widespread use could lead to insect resistance.''
 Mellon is director of agriculture and biotechnology for the Union of Concerned
 Scientists, which asked six university-based experts to study the problem.
 Their report urges federal officials to adopt new policy on crops genetically
 engineered to produce Bt in time for 1998 spring planting. Without action,
 insects could begin developing resistance to Bt within three years, the report
 said.
 Three of these so-called ''transgenic'' crops - corn, cotton, and potatoes -
 have been approved for use in the United States. About 9 million acres of Bt
 crops were planted in the United States in 1997.
 About 20 other Bt crops have been approved for field testing by the U. S.
 Department of Agriculture. They include apples, broccoli, cranberry, eggplant,
 grapes, peanuts, rice, tobacco, tomatoes, and walnuts.
 A transgenic organism contains genes from an unrelated species. Genetic
 engineers gave transgenic corn, potatoes, and cotton the gene from a soil
 bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). Farmers and home gardeners have used the
 bacterium itself for more than 50 years as a natural insecticide safe for the
 environment.
 B. thuringiensis produces a deadly disease in certain insects, including serious
 pests of potatoes, corn, and other crops. But it does not harm beneficial
 insects and is not toxic to people or wildlife.
 With the advent of genetic engineering technology, scientists isolated a B.
 thuringiensis gene that produces the insecticide, which is called Bt toxin. They
 inserted the gene into crop plants, giving plants the ability to synthesize
 their own insecticide.
 Fred Gold, an author of the report, explained that the resistance problem arises
 because Bt plants constantly produce the toxin. He is an entomologist at North
 Carolina State University. Insects are continuously exposed to the pesticide,
 creating an increased chance that resistant forms will emerge.
 Traditional use of Bt pesticides involves sporadic exposure. Bt preparations are
 sprayed periodically, for brief periods of time, when insects actually threaten
 plants.
 Farmers who plant Bt crops must agree to specific cropping programs devised to
 reduce the likelihood of insect resistance. Resistance may appear when insects
 develop a gene that protects against Bt, and mate. Mating between two resistant
 insects could eventually lead to generations of bugs that shrug off enormous
 doses of Bt.
 To reduce that risk, farmers are required to plant a certain area of each corn
 field, for instance, in conventional corn as a ''refuge.'' Insects in the refuge
 develop no resistance to Bt.
 Yet they are available to mate with insects living in the Bt area. Matings
 between refuge and Bt insects ''dilute'' the tendency for resistance to occur.
 The new report urges that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency require
 larger refuge areas and adopt other approaches to reducing Bt resistance. EPA
 plans to consider the recommendations when a scientific advisory panel meets
 later in the month.
 Dan Holman, a spokesman for the Monsanto Company in St. Louis, said current
 efforts to prevent resistance seem to be working. ''There is a great deal of
 science behind the insect resistance management programs now in place,'' he
 noted.
 Alluding to the Union of Concerned Scientists' long opposition to Bt crops, he
 said that raising such ''unsubstantiated issues'' could be an indirect way of
 slowing introduction of beneficial genetically engineered crops.
 LOAD-DATE: February 4, 1998
                        Copyright 1998 P.G. Publishing Co.









Document Number: 839
 
                            Bangor Daily News (Maine)
                             January 13, 1998 Tuesday
 Agri-business' empty promises threaten farmers
 BYLINE: Nancy Allen
 LENGTH: 1041 words
 The Maine Board of Pesticides Control made the right decision on
 Dec. 12 to deny the request of Novartis seeds and DEKALB Genetics
 to introduce three genetically engineered field corn seeds in
 Maine.
 The worthy promises of agri-business corporations, and their
 allies in the genetics field to increase food supplies, end world
 hunger, and use less chemicals, with genetically altered crops have
 recently proven to be empty promises.
 Although the Environmental Protection Agency has conditionally
 approved registration of these proposed field corn seed products
 there are many flaws in thier process.Because of this, a petition
 was filed on Sept. 16, 1997 by more than 20 groups and individuals
 calling on EPA to rescind approval of transgenic crops because of
 the "wantondestruction" of the world's most important biological
 pesticide -- bacillus thuringiensis (Bt).A dangerous buildup of
 insect resistance with the widespread use of these pesticide
 containing crops would harm farmers, especially organic farmers,
 the suit alleges.
 In addition, the petition claims that field tests of other
 transgenic crops have resulted in significant migration of the
 engineered genes into nearby crops or into the transgenics' wild
 weedy relatives.To a small organic farmer like me this is
 extremely frightening stuff.EPA had until Dec. 16 to respond to
 the issues in the petition. (update: EPA has asked for more time
 and has ordered a Bt advisory committee be formed).Also, since the
 EPA has no resistance management plan, a group of scientists has
 called for the immediate convening of a government Science Advisory
 Panel (SAP) to address the problem.This panel is expected to
 convene Feb. 9 and 10 in Washington, D.C.
 EPA, as a condition for registration of these products, only
 requires that the seed companies develop a long-term insect
 resistance plan instead of requiring the plan up front.This is a
 huge mistake and could eventually lead to crop loss and income
 depletion, especially for organic growers, who could lose their
 ability to use Bt against insects once resistance develops.
 It is clear that EPA relies way too heavily on industry
 information and testing and is extremely lax in performing needed
 analysis of a process that has the potential to forever alter our
 agricultural environment.This means that the states need to step
 in to the breach exactly as the MBPC has done.We can't do the
 testing, but we can opt to hold off on approving this experiment
 until more field knowleedge is in and some of the major concerns
 are addressed by answers to the perition and through the Science
 Advisory Panel.
 Farmers in Maine generally use field corn as a silage crop,
 mostly for dairy cows.Farmers I know never use pesticides on this
 crop.There is no demonstrated need for a pesticide laden field
 corn in this state. (Need is required to be demonstrated by Maine
 statute before registration.) In fact, this year's corn crop was
 remarkably free of insects.
 Three events in the last year or so illustrate some of my
 concerns.Although they do not applydirectly to corn they address
 some of the unintended consequences that can arise from the genetic
 engineering process.
 First, a New York Times article titled, "Breeding Seeds of
 Discontent,"Nov. 19, 1997, reported a distressing 1997 season for
 cotton growers using a genetically engineered Monsanto cotton seed
 called "Roundup Ready cotton" and a seed called "Bollgard" that
 manufactures its own pesticide like the proposed Bt corn would do.
 Yields were down, but most disturbingly, more pesticides had to be
 used because of boll drop on the cotton plants.Both of these
 results contradicted the company promises.
 More than 100 farmers have sued the company and Pioneer Hi-Bred
 International, the nations largest producer of seed corn announced
 its refusal to add Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene to its corn.
 Second, a very recent paper released by the Scottish Crop
 Research Institute reported that ladybugs that fed on aphids which
 themselves had fed on gentically modified potato plants had reduced
 lifespans and reduced fertility in female ladybugs by 38 percent.
 The scientists urged caution in approving these crops, stating,
 "Our current experiments highlight the importance of assessing all
 transgenic crops genetically engineered for pest resistance in this
 way, to be sure that any new type of pest-resistant crop does not
 jeopardize the delicate balance between pests and beneficial
 insects in agricultural ecosystems. " Remember that EPA has no
 resistance management plan and has done noe of this necessary
 testing.
 Third, and perhaps most alarming, Ann Marie Chivre of INRA, the
 French national agricultural research agency, reported that oil
 seed rape plants which have been engineered to carry a gene for
 resistance to an herbicide, crossed and were carried to wild radish
 plants and remained viable for four generations.
 In other words, the weeds will now also carry resistance to the
 herbicide and will be much harder to eradicate.This will likely
 require the increased use of herbicides.We will get more toxins in
 our bodies and our food, our farm land will become more depleted,
 and we are being railroaded in a gigantic, clearly faulty, badly
 researched experiment on human and plant populations and on the
 earth's ecosystems.
 Genetically engineered plants are a short-term profit-maker for
 wealthy corporations.But the jury is certainly still out on risk
 vs. benefits.New research and information has not been encouraging
 and thus, in my opinion, this experimental process deserves a great
 deal more caution that is being shown.Agriculture is one area
 where we all are affected by bad decisions.We should promote and
 encourage organic farming as a healthy practice.It is wrong and
 dangerous to lose control of our farming to greedy companies that
 could conceivably in the future be able to control what seeds we
 plant, how they are planted and what the results will be.
 Let's not lose the freedom to farm.We've lost way too much in
 this debate already.
 Nancy Allen lives in Surry.
 LOAD-DATE: January 14, 1998
                         Copyright 1998 Bangor Daily News









Document Number: 840
 
                            Bangor Daily News (Maine)
                            November 14, 1996 Thursday
 Growing interest in transgenics
 BYLINE: Michael E. Vayda
 LENGTH: 1892 words
 In response to Clair Wood's column of Nov. 1, I would like to
 point out that a transgene (a genetically engineered gene) is no
 more dangerous than any other gene in a plant.  The premise of
 Wood's column -- and of the anti-genetic engineering crowd he
 quotes -- is that transgenes are endowed with some magical
 properties that allow them to spread without restraint to all other
 plants in the field.  This is not true.  Transgenes are not
 infectious agents!
 Geneticengineering is a technique by which to introduce
 genetic traits into an organism.  It is a novel approach in that the
 DNA to be introduced to the crop plant is tailored in the lab so
 the genetic instructions transferred will be expressed as desired:
 at high levels, at low levels, in only particular organs or only in
 response to stress conditions.  And the genetic information
 transferred to the crop plant may be novel in that it may have been
 obtained from another organism; an unrelated plant, an animal or
 bacteria.
 However, once inserted into the plant's genome, the transgene
 is no more transmissible than any other genetic trait of the plant.
 It is possible that the transgene may be passed to other species
 that the transgenic plant is able to breed with.  But this is no
 more remarkable than the transfer of yellow or purple seed color in
 a genetic mating.  This is how the herbicide resistance Wood refers
 to was transferred from transgenic oilseed rape to the carefully
 chosen "weed" which the canola plant can naturally breed with.  But
 this does not mean that transfer will occur to all other weeds in
 the field, as is implied in Wood's column.
 Transfer can only occur to those very close relatives which the
 transgenic crop plant can mate with, and which flower at the same
 time as the transgenic plant.  There are now numerous studies which
 demonstrate that transgenes are not acquired by plants in "border
 rows," unless these row contain close relatives capable of breeding
 with the transgenic plant.  There is no magic here.  Indeed, it would
 be surprising if transgenes did not follow the usual principles of
 genetics presented in most high school biology classes.
 Wood implies that acquisition of a transgene by a weed (from a
 genetically engineered crop plant) would be an "ecological
 catastrophe. " This argument is akin to saying that application of
 fertilizer to a field should be avoided because the additional
 nutrients in the soil will promote growth of weedy species as well
 as the desired crop plants.
 Freedom 2 squash plants with resistance to viruses have
 greater yields and out-perform "non-engineered" squash because
 their metabolism and yields are not compromised by infection.  Is
 this situation any different than disease resistant cropplants
 which have been obtained by "conventional breeding" methods?  Is the
 risk of transferring the resistance trait to weedy species any
 greater than with the Freedom 2 squash?  No!  The only difference is
 that many, but not all, traits conferring greater yield or
 resistance to pathogens are often due to the action of several
 genes, not just one gene.
 And the probability of transferring all of these genes to a
 weedy relative is less probable than transferring one gene.  But in
 either case, the argument reduces to saying that plants with
 superior desired traits -- whether they were obtained by breeding,
 grafting or genetic engineering -- should not be planted because
 the superior trait could inadvertently confer an advantage to
 undesired weedy relatives.  It is ironic that potato breeders have
 spent the past 50 years crossing commercial varieties with wild
 relatives (which could be considered "weeds" in Peru) to obtain
 commercial varieties with the desired disease resistance traits
 inherent in the "weedy" population.
 Transfer of herbicide resistance from a transgenic crop plant
 to a weedy relative could be a financial disaster to farmers
 practicing monoculture and exclusively relying on that particular
 herbicide.  But few, other than the chemical companies, advocate
 this ill-conceived farming strategy.
 If any weed species capable of breeding with the crop plant are
 present in that region, within a few years the farmer will have to
 abandon that variety of crop plant and herbicide application
 strategy, and plant a different crop.  Further, herbicide-resistant
 plants could tempt farmers to apply more chemical herbicides to the
 environment.  But the herbicide resistance trait will not provide
 any selective advantage whatsoever to the weed regarding
 propagation in the wild; the transgenic weed will only outgrow
 other plants in the particular environment where the herbicide is
 applied.
 Humankind has been practicing selective breeding for desired
 traits for the past 10,000 years.  Without argument, these practices
 have greatly enhanced food abundance and nutritional quality.
 Genetic engineering in just one new technique to obtain desired
 genetic traits.  The citizenry should be active to ensure that
 common-sense, non-destructive farmingpractices dominate the
 industry.  But selective breeding for superior traits, and the use
 of genetic engineering to obtain varieties with superior desired
 traits, is not the problem.
 Michael E. Vayda is an associate professor of biochemistry,
 microbiology and molecular biolgy at the University of Maine.
 LOAD-DATE: November 14, 1996
                         Copyright 1996 Bangor Daily News









Document Number: 841
 
                           Capital Times (Madison, WI.)
                      November 8, 1996, Friday, ALL EDITIONS
 BYLINE: By Mike Irwin Correspondent for The Capital Times
 SECTION: Business Today, Pg. 1C
 LENGTH: 1728 words
 A little like the poet who saw the universe in a grain of sand, area corn
 farmers and agribusinesses foresee years of plenty from crops and investments .
 . . thanks to an even smaller particle in nature.
 An insect-killing protein exuded by a tiny, common, earth-borne bacterium,
 bacillus thuringiensis, will be hiding in the cells of millions of corn plants
 -- about 5 percent of them all -- growing in our area next season. As the
 nemesis, the European corn borer larva dines on stems or leaves, the protein
 infused in each cell crystalizes, and like a shard of glass, cuts the borer's
 gut to ribbons. The guest dies of his own appetite. Murder by the host.
 The weapon? Nature's broken -- and reglued -- goblet!
 In such small mysteries is writ large an agricultural revolution through
 biotechnology. It's one heralded by the most powerful leaders in the ag
 marketplace. It's one wearing on critics tired of products touted to farmers
 ''as the newest silver bullet or final solution to pest invasions,'' in the
 words of UW rural sociologist Jack Kloppenburg.
 But to champions and critics alike, a revolution it is. After nearly 15 years of
 slow, painful, often failing lab and test plot experiments, and tens of millions
 of dollars poured into research and development on corn alone, experts agree an
 age of biotechnology and transgenic crops has arrived . . . for farm field and
 international commerce.
 Much early work was done by Madison biotechnology firms Agrigenetics and
 Agracetus, pioneering small firms now owned or absorbed by large corporations.
 ''It took researchers a long time to learn ways to enter the corn plant's tough
 cell wall,'' recalls Joy McMillan, biotechnoloy instructor and now agri-science
 dean at Madison Area Technical College-Truax. ''And it took more years to
 transform the corn plant.''
 Beginning from a new single cell carrying the BT protein, bio-technicians had to
 ''culture'' a complete new corn plant to become the first parent of offspring
 plants with the killer protein inside.
 ''We're seeing the first in a series of products that will change agriculture
 from ways it's been practiced in this century to ones to be practiced in the
 future,'' says longtime Agracetus executive Ken Barton, whose firm is now wholly
 owned by Monsanto Corporation. ''There's going to be much more input from
 eugenics (improved plant offspring) and less dependence on applying chemicals.''
 From Wall Street to Wisconsin, among crop scouts, agronomists, corn sales reps
 and university professors, there's enthusiasm, and thoughtful caution, about
 what's generically called BT seed corn, the hybrids with the insect toxin
 inside.
 ''There is no question this technology works. It will revolutionize corn hybrid
 selection on our farms. It will affect the gardener, truck farmer and
 consumer,'' says Joe Lauer, UW-Madison ag school corn specialist.
 The change at farm scale, he says, may come within five years, ''much like
 farmers accepted hybrid corn in the 1930s.'' He, among others, estimates five
 percent of Wisconsin's 1997 crop will come from BT corn varieties.
 A striking example of such acceptance comes from agronomist Joe Keller with
 Cenex-Land O-Lakes' Tri-County Coop of Sauk Prairie. He reports his farmers are
 so enthusiastic about the BT corn hybrid lines that ''about 1800 of 2200 bags of
 seed on order for 1997 planting are BT-protected seed.''
 BT corn test plots around Sauk Prairie showed five to seven bushel yield gains
 over good older seed varieties, he says. The 1997 seed, according to Keller,
 will arrive through a purchase agreement with patent-holders Ciba and Mycogen,
 one pair among several partners in the corporate BT dance.
 And at the Cottage Grove Cenex co-op, agronomy chief John Annen reports 400
 bags, or about 1,200 acres of BT corn seed already on order for 1997 planting.
 Northrup King test plots showed 10-12 bushel yield advantages from BT protection
 both this year and last. In some plots, high numbers of borers munched away up
 to 30 bushels per acre in corn not BT protected or sprayed with chemicals.
 One local executive didn't hide his optimism: ''Our 1997 supply of BT products
 is large but the demand is fantastic. We expect a sold-out situation,'' says
 Northrup King's Herb Damsteegt, senior agronomist at the Fitchburg-based office.
 Why such a trend -- or hybrid hyperbole? BT protection within growing corn
 plants should replace a farmer's need to spray insecticides, mainly chemicals in
 a class known as pyrethrins, during the growing season, say corn specialists and
 crop consultants like A.D. Cole of Lodi.
 Spraying costs labor time and averages $ 16-20 per acre for materials. But BT
 seed costs an average of $ 16-20 per acre more than ''older model'' seeds. That
 saving of insect-scouting and spraying time is clearly part of seller and farmer
 excitement.
 Out with the old pest control, in with the new?
 Undoubtedly, say the sellers of BT corn seed.
 For a while maybe, say the critics.
 Anyway, the same folks who've been selling farm chemicals since the '60s will be
 selling BT corn to the growers into the next century. Witness these four
 corporate marriages . . . each with its often quarrelsome extended family. Each
 marriage binds a seed company, a biotech firm and a traditional agri-chemical
 maker. Together they already control an estimated 70 percent of the U.S. seed
 corn market. And still there's a no-holds-barred fight for a larger market
 share.
 ''We've got lawsuits all over the place,'' over processes and patent rights,
 says Northrup King's Damsteegt. ''Everybody wants a piece of the action.''
 These menages of licensors and mated companies also have an eye on the huge
 dowry in other transgenic crops like soybeans and potatoes grown in vast
 acreages in the state.
 The leader, with 40 percent of market share, is Pioneer Seed Company. Its BT
 partner is Mycogen, which is the whole owner of the now dispersed Madison firm
 Agrigenetics. Mycogen holds Pioneer stock. Monsanto, BT researcher and farm
 chemicals giant, is another Pioneer ''licensing partner.'' Licensing partners
 receive royalties for permission to use pieces of their technology.
 Dekalb Seeds' licensing partner for use of BT genetics and patents is Monsanto,
 which also holds nearly 50 percent of DeKalb stock.
 Northrup King Seeds, wholly owned by Sandoz, a European chemicals-maker, has
 Monsanto as a BT licensing partner.
 Ciba and Mycogen Seeds. Ciba is the chemical maker. Though both have seed corn
 lines, both also shared basic lab and field BT research. They've negotiated
 licensing arrangements with one another.
 This season Ciba and Mycogen became the first to sell BT protected corn in
 field-scale amounts in the Dane County area. Northrup King's Damsteegt reports
 his company's product has passed reviews by three federal agencies and will be
 available next season. According to Damsteegt, Pioneer and DeKalb await final
 government approval. It's unclear whether these firms will introduce BT corn
 seed in 1997.
 ''We're one of the first in the market with BT products. We hope to greatly
 increase our market share by up to 30 percent next year,'' says Damsteegt.
 Yet as Northrup King and other conglomerate partners may be early winners,
 experts insist there will be losers too -- farmers, future crops and the
 environment.
 Experts from biologists to seed sellers agree the corn borer will sooner or
 later become a real tough guy. He'll develop resistance to the BT protein borne
 within corn plant cells.
 ''He'll develop an enzyme to digest that protein. He won't do it for a while but
 he'll do it,'' says Blair McMillan, microbiologist and teacher of biotechnicians
 at MATC.
 The UW's corn specialist Lauer worries that not nearly enough test plot field
 research has been done on managing corn borer resistance to BT seed before
 bringing it to market.
 ''We want this tool in farmers' arsenal for a long time, not a few years,'' he
 says. ''We know from laboratory studies that corn borers can begin developing
 resistance to BT in within eight generations.''
 Lauer's ag school colleague, professor John Wedberg, cautions: ''I'm concerned
 growers will go fence row to fence row with BT corn and think we have a new
 silver bullet. We need 20-25 percent non-BT corn in the field to help keep
 resistance from developing.'
 Jane Rissler, plant pathologist with the 50,000 -- member Union of Concerned
 Scientists, Washington, D.C., predicts ''the widespread use of BT in transgenic
 plants will lead to pest resistance to one of organic farmers' most valuable
 tools.''
 For many years organic farmers and market gardeners have, only as needed,
 sprayed solutions containing a rapidly degrading live BT, bacillus thuringiensis
 bacteria strains on crops to kill soft-bodied insects like the cabbage looper,
 corn borer and potato beetle larvae.
 ''Our real disease isn't the corn borer; it's continuous corn monoculture,''
 says the UW's Kloppenburg. ''We're putting all our eggs in one basket again. We
 had farmers on a chemical treadmill for 30 years. Now we're going to put them on
 a biotech treadmill. BT and biotechnology should be great tools among many other
 ways we control pests.''
 Those other ways are being sidelined. Farming's fascination with genetic
 engineering is ''killing interest in more environmentally friendly strategies of
 pest control,'' says Dennis Keeney, former UW environmental studies professor,
 now director of the Aldo Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Ames,
 Iowa.
 UW professor Fred Buttel, co-director of the ag school's applied technology
 studies program, says years of red ink have forced buyouts of biotech companies
 and a rush to the marketplace ''with some terrible products and some good ones''
 to help recoup losses.
 Is BT corn among the terrible or good? It depends in whose field you stand. The
 economic picture looks clear: Monsanto stock is up 71 percent over a year ago,
 up 74 percent the year before.
 The biotech and seed company partner, the Wall Street Journal reported recently,
 hopes to control ''a significant share of the market for transgenic seed,'' a
 market analysts predict will reach somewhere around $ 6.5 billion in10 years.
 While somewhere around a hollowed spot inside a corn stalk, a larva enters
 metamorphosis and changes . . . one of its cells.
 LOAD-DATE: November 10, 1996
 GRAPHIC:  Mike Irwin photos Agronomist Joe Keller with Sauk Prairie's Tri-
 County Cenex/Land-o-Lakes has watched this fall as corn varieties protected by
 an insect-killing protein yield 5-7 bushels higher than other varieties
 unaltered by biotechnology. Next year farmers Keller serves will plant more than
 5000 acres of corn infused with the unique protein borrowed from the bacillus
 thuringiensis or (bt) bacterium.
 A stunted ear from a corn plant damaged by the European corn borer also shows
 borer larva damage to the ear itself. Spokesmen for the UW ag school, Northrup
 King and Ciba/Mycogen corn lines say 5 % of Wisconsin's 1997 crop will carry
 genetically engineered corn..and the biotech revolution into Dane Co. area farm
 fields.
 Joe Damsteegt, senior agronomist at Northrup King's Fitchburg center, shows a bt
 protein protected corn line in his test plots. Ready supplies of the new
 corn-borer proof seed may ''increase our market share by up to 30% next year,''
 he says. Biotech critics say moving the bt varieties to the field too much and
 too fast will cause borers to develop resistance the built-in toxins. Farmers
 and corporations serving them could lose in the long run.
                     Copyright 1996 Madison Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 842
 
                      Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania)
                     January 29, 1996, Monday, SOONER EDITION
 Genetically altered spud debuts in Canada
 BYLINE: Doug Saunders, Toronto Globe and Mail
 SECTION: SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & MEDICINE, Pg. A2
 LENGTH: 482 words
 It looks like a plain old baking potato, lumpy and brown, and when Canadian
 shoppers first encounter it this spring, they will have no indication that there
 is anything different about it.
 But the NewLeaf potato is a technological breakthrough.
 Containing a bacteria gene that causes the potato to kill pests, NewLeaf will be
 the first product of genetic engineering to be sold in Canadian supermarkets. It
 has already created a simmering conflict.
 Farmers and biotechnology companies consider the NewLeaf an environmentally
 friendly agricultural aid of little interest to consumers.
 Some environmental and consumer groups, on the other hand, want all genetically
 engineered foods to be labeled as such. The NewLeaf was approved for human
 consumption by the federal Health Department late last year, along with a
 half-dozen other ''transgenic'' products -- grains and vegetables that contain
 genes from entirely different species. This spring's potato harvest will include
 the first crop of NewLeafs to be sold in Canada. The federal government does not
 require them to be specially labeled.
 ''I don't think consumers will particularly notice the changes, but they make a
 big difference to me,'' said Don Kroeker, who grows potatoes in Winkler,
 Manitoba. Kroeker plans to expand his Newleaf plot for market sales this year.
 Since 1994, he has grown NewLeaf potatoes for experimental use.
 In most respects, the NewLeaf is a familiar Russet Burbank potato. But
 scientists at Monsanto Co. of St. Louis, Mo., have added a new gene. Adapted
 from the bacterium bacillus thuringiensis or Bt, the gene renders the potato
 indigestible by the Colorado potato beetle, a frustrating pest. Organic farmers
 have used Bt bacteria for years as a non-toxic insecticide, and scientists agree
 that it is harmless to humans.
 For Kroeker, the NewLeaf provides welcome relief from the rising costs of potato
 farming. He has estimated that each acre of potatoes costs more than $ 900
 annually, a large part of which pays for herbicides to fight off a distressing
 range of pests. He pays a royalty fee of $ 1 per 100 NewLeaf seed potatoes each
 year to NatureMark, a Canadian subsidiary of Monsanto.
 ''That's still a lot less than the chemicals would cost,'' he said, ''plus we
 don't have to be constantly monitoring the crop to see if there's beetles. Not
 only does it cut our costs, but I like the idea that we're not indiscriminately
 killing beneficial insects along with the bad ones.''
 The fact that the NewLeaf reduces the use of chemical pesticides has created a
 dilemma for some environmentalists, who have opposed the development of
 transgenic crops.
 ''It's a fundamental issue of consumer choice,'' said Mark Winfield of the
 Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy, which is urging the federal
 government to require the labeling of all genetically engineered foods.
 LOAD-DATE: January 30, 1996
                        Copyright 1996 P.G. Publishing Co.









Document Number: 843
 
                       The Atlanta Journal and Constitution
                        May 14, 1995, Sunday, ALL EDITIONS
 Consumers not concerned about genetic tinkering
 BYLINE: Mike Toner; STAFF WRITER
 SECTION: DIXIE LIVING, Pg. 4N
 LENGTH: 729 words
 Five genetically engineered crops were tested in the open air in 1987, the year
 that "biofoods" put down roots outside the hothouse. Since then, researchers
 have performed at least 2,258 field tests - 59 of them in Georgia - on
 everything from alfalfa to zucchini.
 In the eight years that genetically modified crops have moved from the
 laboratory to the farm, federal regulation and public concern about the
 unexpected consequences of genetic tinkering have grown increasingly sanguine.
 Unless it sees inherent dangers, the U.S. Department of Agriculture now
 routinely exempts genetically modified crops from regulation. The Food and Drug
 Administration maintains that no formal approval is needed so long as the food
 item is essentially the same. The Environmental Protection Agency only regulates
 crops that have built-in pesticidal properties - and recently approved the
 initial plantings of insect- resistant potatoes, corn and cotton.
 An attempted boycott of the first genetically engineered tomatoes last year
 fizzled. Calgene Inc., which developed the tomato and plans to have it in 4,000
 stores this summer, says it is having trouble meeting demand.
 "When it comes to food, a lot of the issues are just not on consumers' radar
 screens," says Thomas Hoban, a sociologist at North Carolina State University
 who surveys public attitudes on biotechnology. "They just want to know what it
 tastes like and what it costs."
 Most consumers will never know that they are eating genetically engineered
 products. Unless the product differs substantially from natural varieties, the
 FDA does not require labeling. Of seven crops approved so far, none required
 labeling.
 Medical experts say there is no reason for alarm. The scientific affairs council
 of the American Medical Association says the products of genetic manipulation
 differ little from the "traditional plant and breeding techniques" used by the
 industry for over a century.
 Environmentalists raise questions
 Environmental groups, however, say some nagging questions remain.
 "Despite the thousands of field trials, there are questions that may be answered
 only after these crops are grown on a commercial scale, under a wide variety of
 conditions," says Jane Rissler, senior staff scientist for the Washington-based
 Union of Concerned Scientists.
 Rissler worries, for instance, that crops newly artificially endowed with traits
 such as herbicide resistance or pest resistance might pass on that trait to
 their wild relatives - accidentally endowing farmers' worst enemies with the
 very qualities deliberately engineered into their crops.
 Researchers in Europe are warning that the herbicide-resistant beets planned for
 introduction there will spread through the environment and produce an explosion
 of herbicide-resistant weeds.
 U.S. authorities have been more cautious, but some critics worry about the
 effects of large-scale use of plants engineered to wage their own war on
 viruses, insects and other pests.
 "Plants like cotton and corn and potatoes which are engineered to produce their
 own pesticides are a potential problem, too," says Rissler. "EPA's decision to
 approve them was premature."
 Federal regulators have also discounted any "significant environmental impact"
 from the imminent release of Asgrow Seed Co.'s virus-resistant squash in
 Georgia. Independent researchers aren't so sure. Wild squash are already a major
 problem in soybean fields in some parts of the country.
 Some fear that widespread use of the genes that produce a biological pesticide
 known as Bt will eventually cause insects to become resistant to conventional
 sprays containing the Bt bacterium.
 "In our rush to get these crops out into the field, we may be throwing away a
 very valuable tool - one that, for some pests, is one of the few remaining tools
 we have," she says.
 Rissler does not advocate halting commercialization of transgenic crops. But she
 does worry that small-scale field tests may not have uncovered the pitfalls of
 growing the same crop on thousands of acres.
 "We've heard of the fine things that these crops will do for the farmer and the
 consumer, but we still know very little about the environmental risks," she
 says. "In some respects, we're still testing. Only now we're doing it on a scale
 so large that it may be difficult to undo any damage that occurs."
 LOAD-DATE: June 27, 1995
                     Copyright 1995 The Atlanta Constitution









Document Number: 844
 
                           The San Francisco Chronicle
 'Marker' Genes Travel Fast
  Altered plants breed with wild relatives, new research finds
 BYLINE: Charles Petit, Chronicle Staff Writer
 SECTION: NEWS; Pg. B7
 LENGTH: 1057 words
 In tests that support the belief that gene-altered crops may lead to hardy new
 weeds or novel wild plants, ''marker genes'' in cultivated radishes showed up in
 similar plants more than half a mile away.
 The scientist who ran the study, botanist Norman C. Ellstrand of the University
 of California at Riverside, said it is the first documentation of how swiftly
 some genetically altered crop plants can confer new properties on wild
 relatives.
 The report comes as the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental
 Protection Agency have approved in recent years more than 300 outdoor ''field
 tests'' of genetically altered crops or bacteria in 35 states. At least 17 other
 nations are also conducting field tests of genetically engineered organisms.
 Molecular biologists are transplanting genes from unrelated plant species,
 bacteria or animals into traditional crop plants. Intended results include
 plants that grow faster, have an enhanced nutritional or chemical quality in
 their fruit or oils, thrive in salty or fertilizer-poor soil or resist insects
 or herbicides.
 But some scientists say that many of the same features, if introduced
 inadvertently into other species of plants, could produce weeds that are tougher
 to kill on farms. Wild plants with new genes could overtake rivals and change
 the plant balance in forests, meadows or other habitats.
 No such altered crops have yet reached the market. The payoff when they do,
 backers say, will be better, more abundant and cheaper food, fiber, timber and
 other agricultural products.
 Biotechnology industry scientists and others at universities and in government
 labs say chances are extremely remote that such altered or ''transgenic'' crops,
 through inadvertent cross-breeding, will lead to significant numbers of
 aggressive new weeds, or to plants that upset the ecological balance in wild
 places.
 But among other scientists, concern over accidental gene transfer has been
 growing for the past five years.
 The potential problem has already led to high-level conferences among
 governmental regulators, industry researchers and independent scientists, plus
 extensive regulations governing approval of outdoor tests of genetically altered
 crops.
 Ellstrand said he supports insertion of some new genes into traditional crop
 plants. ''Overall, the benefits outweigh the risks,'' he said. ''I don't think
 anybody is making monsters or killer tomatoes out there.''
 He added, however, that even closer regulation may be needed, coupled with
 preparation of plans to cope with the spread of new agricultural genes into the
 wild. ''We are bringing genes together that would never be brought together in
 nature. Any time we get into a new technology, we have to move cautiously,'' he
 said.
 He and two colleagues, Terrie Klinger and Diane R. Elam, published an account of
 their work in the December issue of the journal Conservation Biology.
 Last year, they planted fields of radishes in test plots near Irvine, on the
 Orange County coast, and in the Moreno Valley near Riverside. The radishes carry
 a gene, for a rare enzyme, that lab tests can easily detect and which acts as a
 tracer if they cross with other plants.
 The researchers also planted in test plots around the cultivated fields several
 stands of wild radishes of a different species, which can cross with the
 cultivated variety if bees or moths carry pollen among them.
 Nearly all the wild radishes within a few yards of the crop soon produced seeds
 with the distinctive enzyme, and seeds from some of the wild radishes in a plot
 1,000 meters, or about six-tenths of a mile, away also exhibited the distinctive
 new trait.
 ''These data demonstrate that gene flow can occur between crop plants and their
 wild relatives in agricultural situations,'' the Riverside scientists wrote,
 saying that distances of at least several kilometers would probably be needed to
 reduce the chance of interbreeding to a negligible level.
 The scientists said radishes cross-pollinate in a fashion common to many other
 crops and their wild relatives, including such grains as rye and buckwheat, such
 vegetables as cabbage, carrots, cucumbers and pepper, many fruit trees, and oil
 crops including sunflowers and canola.
 Most industry representatives, who say chances of a mishap are extremely remote,
 play down the importance of the Riverside study because radishes belong to a
 group of plants that interbreed particularly easily from species to species.
 ''This has been discussed and in the literature for years,'' said Roger
 Salquist, chief executive officer of Calgene Inc. in Davis. Salquist said
 current regulations take account of such risks, and he added that most
 transgenic crops being tested in the United States, including cotton and
 tomatoes, have no nearby wild relatives with which to cross. ''It is not
 something to worry about,'' he said.
 However, his own company's former vice president for research and development,
 Robert M. Goodman, who left Calgene last year to pursue research at the
 University of Wisconsin, said, ''The answer is, yes, the genes are going to
 move.''
 Goodman led a national conference in 1990 on genetic engineering and gene flow
 from so-called cruciform plants, a large family that includes broccoli, rapeseed
 (source of canola oil), cabbage, Brussels sprouts and radishes.
 Such odd gene combinations are showing up in experimental crops that the World
 Wildlife Federation, which monitors expansion of biotechnology in agriculture,
 recently put together a fanciful menu of items the government has approved for
 testing. The ''Dinner of Transgenic Foods'' includes:
 Spiced Potatoes with Waxmoth Gene
 Juice of Tomatoes with Flounder Gene
 Blackened Catfish with Trout Gene
 Scalloped Potatoes with Chicken Gene
 Corn Bread with Firefly Gene
 Rice Pudding with Pea Gene
 Scientists are putting the foreign genes in food crops for various reasons. For
 instance, the flounder gene could help produce tomatoes that can be put in the
 freezer and still seem fresh when they are thawed out, the trout gene may make
 catfish grow faster, the pea gene may improve the protein content of rice and
 the waxmoth gene may make potatoes resistant to bruising.
 PERSON: Marker Genes; Norman C. Ellstrand; Robert M. Goodman ROGER H SALQUIST
                   Copyright 1992 The Chronicle Publishing Co.









Document Number: 845
 
                          Deming Headlight (New Mexico)
                              March 1, 2011 Tuesday
 Food Safety Act
 BYLINE: By Baxter Black For the Headlight
 LENGTH: 636 words
 What will the Food Safety Modernization Act, if put into effect, do to Ms.
 Obama's backyard garden? Congress has taken up the issue of food safety because
 of the headline-grabbing occurrences of, primarily bacterial, outbreaks of
 disease in fresh meat and produce. With the exception of eggs, most E. coli and
 Salmonella outbreaks are a result of human or animal contamination in the
 growing or processing of the product. This is the reason that organically grown
 produce is especially vulnerable. Unable to use chemical fertilizer, pesticides,
 or insecticides, organic growers must make an extra effort to reduce organisms
 carried by using manure fertilizer, invasive insects and vermin.
 I have a garden. I battle many of tomato's natural adversaries! I appreciate how
 difficult it must be for a gardener to ward off the tomato worms, hungry
 caterpillars, beetles, grasshoppers, bugs, birds and rodents by hand, to keep it
 "organic." I use early season Sevin and pyrethrums because I'm lazy, I guess, or
 just don't have the time. Besides, I get healthier tomatoes and more of them!
 So what would the Food Safety bill have to do with Ms. Obama's garden? Would she
 be allowed to take her tomatoes, lettuce and celery down to the Saturday morning
 Farmer's Market? Or serve them in a salad to guests of the White House? I expect
 the bill would limit her options. An FDA spokesman said the Food Safety bill
 could actually "kill the very farmers they are trying to help."
 Amendments that place lesser restrictions on smaller producers have been
 discussed to reduce their paperwork burden. But, does that make the product
 safer than blueberries from Chile and avocados from Mexico? I don't think so.
 Congress is trying to avoid eliminating the availability of home-grown fresh
 meat and produce to consumers with the new law. Sometimes politics enters in and
 skews the science. Some amendments discussed even want to inflict laws based on
 where the food is sold or how much the farmer earns, which has nothing to do
 with food safety!
 Under the Food Safety bill, will local co-ops, local producers, and Ms. Obama be
 required to place warning labels on their radishes and zucchini? If she serves
 it to the French Ambassador will she have to give a short announcement at the
 table like a flight attendant, "Ladies and Gentlemen, Joe and I will be serving
 you this afternoon, please give us your attention. Eating of the legally
 unrestricted fresh food in front of you, none of which has been grown or
 processed or approved by the Food Safety Act, can result in distention, nausea
 and uncontrollable evacuation. Eat at our own risk. This room has several exits,
 please take note of the one nearest you. In case of a universal attack, emesis
 bags will fall from the ceiling..."
 All of us in agriculture are concerned with these food-carried, usually
 'operator error,' disease outbreaks, whether it stems from a packing-plant
 contamination of ground beef, field contamination by fruit pickers, or
 fertilizer contaminated home-grown cabbage. However, regardless of any laws
 passed, the risk of eating fresh food will always be there. In the future I can
 envision genetically modified foods or antibiotics that will resist, contain, or
 even prevent bacterial or fungal contamination in the growing process, and
 someday the government will get wise and require irradiation of fresh meat and
 produce that is marketed to the public. But, for now, I will continue to grow my
 tomatoes and jalape?os, and I wouldn't be afraid to eat out of Ms. Obama's
 garden either. It's hard to beat home-grown!
 Baxter Black is a former New Mexico resident who spent his working days
 tormenting cows. He now resides in Arizona and spends his free time tormenting
 Cowboys and the sorts. His columns appear in the Deming Headlight on Tuesday.
 www.baxterblack.com
 LOAD-DATE: March 1, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
           Copyright 2011 Deming Headlight, a MediaNews Group Newspaper
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 846
 
                         Lewiston Morning Tribune (Idaho)
                             February 28, 2011 Monday
 Strawberry genome discovery may lead to cheaper berries
 LENGTH: 719 words
 CHAMPAIGN, Ill. - Farmers have long struggled with getting ripe strawberries to
 market in good shape, but scientists say the recent mapping of the wild
 strawberry's genome may help them produce berries that are cheaper and easier to
 grow and arrive in stores in peak condition.
 The woodland strawberry has become one of only a handful of food plants to have
 its genetic sequence charted, and scientists said the map could help them cut
 years off the time that it would take to produce similar results with
 traditional plant breeding techniques. But farmers and researchers also say the
 strawberry's genome isn't likely to be used to its full potential because of
 consumers' concerns about genetically modified foods.
 Nate Nourse, who grows strawberries and other berries in Whately, Mass., said he
 saw a lot of potential in the strawberry genome map. Many of the strawberries he
 sells are what he calls June strawberries - sweet, sugary and something special
 for the few summer weeks they're available.
 "But you can't hardly ship them because of the sugar content in them. The more
 sugar, the less shelf life," he said. He added, "This genetic stuff is going to
 help people understand what it is to make the sugars better."
 He hoped the sequencing of the woodland strawberry genome would speed up the
 breeding process and make more reliable work that he describes now as a crap
 shoot. But, he said, that work can't include any sort of genetic modification -
 his customers wouldn't buy it.
 Kevin Folta, an associate professor of horticulture at the University of Florida
 and one of the scientists who helped map the strawberry's genome, said that was
 one reason the strawberry industry contributed very little of the $200,000
 needed to pay for the project. Growers didn't want to create a public relations
 problem for themselves.
 "Being involved in a sequencing project could give a false impression of doing
 genetically modified technology on strawberries," he said.
 Researchers said they're most likely to use the genome to try to develop plants
 that resist diseases and produce berries that hold up better while being
 shipped, last longer on shelves and cost less to grow. Down the road, they may
 also aim for better-tasting berries, although Folta said better flavor isn't
 growers' first concern.
 "You don't taste in the store," he said, but consumers might not buy packages of
 berries because they haven't held up well during shipping.
 Janet Slovin, a U.S. Department of Agriculture plant molecular biologist who
 worked on the strawberry genome project, said the research also has potential
 for similar changes in a long list of other members of the Rosaceae family,
 including apples, plums, peaches, raspberries and pears. Researchers who focus
 on those fruits worked on the sequencing team because the strawberry is related
 closely enough to be a good stand-in for them.
 "This is really the lab rat for strawberries," Slovin said.
 Folta, Slovin and 73 other researchers scattered around the world started
 working on the woodland strawberry genome three years ago, looking for a way to
 speed up plant breeding aimed at building a better berry.
 Breeders, working mainly in California and Florida, have bred berries that are
 harder and less likely to bruise during shipping or that easily separate from
 their stems for easier picking. At least one variety, Slavin said, is grown for
 the long sturdy stem that lets it be easily dipped in melted chocolate at
 weddings.
 Traditional breeding, however, involves growing thousands of plants, crossing
 them with numerous others, then growing those crosses, and repeating the steps
 over and over for five, 10, even 15 years to find even one plant that exhibits
 the trait breeders want. Some research never pans out at all.
 With the genome sequenced, Folta said, researchers can instead grow a plant to
 seedling size, check it for the gene that controls the trait they're looking
 for, and, if it's there, focus breeding efforts on that plant.
 "The last decade has really been an explosion of resources in strawberry
 genomics; we've really advanced what we know about strawberries, but we've
 always had to take time to initiate a first step, essentially going on a hunt to
 find the genes of interest," Folta said, adding, "With the genome in hand, you
 don't have to take that first step."
 LOAD-DATE: March 1, 2011
 GRAPHIC: No Caption: Plant molecular biologist Janet Slavin (above) poses for a
 portrait among strawberry plants at the USDA Agricultural Research Service in
 Beltsville Feb. 22. Slavin holds a yellow woodland variety of strawberry (right)
 that has been genome-sequenced.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2011 Tribune Publishing Co.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 847
 
                               The Washington Post
                            February 17, 2011 Thursday
                                  Every Edition
 Y ou can't put the gene back in the bottle
 BYLINE: Barbara Damrosch
 SECTION: METRO; Pg. T09
 LENGTH: 527 words
 Alfalfa's roots go deep in the soil and deep in history. Prized by the ancient
 Persians, this high-protein "Queen of Forages" is still treasured. It is the
 fourth-largest crop grown in the United States, primarily for feeding cattle.
 And it is the latest one to fall to the Empire of Monsanto.
 Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack's recent decision to deregulate the use of
 Monsanto's Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA) has alarmed many in the farming
 community, and beyond, who expected better from this administration. I suppose
 the kindest thing you could say about this genetically engineered seed -
 developed to allow the plant to withstand applications of Roundup herbicide - is
 that it's unnecessary.
 Alfalfa competes well with weeds in a well-managed system. But when RRA is
 grown, weeds will develop resistance to Roundup, as they have with the other
 crops that carry the Roundup Ready gene, such as corn, soybeans and cottons
 (sugar beets are next). This resistance could lead to the introduction of yet
 more powerful transgenic remedies that, in turn, would fail.
 Polling has shown that most Americans dislike the idea of genetically modified
 organisms (GMOs) being introduced into the food supply, which is why the
 agricultural lobby blocks the labeling of products containing them. And no one
 fears the galloping GMO trendmore than farmers - organic or otherwise - who bank
 on selling GMO-free alfalfa hay, or meat from animals not tainted by eating RRA.
 Many farmers now grow or source seed abroad to avoid cross-pollination from
 Monsanto crops. In seed production, alfalfa is pollinated by far-ranging bees,
 which makes it especially vulnerable to such biological trespass.
 It is possible that, in time, forces will prevail that are not motivated by
 profit, and will rethink the whole GMO approach to food. It may become clear
 that none of it works very well, that it presents more problems than it purports
 to solve, and that agricultural science might be put to better use.
 But here's the main point about GMOs: You can't recall them the way you can a
 car or a plastic toy. They're out there for good. And no one knows what their
 full impact will be.
 I recently came across a little book called "DDT - Killer of Killers," written
 in 1946 by two chemical engineering professors named O.T. Zimmerman and Irvin
 Lavine. It's easy to poke fun at the pictures of housewives spraying DDT all
 over their kitchens, and at the authors' giddy assurances of that poison's
 worth, lacking any knowledge of its unintended consequences.
 We'd like to think we've learned how to correct such mistakes, and we have.
 Faced with pollution, we've cleaned up much of America's air and water. But a
 new kind of pollution is being forced on us with no widespread agreement on its
 efficacy or consensus on its safety. Twenty years ago it wasn't there; now it
 affects the majority of food produced in this country, without our consent.
 We've said "No," but is anybody listening?
 localliving@washpost.com
 Damrosch is a freelance writer and the author of "The Garden Primer."
 Growing your own veggies
 6More onlineRead more about growing your own food at
 washingtonpost.com/vegetablegardens.
 LOAD-DATE: February 17, 2011
 DISTRIBUTION: Virginia
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2011 The Washington Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 848
 
                       Monterey County Herald (California)
                              January 7, 2011 Friday
 Business briefs: Mortgage rates edge down
 BYLINE: The Monterey County Herald
 LENGTH: 446 words
 Mortgage rates dip this week
 Rates on fixed mortgages dipped this week after rising steadily over the last
 two months.
 Freddie Mac said Thursday the average rate on the 30-year mortgage dropped to
 4.77percent from 4.86 percent the previous week. It hit a 40-year low of 4.17
 percent in November.
 The average rate on the 15-year loan slipped to 4.13percent from 4.20percent. It
 reached 3.57percent in November, the lowest level on records starting in 1991.
 Rates have been rising since November. Investors have shifted money out of
 Treasurys and into stocks. Many expect the tax-cut plan will fuel economic
 growth and increase inflation. Yields tend to rise on inflation fears.
 Higher seed sales give Monsanto profit
 Monsanto Co. on Thursday said it returned to profitability in the fiscal first
 quarter as sales of genetically modified corn, soybean and cotton sales climbed.
 The St. Louis company reported higher sales of corn, soybean, vegetable and
 cotton seeds. It also posted higher sales of its Roundup weed-killer despite
 tight competition from a variety of generic versions.
 Monsanto reported net income of $6million, or 2cents per share, for the quarter
 ended Nov. 30, compared with a loss of $19million, or 2cents a share, in the
 year-ago period. Revenue increased 8percent to $1.83billion.
 Analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters had expected earnings of 1 cent per share
 on revenue of $1.79 billion
 Plan would open roads to Mexican trucks
 The Obama administration is circulating a proposal for re-opening U.S. roads to
 Mexican trucking companies, a starting point in an attempt to resolve a
 longstanding trade dispute.
 The Transportation Department released the proposal on Thursday after showing it
 to members of Congress. It lays out conditions that Mexican long-haul truck
 carriers would have to meet, including a safety audit, emissions standards and
 driver background checks.
 The U.S. trucking companies and drivers oppose giving Mexican carriers access to
 the U.S. trucking market. They say Mexican trucks don't have to meet as
 stringent safety standards as their U.S. counterparts, which would give them an
 economic advantage.
 Mexico has protested the lack of access as a violation of the North American
 Free Trade Agreement.
 Guests on local radio, TV shows
 "Shagbag": Janet Lesniak, general manager of the Big Sur River Inn, 9 a.m.
 Saturday, KION 1460 AM and 1460KION.com .
 "Winslow Art": Don Herman, managing director of entertainment-based Sandlot
 Venture Group , noon Saturday, KNRY 1240 AM and knry.com .
 "What's the Point": Derrick Jensen, author of "The World We Leave Behind," 10
 a.m. Sunday, KRXA 540 AM.
 Staff and wire reports
 LOAD-DATE: January 7, 2011
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2011 The Monterey County Herald
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 849
 
                           December 29, 2010 Wednesday
 Cape Fox Corp. working to rectify past errors
 SECTION: EDIT; Pg. 8A
 LENGTH: 623 words
 Cape Fox Corp. working  to rectify past errors
 The Dec. 16 article about the Cape Fox Corp. (an organization formed as part of
 the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971)  was misleading in its
 depiction of  the way the company conducts business today ("Few financial
 benefits reach Native tribes," News).
 The incidents noted in the story reflect events that occurred under prior
 management. In 2008, the Cape Fox board of directors retained a new senior
 executive team to restructure operations, and hold those responsible for
 improper conduct accountable for their actions. Since then, the company has
 implemented a host of new corporate governance standards, reflecting its strong
 commitment to sound ethical practices and leadership moving forward.
 Since 2008, Cape Fox Corp. has worked closely with the Small Business
 Administration to improve transparency and accountability, and the company's
 proactive efforts have enabled it to stay in good standing. Cape Fox Corp. will
 continue to coordinate with the U.S. government to ensure its work is fully
 compliant with all federal rules and regulations.
 The company will build on the benefits it returns to Native shareholders, where
 combined dividends over the past 10 years have totaled 120% of total profit. And
 above all, the company will remain focused on delivering the highest quality
 performance and ethical service to our valued customers and business partners.
 Michael E. Brown, chief executive
 Cape Fox Corp.
 Anchorage
 Population control
 The 2010 Census is in: 308.7 million people populate the U.S., an increase of
 nearly 10% in the last decade. Yet there has been little to no attention paid to
 the unsustainable, inordinate number this represents for the U.S. and its
 resources ("308. 7 million," News, Dec. 22).
 The math is not too complicated: If the average couple has more than two
 children and substantial immigration to the U.S. continues, the scarcity in
 water, energy, arable land, wildlife, commodities and overall quality of life
 will continue to decline for the average American.
 In response to resource scarcity, we too often rely on technology to circumvent
 nature's limitations through genetically modified foods and organisms, chemicals
 that we know little about and massive use of pesticides.
 While conservation is an absolute necessity, reductions in individual
 consumption can always be overwhelmed by increases in population. Population
 stabilization can be brought about by limiting child tax credits and by
 Americans making common sense, socially responsible decisions when creating a
 family.
 Do we really want to continue to tempt nature's response to our unbridled use of
 resources? Do we want to join the population ranks of India and China?
 Rhett Zyla
 Ketchum, Idaho
 Hugh Hefner inspiration
 By becoming engaged to 23-year-old Playmate Crystal Harris, 84-year-old Playboy
 founder Hugh Hefner has done a great thing ("Hugh Hefner has 'perfect Christmas
 weekend,' " LifelineLive, USATODAY.com, Monday).
 He has given all of us "dirty old men" new hope, inspiration, motivation and
 renewed self-confidence.
 Kenneth L. Zimmerman
 Huntington Beach, Calif.
 Tone it down, S. Korea
 South Korea's president, Lee Myung Bak, has vowed relentless retaliation against
 North Korea if provoked, stating he is not afraid of a war.
 His hubris could well be buoyed by the assumption that the U.S. will bail his
 country out as we did in the early 1950s. His comments were provocative and
 could be considered a challenge to the North.
 We should tell him to tone down his rhetoric. And if he doesn't, we should
 threaten to let him and his country fend for itself. We don't need another war.
 We're already in two that are killing our young and draining our treasury.
 Charles Luscomb
 Bluffton, S.C.
 LOAD-DATE: December 29, 2010
                       Copyright 2010 Gannett Company, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 850
 
                        San Jose Mercury News (California)
                             December 6, 2010 Monday
 Dec. 7 Readers letters
 BYLINE: From Mercury News readers
 SECTION: LETTERS; News; Opinion
 LENGTH: 798 words
 Exemption lets MLB delay forever on A's
 Your editorial lamenting Major League Baseball's delay in approving the
 Oakland-San Jose relocation overlooks one major factor (Editorial, Dec. 3).
 Baseball can do as it pleases and delay forever because a 1922 ruling of the
 Supreme Court exempts these decisions from antitrust law. Anyone concerned about
 the absolute leverage that baseball Commissioner Bud Selig has over San Jose
 Mayor Chuck Reed should get Congress to reverse the Supreme Court's ruling.
 Otherwise, baseball can take as long as it pleases to do whatever it pleases.
 William B. Gould IV
 Charles A. Beardsley Professor of Law, Emeritus Stanford University Chairman,
 National Labor Relations Board (1994-98)
 San Jose is indeed Giants territory
 Kyle Von Raesfeld's letter "San Jose is not Giant's territory" (Letters, Dec. 6)
 suggesting that attendees at the San Jose holiday parade should have held up
 signs declaring San Jose as not being the Giants' territory is ridiculous. The
 Giants not only have their Single-A team here, which the Mercury News and the
 city seem to pretend does not exist, almost half of the World Series champion
 Giants' 40-man roster has players that spent considerable time playing at
 Municipal Stadium. Just take a look at all the orange and black -- it's not
 Halloween!
 Want to root for the A's? Please move to Oakland.
 G.T. McMorrow
 San Jose
 Retiree clarifies stance on benefits
 I would like to clarify John Woolfolk's story (Page B1, Dec. 3) that the
 supplemental retirement benefit distribution for police and fire retirees is
 "very dear to me."
 By focusing his attention on me personally, the article missed the point I was
 making to the retirement board. The point that I was trying to convey to the
 retirement board was that there are a large number of retirees who retired many
 years ago on significantly smaller pensions than the more recent retirees. This
 supplemental benefit was designed to provide those older retirees and survivors
 with a supplement to their pension. It is those individuals to whom this benefit
 is important, and for those reasons I believe the distribution to be important.
 I was certainly not trying to tell the board that I needed this distribution.
 Rather, the retirees who are trying to make ends meet who deserve this
 assistance.
 Ken Heredia
 San Jose
 True conservatives want end to tax cuts
 If you really are "conservative," if you really care about our future and the
 economic risk we are facing, then let the Bush/Republican tax cuts expire -- all
 of them. Forty cents out of every dollar our government spends is borrowed. Wall
 Street and many large companies are already experiencing record profits. Housing
 -- that part of our economy that Wall Street bankers dropped an atomic economic
 bomb on -- will be far better served by starting to pay for what we have already
 bought. Small business, all business, makes decisions on confidence and
 certainty. Those of us with money, especially those making more than $200,000 a
 year, need to step up and start paying.
 Jonathan Barnes
 San Jose
 Attach strings to 'trickle down' policy
 So the Republican lawmakers want to try "trickle-down" economics again, based on
 the fantasy that these billionaires and mega-corporations will invest their
 tax-break windfall in the United States, despite the fact that these tax breaks
 for the wealthy have repeatedly produced deep recessions and huge deficits.
 Let's enforce that fantasy. I'd suggest we agree to the tax breaks for the
 wealthy with one condition -- every dollar that these billionaires and
 mega-corporations hide in offshore bank accounts, invest overseas, or profit
 from offshored jobs are taxed at triple the top tax rate.
 Dave Magram
 San Jose
 Modified foods need to be labeled
 I think that it is high time that the Food and Drug Administration is required
 to have the proper labeling on food products that contain items that have been
 genetically modified. The United States needs to follow the lead of the European
 Union, Japan and other nations that have guidelines that require mandatory
 labeling of genetically modified foods. How are people and families supposed to
 make educated choices about the foods that they are eating without the proper
 labeling?
 Lisa Butler
 Pacifica
 O'Brien is right to support leaks
 Kudos to Chris O'Brien for his gutsy column, (Business, Dec. 5), "Leaks provide
 a public service," providing a calm counterpoint to the fury expressed by
 politicians about the WikiLeaks issue. Coincidentally, the Mercury News (Page
 A1, Dec. 5) reported on China's fixation on censoring Google. It is easy enough
 to draw the parallel between China's attempt to shut down an uncensored Google,
 and our government's current attempt to demonize (and define them terrorists)
 and shut down WikiLeaks. Good reporting.
 John Dunse
 San Jose
 LOAD-DATE: December 7, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2010 San Jose Mercury News
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 851
 
                           Times-Picayune (New Orleans)
                            November 20, 2010 Saturday
 Religion News
 SECTION: LIVING; Pg. C 06
 LENGTH: 470 words
 St. John Missionary pastor will be honored
 St. John Missionary Baptist Church, 2538 Jackson Ave., celebrates Louis S.
 Jones' fourth anniversary as pastor Sunday at 11 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. The Rev.
 Robert Myers is the speaker.
 Algiers church will celebrate 168 years
 St. Mark Baptist Church, at 421 Wiltz Lane in Algiers, celebrates its 168th
 anniversary Sunday at 9 a.m., with Orin Grant, pastor of St. Paul Baptist Church
 in Gretna, as the guest speaker. On Nov. 28, the church celebrates the 13th
 anniversary of its pastor, the Rev. Lonnie Williams, with the Rev. Curtis
 Mitchell of Greater St. John Baptist Church speaking at 9 a.m. and the Rev.
 Donald Berryhill of First Zion Baptist Church speaking at 3 p.m.
 LaHarpe Thompson hosts homecoming celebration
 LaHarpe Thompson United Methodist Church at 1023 St. Roch Ave. celebrates
 homecoming day Sunday at 3 p.m. The Rev. William L. Jones Sr. is the pastor.
 Second True Love pastor to celebrate anniversary
 Second True Love Missionary Baptist Church, at 2530 S. Robertson St., celebrates
 the 16th anniversary of Lilton McQuarter Sr. as pastor on Sunday at 3 p.m. with
 the Rev. Terry Gullage of Greater Mount Calvary Baptist Church of Marrero as
 guest speaker.
 Deliverance will observe pastor's anniversary
 Deliverance Missionary Baptist Church, 6122 Hayne Blvd., celebrates the 14th
 anniversary of Jessie C. Magee Sr. as pastor on Sunday at 10 a.m.
 Pearl River church giving away free clothes
 The Church of God of Prophecy at 39044 St. Paul Drive in Pearl River, sponsors a
 free Thanksgiving giveaway of clothes and other things Sunday from 1-5 p.m.
 Scouts will take Ten Commandments hike
 The annual Ten Commandments hike, an afternoon long Scouting event that stops at
 10 houses of worship to discuss each of the Ten Commandments, will be Friday at
 10 a.m. beginning at St. Andrew Episcopal Church, 1301 S. Carrollton Ave.
 Registration, parental consent and health forms may be required for Scout
 participation. Information at 504.889.0388. Registration fee is $12.
 N.D. church protests Lutheran Church policies
 A rural North Dakota church has voted to leave the Evangelical Lutheran Church
 in America, not only to protest its recent policies to allow gay clergy but also
 its proposed statement on genetically modified foods. Members of the Anselm
 Trinity Lutheran Church near Sheldon, N.D., interpreted the ELCA's draft
 statement as saying farmers who use genetically modified seeds are 'pretty much
 sinners,' said church council president Jill Bunn. The church is located in the
 Red River Valley, where farmers often use enhanced seeds to help plants resist
 weed killers. The 25-4 vote, taken Nov. 7, comes at a time when other churches
 are leaving the ELCA after it decided last year to permit noncelibate gay clergy
 and the blessing of same-sex unions.
 -- From staff and wire reports
 LOAD-DATE: November 20, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: tpi
               Copyright 2010 The Times-Picayune Publishing Company
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 852
 
                         Lewiston Morning Tribune (Idaho)
                             October 18, 2010 Monday
 'Good neighbor' corn fights borers :Genetically engineered crops provide
 protection to non-modified corn planted nearby
 LENGTH: 611 words
 MINNEAPOLIS - This corn turns out to be a very good neighbor.
 Corn that's been genetically engineered to resist attacking borers produces a
 "halo effect" that provides huge benefits to other corn planted nearby, a new
 study finds. Since the borers that attack the genetically modified crops die,
 there are fewer of them to go after the non-modified version.
 Given that the corn borer has cost U.S. farmers $1 billion a year, the economic
 benefits are dramatic, according to the report in last week's edition of the
 journal Science.
 The genetically modified plants, called Bt corn, have had an economic benefit of
 $6.9 billion during the past 14 years in the five Upper Midwest corn-producing
 states studied, concluded the researchers. They were led by William Hutchison,
 head of the entomology department at the University of Minnesota, and Paul
 Mitchell, an agricultural economist at the University of Wisconsin.
 They said they were surprised to find that non-Bt corn acres actually reaped 62
 percent of the benefit, or $4.3 billion. That's because of the pest-control
 effect and because non-Bt seed is cheaper.
 "We knew there was a benefit but we didn't realize it was going to be that
 high," Hutchison said in an interview.
 An accompanying commentary in Science by entomologist Bruce E. Tabashnik of the
 University of Arizona calls the study groundbreaking, partly because it's the
 first to do an economic analysis on the effect based on large-scale, long-term
 data.
 Bt corn gets its name because it's engineered to produce a toxin with a gene
 from the common soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. The toxin kills the
 European corn borer caterpillar but is considered harmless to people and
 livestock, so Bt corn has become highly popular since it hit the market in 1996.
 It's now planted on about 63 percent of all U.S. corn acres.
 Caterpillars of the corn borer moth tunnel into corn stalks and chew on the
 leaves, cutting yields. Insecticides aren't very effective against them,
 Hutchison said. But when the insects munch on Bt corn, they stop eating within
 minutes and die within a day or two, he said.
 To guard against corn borers developing resistance to the toxin, federal
 regulations require that farmers plant a certain amount of non-Bt corn in
 "refuges." Requirements vary, but 20 percent of the corn acres has been typical
 for a Midwest farm.
 The adult corn borer moths lay their eggs randomly on Bt and non-Bt corn.
 Caterpillars that hatch on the Bt corn die long before they can become moths,
 spread and reproduce. So if there are enough host plants, the study found, corn
 borer numbers across the broader area drop and damage even to non-Bt corn falls
 off substantially.
 Requiring refuges makes it likely that any corn borer moths that develop
 immunity to the toxin and survive will mate with nonresistant moths and won't
 pass down the advantage to their offspring. In contrast, Hutchison noted,
 resistance has evolved in some countries that plant Bt cotton without refuge
 requirements.
 "It shows that resistance management is even more important than we thought,"
 Mitchell said.
 Hutchison said the study shows the value of maintaining refuge requirements
 despite reluctance from some farmers who would rather plant only Bt corn. He
 said they would still benefit even if they planted fewer acres in Bt corn,
 perhaps a 50-50 or 60-40 split.
 The corn study covered Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa and Nebraska.
 Whether they're designed to resist insects or survive herbicides like Roundup,
 genetically engineered crops have become common. More than four-fifths of U.S.
 soybean, corn and cotton acres were planted with genetically engineered
 varieties last year.
 LOAD-DATE: October 19, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2010 Tribune Publishing Co.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 853
 
                              Voice of America News
                                 October 15, 2010
 Hunger in Focus: Three Questions on Golden Rice
 BYLINE: VOA News
 LENGTH: 655  words
 As part of VOA's special coverage of food and hunger issues, we are putting the
 spotlight on the Geneva-based Golden Rice Project. The group has come up with a
 creative yet controversial way to pack more nutrients into grains of rice. Its
 team has used genetic engineering to make "Golden Rice," a strain of rice that
 contains pro-vitamin A, a crucial ingredient in healthy immune systems.
 Project manager Adrian Dubock says this strain of "super rice" could benefit
 millions of hungry and malnourished people. But, he tells VOA, it has not yet
 hit the market because there is still opposition to manipulating the genetic
 makeup of this essential grain.Why did you produce Golden Rice?
 Vitamin A deficiency kills around 6,000 people every day, affecting their
 immunity. So normal childhood diseases, for example, become lethal. About half
 of the world's population everyday eats rice, that's about three billion people.
 And in some of the poorest populations, about 80 percent of the carbohydrate
 intake is from white rice. White rice doesn't contain anything really other than
 carbohydrates, so they are short of minerals. Vitamin A deficiency is the
 biggest problem, and if they were able to have a balanced diet of vegetables and
 animal products, they wouldn't suffer from that. But unfortunately, for a
 variety of reasons, often to do with poverty, and sometimes to do with religion,
 they don't have enough animal products or colored vegetables or fruits to allow
 them to have normal vitamin A status.
 Why hasn't this been approved for consumption around the world?
 We are moving towards regulatory clearance of it, initially in the Philippines.
 There is a lot of politics around the technique of genetic modification, largely
 as a result of an international protocol agreed between nations back in 1992,
 when very little was known about genetic modification. And those regulations
 have resulted in national regulations within the scope of those international
 regulations, which creates some suspicion in certain populations about the
 technology. Why would you need to regulate it so much if it wasn't something to
 be concerned about? It's that kind of idea. That suspicion has allowed some
 groups who are opposed to the technology to build on that suspicion and cause
 political concern about the technology.
 Many international organizations - for example, the scientific academies of all
 of the major countries in the world - have come out and said there is no problem
 with genetic modification per se as a technology for either the health or the
 environment anywhere in the world.
 Many people are uncomfortable with issues of intellectual property protection,
 with issues of corporate control of food supplies, with issues of the
 possibility of creating new dependencies, especially in developing countries.
 And many people think genetic modification as a technique may be somehow a
 "Trojan horse" to allow private sector companies to create these new
 dependencies and control food supplies. This is a very narrow view of the
 technology and it is incorrect, but nevertheless some people hold to it.
 What is the next step?
 For the last four or five years, the project has been a breeding project,
 putting the Golden Rice trait into varieties of rice which are preferred by and
 grown in the conditions of Asia, which is where most of the Vitamin A
 deficiencies occur in rice-consuming populations. It is a fact of this project
 that there's no profit involved for anybody. It's a totally humanitarian
 project. The trait will be made available free of charge to those growers and
 consumers who want to have it available to them. And our initial work in
 developing countries has suggested that there is no concern in the populations
 that are affected by Vitamin A deficiency about either its color or its method
 of production. They're much more interested in providing their families with
 good nutrition. And for them, cost is very important.
 LOAD-DATE: October 15, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Journal
            Copyright 2010 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 854
 
                          Portland Press Herald (Maine)
                            October 13, 2010 Wednesday
                                  FINAL Edition
 Case for genetically altered salmon doesn't hold water
 BYLINE: Avery Yale Kamila Staff Writer
 SECTION: FOOD & DINING; Natural Foodie; Pg. E4
 LENGTH: 1360 words
 If you happened to catch my column last week, you'll recall that I wrote about
 the bid by biotech firm AquaBounty to get its fast-growing, genetically
 engineered Atlantic salmon approved by the Food and Drug Administration. I
 discussed the company's submission of sloppy research and the FDA's disregard of
 public comment on the matter.
 Since Maine is a traditional fishing state and Atlantic salmon are native to our
 waters, should this transgenic fish be green-lighted to enter our food supply
 and environment, it will impact our state directly.
 If approved, this would be the first genetically altered animal approved for
 human consumption.
 Today, I pick up where I left off by examining AquaBounty's claims that its
 transgenic fish is safe to eat, won't escape into the wild and will help solve
 world hunger.
 Do for-profit companies really care about the world's hungry?
 One of the main arguments AquaBounty makes in advocating for approval of its
 genetically altered salmon is that the fish, which has growth hormones spliced
 into its genetic code that force it to grow twice as fast as normal salmon, will
 help feed the world's hungry. Sounds like a laudable goal, but is it plausible?
 In her recently updated and reissued book ''Safe Food: The Politics of Food
 Safety'' (University of California Press), New York University nutrition
 scientist Marion Nestle writes, ''because developing countries lack a viable
 market for such products, few agricultural biotechnology companies can afford to
 invest in solutions to the food problems of the developing world.''
 Translation: For-profit companies are out to make a buck, and poor people (and
 their governments) don't have the cash to pay for high-tech food.
 Nestle goes on to talk about the much-hyped Golden Rice, a genetically
 engineered strain that its producer promises to cure Vitamin A deficiencies in
 the developing world. Nestle suggests that should the rice ever make it to
 market (which is a big if), it won't be a humanitarian gesture but a public
 relations ploy designed to gain consumer acceptance of genetically engineered
 foods and refute arguments that corporations only care about the bottom line.
 Is it reasonable to assume a new organism won't escape into the wild?
 AquaBounty has repeatedly claimed its salmon doesn't pose a threat to wild
 salmon because it will be raised in inland fish farms and will never escape.
 But fisheries experts disagree. The Penobscot East Resource Center in Stonington
 joined 24 other fisheries advocacy groups, including two others in Maine, in
 sending the FDA a letter opposing the approval of AquaBounty's salmon.
 ''Our mission is to secure the future for fishing communities in Eastern
 Maine,'' said Aaron Dority, who directs the organization's groundfish
 initiatives. ''And we see genetic engineering as a threat on a number of
 fronts.''
 Dority said the organization is concerned about the pollution that results from
 fish farms (basically a form of factory farming done in the water) and asserted
 that it will be ''only a matter of time'' before the altered fish escapes into
 the wild.
 The tendency for nature to wrangle out of human-imposed confines has been
 demonstrated numerous times with genetically modified food crops.
 John Jemison, a scientist who works with the University of Maine's Cooperative
 Extension and serves on the Maine Board of Pesticides Control, has conducted a
 number of field studies exploring how genetically engineered crops behave in the
 real world.
 In 2002, he published research in the AgBioForum journal exploring the
 likelihood of genetically engineered corn transferring its altered genes to
 non-GMO corn grown nearby. His research and similar studies show that gene
 transfers regularly take place.
 Bob St. Peter, who heads Food for Maine's Future, a group that advocates for
 local rather than corporate control of the food supply, noted that ''when you
 radically alter an organism and make it do something it doesn't do naturally,
 the consequences will be unforeseen. You have to assume at some point this
 salmon is going to enter the ecosystem.''
 Should we rely on corporations to determine what is safe?
 AquaBounty claims its salmon is safe to eat and fundamentally the same as wild
 salmon. But should we believe AquaBounty in the absence of independent
 scientific research?
 While scientists who receive compensation from the corporations that profit from
 genetically altered and patented food have done the bulk of the research on
 biotech food, the few independently funded studies paint a grim picture.
 In the book ''The Unhealthy Truth: One Mother's Shocking Investigation into the
 Dangers of America's Food Supply - and What Every Family Can Do to Protect
 Itself'' (Broadway), Robyn O'Brien conducts a thorough review of the independent
 research conducted on GMOs.
 At one point, O'Brien writes about the only human study conducted with
 genetically engineered soy and published in 2004 by the U.S. National Academy of
 Sciences. The study showed that portions of the altered gene in transgenic
 soybeans ''were transferred into the DNA of the bacteria that live in the human
 gut,'' O'Brien wrote.
 She goes on to write, ''as disturbing as the human study may be, I'm even more
 troubled by a 2005 animal study conducted by the Russian Academy of Sciences.
 Dr. Irina Ermakova discovered that more than half the offspring (55.6 percent)
 of rats fed on genetically modified soy died in the first three weeks of life.''
 This death rate compared to only 9 percent of rats fed conventional soy and 6.8
 percent of rats fed no soy, she wrote.
 Currently, the Grocery Manufacturers of America estimates that 70 to 80 percent
 of all processed foods sold in this country contain genetically engineered
 ingredients. Since the FDA does not require that these genetically manipulated
 foods be labeled, the only way to avoid them is to eat certified organic food.
 Despite this lack of labeling, many health and medical groups caution against
 the consumption of specific genetically engineered foods (such as milk
 containing genetically engineered bovine growth hormone) or recommend that
 people avoid all food containing foreign genes.
 One such organization arguing for complete avoidance of genetically modified
 food is the American Academy of Environmental Medicine.
 In its position paper on the topic, the academy writes: ''Several animal studies
 indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including
 infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes
 associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and
 protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal
 system.''
 Scientist Jemison argues for more independent research.
 ''We should be doing much more testing on all of this because there's bound to
 be unintended consequences,'' Jemison said. ''And we ought to ask the question:
 Just because we can do this, should we do it?''
 This conservative approach advocated by Jemison is in stark contrast to the
 current regulatory process, which follows more of a ''shoot first, ask questions
 later'' model.
 In contrast to how these issues have been handled in America, European countries
 have taken a more cautious approach in line with what Jemison sees as prudent.
 Many European countries ban the planting of specific GMO crops, and labels are
 required to alert consumers when foods contain genetically engineered
 ingredients.
 When I asked St. Peter why Europeans have taken a different approach to this
 risky food, he offered an interesting response.
 ''Countries in Europe tend to still have food traditions and cultures,'' St.
 Peter said. ''In this country, we have food culture, but it's a corporate,
 fast-food culture. So Europeans understand how these technologies threaten their
 traditional way of life. We're not really asking any questions because we've
 lost that connection to the food we eat.''
 Will AquaBounty's salmon become the latest example of America's unquestioning
 embrace of industrial food? Or will regulators finally decide we should look
 before we leap?
 Staff Writer Avery Yale Kamila can be contacted at 791-6297 or at:
 akamila@pressherald.com
 LOAD-DATE: October 13, 2010
 GRAPHIC: Press Herald file
 Is it reasonable to assume that genetically engineered salmon will never escape
 to interbreed with wild Atlantic salmon, shown here? Fisheries advocacy groups,
 including three in Maine, sent the FDA a letter opposing approval.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2010 MaineToday Media, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 855
 
                        The Virginian-Pilot(Norfolk, VA.)
                            September 27, 2010 Monday
                            The Virginian-Pilot Edition
 what's in my food? It doesn't start - or stop - with custom-made salmon f
 SECTION: FRONT; Pg. A13
 LENGTH: 995 words
 By Seth Borenstein and Malcolm Ritter
 The Associated Press
 WE'VE ALWAYS PLAYED with our food - even before we knew about genes or how to
 change them.
 For thousands of years, humans have practiced selective breeding - pairing the
 beefiest bull with the healthiest heifers to start a new herd. That concept was
 refined to develop plant hybridization and artificial insemination. Today we've
 got tastier corn on sturdier stalks, bigger turkeys and meatier cattle.
 Now comes an Atlantic salmon that is genetically engineered to grow twice as
 fast as a regular salmon. If U.S. regulators approve it, the fish would be the
 first such scientifically altered animal to reach the dinner plate.
 Scientists have already determined that it's safe to eat. They are weighing
 other factors, including environmental risks .
 Whatever the decision on salmon, it's only the start of things to come. In labs
 and on experimental farms are:
 * Vaccines and other pharmaceuticals grown in bananas and other plants.
 * Trademarked "Enviropigs," whose manure doesn't pollute as much.
 * Cows that don't produce methane in their flatulence.
 And in the far-off future, there may be foods built from scratch - the scratch
 being DNA.
 Sometimes when science tinkers with food, it works. Decades ago, Norman
 Borlaug's "Green Revolution" of scientifically precise hybrids led to bigger
 crop yields that have dramatically reduced hunger.
 Sometimes it flops. Anyone remember the Flavr Savr tomato? Probably not. It
 didn't taste good. But you might remember 10 years ago when genetically modified
 corn meant for animal feed wound up in taco shells?
 To the biotech world, precise tinkering with the genes in plants and animals is
 a proven way to reduce disease, protect from insects and increase the food
 supply to curb world hunger.
 To skeptics, genetic changes put the natural world and the food supply at risk.
 Modified organisms can escape into the wild or mingle with native species,
 potentially changing them, with unknown effects.
 Over the past 15 years, genetically engineered plants have been grown on more
 than 2 billion acres in more than 20 countries. Consumers eat genetically
 engineered plant products in large quantities in the United States , often in
 unlabeled products such as oils and processed foods.
 More than four-fifths of the soybean, corn and cotton acreage in the United
 States last year used genetically engineered crops, according to a 2010 National
 Academies of Sciences study.
 The report found that the crops allowed farmers to either reduce chemical
 spraying or to use less harmful chemicals. The crops also had lower production
 costs, higher output or extra convenience, benefits that generally outweighed
 the higher costs of the engineered seeds.
 The government until now has not considered allowing the consumption of modified
 animals. Although the potential benefits - and profits - are huge, many
 individuals have qualms about manipulating the genetic code of other living
 creatures.
 The fears surrounding genetically engineered foods sound similar to concerns
 about microwave ovens, which some people initially thought would give off
 dangerous radiation , says James Murray, a professor of animal sciences at the
 University of California at Davis . Murray is working on genetically modified
 goats as a way to produce milk that can fight devastating diarrhea in poor
 nations.
 With the world population predicted to surpass 9 billion before 2050,
 genetically engineered food is the only hope to avoid starvation, he says. That
 many people cannot be fed "using agriculture as it is right now," Murray says.
 "What is the cost to humanity if we do not use this technology?"
 Massachusetts company AquaBounty wants to market a genetically modified salmon
 that grows twice as fast as conventional salmon . The company says its fish
 product is safe and environmentally sustainable.
 Critics, however, call the modified salmon "frankenfish" that could cause
 allergies in humans and the eventual decimation of the wild salmon population.
 A Food and Drug Administration advisory committee was reviewing the science of
 the genetically engineered fish last week . The FDA has already said the salmon
 is as safe to eat as the traditional variety.
 AquaBounty argues that the fish would not need to be labeled as genetically
 engineered, so the average customer would not know if they were eating the
 modified or conventional product.
 If approved, the fish could be in grocery stores in two years, the company
 estimates.
 what it means
 Approval of the salmon would open the door for various other genetically
 engineered animals, including an environmentally friendly pig that is being
 developed in Canada or cattle that are resistant to mad cow disease.
 how it works
 AquaBounty has added a growth hormone from a Chinook salmon that allows the fish
 to produce their growth hormone all year long. The engineers were able to keep
 the hormone active by using another gene from an eel-like fish called an ocean
 pout that acts like an on switch for the hormone, according to the company.
 Conventional salmon produce the growth hormone only some of the time.
 the concerns
 Critics have two main concerns: The safety of the food to humans and the
 salmon's effect on the environment.
 Because the altered fish has never been eaten before, they say, it could include
 dangerous allergens, especially because seafood is highly allergenic. They also
 worry that the fish will escape and intermingle with the wild salmon population,
 which is already endangered. They would grow fast and consume more food to the
 detriment of the conventional wild salmon, the critics fear.
 AquaBounty officials say the salmon would be grown only in inland tanks or other
 contained facilities, not in ocean pens where they might escape into the wild.
 And the fish would all be female and sterile, making it impossible for them to
 mate.
 Sources: FDA, World Health Organization, The Associated Press, The New York
 Times
 LOAD-DATE: September 27, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2010 Landmark Communications, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 856
 
                               The Washington Post
                           September 23, 2010 Thursday
                                 Regional Edition
 Set the table;
 Let the FDA follow its rules on labeling and genetically engineered salmon.
 SECTION: EDITORIAL COPY; Pg. A26
 LENGTH: 465 words
 IF A GENETICALLY engineered salmon is cleared for America's supermarkets, it
 will be because of convincing evidence the fish is safe to eat and not harmful
 to the environment. Scientific review to date shows the fish to be
 indistinguishable from its traditional counterpart. So demands that the altered
 fish be required to carry a government label seem to be more an attempt to scare
 off consumers than an effort to provide necessary health or nutritional
 information. Clearly, there must be caution in approving the first genetically
 altered animal for human consumption, but government regulators should stick to
 their long-held, sensible rules about what information must be disclosed for the
 public good.
 The Food and Drug Administration is considering whether to approve a
 fast-growing salmon developed over the past two decades by a biotech company
 from Massachusetts. The AquAdvantage salmon has been modified to include a gene
 from the Chinook salmon and DNA from an eel-like fish so that it grows twice as
 fast as conventional salmon. The FDA recently concluded two days of public
 hearings, and the expectation -- based on data showing that the salmon pose no
 risks to humans or the environment -- is that it's just a matter of time before
 the fish will be marketed. What has emerged as the hot-button issue, as The
 Post's Lyndsey Layton reported, is labeling and the implications of that for
 other genetically engineered animal products likely to follow.
 A number of consumer groups pushing for mandatory labeling say that people have
 a right to know if the food they are eating comes from products that have been
 genetically modified. The not-so-subtle suggestion, of course, is that there is
 something different -- or even wrong -- with genetically modified food products,
 despite the science showing otherwise. The FDA's own rules say that once it is
 determined that a genetically modified food is not "materially significant" from
 naturally derived products, there is no reason to label it differently. Products
 from genetically modified crops, long permitted, do not carry special labels,
 nor does milk from cows given a growth hormone to produce more milk.
 The food labeling rules, which have been tested in the courts, are properly
 focused on safety and nutrition and not on aspects of production such as, say,
 whether the product is the result of artificial insemination or cross breeding.
 Voluntary labeling is allowed as long as it is not false or misleading, so
 producers of conventionally raised salmon can publicize that fact as long as
 they do so truthfully. Public comment is still being accepted by FDA officials,
 who say that they will study the record before issuing a ruling. They are right
 to be careful and to base their decision on proven facts, not unfounded fears.
 LOAD-DATE: September 23, 2010
 DISTRIBUTION: Maryland
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2010 The Washington Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 857
 
                          The Christian Science Monitor
                           September 22, 2010 Wednesday
 Frankenfish -- genetically modified salmon -- take food and ecology to a new
 level;
 The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) appears close to approving the
 'frankenfish' salmon. That raises all sorts of questions.
 BYLINE: the Monitor's Editorial Board
 LENGTH: 549 words
 Today, the "frankenfish" - a genetically modified salmon. Tomorrow, a
 "frankenpig"?
 Probably. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) appears likely to approve
 genetically altered Atlantic salmon for human consumption. The salmon's added
 genes allow it to grow to market size in half the time of wild salmon.
 Meanwhile, in Canada, a pig is being engineered to produce less harmful
 phosphorus waste.
 If the FDA approves of the fish, it will mark the first time a genetically
 manipulated animal would be allowed for human consumption in the United States.
 There's a lot to digest in that last sentence, including the moral aspects of
 changing the natural DNA of animals. Cloning is controversial enough; that
 science reproduces exact copies of animals. Genetic modification, or GM, goes a
 step further and changes the characteristics of a plant or animal.
 Warnings about this "Frankenstein" trend fall generally into two categories:
 food safety and impact on the environment. In the case of the GM salmon, critics
 worry that the fish could include dangerous allergens. They also worry about the
 possibility of escape into the greater environment, where the GM salmon would
 compete with endangered wild salmon for food.
 The FDA says there are no relevant differences in biology between GM salmon and
 the conventional kind for human consumption. In a meeting Monday, it said the GM
 fish shouldn't cause any additional allergies and that there is little chance
 they could escape. But an FDA advisory panel cast some doubt on whether there
 was enough evidence to affirm both those conclusions with surety.
 Documentation by the company that wants to introduce the new salmon, AquaBounty
 Technologies of Massachusetts, says the fish would be produced inland, with
 overlapping security layers to prevent them from spreading. One of those layers
 is the makeup of the fish themselves. They would be female and sterile.
 The US and other countries are well along the path to genetically altered food.
 Biotech crops - altered soybean, feed corn, cotton - are spreading rapidly
 around the world. In the US, about 75 percent of soybeans are genetically
 modified. China is working on a strain of rice that's more nutritious.
 GM crops resist insects and disease and produce higher yields for farmers. In a
 hungry world that has a growing population, this new generation of crops
 promises to feed more people. GM animals could offer similar benefits - cattle
 resistant to mad cow disease, and in the case of the GM salmon, a plentiful food
 source at a time when wild fish stocks are dwindling.
 And yet, the most innocent of motives can produce the most unintended of
 consequences. Invasive species - zebra mussels, Asian carp, snakehead fish -
 endanger the health of America's waters. Even AquaBounty acknowledges that "fish
 and insects are among the groups of organisms with a high degree of mobility and
 significant capacity to escape captivity and become feral."
 On the scientific level, this new type of food needs to be studied and very
 closely monitored before and after approval. The moral question is something. If
 the US proceeds with genetically altered animals, that argues for labeling that
 would allow individuals to make their own choice about such foods. For some,
 it's not merely a question of safety.
 LOAD-DATE: September 23, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
               Copyright 2010 Christian Science Publishing Society
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 858
 
                                Los Angeles Times
                           September 22, 2010 Wednesday
                                   Home Edition
 No agreement near on salmon labeling;
 FDA hearing is split over who should alert consumers that a fish is genetically
 altered.
 BYLINE: Andrew Zajac
 SECTION: MAIN NEWS; National Desk; Part A; Pg. 20
 LENGTH: 703 words
 Beyond sharp and predictable differences over whether genetically engineered
 salmon belongs in the food supply, a rough consensus emerged Tuesday at a Food
 and Drug Administration hearing on labeling requirements: If the fish is
 approved for market, consumersshould have a way to avoid it.
 The sticking point: Who should alert consumers that the fish has been
 genetically altered?
 The unusual hearingto collect public comment on potential labeling requirements
 followed a meeting Mondayat which a panel of outside experts generally seemed
 persuaded bythe FDA's preliminary conclusions that AquaBounty Technologies
 Inc.'s salmon issafeto eat and poses little risk to the environment. But the
 committeerecommendedmore study.
 Thecommittee's caution and the FDA's willingness to convene a meeting to
 discuss labeling -- which the agency says it's not required to do -- reflect the
 stakes:
 If approvedby the FDA, AquaBounty's salmon would be thecountry's first
 commercial genetically engineered food animal.
 Opponents insistedon a straightforward solution: Require that fish producers
 label thesalmon as genetically engineered.
 But FDA rules prohibit labeling food solely on the basis of how it was produced.
 The agency requires labeling only ofa "material difference"resulting from a
 production process, such as adifference in texture or nutrient content -- not
 the process itself.
 So far, theagency has notfound anydifferences that would requirethe
 AquaBounty salmon to be specially labeled.
 AquaBounty's salmon grows to market weight in half the time it takes ordinary
 salmon because it includes a gene from an eel-like creature that prompts it to
 grow during the winter as well as the summer. The company plans to market the
 eggs to fish farmers.
 Michael Landa, acting director of the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied
 Nutrition,said the agency was not seeking to change its labeling rules, but
 recognized that the unique nature of AquaBounty's application had generated
 intense interest.
 "We're presenting an opportunityfor people to explain to us if there are
 material differences, [and] if so, what they are and how they might be
 disclosed," Landa said.
 Elliot Entis, founder ofWaltham,Mass.-based AquaBounty,said a mandatory label
 would be unfair because consumers would interpret it as a warning.
 Entis said he supported voluntary labeling by producers whose fish is not
 genetically engineered.
 Patty Lovera of Food & Water Watch argued that voluntary labeling is needlessly
 complex andputs too much of a burden on consumers and producers of ordinary
 salmon.
 "It's a messy, messy area to put this on a voluntary labeling scheme," she said.
 Loveraand several other speakers said they disagreed withthe FDA's conclusion
 that the fish are essentially the sameand urged the agency to require a label
 specifying AquaBounty's engineered origins so consumers could decide whether or
 not to buy it.
 But the FDAsays consumer interestalone cannot determine label content.
 For example,in the 1990s, the FDA rejected demands by some consumer and farm
 groups torequire milk producers to disclose whether their milk came from cows
 givengenetically modified hormones. When some producerslabeled their milk
 hormone-free, the FDA required them to addthat the agency hadfound no
 difference in milk from treated and untreated cows.
 Bruce Chassy, a professor of food microbiology at the University of Illinois at
 Urbana-Champaign, said the FDA had no grounds to mandate a label for the
 AquaBounty salmon. Voluntarylabeling could effectively guide consumers, he
 said, as long as they arewilling tobear the cost in the form of potentially
 higher prices.
 "It's not free," he said at the hearing.
 Chassy said later that the FDA may settle on a labeling program similar to that
 used for milk: It could allow fish producers to label their salmon as
 non-genetically engineered as long as they included a disclaimerthat the FDA
 considers the altered fish nodifferent from ordinary salmon.
 Afinal decision on the salmon and its labeling appears tobe months away.
 Tuesday's hearing marked the beginning of a 60-day period forfurtherpublic
 comment on what the label should or shouldn't say.
 azajac@latimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: September 22, 2010
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO: FISH MARKET: So far the FDA has not found any significant
 difference between ordinary salmon, like this coho salmon, and a genetically
 altered type.  PHOTOGRAPHER:Elaine Thompson Associated Press
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                         Copyright 2010 Los Angeles Times
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 859
 
                         Lewiston Morning Tribune (Idaho)
                            September 21, 2010 Tuesday
 Genetically engineered salmon: Soon to be what's for dinner? :More testing may
 be needed before FDA gives approval
 LENGTH: 534 words
 WASHINGTON - Genetically engineered salmon that grows twice as fast as the
 conventional fish appears to be safe, an advisory committee told the Food and
 Drug Administration Monday. But they argued that more testing may be needed
 before it is served on the nation's dinner tables.
 If the FDA approves the sale of the salmon, it will be the first time the
 government allows such modified animals to be marketed for human consumption.
 The panel was convened by the agency to look at the science of the fish and make
 recommendations on its safety and environmental impact.
 Ron Stotish, chief executive of the Massachusetts company that created the
 salmon, AquaBounty, said at Monday's hearing that his company's fish product is
 safe and environmentally sustainable.
 FDA officials have largely agreed with him, saying that the salmon, which grows
 twice as fast as its conventional "sisters," is as safe to eat as the
 traditional variety. But they have not yet decided whether to approve the
 request.
 Critics call the modified salmon a "frankenfish" that could cause allergies in
 humans and the eventual decimation of the wild salmon population.
 Representatives from consumer, environmental and food safety groups asked the
 agency to decline the company's application to market the fish, saying it is
 untested.
 The advisory committee agreed with the FDA that the company has presented
 compelling evidence that the fish is safe. But members raised several concerns
 about the data, saying many of the sample sizes were too small and they
 questioned how healthy the fish will be after many years of breeding.
 It is still unclear whether the public will have an appetite for the fish if it
 is approved. Genetic engineering is already widely used for crops, but the
 government until now has not considered allowing the consumption of modified
 animals. Although the potential benefits - and profits - are huge, many people
 have qualms about manipulating the genetic code of other living creatures.
 Part of the hearing focuses on labeling of the fish. It is possible that if the
 modified salmon is approved, consumers would not even know they were eating it.
 Current FDA regulations require modified foods to be labeled as such only if the
 food is substantially different from the conventional version, and the agency
 has said that the modified salmon is essentially the same as the Atlantic
 salmon.
 If approved, the fish could be in grocery stores in two years, the company
 estimates.
 Approval would open the door for a variety of other genetically engineered
 animals, including a pig that is being developed in Canada or cattle that are
 resistant to mad cow disease. Each would have to be individually approved by the
 "For future applications out there, the sky's the limit," said David Edwards of
 the Biotechnology Industry Association. "If you can imagine it, scientists can
 try to do it."
 AquaBounty said it would be the first in the world to market genetically
 engineered fish. The company submitted its first application for FDA approval in
 1995, but the agency did not decide until two years ago to consider applications
 for genetically engineered animals - a move seen as a breakthrough by the
 biotechnology industry.
 LOAD-DATE: September 21, 2010
 GRAPHIC: No Caption: Vendor Taho Kakutania (left) playfully encourages tourist
 Anne Moral, of Tucson, Ariz., to kiss a coho salmon at the Pike's Place Fish
 Market Monday in Seattle. U.S. government food regulators pondered Monday
 whether to say, for the first time, it's OK to market a genetically engineered
 animal as safe for American people to eat. The Food and Drug Administration is
 conducting two days of hearings on a request to market genetically modified
 salmon.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2010 Tribune Publishing Co.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 860
 
                        The Virginian-Pilot(Norfolk, VA.)
                            September 21, 2010 Tuesday
                            The Virginian-Pilot Edition
 FDA asked to allow consumption of altered salmon
 SECTION: FRONT; Pg. A5
 LENGTH: 361 words
 By Mary Clare Jalonick
 The Associated Press
 Fish or frankenfish?
 A Massachusetts company wants to market a genetically engineered version of
 Atlantic salmon, and regulators are weighing the request. If approval is given,
 it would be the first time the government allowed such modified animals to join
 the foods that go onto the nation's dinner tables .
 Ron Stotish, chief executive of AquaBounty, said Monday during the first of two
 days of hearings that his company's fish product is safe and environmentally
 sustainable.
 Food and Drug Administration officials have largely agreed with him, saying that
 the salmon, which grows twice as fast as its conventional "sisters," is as safe
 to eat as the traditional variety. But they have not yet decided whether to
 approve the request.
 Critics call the modified salmon a "frankenfish" that could cause allergies in
 humans and the eventual decimation of the wild salmon population. An FDA
 advisory committee is reviewing the science of the genetically engineered fish
 this week and hearing such criticisms as the agency ponders approval.
 Whether the public will have an appetite for it is another matter. Genetic
 engineering is already widely used for crops, but the government until now has
 not considered allowing the consumption of modified animals. Although the
 potential benefits - and profits - are huge, many people have qualms about
 manipulating the genetic code of other living creatures.
 Part of the hearing is focusing on labeling of the fish. It is possible that if
 the modified salmon is approved, consumers would not even know they were eating
 it. Current FDA regulations require modified foods to be labeled as such only if
 the food is substantially different from the conventional version, and the
 agency has said that the modified salmon is essentially the same as the Atlantic
 salmon.
 If approved, the fish could be in grocery stores in two years, the company
 estimates.
 Approval would open the door for a variety of other genetically engineered
 animals, including a pig that is being developed in Canada or cattle that are
 resistant to mad cow disease. Each would have to be individually approved by the
 LOAD-DATE: September 21, 2010
 GRAPHIC: AquaBounty Technologies via the associated press Above are a
 genetically engineered salmon, rear, and a true salmon. Critics say the modified
 salmon could lead to the eventual decimation of the wild salmon population.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2010 Landmark Communications, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 861
 
                               The Washington Post
                            September 21, 2010 Tuesday
                                  Met 2 Edition
 Fears over modified salmon voiced
 BYLINE: Lyndsey Layton
 SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A04
 LENGTH: 794 words
 Environmental organizations, consumer groups and independent researchers
 assailed the plans of a Massachusetts company to market the first genetically
 modified animal as food in the United States - an Atlantic salmon - and argued
 at a public meeting Monday that federal regulators should deny permission.
 "Science cannot prove that this new gene-spliced salmon is safe for human
 consumption over a long period of time," said Darrell Rogers of the Alliance for
 Natural Health. "This recklessly and needlessly endangers human health."
 He made the comments at a meeting of a panel of experts convened by the Food and
 Drug Administration, which is poised to make a landmark decision that could mark
 a turning point in the way American food is produced.
 AquaBounty, the company seeking permission to market the fish in the United
 States, wants to incubate genetically modified eggs in Prince Edward Island,
 Canada, then ship them in plastic coolers to Panama. There they would be raised
 in land-based tanks and eventually processed before being transported to the
 United States for sale.
 In developing its fish, AquaBounty took an Atlantic salmon and inserted a growth
 hormone gene from a Chinook salmon as well as an "antifreeze" gene from the
 ocean pout, a large, eel-like species. The result is a genetically modified fish
 that can grow to market size in 18 months instead of three years, according to
 AquaBounty. That means farmers can speed production and increase yields, the
 company said.
 The advisory panel did not vote on the matter, but individual members offered a
 range of comments - sometimes conflicting - after two days of testimony from
 AquaBounty, the FDA and the public.
 Gregory Jaffe, a panel member who is the biotechnology director at the Center
 for Science in the Public Interest, said the committee did not find any fatal
 flaws in the application.
 "In some areas, we said we need more information to do the analysis," Jaffe
 said. "I think the agency is going to take its time with this, but I anticipate
 at some point this will be approved by the FDA."
 A separate panel will meet Tuesday to discuss whether the FDA should require
 labeling on the modified salmon. The FDA commissioner will decide both matters,
 but it is unclear when.
 AquaBounty, which first applied to the FDA for permission to sell its fish in
 1995, says the modified fish is identical to the Atlantic salmon except for the
 speed of its growth.
 FDA scientists who reviewed the company's application agreed. "AquAdvantage
 salmon is Atlantic salmon," said Kathleen Jones, an FDA scientist. "AquAdvantage
 salmon is as safe as food from any other Atlantic salmon."
 Agency scientists also agreed with AquaBounty's assertion that the modified fish
 would not pose a threat to the environment.
 "The likelihood that these fish could escape and reproduce and establish
 themselves is extremely small," said Eric Silberhorn of the FDA, noting that the
 fish would be raised in physically contained tanks and would be sterile females,
 unable to mate.
 Critics said the company had not proved that the fish was safe for humans or the
 environment.
 "If you tried to publish this information in a peer-reviewed journal, it would
 be rejected," said Anne Kapuscinski, a professor at Dartmouth College and an
 international expert on the safety of genetically modified organisms.
 She said that AquaBounty's application was built on "overly simplistic claims"
 and that the FDA had not thoroughly analyzed the impact of a modified salmon if
 it escaped into the ocean.
 "There are always human errors or equipment failures, and you have to analyze
 what would happen under those circumstances," Kapuscinski said.
 Ron Stotish, the chief executive  of AquaBounty, said his company had spent $60
 million and 10 years developing and studying the AquAdvantage salmon. "The data
 we supplied adequately supports our application," he said. "Any fair-minded
 person would find this to be fairly complete."
 Several public speakers argued that the FDA's approval process is not designed
 to handle the complexities of genetically engineered organisms. The agency is
 treating the application for AquAdvantage salmon as if it were a new veterinary
 drug, which means that the   deliberations are taking place behind closed doors
 and that AquaBounty can say much of the research and other supporting data it
 supplies to the agency is confidential.
 The pending decision is being carefully tracked by biotechnology companies that
 have invested millions of dollars in developing other genetically modified food
 animals and are next in line behind AquaBounty, waiting for the FDA to act on
 their requests for approval. The U.S. already permits genetically modified
 plants, such as corn and soybean.
 laytonl@washpost.com
 LOAD-DATE: October 15, 2010
 DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2010 The Washington Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 862
 
                            Palm Beach Post (Florida)
                            September 19, 2010 Sunday
 Massive floods renew debate on building dam on Indus River
 SECTION: A SECTION; Pg. 2A
 LENGTH: 525 words
 This summer's floods in Pakistan have reopened a quarter-century-old debate on
 whether to build a large hydroelectric dam on the Indus River, a dispute that
 has split the nation along regional lines. Supporters say the water reservoir
 could have prevented much of the floods' devastation and boosted agricultural
 production along the river. Opponents say just the opposite.
 The debate over the Kalabagh Dam shows how the worst natural disaster in
 Pakistan's history, affecting about 20 million people, has unearthed deep
 fissures in its society. There is a chronic mistrust among Pakistan's four
 provinces and the central government, and critics accuse wealthy landowners of
 naked self-interest in wanting to ensure that the Indus keeps irrigating their
 crops.
 FDA advisers to vote on genetically altered salmon
 In a step that may move genetically engineered meat and fish closer to the
 American dinner table, an FDA advisory committee will vote Monday on whether to
 approve preliminary findings that a modified salmon is as safe as an ordinary
 salmon.
 The vote is not binding on the FDA, but approval would lend powerful support for
 a final decision by the agency charged with protecting the nation's food and
 drug supplies. The fish, a North Atlantic salmon developed by AquaBounty
 Technologies Inc., would be the country's first genetically engineered food
 animal.
 It grows to market size in half the time of other salmon.
 6 church members killed when van flips on Thruway
 A passenger van carrying members of a church flipped over on the New York State
 Thruway on Saturday, killing at least six people and injuring eight others,
 authorities said.
 Fourteen people were in the van when it crashed on the northbound side of
 Interstate 87 in Woodbury, about 55 miles north of New York City, at about 3
 p.m.
 The right rear tire blew out on the 1997 van, and the vehicle went into a rumble
 strip and rolled over into the grassy median separating the northbound and
 southbound lanes. Some of the passengers were ejected, and the van came to a
 rest upside-down.
 Man sues gas company over deadly explosion
 A resident of the neighborhood evacuated by a deadly gas line explosion in San
 Bruno is suing Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
 Steve Dare filed the lawsuit on Friday. He says the company should turn over a
 $100 million recovery fund for blast victims to a third party and pay other
 monetary damages.
 PG&E spokesman Paul Moreno said he didn't know if the company had been served
 yet, so he couldn't comment on the lawsuit.
 The blast on Sept. 9 destroyed nearly 40 homes and claimed at least four lives.
 Activists protest shooting of knife-wielding immigrant
 Demonstrators mounted a peaceful rally Saturday that began near the spot where a
 Los Angeles police officer shot a Guatemalan immigrant who was carrying a knife.
 Authorities said there were no arrests and no confrontations during the march,
 which drew about 250 people to the Rampart area west of downtown. Many carried
 flags from Central American countries and placards decrying the Sept. 5 death of
 Manuel Jaminez.
 -- Palm Beach Post wire services
 LOAD-DATE: September 21, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2010 The Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 863
 
                               The Washington Post
                            September 7, 2010 Tuesday
                                  Met 2 Edition
 FDA nears approval as food of genetically altered salmon
 BYLINE: Lyndsey Layton
 SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A04
 LENGTH: 895 words
 The Food and Drug Administration is poised to approve the first genetically
 modified animal for human consumption, a highly anticipated decision that is
 stirring controversy and could mark a turning point in the way American food is
 produced.
 FDA scientists gave a boost last week to the Massachusetts company that wants
 federal approval to market a genetically engineered salmon, declaring that the
 altered salmon is safe to eat and does not pose a threat to the environment.
 "Food from AquAdvantage Salmon . . . is as safe to eat as food from other
 Atlantic salmon," the FDA staff wrote in a briefing document. Those findings
 will be presented Sept. 19 to a panel of scientific experts that will advise top
 officials at the FDA whether to approve the altered salmon. The panel is holding
 two days of meetings to hear from FDA staff members, the company behind
 AquAdvantage and the public.
 AquAdvantage is an Atlantic salmon that has been given a gene from the ocean
 pout, an eel-like fish, which allows the salmon to grow twice as fast as a
 traditional Atlantic salmon. It also contains a growth hormone from a Chinook
 salmon.
 AquaBounty, the Massachusetts company that first applied to the FDA for
 permission to sell its fish in 1995, said the modified fish is identical to the
 Atlantic salmon, except for the speed of its growth.
 "We've been studying this fish for more than 10 years," said Ronald L. Stotish,
 the company's president and chief executive. "In characteristics, physiology,
 behavior, this is an Atlantic salmon. It looks like an Atlantic salmon. It
 tastes like an Atlantic salmon."
 The team of scientists at the FDA that reviewed AquaBounty's application seems
 to agree. "We have found no biologically relevant difference between food from
 [AquaBounty salmon] and conventional Atlantic salmon," the briefing document
 said.
 But independent scientists, consumer groups and environmental organizations are
 concerned about both the pending decision and the process that the FDA uses to
 determine whether the genetically modified fish is safe for human health and the
 environment.
 The agency is evaluating the fish as if it were a new veterinary drug, which
 means that the FDA's deliberations are behind closed doors and that AquaBounty
 can claim much of the research and other supporting data it supplies to the FDA
 is confidential.
 "Critical information about the whole process has been kept from the public and
 organizations that focus on these issues," said Wenonah Hauter, executive
 director of Food and Water Watch, part of a coalition of 31 organizations and
 restaurant chefs that is demanding that the FDA deny approval of the altered
 fish. "There's a transparency problem."
 Siobhan DeLancey, an FDA spokeswoman, said the agency is following rules. "We do
 have obligations under the regulations to protect company confidential
 information," she said.
 Hauter and other critics said the information shield makes it difficult for
 independent scientists to thoroughly analyze claims by AquaBounty or the FDA
 staff that the altered fish poses no long-term risk to human health or the
 environment.
 Consumer groups and environmental organizations are particularly concerned that
 AquAdvantage Salmon could escape their fish farms to threaten the wild salmon
 population, which is severely endangered, Hauter said.
 Anne Kapuscinski, a professor at Dartmouth College and an expert on the safety
 of genetically modified organisms, said she is uncertain how well the FDA is
 able to assess the risks to the natural world that may be posed by an organism
 created in a laboratory.
 "If you put the top scientific researchers in this area into a room, they would
 have to work very hard together to figure out the conclusion for ecological
 risk," Kapuscinski said. "This is very, very complex."
 The pending decision is being tracked by biotechnology companies that have
 invested millions of dollars in developing genetically modified animals for food
 and are waiting for FDA approval.
 Scientists at the University of Guelph in Ontario have asked the FDA to approve
 their "Enviropig," a hog genetically altered to produce environmentally friendly
 manure. Hematech of Sioux Falls, S.D., is developing genetically modified cows
 that are resistant to mad cow disease.
 The United States has approved genetically modified plants such as corn and
 soybean.
 The fish decision is expected to reverberate beyond the United States."If these
 genetically engineered salmon are approved, it will be setting worldwide
 precedent because salmon is a global commodity," Kapuscinski said. "It will be
 the first genetically engineered animal approved for human consumption and for
 wide-scale farming."
 In developing its fish, AquaBounty took an Atlantic salmon and inserted a growth
 hormone gene from a Chinook salmon as well as an "antifreeze" gene from the
 ocean pout.
 Conventional salmon stop growing in cold weather and grow very slowly in the
 first year of life. But the pout's antifreeze gene allows the salmon to produce
 growth hormones all year, and the genetically modified fish can grow to market
 size in 18 months instead of three years, AquaBounty said. That means farmers
 can speed production and increase yields, the company said.
 Stotish said the genetically modified fish can become a sustainable source of
 food for an exploding global population.
 laytonl@washpost.com
 LOAD-DATE: October 15, 2010
 DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2010 The Washington Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 864
 
                                The New York Times
                               July 30, 2010 Friday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Cloned Livestock Gain A Foothold in Europe
 BYLINE: By JAMES KANTER
 SECTION: Section B; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 3
 LENGTH: 1137 words
 ALBRIGHTON, England -- Many Europeans recoil at the very idea of cloning
 animals. But a handful of breeders in Switzerland, Britain and possibly other
 countries have imported semen and embryos from cloned animals or their progeny
 from the United States, seeking to create more consistently plump and productive
 livestock.
 And although no vendor has publicly acknowledged it, meat or dairy products
 originating from such techniques are believed to be already on supermarket
 shelves.
 The amounts are no doubt small, and the sale appears to be legal. But the
 development is noteworthy on a continent that has long objected to genetically
 modified crops and where many people look at animal cloning as potentially
 dangerous and cruel -- even immoral.
 ''Although no safety concerns have been identified so far with meat produced
 from cloned animals, this technique raises serious issues about animal welfare,
 reduction of biodiversity, as well as ethical concerns,'' Corinne Lepage, a
 French member of the European Parliament, said this month before a vote there in
 favor of a blanket ban.
 In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration declared in 2008 that
 food from cloned cattle, pigs, goats and their progeny was safe to eat. (Cloned
 sheep were left off the list, but their progeny were declared O.K.) The
 Agriculture Department, however, has asked farmers to voluntarily keep all
 direct clones out of the food supply for an unspecified period so it can manage
 a ''smooth and orderly'' transition to market.
 In Europe, government officials say that anyone who wanted to market meat or
 dairy products from clones would need to seek permission under the European
 Union's ''novel foods'' regulations, which were generally meant to cover newly
 developed ingredients. So far, no one has.
 Meat and dairy products from the offspring of clones, however, currently receive
 no prior assessment or approval.
 The Swiss Federal Office of Public Health reported in a relatively obscure part
 of its Web site that ''dairy products and meat derived from such animals have
 probably been used in food, then sold in Switzerland.''
 ''Other countries in Europe face the same situation,'' it said.
 The technique has even infiltrated one of the Continent's most ancient
 traditions: in May, one of Spain's grandest breeders produced the first cloned
 fighting bull.
 ''It's absolutely historic, and it's remarkable that we achieved this with the
 symbol of Spain,'' said Julio Cesar Diez, a veterinarian who worked on the
 project.
 Got, as the bull was named, will never face a matador -- or end up on a dinner
 plate. He is expected to spend his life a stud, siring other bulls for the ring
 for the Guardiola family, which has bred the Pedraja line of bulls in the region
 of Seville for several generations.
 At today's prices, the family could expect to make around 1.5 million euros ($2
 million) from selling the bulls that Got fathers -- naturally -- during his
 lifetime.
 Much bigger stakes are in sight for the meat and dairy industry, which argues
 that cloning can give more farmers access to star animals with leaner meat,
 bigger milking potential and enhanced disease resistance.
 Far from being outlandish, they say, cloning is among a number of breeding
 techniques that are becoming mainstays of the industry.
 Europeans already are deeply involved in related businesses that have grown
 rapidly in recent years as breeders seek the most productive animals. Some of
 the biggest cattle genetics companies and cooperatives in the world -- including
 Alta Genetics, CRV, Genus and Viking Genetics -- are European-owned.
 Fierce public opposition has limited the use of cloning in Europe, however,
 leaving producers fearful of falling behind competitors in the United States and
 elsewhere.
 ''We mustn't build up a fortress against cloning and the offspring of clones,''
 said Arnaud Petit, a director at Copa-Cogeca, the largest European association
 of farmers and cooperatives. ''We have to produce more food with fewer resources
 and less impact on the environment, and cloning could be one of the ways
 forward.''
 This month, the European Parliament voted to ban the sale of meat and dairy from
 cloned animals and from the offspring of clones.
 But European governments -- weary from battles over genetically modified crops
 -- are wary of fomenting a new trade war with major agricultural trading
 partners like Argentina, Brazil and the United States.
 They will begin negotiating in September with Parliament members to finish the
 rules.
 In the last three years in Britain, farmers used imported embryos to produce at
 least three animals. But that prompted a storm of criticism in the national
 media, while opponents of cloning warned that foods were about to appear in
 supermarkets without proper safety checks.
 An employee at Humphreston Farm, near Birmingham -- the farm at the center of
 that storm -- said the owners, Michael and Oliver Eaton, had since sold their
 herd and were growing crops instead.
 The employee, who would not give his name, said the Eaton family did not want to
 comment on what had happened to their cows bred from clones.
 Another British dairy farmer said he was using milk from a cow bred from a clone
 as part of his daily production. He also said he was selling embryos from the
 same cow to breeders in Canada.
 The farmer insisted on anonymity, saying that the British public regarded
 cloning as so distasteful that buyers would stop taking his milk.
 He also said that he did not want to be required to get rid of a valuable cow.
 His activities appear to be at odds with the position of the British Department
 for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. A spokeswoman for the department said
 last week that, as far as officials were aware, no meat or dairy from the
 offspring of clones bred from imports of semen or embryo had entered the food
 chain in Britain.
 In Switzerland, famous for its cheese and chocolates, the government says
 ''several hundred'' cattle that are second- or third-generation descendants of
 clones are in the country. It notes, however, that that is a ''very low''
 percentage of the 1.5 million head of cattle there.
 The race to produce the first cloned fighting bulls in Spain initially involved
 two rival teams. But ViaGen, a large biotechnology company based in Texas, has
 slowed down its efforts in Spain, citing the controversy over the procedure in
 Europe.
 ''We just didn't want to rock any boats,'' said ViaGen's president, Mark Walton.
 Yet Mr. Cesar Diez, who performed the insemination that led to Got, said he
 expected clones and their offspring to become more common in a few years for
 livestock farmers in Europe because of the growing demand for high-quality meat
 at affordable prices.
 ''When you can select animals that produce so much more meat per kilo of grain
 feed, the logic of cloning is inevitable,'' he said.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: July 30, 2010
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Julio Cesar Diez, a veterinarian who oversaw the insemination
 process, with Got, a cloned bull, in Palencia, Spain.  (PHOTOGRAPH BY CARLOS
 LUJaN FOR THE INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE)
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 865
 
                         The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
                              July 27, 2010 Tuesday
                                   Main Edition
 Heirloom fundamentalists go too green
 BYLINE: George Ball; For the AJC
 SECTION: OPINION; Pg. 11A
 LENGTH: 892 words
 Today, greener-than-thou gardeners crusade for heirloom seeds while unjustly
 condemning hybrids. Increasingly, their anti-science credo has hardened into a
 Luddite fundamentalism, resulting in confusion among the public between hybrids
 and genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. Clearly, the hybrid versus heirloom
 imbroglio is about more than the quest for the biggest, most delicious tomato.
 As a third-generation seedsman, I can lend balance to this lopsided debate. My
 company, W. Atlee Burpee, has provided American gardeners with heirloom seeds
 since 1876 and introduced hybrid seeds to American home gardens in 1934. Since
 Burpee's hybrid and heirloom sales are roughly 50-50, I'm 100 percent in favor
 of both heirlooms and hybrids.
 Starting in the late 1940s, hybrid seed --- one of mankind's greatest
 achievements --- transformed agriculture. The "Green Revolution," the adoption
 of hybrids by developing nations, boosted wheat, rice and corn harvests ---
 multiplying yields up to tenfold.
 Hybrids saved millions of people from famine, dramatically lowered food prices,
 and helped turn countries dependent on food imports into net exporters.
 On the home front, hybrid vegetables transformed backyard gardening from a chore
 into a pleasure abounding with the proverbial bushels of zucchinis and tomatoes.
 Many of today's heirlooms were once market varieties before to the advent of the
 supermarket; others were regional, from either families or communities such as
 the Amish. Heirloom devotees are justly smitten with their storybook heritage,
 relative rarity and unusual flavor.
 But when it comes to garden performance, heirlooms prove no match for hybrids.
 The cachet-free, hard-working hybrids remain "old faithfuls" for the majority of
 American gardeners. Indeed, in blind taste tests, many home garden hybrids
 triumph over heirlooms.
 What heirlooms may lack in productivity and hardiness, they make up in mystique.
 True believers overlook their decreased output, lower disease resistance, and
 --- unless they buy heirlooms each year --- laborious seed-saving chores. But
 they go astray when their passion for heirlooms blinds them to the virtues of
 hybrids.
 Increasingly, nongovernmental organizations and activists are encouraging Third
 World farmers, in Haiti and elsewhere, to grow heirlooms in lieu of hybrids. By
 so doing, they are putting their sophisticated personal tastes and aesthetics
 before the life and death needs of the farmers and their communities --- people
 for whom a poor harvest can be a death sentence. This is nouveau imperialism at
 its most pernicious: "Let them eat heirlooms."
 Yet hybrids have as much history behind them as heirlooms. Farmers and native
 peoples have been refining and improving seed stock for millennia, selecting the
 best plants and jettisoning the clunkers.
 Moreover, due to natural cross-pollination and mutations caused by solar
 radiation, the genetic makeup of the world's plants is ever changing. Evolution
 never sleeps.
 Without human intervention beginning 10,000 or so years ago, the tomatoes,
 peppers and other produce we enjoy today would be inedible, even toxic. For
 example, tech-savvy Native Americans progressively wrought extraordinary
 improvements in corn and potatoes --- now global staples. Gregor Mendel's
 discovery of genetics in 1866 enabled humanity to fulfill these ancestral
 struggles to develop ever greater food quality and supply. In short, hybrids are
 improved heirlooms.
 In contrast to sterile GMO laboratories, hybrid seed production, created by hand
 in the outdoors, is about as high-tech as knitting. Hybrid research is highly
 creative, yet little different from what nature does on its own, combining and
 recombining plants' genes.
 Spurred by Mendel's work, natural processes are accelerated in both test gardens
 and winter greenhouses. Breeders work within the plant's genetic system --- not
 outside it. Plus, hybridizers reproduce their plants sexually, while GMO
 scientists insert DNA into clones. To conflate hybrids with GMOs, as many do, is
 like mistaking an abacus for a supercomputer.
 As for environmental impact, hardy and disease-resistant hybrids require fewer
 chemical inputs, less water and smaller space. Since they are higher yielding,
 hybrids reduce habitat destruction in the Third World. You can achieve the same
 harvest on a quarter as much land.
 Finally, contrary to public opinion, genetic diversity is actually enhanced by
 hybridization. Plant breeders widen available genes by both crossing with wild
 species and coaxing forth traits already present in domesticated cultivars.
 Ironically, while expressing unique characteristics, heirlooms, being inbreds,
 possess narrower gene pools.
 Therefore, public institutions and private companies, including Burpee, preserve
 them in seed vaults. By nature, heirlooms exist at a genetic dead end. You can
 see similar situations in wild animals, livestock and pets. Nevertheless, some
 heirloom plants possess great virtues such as novel colors and flavors. We don't
 have to lose our heirloom past in order to claim our hybrid future.
 It's time for gardeners to stop slinging mulch and return to the pleasures and
 rewards of gardening. There's plenty of room in the vegetable patch for both
 heirlooms and hybrids.
 George Ball is past president of The American Horticultural Society and chairman
 of W. Atlee Burpee & Co.
 LOAD-DATE: July 27, 2010
 GRAPHIC: Photo: Jon Krause NewsArt /ImageData*
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspapers
                 Copyright 2010 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution









Document Number: 866
 
                           Sacramento Bee (California)
                             July 21, 2010 Wednesday
 Gene-spliced salmon could be on plates soon
 BYLINE: Lulu Liu lliu@sacbee.com
 SECTION: LIVING HERE; Pg. D1
 LENGTH: 1310 words
 Scientists call it a "transgenic" fish. The company that created it calls it
 "AquAdvantage." Consumer activists are calling it "Frankenfish."
 And you may soon be calling it dinner.
 After a decade of deliberation, the federal government is considering giving its
 seal of approval to a genetically engineered salmon made by a Massachusetts
 biotech company.
 It would look, taste and smell no different from ordinary salmon. But will
 restaurants serve it? Will markets sell it? More important, will we eat it?
 This novel organism, which has an "all-fish" modified genetic code, matures at
 twice the rate of conventional salmon but is in other ways indistinguishable
 from its wild counterparts. Before the year is up, it may become the first
 genetically modified animal to be approved for human consumption.
 Scientists created the first of these fast-growing fish in 1992 by inserting the
 growth hormone gene of a chinook salmon into the DNA sequence of newly
 fertilized Atlantic salmon eggs. To activate the gene, they tacked on a "switch"
 from a fish called the ocean pout, which, unlike the natural growth hormone
 regulator of the salmon, stays on all year long.
 These fish grew quickly. Though their mature size did not differ from those of
 conventional salmon, they reached it in half the time. Scientists saw the
 potential in these fish immediately.
 "If you can get an animal to grow twice as fast, you'll save on maintenance, and
 you'll save on feed," said Alison van Eenennaam of the University of California,
 Davis, a specialist in animal biotechnology. For farmers, the ability to produce
 more fish with a smaller environmental footprint can only be a good thing, she
 said. It's a sustainable choice many are expected to make.
 But they've had to wait for the fish to be approved for human consumption. Not
 until 1998 did the Food and Drug Administration draft a framework for the
 regulation of genetically modified animals.
 "Interestingly, with transgenic animals, the decision was to treat them like new
 drugs," said UC Davis professor and biotechnology program director Martina
 Newell-McGloughlin.
 Under the drug provisions, the FDA must assess the health of the animals in
 question, characterize the nutritional content of their consumer products (meat
 or milk, for example), rule out the potential for an allergic or toxic reaction
 in humans, and evaluate environmental risks. The FDA has been reviewing the
 AquAdvantage salmon for 13 years.
 On the other hand, we've been eating genetically engineered plants since 1994.
 So why is it taking so long with the fish?
 "Animals are a whole other level of complexity," said Newell-McGloughlin.
 Certainly, with animals, the "eek"-factor goes way up, she said.
 "When you modify an organism, that's very different from modifying a plant --
 you're modifying a sentient being," said Chris Waldrop, director of the Food
 Policy Institute at the Consumer Federation of America.
 Consumers suspicious Sacramento resident Matthew Christy is a regular at the
 Natural Foods Co-op on Alhambra Boulevard and was picking up groceries recently
 around lunch time. He admits that biotech products might hold some promise, but
 he's wary of the technology and said, "it would take a lot" before he'd eat
 genetically modified fish.
 "I've got a lot of suspicion of corporations and their practices," he said.
 Stacie Traylor, assistant marketing manager of the co-op, said the store will
 not stock AquAdvantage salmon.
 "We wouldn't even consider it," she said. "It goes against the grain of what
 we're all about, which is natural foods and products."
 Really, said van Eenennaam, the expert in animal biotechnology, agriculture
 stopped being natural centuries ago. Since Roman times, farmers have bred plants
 and animals to maximize desirable traits -- and minimize other characteristics.
 "If you let a dairy cow go up (on) Mount Shasta, she'd last about two minutes,"
 she said. "That's not what she's optimized for."
 A long history of tweaking the things we eat using conventional methods like
 selective breeding and crop irradiation to generate random mutations has brought
 us the seedless watermelon and the Belgian Blue cow, an animal bred for a
 mutation that results in extra-lean meat.
 All change brings risk Van Eenennaam argues that conventional methods and
 genetic engineering both carry certain amounts of risk.
 "When you're a fish farmer doing conventional breeding," van Eenennaam said.
 "You have 3 billion base-pairs of DNA and you're selecting for 'big.' You don't
 care how you get there ... so you might bring along other genes."
 These other genes might cause us harm, but foods produced by these methods are
 unregulated by the FDA.
 "If the salmon were just bred conventionally for increased hormone production,
 they'd be on your plate already," Newell- McGloughlin said.
 But when scientists move genes from one animal into another, she said, we get
 the willies.
 David Ropeik is an instructor at Harvard University and author of "How Risky Is
 It Really? Why Our Fears Don't Always Match the Facts" (McGraw-Hill, $24.95, 288
 pages). He said he believes skepticism toward genetic engineering has an
 emotional root.
 "The perception of risk is not strictly based on the facts. It's based on how
 those facts feel to us," he said.
 Rarely do we have all the data before we need to make a judgment, so we use what
 he calls "psychological patterns" to evaluate risk.
 Natural vs. man-made is one of those patterns. There's also distrust ("Is the
 FDA keeping us safe?"), loss-aversion ("Is it worth it?") and voluntary vs.
 involuntary risk ("Do I get to choose?").
 Traditionally, the FDA has resisted requiring mandatory labeling of genetically
 modified foods if nutritional content is unaltered. Ropeik believes that for
 consumers to accept these products, they need a choice.
 Longtime Sacramento resident and former chef Mike Campo said he has no problem
 with genetically engineered fish, but he's happy that there are options.
 "It's a personal choice," he said. "I'm not against it myself. I think it will
 help feed a lot of hungry people."
 Indeed, the promise of genetically altered salmon is sustainability. Ninety
 percent of the oceans' large fish are gone, said Neil Sims, co-founder of Kona
 Blue Water Farms in Hawaii.
 "It's what we've done with most of our seafood," he said. "We've simply loved it
 to death."
 Modifying our food and fiber AquaBounty Technologies based in Waltham, Mass.,
 has created a genetically modified salmon that grows twice as fast as
 conventional salmon. The FDA is considering approving it for human consumption.
 It would be the first genetically engineered animal approved as food.
 Some of the modified products that have previously received the OK from the FDA:
 Genetically engineered Alfalfa (no longer grown) Canola (rapeseed) Cantaloupe
 Corn Cotton Flax Hawaiian papaya Potato Radish Rice Soybeans Sugar beet Sugar
 cane Squash Tomato (no longer sold)
 Radiation-mutated Apples Bananas Barley Chocolate Citrus Cotton Ruby red
 grapefruit Rice Peaches Pears Peas Peanuts Yams Potatoes Quinoa Sesame Soybean
 Wheat
 What's next? Animals in line for FDA approval: * Enviropigs able to digest plant
 phosphorus, for more environmentally friendly manure * Cows resistant to mad cow
 disease * Cows resistant to mastitis * Pork with omega-3 fatty acids
 What the terms mean * Genetic engineering/modification: Direct manipulation of
 an organism's genome by insertion, deletion, or relocation of pieces of DNA. *
 Transgenic organism: An organism with an altered DNA that incorporates genes
 from other species. * Radiation-induced mutations: Random changes in an
 organism's DNA caused by exposure to high-energy X-rays or gamma rays. Radiation
 breeding uses this technique to generate desirable traits in crops.
 Sources: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
 AquaBounty Technologies
 Call The Bee's Lulu Liu, (916) 321-1155.
 LOAD-DATE: July 21, 2010
 GRAPHIC: Barrett & MacKay Photography
 The Food and Drug Administration has reviewed the AquAdvantage salmon for 13
 years.
 HENRY CLIFFORD / AquAdvantage Salmon eggs -- each with altered DNA -- are
 incubated at an AquAdvantage facility.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2010 McClatchy Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 867
 
                         The York Dispatch (Pennsylvania)
                             July 14, 2010 Wednesday
 SUPERMARKET SAMPLER: Regional flavors or clich?
 LENGTH: 1017 words
 Lay's All-Natural Region al Potato Chips. Tangy Car olina BBQ, Balsamic Sweet
 Onion, Garden Tomato & Basil, Southwest Cheese & Chiles, Pepper Relish, and
 Cajun Herb & Spice. $3.99 per 10.5-ounce bag.
 Bonnie: Frito-Lay considered 57 regional cuisine flavors before whittling those
 down to the six introduced in this new line of mostly regionally available
 chips. The new flavors purportedly celebrate some of the best cuisine from
 around our nation, from the Pacific Northwest's Balsamic Sweet Onion to the
 Northeast's Pepper Relish, with -- my favorite -- the Southeast's Cajun Herb &
 Spice.
 The Pepper Relish was my least favorite, being vinegary and odd, sort of like
 using hot dog pickle relish as a chip dip. Even my favorite Cajun would have
 been better with a thicker chip base. But all are flavorful thanks to yeast
 extract, a flavor enhancer that contains glutamic acid and its salts (just like
 MSG) and is found in many "all-natural" products. Personally, I prefer foods
 that get their flavor naturally, not with added chemical, albeit "natural,"
 enhancers.
 Carolyn: Lay's insiders say this new chip lineup is "regionally inspired,"
 although the bags are smartly mum on it. The only clear regional influences here
 are the cliched Cajun and Southwest ones. I particularly take issue with the
 Pepper Relish as a representation of the Northeast, where I grew up and spent
 half my life. Lobster, clam chowder or Indian pudding would be more like it,
 though they are admittedly even less suited to a chip than pepper relish.
 I also don't see the Garden Tomato & Basil or Balsamic Sweet Onion being
 connected to any region in particular. I actually can't imagine any part of the
 country wanting to own up to dipping its chips in pasta sauce -- which is what
 the Midwest-credited Garden Tomato tastes like -- just as I can't imagine anyone
 not wanting to take credit for the wonderful Balsamic Sweet Onion (assigned to
 the Northwest). Like all but the Tangy Carolina BBQ, the Balsamic Sweet Onion is
 going to be sold only in its geographical "home," but it is so good that it
 should be available from sea to shining sea.
 Kraft Sandwich Shop Mayo. Reduced Fat Chipotle, Horseradish-Dijon and Garlic &
 Herb, and Regular Hot & Spicy. $2.99 per 12-ounce squeeze jar.
 Bonnie: Mayonnaise generally contains just oil, eggs, vinegar, salt, sugar and
 lemon juice. These reduced-calorie Sandwich Shop versions have that plus
 modified food starch, maltodextrin, modified egg yolk, lactic acid, potassium
 sorbate, phosphoric acid and beta carotene. These additives are needed to create
 the light mayo-like product, and are not normally found in mayonnaise.
 And that's not to mention the seasonings that provide
 Kraft Sandwich Shop's chipotle, horseradish-Dijon, spicy hot, and garlic and
 herb flavors. A tablespoon of all but the Hot & Spicy contains less than half
 the fat and calories of regular mayo, or 40 calories and 3.5 grams fat. (The Hot
 & Spicy actually contains 10 more calories and one more fat gram than regular
 Kraft mayo, or 100 calories and 11 grams.)
 I liked the Chipotle best, as I love that smoked jalapeno flavor, and Garlic &
 Herb least, because of its harsh garlic one. That said, I prefer less chemically
 laden regular mayonnaise, used in modest amounts, over any of these.
 Caro lyn: When I think Kraft Foods, I think bland and broadly appealing, not
 boldly flavored and for a niche market. But I can't imagine anything but a
 small, specialized audience -- of fire-breathers, actually -- for Kraft's new
 Sandwich Shop Mayo line.
 My first swallow of the hot-pepper-sauce-infused Hot & Spicy had me coughing
 like an opera character on her way to a tragic end. The Horseradish-Dijon is
 similarly more of a test of mettle than something to be enjoyed. Anyone who can
 take or leave garlic had better leave the Garlic & Herb on the shelf, as this
 variety is infused with so much of it.
 The Chipotle is the only variety I can really recommend, not because it's less
 flavorful, but because chipotle is naturally more mellow.
 Thai Kitchen's Rice Noodle Carts. Spicy Thai Basil, Tangy Lemongrass, and Sweet
 Citrus Ginger. $3.49 per 9.7-ounce pack age.
 Bonnie: I've been up and down on past Thai Kitchen introductions: I've liked its
 Simmer Sauces but not its Take Out Meals. I'd put its three new gluten-free Rice
 Noodle Carts in the down category, as they're way too salty, both in taste and
 numbers. One serving of these noodles, sauce and minuscule packet of dried
 vegetables contains a hefty 1,250 to 1,520 milligrams sodium, or more than half
 the recommended limit for a day.
 Adding slivered carrots, snow peas, edamame, cooked chicken, a squeeze of fresh
 lime juice and chopped fresh cilantro, and using only half the sauce, would make
 these edible. But if you're going to go to all this trouble, you might as well
 start from scratch using a box of much-less-expensive rice noodles.
 Carolyn: Thai Kitchen has just updated its old Rice Noodle Cart line of flavored
 noodles with new flavors and precooked rice noodles. Before you had to cook the
 noodles for four minutes; now you just microwave them for two.
 Don't be fooled by the box description boasting of the kits' vegetables: It's a
 tiny packet of the dehydrated kind that serves mainly to remind you that this
 meal is shelf-stable rather than fresh. These are basically big bowls of
 flavored noodles.
 The Sweet Citrus Ginger sweet sauce is too light to hide the rice taste. The
 Tangy Lemongrass is heavy enough to disguise the rice, but didn't provide enough
 flavor enjoyment of its own. Which leaves the sweet and Spicy Thai Basil, by far
 the most complex and the best of these three. It would make seriously good
 emergency office rations. I recommend it less enthusiastically for the more
 important at-home dinner.
 Bonnie Tandy Leblang is a registered dietitian and profes sional speaker. She
 has an in teractive site (www.biteofthebest.com) about products she recommends.
 Follow her on Twitter: BonnieBOTB. Carolyn Wyman is a junk-food fanatic and
 author of "The Great Philly Cheesesteak Book" (Running Press). Each week they
 critique new food items.
 LOAD-DATE: July 14, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2010 York Newspapers, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 868
 
                        Eureka Times Standard (California)
                               July 2, 2010 Friday
 No to GMOs
 BYLINE: Letter to the Editor
 LENGTH: 252 words
 Here are some concerns with GMOs (genetically modified organisms):
 1. There are no long-term published studies on the effects of GM foods on human
 health. 2. GM food technology is unlike plant hybridization because you don't
 cross pollinate and select plant traits, rather you "impregnate" a plant cell
 with DNA from animals or chemical compounds from herbicides etc. 3. To get the
 plant cell to accept this "impregnation" a vector is used, which is usually a
 virus or bacteria. Monsanto, a major player in GMO industry, uses e-coli as a
 vector for some of its food crop seeds. 4. There are no long-term published
 studies on vectors' effects on human health. Anecdotally, neither Japan nor the
 European Union accepts GM foods. Their children's autism rate is 1/10 our
 country's. 5. The lack of health (or environmental) long-term studies has been
 tacitly approved by the last four presidential administrations. 6. Ex-President
 Bill Clinton is currently gathering support for the Lugar-Casey bill, which is a
 $7 billion handout for GMO companies under the guise of helping Africans.
 Although GM seeds are touted as needing less fertilizer, etc., they will
 eventually need more, because their crop yields drop after several years. Not
 coincidentally, when you buy GM seeds from Monsanto you are contractually
 required to buy the chemical inputs from Monsanto.
 I'm hoping church and book groups will watch the Future of Food (available in
 video stores) or look online at centerforfoodsafety.org .
 T Zephyr Markowitz
 Bayside
 LOAD-DATE: July 2, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                         Copyright 2010 Times - Standard
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 869
 
                            Bangor Daily News (Maine)
                              July 1, 2010 Thursday
                                   All Editions
 Area students elected Dirigo governors
 SECTION: Pg. B4
 LENGTH: 731 words
 Two high school students - a girl from Hampden Academy and a boy from John Bapst
 Memorial High School - have been elected Dirigo governors of Boys State and
 Girls State.
 Molly Jones, 17, of Hampden was elected at the 64th annual American Legion
 Auxiliary Girls State program, a five-day workshop held last week at Husson
 University in Bangor.
 Jones also has been selected to go to the weeklong Girls Nation in Washington,
 D.C., later this month.
 Aaron Ortiz, 17, of Orrington, was elected at the 63rd annual American Legion
 Dirigo Boys State held last week at Thomas College in Waterville.
 Ortiz is the first John Bapst student to earn the title of Dirigo governor, he
 was told.
 The juniors were honorary citizens of the state of Dirigo during the five-day
 workshops, and held mock government sessions, became candidates and organized
 campaigns.
 They also debated issues facing Maine, using parliamentary procedures, and wrote
 legislation to learn how to become effective community leaders.
 Boys State attendees discussed "gay marriage and legalizing marijuana, and we
 also talked about taxes and alternative energy and stuff like that," Ortiz said.
 Jones and Ortiz had completely different campaign strategies.
 Jones was laid back and didn't write any speeches. She said her goal was to
 "keep everyone involved."
 "I didn't make a single campaign sign and I didn't have a slogan," she said. "If
 I saw someone sitting by themselves, I went over and talked to them. That was my
 way."
 Ortiz, who is a member of his school's Student Senate, was more active in his
 campaigning. He was elected chairman of the mock town of Lincoln and was elected
 the state chairman for his political party.
 "A lot of people saw my face and I got the governor nomination pretty easily,"
 he said.
 Both governors said they were impressed with the caliber of the speakers at
 their workshops.
 For Jones, the speech by U.S. Sen. Susan Collins inspired her the most, and for
 Ortiz, meeting Gov. John Baldacci was a high point.
 "I met him right before [his speech] and he didn't act like a politician," Ortiz
 said.
 Baldacci ran for governor of Boys State when he was in high school against 19
 other candidates and did not win. The governor told that story and another about
 how "he wanted to dig a tunnel to Girls State," Ortiz recalled.
 Jones, who is president of Hampden Academy's computer club and involved in the
 school's drama club, works at Specialty Sweets in Bangor and aspires to own a
 bakery business.
 Ortiz plays football and basketball and is interested in math and science, and
 someday hopes to become an engineer or doctor.
 Both said running for political office is something they may consider down the
 road.
 At the Boys State, two Dirigo state senators and two alternates were selected to
 head to the Boys Nation gathering in Washington on July 17. Evan Arbour of
 Winthrop and Tyler Washburn of Bowdoin are the selected senators, and Reid Douty
 of Cape Elizabeth and Zachery Shaw of Woolwich are the selected alternates.
 Jones and Katie Zema of South Portland, who is designated as the Outstanding
 Girl, were selected to go to Girls Nation, to be held July 17-24 at the National
 4-H Conference Center in Chevy Chase, Md.
 "They are required to take a bill or resolve with them," said Nora Thombs,
 director of Dirigo Girls State since 1997 and American Legion Auxiliary staff
 member for 50 years. "Last year's bill that came [from] Maine was one of the
 only ones that made it all the way through."
 In addition to their legislative forums, attendees will visit the Pentagon,
 Arlington National Cemetery, the White House and other memorials in the
 Washington area, the American Legion Auxiliary's website states.
 "Their visit to Capitol Hill includes meetings with their respective senators
 and representatives [and] a highlight of the week is the opportunity to meet the
 President of the United States," it states.
 While in the nation's capital, "they'll be working on the national agenda and on
 electing a president," Thombs said.
 Jones is scheduled to go to Portland today to meet with Zema to work on a bill
 proposal.
 "I have an idea for a bill for agriculture or genetically modified foods," and
 Zema wants to write a bill dealing with hate crimes, Jones said, adding the two
 will decide which avenue to take at Thursday's meeting.
 The bill will be "something we want to see changed," she said.
 nricker@bangordailynews.com
 LOAD-DATE: July 1, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                         Copyright 2010 Bangor Daily News









Document Number: 870
 
                               The Washington Post
                              June 15, 2010 Tuesday
                                  Every Edition
 SECTION: HEALTH; Pg. HE02
 LENGTH: 255 words
  Rejecting the European diet
 "Thwarting Consumer Choice," (AEI Press, $24.95)
 Gary E. Marchant, Thomas P. Redick and Guy A. Cardineau (two lawyers and a
 biotechnologist, respectively) stand against mandatory labeling requirements for
 genetically modified foods. In this slim volume, published by the American
 Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, the authors argue that while GM
 labeling is designed to give consumers more choice at the grocery store, the law
 will actually harm consumers by pushing such foods off the shelves. Europe, with
 its strict labeling laws, is held up as a worst-case scenario. "Thwarting
 Consumer Choice" is one-sided, so readers should reach for other literature to
 understand the full controversy, but it provides interesting food for thought.
 Trouble without limits
 "Living in Emergency" (Red Floor Pictures)
 This powerful documentary,  playing at Landmark's E Street Cinema, follows five
 doctors who volunteer for the humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders.
 The idealistic docs are beaten down by practicing medicine under extreme
 circumstances in Congo and Liberia: too many patients, never enough supplies,
 time or staff. Most volunteers never advance past their first nine-month
 mission. The troubling central message of the film is eloquently stated by
 anesthesiologist Christopher Brasher: "The demand is pretty much infinite. It's
 just a question of choosing what you can do. They're tough choices, but you have
 to make them."
 -- Rachel Saslow
 LOAD-DATE: June 15, 2010
 DISTRIBUTION: District-Maryland
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2010 The Washington Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 871
 
                               Chicago Daily Herald
                              June 2, 2010 Wednesday
                                  CLF12M Edition
 The Health Freedom Expo returns to Renaissance Schaumburg Convention Center
 SECTION: REAL ESTATE; Pg. 7
 LENGTH: 761 words
 If you had three wishes, what would they be? Health? Wealth? Happiness?
 If you had the opportunity to meet the experts in those fields, all under one
 roof, at one time, would you take it? If the cost were less than the cost of one
 doctor's appointment, would you pay it?
 Good news. Your wishes have been granted.
 The Health Freedom Expo returns to the Renaissance Schaumburg Convention Center,
 June 4-6 for the sixth year.
 This three-day event features over 90 top international, national and local
 experts and is considered the premier natural and alternative health event in
 the country.
 The Expo was created to educate and empower the public. What sets it apart from
 other expos is the information presented is not just to sell products to
 consumer; it's about people who are passionate about sharing information. It's
 about how our health freedoms are being taken away and it's about exposing the
 truth. It's about how to regain personal power over your life. It's about the
 freedom to make positive choices in your life.
 The Health Freedom lineup of experts include:
 * Consumer Advocate Kevin Trudeau, New York Times best-selling author of
 "Natural Cures They Don't Want You To Know About," shares his insider
 information.
 * Dr. Joe Mercola, founder of the world's largest free natural health website
 and author of "How to Improve Your Health and Increase Your Lifespan."
 * Respected nutritionist and humorist Dick Gregory exposes the serious state of
 our food supply and the effects of genetically altered foods on the behavior of
 our children.
 * Producer, director and author Lisa Oz speaks about creating healthy
 relationships and signs her newest book "US: Transforming Our Relationships."
 * Jeffrey Smith, author of "Seeds of Deception," explains how to avoid
 genetically modified foods.
 * Personal relationships expert John Gray, author of "Venus on Fire, Mars on
 Ice," speaks about relationships and health.
 * Coming in from Japan, world-famous researcher Dr. Masaru Emoto, author of
 "Messages From Water," explains the relationship between water, our bodies and
 the earth.
 * Chef Alexandra Jamieson nursed her husband, Morgan Spurlock, back to health
 after he made the award-winning documentary "Super Size Me." Personal chef,
 author, healer, she works with women across the country to teach them how to
 detoxify their bodies, improve their energy and lose unwanted pounds.
 * Dr. Leonard Coldwell has an international following. He explains the root
 cause of disease, and more importantly, how to eliminate the cause as opposed to
 treating the symptoms.
 * Constitutional Attorney Jonathan Emord explains how governments worldwide are
 censoring health information to protect drug companies from competition.
 * Dr. Samuel Epstein, well-respected professional in cancer prevention and chair
 of the Cancer Prevention Coalition discusses his latest book, "Toxic Beauty."
 * Dr. Hal Huggins is the pioneer in identifying toxic dental materials,
 balancing body chemistry and developing a multi-disciplined approach to
 reversing autoimmune diseases.
 * T. Harv Eker, creator of the "Secrets of the Millionaire Mind," makes the
 profound connection between creating wealth and good health.
 * Educator Dr. Theresa Dale has been helping women and men balance their hormone
 levels through her safe, nontoxic programs. Get the facts about hormone
 replacement therapy vs. hormone rejuvenation.
 Meet the Health Freedom Heroes
 Plan to attend the panel of the Heroes of the Health Freedom. It's a rare
 opportunity to meet these health freedom heroes who fight, everyday, on your
 behalf so you have the right to make informed health care choices. They stand up
 for true health care reform; promote cutting edge technology; tirelessly fight
 against Big Pharma's encroaching influence and relentlessly battle the ignorant,
 ineffective mind-set that advocates the use of drugs and surgery as the only
 alternative to health and healing.
 Exhibitors display a wealth of information
 Health Freedom Expo exhibitors present the newest products for consumers,
 practitioners, and business owners. Attendees are invited to shop the Exhibit
 Hall that holds over 200 natural and alternative health booths. Many products
 are being introduced to the public for the first time. You'll find natural and
 organic foods to sample, books and literature available for purchase. Attendees
 have the opportunity to try out the latest health technologies such as
 state-of-the-art electronics, massage techniques, and other cutting edge
 modalities.
 You have a right to a naturally vibrant and healthy life. This is place to get
 it.
 LOAD-DATE: June 2, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2010 Paddock Publications, Inc.









Document Number: 872
 
                          Brattleboro Reformer (Vermont)
                              May 15, 2010 Saturday
 The meaning of security
 BYLINE: By WOODY TASCH
 LENGTH: 686 words
 Saturday May 15, 2010
 If we ever forgot, the 1,000-point plunge in the Dow Jones Industrial Average
 last Thursday should be a permanent reminder: We're all Greeks.
 We're all floating on an ocean of debt. We're all subject to the volatility of
 international capital markets, so intertwined that a single error is capable of
 acting like the financial equivalent of a blown oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico.
 We're all over-exposed, over-weighted, over-bought and over-sold, lost in a sea
 of securities, so complex and so abstract that they end up making us all
 substantially less secure.
 Security. The very meaning of the word has become perverted. Fundamentally, it
 means "freedom from danger" or "freedom from care."
 Applied to finance, it refers to property pledged to secure an investment. But
 caught up in the financial frenzy of the past few decades, we've dangerously
 expanded its definition to "freedom from responsibility" or "freedom from the
 laws of gravity" or "freedom from the future." This is where Greece comes to the
 rescue--but not modern Greece, whose economy has made socialism and capitalism
 into such debt-begetting bedfellows. It's to ancient Greece that we must repair.
 Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, one of the few 20th century economists to insist that
 economics is ultimately disciplined by the laws of nature, observed: "We have
 not yet discovered one single problem of Understanding that the Greek
 philosophers did not formulate."
 Following his lead, we may ask: Which is the better guide for our behavior --
 The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which promotes unlimited economic growth, or
 the idea of the Golden Mean, which promotes the idea of balance and moderation?
 The myth of the Invisible Hand, which promotes a kind of market fundamentalism,
 or the myth of Icarus, which warns that there is such a thing as flying too
 high?
 Odysseus tied himself to the mast. Yet here we are, today, racing after all
 manner of sweetly singing sirens: the siren of genetically modified food, the
 siren of steroids and growth hormones, the siren of Miracle-Gro, the siren of
 atomic fission, the siren of virtual reality, the siren of trillions of
 instructions per second and trillions of dollars a day circulating so fast that
 it is impossible to say where they are, what they are financing or what they
 might really be worth.
 Turmoil in Greece and extreme volatility in the stock market remind us to resist
 these sirens and chart a truer course toward home.
 While international bankers and national politicians labor to stop the economic
 hemorrhaging, let's build a new legion of local investors who want to put money
 to work closer to home, in enterprises that we understand, in businesses that
 are contributing directly to the health of our communities and our bioregions.
 A growing number of us have already begun. We're buying local. We're depositing
 money in community banks and credit unions. We're buying shares of Community
 Supported Agriculture farms. We're shopping at farmersmarkets.'
 Some of us are even investing in organic seed companies, home delivery of local
 organic produce, local meat processors, slow food restaurants and niche organic
 brands.
 Because the final frontier in our search for a healthier, more stable economy is
 not out there, half way around the world, in the false diversification and
 fleeting security of transactions dreamt up by the Fast Money Masters of the
 Universe. The final frontier is right here, in our own backyards, putting Slow
 Money to work in ways that truly enhance diversity and security, reconnecting us
 to one another, to the places where we live and to the earth.
 Woody Tasch is author of "Inquiries into the Nature of Slow Money: Investing as
 if Food, Farms and Fertility Mattered." He is founding chairman of the Slow
 Money Alliance, a national network of investors, entrepreneurs and just plain
 concerned citizens dedicated to steering new sources of capital to small food
 enterprises. The Slow Money Alliance is hosting a national gathering at
 Shelburne Farms, Vt., June 9-11 and a roundtable discussion at Strolling of the
 Heifers in Brattleboro on Friday, June 4.
 LOAD-DATE: May 15, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
    Copyright 2010 MediaNews Group, Inc. and New England Newspaper Group Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 873
 
                                The New York Times
                              May 13, 2010 Thursday
                               Late Edition - Final
 U.S. Clears a Test of Bioengineered Trees
 BYLINE: By ANDREW POLLACK
 SECTION: Section B; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 12
 LENGTH: 689 words
 Federal regulators gave clearance Wednesday for a large and controversial field
 test of genetically engineered trees planned for seven states stretching from
 Florida to Texas.
 The test is meant to see if the trees, eucalyptuses with a foreign gene meant to
 help them withstand cold weather, can become a new source of wood for pulp and
 paper, and for biofuels, in the Southern timber belt. Eucalyptus trees generally
 cannot now be grown north of Florida because of occasional freezing spells.
 The Agriculture Department, in an environmental assessment issued Wednesday,
 said no environmental problems would be caused by the field trial, which could
 involve more than 200,000 genetically modified eucalyptus trees on 28 sites
 covering about 300 acres.
 The permit would be issued to ArborGen, a biotechnology company owned by three
 big forest products companies: International Paper and MeadWestvaco of the
 United States, and Rubicon of New Zealand.
 The Agriculture Department would have to grant separate approval for the trees
 to be grown commercially, clearance that ArborGen is already seeking.
 Although two genetically engineered fruit trees -- virus-resistant papaya and
 plum trees -- are already approved for commercial planting in the United States,
 no forest trees have yet received that clearance in this country.
 Genetically engineered trees have the potential to arouse even more controversy
 than genetically modified crops like corn or soybeans, which are made using the
 same techniques. That is partly because many people have an emotional attachment
 to forests that they do not have to cornfields.
 Moreover, because trees live longer than annual crops and generally can spread
 their pollen farther, there are concerns that any unintended environmental
 effects may spread and  persist longer in a woodland environment than in crop
 fields.
 The Agriculture Department said Wednesday that it had received comments opposing
 the field trial from 12,462 people or organizations, compared with only 45
 supporters of the trial. But a vast majority of the opposing comments were
 nearly identical form letters, it said.
 Critics say that the eucalyptus trees, even without foreign genes, may become
 invasive. They also said the trees were heavy users of water, could spread fires
 faster and could harbor a fungus that sickens people.
 ''They've been a disaster everywhere they've been planted,'' said Anne
 Petermann, coordinator of a coalition called the Stop GE Trees Campaign.
 The Sierra Club, in a comment submitted in February, wrote, ''ArborGen's plans
 to grow 260,000 artificially developed, highly experimental, alien, genetically
 engineered cloned trees in extensive field trials raises many troubling
 ecological questions about the short-term and long-term environmental impacts
 and risks that these trees pose in the United States.''
 The Agriculture Department said it had found  those possibilities to be
 unlikely.
 ''The species of eucalyptus in this permit has difficulty establishing without
 human intervention, even in warmer climates,'' the department said in its
 initial environmental assessment, dismissing concerns that the genetically
 engineered trees would spread like a weed. It said other impacts would be
 limited because each experimental plot would be no larger than 20 acres and
 isolated from the others.
 ArborGen, based in Summerville, S.C., had previously received permission to grow
 the trees on the 28 sites. But on only two of those sites, covering 7.6 acres,
 had it received permission to let the trees flower.
 The new permit would allow more trees to be planted at the 28 sites and to allow
 flowering on 27 of the sites. While flowering would normally mean the
 possibility of reproduction, the trees in the trial have also been engineered to
 produce no pollen.
 ArborGen argues that because they grow so fast, eucalyptus trees would minimize
 the amount of forest land needed for commercial plantations.
 ''You are able to produce more wood off fewer acres of land,'' Barbara Wells,
 the company's president, said in an interview. ''It's very positive from that
 standpoint.''
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: May 13, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 874
 
                     Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock)
                              April 16, 2010 Friday
 Rice jury taps Bayer for $48 million
 LENGTH: 834 words
 LONOKE - A Lonoke County Circuit Court jury decided Thursday that Bayer
 CropScience must pay almost $48 million to farmers and agricultural operations
 for losses when Bayer's experimental variety of genetically modified rice was
 found in the commercial rice supply.
 After less than two hours of deliberation, the jury awarded the 12 plaintiffs
 more than $5.9 million in compensatory damages and $42 million in punitive
 damages in the largest award in the rice litigation so far.
 Plaintiffs' attorney Scott Powell of Birmingham, Ala., said he was not surprised
 by the verdict "given the overwhelming evidence of Bayer's recklessness ... and
 the damage done to the farmers. The farmers were just devastated by this and
 continue to be hurt by it," he said after the verdict was announced.
 Each plaintiff will receive the full compensatory damages requested, ranging
 from less than $33,000 to $1.4 million, Powell said.
 The standard for the award of punitive damages is that Bayer knew, or ought to
 have known, its conduct would cause damage, and continued recklessly, from which
 malice may be inferred.
 Bayer CropScience will appeal the decision.
 "We consider the amount awarded to the plaintiffs by the jury to be unreasonably
 excessive by any standard," general counsel Bruce Mackintosh said in an e-mailed
 statement." This was the fourth suit over genetically modified rice that has
 been tried since the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that traces of
 Bayer's Liberty Link rice were discovered in the U.S. commercial rice supply in
 August of 2006.
 In the three previous lawsuits, two at the federal level and one in Woodruff
 County in March, Bayer was ordered to pay about $4.5 million in damages to
 farmers in Arkansas, Missouri and Mississippi. This is the second time punitive
 damages have been awarded in addition to compensatory damages.
 Bayer's legal troubles are not over. There are about 7,000 plaintiffs in
 multidistrict litigation in federal court in St. Louis, said Scott Poynter, a
 Little Rock attorney and co-chairman of the plaintiffs' executive committee,
 which was appointed by Judge Catherine Perry of the U.S. District Court for the
 Eastern District of Missouri to lead the plaintiffs' legal efforts. Confidential
 mediation discussions for the multidistrict litigation will begin in St. Louis
 next week.
 The next trial against Bayer in Arkansas is to begin in July in Desha County.
 The third in a series of five federal bellwether cases against Bayer, this one
 brought by Houston-based Riviana Foods Inc. and affiliated companies, was
 settled last week. Riviana received $5.8 million, or about 72.5 percent of its
 total claim, according to plaintiffs' attorney Charles Schlumberger of Little
 Rock. Claims against Producers Rice Mill and Riceland Foods have not been
 resolved, and no court date is scheduled.
 Mackintosh, Bayer's counsel, said the settlement "attests to our willingness to
 consider such opportunities to bring an end to litigation." Bayer partnered with
 Louisiana State University to test its genetically modified rice, which was bred
 to resist a Bayer brand of herbicide, at a school-run facility in Crowley, La.,
 in 1998. Though the USDA has said that the rice variety poses no health or
 environmental risk, the rice had not been approved for consumption at the time.
 Japan and the European Union immediately moved to restrict U.S. rice imports,
 leading to a drop in rice prices and exports. U.S. rice exports to Europe have
 still not resumed, and the continent now gets most of its rice from Asia and
 South America.
 Dick Ellis, an attorney for Bayer, said that rice producers quickly found new
 markets to replace the European market and did not suffer sustained economic
 losses. He pointed to rising rice prices in the years since the contamination
 was revealed and said the analysis that the plaintiffs' economic expert had
 provided was "not trustworthy." "This is not a case of `you let it get out, and
 I lost everything, and I want it back.' This is a case of `You let it get out,
 and I made record profits, and I want more.' There's a difference," he said in
 his closing argument.
 The immediate cause of the contamination is still unknown, but Ellis said that
 Bayer took every reasonable step to prevent it. He suggested that the
 contamination could have been caused by something as minute and unpreventable as
 a grain of pollen traveling the 165 feet from the experimental plots to the
 conventional rice fields in Crowley.
 The contamination was too widespread for that explanation, Powell said, and
 suggested that it was a result of what he described as Bayer's shoddy record
 keeping and insufficient containment measures. Bayer knew that it would be all
 but impossible to contain the rice strain, he said, but did not take proper
 precautions in its quest to be the first to bring a herbicide-resistant rice the
 market.
 "This is about knowing something will happen, and sticking your head in the
 sand," he said in his closing argument.
 This article was published 04/16/2010
 LOAD-DATE: April 16, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2010 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 875
 
                              The Salt Lake Tribune
                              April 3, 2010 Saturday
 Everyday Organic: Saying no to 'GMO'
 BYLINE: By MaryJane Butters
 SECTION: LIFESTYLE; Home and Garden; Features
 LENGTH: 924 words
 Living out here at the end of my dirt road, I welcome spring with simple rituals
 around my small farm. One of my favorites involves turning rows of earth into a
 new garden and sowing heirloom seeds I've saved from last season's harvest.
 These are things I know to be good.
 Every detail, from the perfume of enlivened soil to the sight of tiny green
 leaves sprouting toward the sun, appeals to my senses and are perfect little
 gifts. It's all part of a cycle that has been circling throughout the eons,
 assuring the fruition of nature's many gifts and making this planet a veritable
 paradise. I don't need to know the science behind every little miracle; it's
 enough that I can count on them happening, each in their own sweet time.
 It's my faith in Mother Nature's wisdom that spurs a knee-jerk skepticism every
 time I hear news of technology tampering with a system that has been working
 wonders since the beginning of time. In particular, I am floored by the whole
 genetically modified food idea. It's a concept that has crept into our kitchens
 and threatens to devour the concept of food as we know it. Pandora's box had
 nothing on GMOs. If you're still a little mystified by what it all really means,
 you're not alone. That's why I started digging up a different kind of dirt-- the
 nitty-gritty on genetically modified foods and how they are affecting the way we
 eat.
 What does GMO mean?  The initials GMO stand for "genetically modified
 organism." It also goes by the alias GE, or "genetically engineered." GMOs are
 the result of a process that takes crops from the field to the laboratory, where
 scientists splice them with things like animal genes and pesticides. Completely
 different than natural crossbreeding, genetic modification means that genes are
 actually removed from one species and inserted into another. For example, genes
 from an arctic flounder, which has "antifreeze" properties, may be spliced into
 a tomato to prevent frost damage. GM crops also are manufactured to produce
 their own pesticides. One such pesticide, the Bt toxin, kills many species of
 insect larvae indiscriminately, not just crop-damaging pests. Imagine the
 implications of mass insecticide: Without pollination by insects, most plants
 would be unable to reproduce at all.
 Health hazards  On May 19 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine
 called for a moratorium on GM foods. They stated that "several animal studies
 indicate serious health risks associated with GM food," including infertility,
 immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation problems and changes in
 major organs. Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles reported, "I used to test for soy
 allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so
 dangerous that I tell people never to eat it."
 Corporate control  Giant corporations make huge profits by patenting GM seeds
 as corporate property. In her book Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, author Barbara
 Kingsolver shed light on this disturbing example. In 2001, a Canadian court
 ruled that farmer Percy Schmeiser owed Monsanto more than $15,000 plus damages
 after his fields were found to be growing the company's genetically engineered
 canola. Pollen from neighboring fields was the source of the contamination. But
 because Monsanto owns the patent, the farmer was liable for growing the crop.
 A fragile food supply  Perhaps the worst news is that genetic engineering
 ultimately threatens our entire food supply. Insects, birds and wind can carry
 genetically altered seeds into neighboring fields and beyond. Pollen from these
 plants can cross-pollinate with natural crops and wild relatives. Not only will
 supposedly safe plants start harboring strange and even dangerous potential,
 they'll also become susceptible to the same diseases. In one fell swoop, a
 simple fungus could wipe out fields for miles.
 How to spot GMOs  Since GMO food is not labeled, you have to shop smart. Buying
 100 percent organic is the best safeguard against GMO ingredients. If organic
 isn't an option, be wary of these primary GM suspects:
  Soybeans or anything that contains soy derivatives
  Corn and its derivatives
  Canola oil
  Cotton fabric or food oil
  Potatoes and its derivatives
  Dairy products, meat and eggs (GM animal feed)
 MaryJane Butters is the editor of MaryJanesFarm magazine. E-mail her at
 everydayorganic@maryjanesfarm.com Opting for heirlooms
 Besides boasting lush colors and succulent flavors, heirloom fruits and
 vegetables are also rich with history. Their sacred seeds have been passed down
 through generations, acquiring abundant nutrients and developing natural disease
 resistance.
 Today, however, heirlooms are at risk due to genetic modification. Technology is
 sacrificing time-tested quality for plants with tough skins, limited disease
 resistance and chemical-pesticide tolerance. The situation is downright scary
 when you consider that GM plants cross-pollinate with natives to create
 "monster" weeds whose immunity to herbicides makes them capable of gobbling up
 entire landscapes.
 Since a few giant corporations now produce over 30 percent of the world's seed
 supply, it's increasingly difficult to buy non-industrial seed varieties. That's
 why it's crucial to seek out heirlooms for our meals. Grow your own or frequent
 farmers' markets where you can find local growers who are preserving our
 heirloom heritage.
 Here are three reputable suppliers: Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Co.,
 www.rareseeds.com ; Seed Savers Exchange, www.seedsavers.org ; and Southern
 Exposure Seed Exchange, www.southernexposure.com .)
 LOAD-DATE: April 4, 2010
 GRAPHIC: Avoid GMOs and get your hands on some heirloom fruits and vegetables.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2010 The Salt Lake Tribune
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 876
 
                         Contra Costa Times (California)
                             March 18, 2010 Thursday
 Letters to the editor
 SECTION: MY TOWN; Alameda; Oakland-Berkeley; News; Local
 LENGTH: 950 words
 Close schools to foreigners
 The education debate, highlighted by the March 4 demonstrations, omits one of
 two solutions, at least at the "higher education" level: Reduce enrollment by no
 longer offering foreign students places in University of California and the
 State University systems.
 California residents pay taxes to support these institutions. They are not
 businesses or showplaces for the "brightest in the world;" they are for the
 education of California residents.
 My guess is that closing our schools to foreigners would reduce the budget needs
 by about 20 percent, bringing education funding in line with needs.
 R.J. McDonald
 Berkeley
 Vacancies not logical
 In a Feb. 19 article in the Voice, I was alarmed, concerned and disappointed to
 learn of the imminent closure of the Oaks Theatre on Solano Avenue.
 The news of 14 other vacancies already in the "top two blocks" of Solano Avenue
 (I assume what was meant was "the two blocks at the top of Solano") is also most
 distressing for all of us who enjoy the convenience of living in or close to the
 Thousand Oaks neighborhood.
 I can understand the problems and complexities of maintaining the financial
 viability of a small theater in our community. That is quite a singular dilemma.
 What defies my understanding is the 14 other vacancies.
 Or, rather, let me rephrase that. What I really don't understand is how these
 commercial property owners can afford to let their spaces go unoccupied month
 after month, and some, year after year.
 The rents for storefronts on Solano Avenue are notoriously high and have been
 ever since I can remember. Is it any wonder there are large numbers of vacancies
 when few small businesses can afford the costly overhead? How can diverse,
 unique shops survive on Solano when such a large portion of their expenses is
 rent?
 I have watched with interest a particular space on one of the blocks in question
 because I used to patronize the small, quaint, unique retail shop that occupied
 it. In January 2007, the owner was forced to close, no longer able to afford the
 rent. That space has remained unoccupied ever since. That's three years!
 Is there an advantage of some kind for property owners to allow their spaces to
 remain vacant? Are these vacancies considered business losses, tax deductions,
 and write-offs? Is that why no rent is more attractive and profitable than lower
 rent? And isn't this the way a downward spiral begins?
 Aren't empty storefronts indicative of a less-than-vibrant commercial zone?
 Won't these vacancies begin to scare prospective businesses away and compound
 the problem? Wouldn't full, or fuller, tenancy create and provide more jobs?
 Wouldn't that help reduce the unemployment situation somewhat?
 The annual Solano Stroll proves that people love to come to Solano Avenue. It
 seems pretty certain there are any number of prospective business people who
 would jump at the chance to fill those 14 vacancies.
 So what is the advantage to letting the properties go empty? Why isn't some rent
 better than no rent? The logic escapes me. Please explain.
 J.G. Aaronson
 Berkeley
 Healthy choices
 I appreciate Tom Barnidge's March 9 column in the Times. It is a good reminder
 to be careful regarding lead and asbestos when renovating, keep iPod volume
 reasonable to prevent deafness, and use landline phones.
 Authority Dr. Lawrence Wilson is correct that "Microwave radiation ... waves
 easily penetrate your cranium." People who care about health use cell/cordless
 phones as little as possible, use speaker phone rather than holding the device
 next to a body part, and do not keep a base station in a room where one spends
 much time.
 Until the law catches up, those who care about their health will protest
 additional radiation in our homes (without our consent), such as from PG&E
 "smart" meters or from nearby cell phone antennae, because the radiation body
 burden is cumulative.
 More people are also avoiding genetically modified food ingredients such as soy
 lecithin, corn syrup, and rBGH dairy products.
 Because I love living, it is worth it to make healthy choices.
 Phoebe Anne Sorgen
 Berkeley
 Medicare for all
 An idea that promises to redeem the less-than-perfect health care bill now
 before Congress: Instead of taking funds from Medicare   a program that has
 provided me and millions of older Americans a stellar service, providing
 excellent health care at minimal cost   allow Medicare to be an option for all
 ages.
 Instead of a public option, choose the Medicare option. Medicare has a proven
 track record.
 Elisabeth Kassan
 Berkeley
 Stop polluting California
 Valero Energy Corp. is the seventh-largest polluter in California.
 Both Valero and Tesoro Corp. have pledged $2 million to pay signature gatherers.
 We urge Californians to not sign any petitions supporting the deceptive ballot
 initiative that would suspend AB 32.
 Big Texas oil companies are trying to buy Californians' votes.
 Earlier this month, companies such as Valero and Tesoro announced they plan on
 fully funding a November ballot initiative that would halt clean energy efforts
 and pollution control standards to clean up our air and atmosphere for our kids
 and future generations.
 This proposed initiative would increase our dependence on oil, cost us more
 money at the gas pump, guarantee that our children continue to suffer from
 asthma and other harmful health effects caused by dirty air, and hold California
 back from being a national leader and creating jobs through advancements in
 clean technology.
 Californians support improving the air we breathe and cleaning up our
 atmosphere. We want to be a leading innovator in breakthrough technologies in
 renewable energy and produce greener vehicles that all Californians can drive.
 Diana Bohn
 Berkeley
 LOAD-DATE: March 19, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2010 Contra Costa Newspapers
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 877
 
                         The Oregonian (Portland Oregon)
                              March 9, 2010 Tuesday
 The new Irish tradition
 BYLINE: IVY MANNING, special to The Oregonian
 LENGTH: 930 words
 The new Irish tradition Going green
 in more ways
 than just one
 Fifteen years ago I traveled to Ireland with my father for a "pub research"
 trip. My dad had just purchased a bar in Wisconsin and was in the process of
 transforming it into an Irish pub.
 After visiting dozens of pubs and restaurants --from white-linen establishments
 in Dublin to rustic country pubs --I was disappointed to find that, at least in
 part, frugality and blandness trumped flavor and finesse. For three weeks I
 subsisted on brown bread smeared with butter (which was very good) and pints of
 stout.
 Last July I returned to Ireland with higher expectations. Over the last five
 years or so I had heard about how the cuisine in Ireland had improved, and
 articles in Saveur and other magazines had asserted that a farm-to-fork movement
 had taken hold in both Dublin and the rural counties.
 I was delighted to find that the buzz was true. In one restaurant after another
 I enjoyed great food from folks who were proud to serve it.
 Menus in even the most humble places offered incredible fresh seafood that was
 carefully cooked. Worldly dishes such as Thai-style curry made with local
 organic produce were common, and the names of the producers of delicious lamb
 and beef were often called out on menus.
 I had to pinch myself. Was this the same country I visited 15 years before? Was
 there indeed a culinary renaissance taking place in Ireland?
 "The answer is definitely yes," says Colman Andrews, former editor of Saveur
 magazine. "There are good restaurants, good food products, good small grocery
 shops all over the island."
 Andrews was so inspired by this new wave of Irish cooking that he wrote a
 stunning 383-page book called "The Country Cooking of Ireland" (Chronicle, $50,
 While fine dining in Ireland once meant classical French, today --at least in
 larger cities such as Dublin --innovative chefs are adapting their menus to a
 more contemporary style, using local products. This is due in part to the Irish
 financial boom of the late 1990s, which encouraged Ireland's upper and middle
 classes to travel and discover more worldly foods.
 "You'll find terms like 'spring roll' and 'lemongrass' on every modern Irish
 menu in Dublin," Andrews says. He adds that if 20 years ago you had told someone
 you were going to London to eat, he would question your sanity. Now London is a
 gastronomic capital, and Ireland is fixing to repeat England's success.
 "They are on the right path," Andrews says. "The Irish are rediscovering
 traditional cooking, revaluing locally grown ingredients and intelligently
 adapting diverse culinary influences."
 The change has not gone unnoticed by the revered Michelin Guide, which has
 awarded stars to six restaurants in the republic and in Northern Ireland.
 Ireland's culinary reawakening is due at least in part to the growth in artisan
 food production. Beginning in the '70s --with an upsurge in the late '90s
 --rural food entrepreneurs built small-scale businesses using the raw materials
 available to them, making everything from damson plum jam to farmstead cheeses.
 According to Teagasc, the agriculture and food development authority of Ireland,
 there are around 320 specialty food producers in Ireland and growth over the
 last five years has been brisk.
 In "The Country Cooking of Ireland" Andrews profiles some of these passionate
 artisans, including Giana Ferguson, who produces world-renowned washed-rind
 Gubbeen cheese, and Anthony Creswell, who makes smoked salmon using traditional
 methods that date back thousands of years.
 The vibrant artisan movement has to a small degree made its way to the United
 States. Kerrygold, a dairy cooperative formed by the Irish Dairy Board, sells in
 nearly 80 countries with sales of $2 billion annually.
 Kerrygold butter and aged cheddar are now found at big-box stores like Costco,
 and smaller cheese producers like Gubbeen, Coolea and Cashel Blue also export to
 the U.S.
 Part of the strength of the new Irish cooking movement comes from the country's
 agrarian roots. As Andrews points out in his book's prologue, most natives will
 admit to being closely related to someone who lives on the land, even if they
 themselves didn't grow up on a farm.
 This connection with agriculture means that the country is "green" on more than
 one account: There is a fierce interest in organic farming; the movement against
 genetically modified foods is vigorous; and grass-fed livestock is the norm. In
 short, in Ireland "farm to table" isn't just a buzzword --it's how the country
 really eats.
 Apparently tourists want a taste, too.
 "Ireland has a temperate climate, great expanses of the greenest grass you'll
 ever see and over 2,000 miles of sea coast with pure, clean waters full of
 seafood," says Margaret Jeffares, owner of Good Food Ireland, a nonprofit group
 that connects visitors with establishments that are dedicated to serving food
 from Ireland's farmers, ranchers and food artisans (www.goodfoodireland.ie.)
 "European and Americans tourists are discovering us as a food destination . . .
 they want to experience our pure, clean food."
 The message seems to be getting through. According to the Board Bia (the Irish
 Food Board), food-based tourism grew by more than 26 percent between 2003 and
 2007, bringing in about $3 billion annually.
 That's no small potatoes for a nation that until now was associated only with
 Guinness and, well, potatoes.
 Ivy Manning is a FOODday contributor, and author of "The Adaptable Feast" and
 "The Farm to Table Cookbook" as well as a blog at http://blog.ivymanning.com.
 LOAD-DATE: March 10, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: org
                           Copyright 2010 The Oregonian
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 878
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                             March 3, 2010 Wednesday
 Business digest
 BYLINE: From wire reports
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. A9
 LENGTH: 420 words
 Apple sues over touch screens - As Apple Inc.'s iPhone faces stiffer competition
 in the lucrative market for smart phones, the company is going after one of its
 main rivals with patent lawsuits claiming theft of touch screen technology and
 other features. The complaints cover a slew of models made by Taiwanese phone
 maker HTC Corp., including the Nexus One, G1 and myTouch 3G - all using the
 free, rival Android mobile operating software from Google Inc. Non-Android
 phones include HTC's Touch series. But consumers shouldn't worry about buying or
 using any of those phones. Patent cases can take months or years to resolve -
 sometimes longer than the life of these phones - and agreements over licensing
 and royalty payments often emerge.
 Modified potato gets EU OK - The EU approved on Tuesday the cultivation of a
 genetically modified potato and the use of three types of altered maize in food
 and feed production, saying they don't pose a health risk. The go-ahead for the
 Amflora potato - developed by Ludwigshafen, Germany-based BASF SE - marked the
 first green light in 12 years to grow a genetically modified food in the
 European Union. The EU also approved the marketing of three genetically modified
 maize products from Creve Coeur-based Monsanto Co. for food and feed purposes,
 but not their cultivation.
 Nissan will fix brake pedals - Nissan Motor Co. is recalling about 260,000
 pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles and minivans in the U.S. to fix problems
 with brake pedals and fuel gauges. A pin in the brake pedal assemblies on
 certain 2008 to 2010 Titan pickups and Armada SUVs and some 2008 and 2009 Quest
 minivans can come loose and cause reduced braking force, Nissan said. No
 injuries or crashes have been reported. Customers with loose brake pedals should
 contact their dealer.
 Solutia hopes to refinance debt - Solutia Inc., the chemical maker that emerged
 from bankruptcy in February 2008, is seeking $1.05 billion to refinance senior
 secured bank debt. The new credit agreement will replace a term loan due in
 February 2014 and an asset-based loan due in February 2013, the Town and
 Country-based company said Tuesday. The proposed facility will consist of a $750
 million senior secured term loan due in 2017 and a $300 million senior secured
 revolving credit line due in 2015. The banks arranging the loan will meet with
 prospective lenders Thursday, and commitments will be due March 12, according to
 a person familiar with the deal, who declined to be identified because the
 transaction is private.
 LOAD-DATE: March 4, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2010 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 879
 
                            Investor's Business Daily
                            February 3, 2010 Wednesday
 Of Killer Cans And Toxic Baby Bottles
 SECTION: Issues & Insights; Pg. A13
 LENGTH: 932 words
 Should we worry about a common chemical almost all of us carry in our bodies
 that activists claim causes a list of diseases longer than you'll find in a
 major medical center?
 Having for decades labeled the plastic ingredient bisphenol A (BPA) safe, the
 Food and Drug Administration has just announced it's not so sure anymore.
 Some U.S. jurisdictions have already restricted BPA use, and entire states like
 New York are considering bans.
 Yet aside from Canada, which is banning BPA baby bottles, nobody else in the
 world seems worried. What's our problem?
 Partly it reflects media adoration for a single homegrown scientist. And
 strangely enough, it's also a consequence of President Obama's economic stimulus
 package.
 BPA has been used since the late 1950 s to make plastic supple and strong and is
 so valuable, more than 5 million tons are used worldwide each year. It's found
 in myriad consumer products such as plastic food containers and reusable water
 bottles and provides the protective lining inside metal-based food and beverage
 cans.
 Tiny amounts leach into food and drink and once in our bodies, according to
 environmentalists and other activists, cause cancer, heart disease, sexual
 dysfunction, impaired fertility, diabetes, hyperactivity, obesity, noncancerous
 ovarian disease, miscarriage -- everything short of turning people into newts.
 And don't rule that out.
 The lynch mob is after BPA because it's a weak synthetic estrogen. These
 chemicals have been under fire since the publication of the 1996 book "Our
 Stolen Future," which one review aptly described as "an alarmist tract with a
 polemical style clearly crafted for its political, not scientific, impact."
 (With a foreword by Al Gore, no less.)
 Never mind that over 150 plants produce chemicals that also mimic estrogen, many
 of them foods that contain so much that they're often recommended as natural
 hormone replacement therapy. The overall estrogenic effect of natural chemicals,
 according to Texas A&M University toxicologist Stephen Safe, is 40 million times
 that of the synthetics. Yes, it's just the environmentalist saw: "Man-made bad;
 natural good."
 Meanwhile, Europe has studied the chemical exhaustively and has repeatedly
 classified it as harmless as Perrier. Mind you, these are the same Europeans who
 have officially adopted the "precautionary principle" that usually means
 absurdly erring on the side of caution, who slap warning labels on cell phones
 and who flee at the sight of a grain of genetically modified corn.
 In 2006, the European Union's Food Safety Authority conducted a BPA risk
 assessment regarding infants that led to raising the maximum exposure level. It
 conducted a re-evaluation two years later. "All clear!"
 Countries that have evaluated BPA in the last three years, as Trevor Butterworth
 of the STATS think tank has documented, include Norway, France, Germany (twice),
 Australia, New Zealand and Japan. Add to that a World Health Organization
 collaborative center. Each has found BPA safe. Even Canadian officials justified
 the baby bottle ban merely with "better safe than sorry."
 So what's with us?
 For one, North America is home to rogue scientist Frederick vom Saal, a
 University of Missouri toxicologist who calls BPA "the biological equivalent of
 global warming." Our media have anointed him "America's leading researcher" on
 BPA precisely because he says outrageous things.
 As to his research, unsurprisingly, other scientists have failed to replicate
 it. "They've used bigger studies, lots more animals, and they just can't do it,"
 says Maryland toxicologist Bob Golden. Nevertheless, the FDA cited a vom Saal
 paper in its announcement; indeed, it was the only report the agency relied on
 that was not produced by a government department.
 Yet the most important factor prompting the FDA's decision may have been the
 economic stimulus package.
 You see, Obama in September announced the allocation of $5 billion in stimulus
 spending to 12,000 medical research grants, claiming it exemplified job creation
 that wasn't merely "make work." But you can't just drop that kind of money on a
 rush basis, as the stimulus aspect dictated, and hope to see it carefully
 allocated.
 So within 30 days, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Director
 Linda Birnbaum announced $30 million in grants for two more years of BPA
 research to "address many of the research gaps" regarding the chemical. Yet over
 5,400 medical journal articles have already been published on BPA safety. How
 many gaps can that leave? "That's an awful lot of money just looking under more
 rocks to find something," says Golden.
 Not incidentally, Birnbaum -- who previously spent 16 years at the Environmental
 Protection Agency -- has as her pet issue synthetic estrogens. Birnbaum's work
 is critical to "Our Stolen Future" -- though not so much as the research of
 another scientist named, yes, Frederick vom Saal. It's all one big happy family.
 Still, somebody outside the NIEHS needed to justify the spending. That was the
 FDA. "If they took Europe's position it would trigger war with the NIEHS," says
 Butterworth. So the FDA flipped around the BPA sign on the door from "safe" to
 "questionable."
 Unfortunately, Butterworth says, in that two-year interval companies may choose
 to "get rid of BPA because it's just too much effort to battle this nonsense."
 As with the now-infamous ambush of the apple treatment Alar, another perfectly
 good chemical could start going down the drain.
 is director of the nonprofit Independent Journalism Center, where he specializes
 in health and science issues, and a former reporter for IBD.
 LOAD-DATE: February 2, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2010 Investor's Business Daily, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 880
 
                            Mobile Register (Alabama)
                             January 29, 2010 Friday
 Today in History
 SECTION: D; Pg. 02
 LENGTH: 470 words
 Today in History
 Today is Friday, Jan. 29, the 29th day of 2010. There are 336 days left in the
 year. Today's Highlight in History:
 On Jan. 29, 1860 (according to the New Style calendar), Russian author and
 playwright Anton Chekhov was born in the port city of Taganrog.
 On this date:
 In 1845, Edgar Allan Poe's poem "The Raven" was first published, in the New York
 Evening Mirror.
 In 1919, the ratification of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, which
 launched Prohibition, was certified by Acting Secretary of State Frank L. Polk.
 In 1929, The Seeing Eye, a New Jersey-based school that trains guide dogs to
 assist the blind, was incorporated by Dorothy Harrison Eustis and Morris Frank.
 In 1936, the first members of baseball's Hall of Fame, including Ty Cobb and
 Babe Ruth, were named in Cooperstown, N.Y.
 In 1963, the first members of pro football's Hall of Fame were named in Canton,
 Ohio.
 In 1979, President Jimmy Carter formally welcomed Chinese Vice Premier Deng
 Xiaoping to the White House, following the establishment of diplomatic
 relations.
 In 1998, a bomb rocked an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Ala., killing security
 guard Robert Sanderson and critically injuring nurse Emily Lyons. (The bomber,
 Eric Rudolph, was captured in May 2003 and is serving a life sentence.)
 Ten years ago: Delegates meeting in Montreal reached an international agreement
 on the trade of genetically modified food and other products.
 Five years ago: Jetliners from China landed in rival Taiwan for the first time
 in 56 years.
 One year ago: The Illinois Senate voted, 59-0, to convict Gov. Rod Blagojevich
 of abuse of power and throw him out of office, nearly two months after his
 arrest on charges of trying to sell Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat.
 Today's Birthdays: Actor John Forsythe is 92. Actor Noel Harrison is 76. Author
 Germaine Greer is 71. Actress Katharine Ross is 70. Actor Tom Selleck is 65.
 Rhythm-and-blues singer Bettye LaVette is 64. Actor Marc Singer is 62. Actress
 Ann Jillian is 60. Rock musician Tommy Ramone (Ramones) is 58. Rock musician
 Louie Perez (Los Lobos) is 57. Rhythm-and-blues/funk singer Charlie Wilson is
 57. Talk show host Oprah Winfrey is 56. Country singer Irlene Mandrell is 54.
 Actress Diane Delano is 53. Actress Judy Norton Taylor ("The Waltons") is 52.
 Rock musician Johnny Spampinato (NRBQ) is 51. Olympic gold-medal diver Greg
 Louganis is 50. Rock musician David Baynton-Power (James) is 49. Rock musician
 Eddie Jackson (Queensryche) is 49. Actor Nicholas Turturro is 48. Rock
 singer-musician Roddy Frame (Aztec Camera) is 46. Actor-director Edward Burns is
 42. Actress Heather Graham is 40. Actor Sharif Atkins is 35. Actress Sara
 Gilbert is 35. Actor Andrew Keegan is 31. Actor Jason James Richter is 30. Blues
 musician Jonny Lang is 29. Pop-rock singer Adam Lambert ("American Idol") is 28.
 LOAD-DATE: February 8, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: mbr
                  Copyright 2010 The Mobile Press Register Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 881
 
                            Star-News (Wilmington, NC)
                            January 23, 2010 Saturday
                                   1ST Edition
 SECTION: Pg. 1D
 LENGTH: 1155 words
 from farm to table
 Organic economics
 From farmers to consumers, understanding the cost of organic food
 Farmers are encouraged to produce more organically grown foods. Consumers are
 subjected to a barrage of messages emphasizing the benefits of eating
 organically grown food.
 But produce marked "organic" or "organically grown" (and there is a difference),
 is usually more expensive, for both growers and consumers, leaving some to ask
 if it is worth the premium price.
 From the farm
 Christin Deener, who runs Federal Point Farm, a small sustainable farming
 operation located just off Carolina Beach Road, says consumers should look
 beyond the price tags to the "huge externalized costs associated with
 conventional farming."
 These hidden costs, she explained, do not get passed on to consumers, making the
 produce artificially cheap.
 According to the 34 year-old former economics major who started her small
 holding less than two years ago, conventional farming is a major contributor to
 water pollution from run-off containing excess nitrogen, heavy metals,
 pesticides and herbicides, "which, in turn, carry health costs," she said.
 "Take genetically modified corn... in a recent study published in the
 International Journal of Biological Sciences [it was] was linked to certain
 organ diseases."
 Deener is clearly passionate about protecting the environment, but she's also
 an example of how complicated the new eco-friendly labeling systems can be.
 Though she uses sustainable and organic farming practices, her farm is not
 certified organic.  Certification is overseen by the U.S. Department of
 Agriculture and can be difficult and costly for  small farms like Deener's, she
 said.
 "I would not have the control I have now," she said. "It's too complicated.
 Getting certified, involves so much paperwork. (And) there are on-going costs
 associated with it," she said.
 So like many small farmers, Deener promotes her crops as "sustainable," and
 shies from the term "organic."
 Deener, who has a minor in sustainable agriculture from University of
 Massachusetts, Amherst, uses no herbicides or pesticides - even on the heirloom
 tomatoes. To kill those crop-devouring caterpillars, occasionally she uses Bt
 (Bacillus thuringiensis), a permitted substance in organic farming that does not
 harm beneficial insects or humans.
 Among the more than 100 crops she produces on her 2   1/2 acres are many
 varieties of cut flowers and vegetables, like lettuces, kale, carrots, leeks,
 onions, cabbage and peas. Figs are growing now, and this year Deener hopes to
 plant raspberry canes and to start harvesting blueberries.
 Federal Point Farm is a regular at the downtown Wilmington farmers' market.
 "I was astonished at the number of people who come to that market every week,"
 she said. "They are... seeking out food grown this way... and form my core
 business."
 Deener also supplies some of those area restaurants who promote they feature
 organically grown vegetables and herbs. Such local support helped her turn a
 profit last year.
 To your table
 Whether it's bought from farmer's markets, co-ops or supermarkets, organic
 produce and products are likely to cost much more than their conventionally
 grown counterparts. And in this economy, that means many shoppers have to ask
 themselves, "when is buying organic worth it?"
 Carolyn Dunn, Ph.D, professor and nutrition specialist at N.C. State University
 says a good first step is to pay close attention to the labels because not all
 "organic" products are created equal. Read packaging to note what percentage of
 organic ingredients a product contains, and if location is important to you,
 where it's from.
 Let's say that you are in a supermarket about to buy an apple for lunch and are
 faced with a choice: organically grown or conventionally grown? Which should you
 pick? According to Dunn there is no black and white answer, but consumers should
 keep these factors in mind.
 Taste:Some people (like Christin Deener) believe that organic produce tastes
 better. The only way to tell if that is true is to try it - but always wash
 produce first, no matter its label.
 Nutrition:"Ask 10 nutrition experts about organic produce and the nutrients they
 provide and you are likely to get 10 different answers," Dunn said. More than
 100 studies have been conducted on the subject of organic versus conventionally
 grown produce, but they produced no definitive answer. Some maintain organic
 gives you a nutritional edge, but mostly organic growing practices are about
 preventing water and soil pollution, not providing you with more antioxidants or
 vitamin B.
 Pesticides:Here's where organic starts making a real difference. "There is
 consensus that even small doses of pesticides can cause health problems,
 especially during fetal development and early childhood," Dunne said. During
 those times, it is advisable to minimize their consumption, and the residue
 levels in organic produce are known to be consistently lower than conventionally
 grown produce.
 So if you don't have room in your budget to buy all organic items, you might
 want to focus on those with the highest known levels of pesticide residues. The
 Environmental Work Group (EWG) compiled a list of fruits and vegetables with the
 highest and lowest pesticide residues, according to data collected by USDA and
 the U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Produce high in pesticide residue include
 peaches, apples, bell peppers, celery, nectarines and strawberries. Those with
 lower residues include onions, avocados, sweet corn, pineapples, mangoes and
 asparagus. You can find EWG's full lists at www.foodnews.org/fulllist.php
 Cost:Like all supermarket items, organic produce prices fluctuate, but recently
 Harris Teeter charged $1 more for organic red bell peppers ($3.99 each) than
 their conventionally grown counterparts.  Organic Granny Smith apples rang up at
 $2.49 a pound, 50 cents more per pound than non-organic apples.
 "Ultimately, the decision to choose organic is up to you, the consumer," Dunn
 said. "The important thing is to continue eating produce, even if organic is not
 in your food budget."
 Cristin Deener became interested in farming after she had worked in Durham for a
 community gardening organization called "Seeds," where she helped start the
 Durham Farmers' Market.
 After moving to Wilmington 10 years ago and restoring an old house in Carolina
 Beach, a mutual friend introduced her to the Congleton family, who owned an old
 blueberry farm off Carolina Beach Road - land Thomas Congleton wanted preserved
 for agriculture.
 Deener offered to manage a community garden project aimed at getting locals to
 garden and teaching them how to grow food while protecting the land. She still
 continues to manage the community gardens but, in the fall of 2008 she started
 her own business, Federal Point Farm, on 2  1/2 acres of the Congleton land.
 Now she uses organic growing practices on all of her crops.
 LOAD-DATE: February 5, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2010 Star-News, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 882
 
                              Voice of America News
                                 January 15, 2010
 Our World - 16 January 2010
 BYLINE: Art Chimes
 LENGTH: 3428  words
 MUSIC: "Our World" theme
 This week on Our World: Google challenges China after a major hacking incident
 ... exploring the link between eyesight and migraine headaches ... and
 genetically engineering the soybean to add a health supplement
 FUCHS: "But I'd much rather have my yogurt and granola bar and salad dressing
 with omega-3 than having to take a capsule every morning."
 He's from Monsanto; others aren't so sure.
 Those stories, our Website of the Week, and more...
 I'm Art Chimes. Welcome to VOA's science and technology magazine, "Our World."
 Citing Hacking Incident, Google Says It Will offer Uncensored Searches on
 Chinese Website
 Four years ago, the giant Internet search company Google entered the Chinese
 market after agreeing to the Beijing government's requirement that it deliver
 censored results to searches on Google.cn.
 This week, the California-based company reversed course, after announcing that
 its servers had been hacked and that both corporate information and email
 accounts of human rights activists had been compromised. Google spokeswoman
 Jessica Powell said the attacks came from China.
 POWELL: "And as a result, and in combination with the environment in China,
 we've decided to review the feasibility of our business operations there and
 have decided that in good conscience, we really cannot continue to operate a
 filtered search engine in China."
 Google didn't specifically accuse the Chinese government of the hacking
 incident, but that was the universal conclusion drawn from the company's vaguely
 worded statement.
 When Google agreed to censorship as a condition to opening its Chinese website
 in 2006, the company received a lot of criticism. At least one of the critics,
 Danny O'Brien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says this time, Google did
 the right thing.
 O'BRIEN: "They wanted to protect their users' privacy, and they decided that
 sacrificing their users' ability to access all of the Internet was a price that
 they weren't willing to pay."
 Some commentators have suggested that Google may be acting on principle, while
 noting that the U.S.-based firm has made little headway against its main Chinese
 competitor, Baidu. O'Brien says Google is sacrificing a lot to pull out of the
 huge and expanding Chinese market.
 O'BRIEN: "But at the same time, if Google got the reputation as a company that
 was willing to just lay down for any government's attempts to obtain personal
 information, that would do severe damage both to their reputation among
 individual users and their increasing corporate customers."
 Even though both Google and Baidu censored their results in China, the two were
 not equivalent, says Rebecca MacKinnon, former CNN bureau chief in Beijing and
 now a fellow with the Open Society Institute.
 MacKINNON: "Every time I've tested Google.cn with sensitive political terms, I
 always find that Google.cn provides a greater variety of results and a bit more
 edgy information than Baidu, which censors much more thoroughly."
 MacKinnon says reaction to the Google announcement by Chinese Internet users
 varies.
 MacKINNON: "There are some Chinese Internet users, particularly the more
 tech-savvy ones, who are actually cheering this move because they're very upset
 about the increasing censorship over the past year. And they think it's good
 that an international company like Google would stand up and say we're not going
 to take this anymore. This is wrong."
 On the other hand, MacKinnon says other Chinese users are concerned that
 Google's retreat from the market will result in China's Internet being more
 closed and less connected with the outside world.
 Meanwhile, Danny O'Brien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation speculates that
 Google may direct some of its vast reservoir of technical expertise to helping
 Chinese Internet users circumvent official restrictions.
 O'BRIEN: "What we might well see here is a change in strategy by Google's
 undoubtedly very smart techies. Up until now they've been devoting their work to
 better filter the Chinese Internet. Now I suspect they'll be spending their time
 working out how to provide their users with the ability to circumvent the Great
 Firewall of China."
 On Friday, China's official Internet Network Information Center reported that
 the number of Internet users in the country jumped by about 30 percent last
 year. With 384 million users, China is the world's largest Internet community.
 Consumer Electronic Show features 3-D television, Web-enabled cars
 The annual Consumer Electronics Show, the CES, in Las Vegas has wrapped up, and
 VOA Los Angeles correspondent Mike O'Sullivan was there, and we've got him on
 the line now.
 Q: Mike, what was the coolest thing you saw at the CES?
 O'SULLIVAN: "Well, the biggest thing that I saw was 3D or three-dimensional
 television. All of the big manufacturers -- LG, Samsung, Panasonic, Sony -- have
 systems in development, ready to come out at various levels, some fairly simple
 kind of 3D, something like the old 19th century stereoscopes that you look at.
 Of course, those didn't move. Others, with computer-linked wireless glasses that
 actually have a shutter in the eyes, alternating shutter, that's called an
 active system. And that's actually pretty impressive. I'd say that was probably
 the most interesting thing there.
 Q: Well, something with a smaller screen, perhaps: mobile phones. Google is out
 with their new mobile phone, Nexus One, challenging Apple's popular iPhone. Does
 the entry of a search engine company, of all things, into the handset market
 change things, or is it just one new aspect to a rapidly evolving market?
 O'SULLIVAN: "Well, it's hard to say what the result will be. Of course, there
 are people who worry that Google will become the dominant giant in this
 high-tech industry. But you know, there are other people who say they more
 competition from more sources, the better. And it will be interesting to see how
 Google, as an Internet-based company will do producing and marketing its own
 hardware -- in this case a mobile phone.
 Q: Apple is apparently getting ready to introduce a touch-screen tablet
 computer, so I have to ask if there was anything particularly new or interesting
 in personal computers, most of which I guess, frankly, have become pretty
 similar commodity items.
 O'SULLIVAN Well, the market is pretty much saturated with personal computers, so
 companies have to be pretty creative. And one of the directions they're moving
 in is with the tablet or slate computer. Of course, that's what we're expecting
 later this month from Apple. HP [Hewlett-Packard] announced one with Microsoft,
 a joint collaboration. And you know, there are actually quite a few tablets out
 there. Lenovo, the Chinese company, has got a very interesting small netbook
 that has a detachable screen that becomes a tablet computer. Portability is one
 of the themes, and more range, I think, in terms of size.
 Q: Anything new at the CES in the e-reader category?
 O'SULLIVAN Well there are a couple of companies, one is a British company called
 Que, which has an e-reader that people find very impressive -- lightweight,
 fast, easy-to-read, nice handheld size. It's a tough market because Kindle
 dominates and you have also Barnes and Noble and other companies, Sony. And as I
 mentioned, Chinese companies. Hanvon makes interesting little e-readers as well,
 and they're not all that expensive, a few hundred dollars.
 But it remains to be seen whether readers are really going to take to the
 electronic format the way they have traditionally to paper books.
 Q: One of the keynote speakers was Ford's CEO, Alan Mulally. And that was
 interesting to me because you don't think normally of a car company being at the
 Consumer Electronics Show. So what's happening with consumer electronics and
 vehicles?
 O'SULLIVAN: Well, there are actually quite a few cars on the floor of the show
 -- some with LCD viewers, TV or movie viewers on the back of the headrests.
 You're getting a lot of connections between companies. Ford, for example,
 teaming up with Mapquest and AOL to provide real-time directions and also
 Internet access on a screen on the dashboard, although they say the Internet
 connection will be somehow minimized while you're driving so the driver won't be
 distracted playing on the Internet..
 Mike O'Sullivan was VOA's man at this year's Consumer Electronics Show in Las
 Vegas.
 Website of the Week Features Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr.
 On Monday [18 January], Americans observe the annual holiday honoring the
 birthday of the late civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who was
 assassinated in 1968.
 Dr. King's widow, Coretta Scott King, chose Stanford University Professor
 Clayborne Carson to edit her husband's papers for publication. Those many
 volumes of speeches, letters, sermons, and other writings are really intended
 for a scholarly audience, but many of King's writings are now available to a
 wider audience at our Website of the Week.
 CARSON: "Hundreds and even thousands of documents are available on our website,
 and people throughout the world can get access to information that just 20 years
 ago was only available to a handful of researchers. So I think that's a major
 breakthrough and a truly exciting development."
 History professor Clayborne Carson is the editor of the King Papers. While the
 published books will mostly end up in university libraries, Carson says the King
 papers website is designed for a more general audience, so, for example, young
 people can learn about Dr. King.
 They may study the civil right movement in school, using lessons developed by
 the King Papers project called the Liberation Curriculum, designed to teach
 about the values of social justice and non-violence that Dr. King championed in
 his lifetime.
 CARSON: "They can learn about one of the times in history where ordinary people,
 including many people their own age, changed the course of history."
 Martin Luther King is remembered not only as a great civil rights leader but
 also as an orator of prodigious skill. On KingPapers.org you can read and listen
 to excerpts of some of Dr. King's great speeches and sermons.
 The King Papers project is part of Stanford University's Martin Luther King
 Institute, and the website also includes the King Online Encyclopedia and a
 chronology of Dr. King's life.
 It's all there at KingPapers.org, or get the link from our site, voanews.com.
 MUSIC: Billy Taylor Trio -- "I Wish I Knew How It Would Feel To Be Free"
 It's Our World, the weekly science and technology magazine from VOA News. I'm
 Art Chimes in Washington.
 Blind Migraine Sufferers Help Researchers Understand Why Light Makes Headaches
 Worse
 Headaches are a universal phenomenon, but one kind of headache can be
 particularly crippling -- migraines. One thing that sets migraines apart from
 other types of headaches is that sufferers report exposure to light actually
 makes the headache worse -- and, strangely, that can happen even when patients
 are blind. Now, research provides some insight on the causes of this light
 sensitivity. Rose Hoban reports.
 HOBAN: Many people might say that light hurts their eyes when they come into a
 sunny place, until their eyes adjust. But for migraine sufferers, light can be
 torture. Light makes migraines hurt more intensely. It's a phenomenon called
 photophobia. The pain is only relieved by retreating to a dark room, sometimes
 for hours at a time.
 Anesthesiology professor Rami Burstein from Harvard Medical School heard
 complaints about photophobia from countless patients with migraines, except for
 some blind patients.
 BURSTEIN: "And so this group of patients, light does not exacerbate the
 headaches during the migraine attack."
 HOBAN: But not everyone who loses their sight becomes blind in the same way.
 Some people suffer from diseases that degenerate the retina, the
 light-collecting part of the eye. Others lose their sight due to infection or
 age. Burstein says, these blind people are still sensitive to light, because the
 optic nerve that carries information from the eye to the brain remains intact.
 Burstein and his colleagues used this insight to find the nerve pathways in the
 eyes of animals and study them.
 BURSTEIN: "And when the light signals converge on the neurons that are activated
 during migraine, the light signal increases the electrical activity of the
 neurons, and by doing so it exacerbates the headache. And that happened within
 one or two seconds."
 HOBAN: Burstein says that in the long run, knowing this could contribute to
 treatments for migraine.
 BURSTEIN: "If we can find the molecules that the visual pathway used to
 communicate with the migraine pathway in the brain, and find the receptors that
 they act on, we may be able to develop a drug that will interfere with this
 communication, and eliminate the sensitivity to light during migraine."
 HOBAN: For now, Burstein says he's simply describing the basic biology behind
 photophobia. But he says these kinds of findings help brain researchers
 understand more about how migraines occur and eventually, how to treat them.
 Burstein's research is published in Nature Neuroscience.
 I'm Rose Hoban.
 Researchers Say New Genetic map of Malaria Drug Promises Increased Supply
 Scientists have completed the first genetic map of a medicinal plant valued as
 the source of a powerful anti-malaria drug. Researchers say the map should
 substantially increase stocks and bring down the cost of artemisinin, a drug
 that's currently in short supply -- and high demand -- to treat malaria. VOA's
 Jessica Berman reports.
 BERMAN: Artemisinin is cultivated from the ancient Chinese herb, Artemisia
 annua, to treat malaria. The parasitic disease is spread by mosquitoes and kills
 an estimated 900,000 people every year, mostly children.
 While the parasite responsible for malaria has developed resistance to many
 drugs, rendering them less effective as a treatment, artemisinin remains a
 potent weapon. But supplies of the medication are limited because it is
 cultivated from seeds of a low-yielding wild plant. As a result, artemisinin
 costs ten times more than other anti-malarials, so it is used sparingly in
 combination with other drugs to boost their effectiveness.
 Now, researchers at the University of York in England are using genetic
 technology to address the problem. They have drawn a genetic map of the annua
 plant that has identified traits and markers related to the production of
 artemisinin.
 Ian Graham with York University's Center for Novel Agricultural products helped
 decipher the artemisinin plant's yield and quality characteristics. He says the
 new genetic blueprint provides a way to boost the annua plant's artemisin
 output.
 GRAHAM: "What our work is doing is developing new high yielding varieties using
 this new knowledge. And that will stabilize the supply and prevent these price
 hikes in the drug which currently exist."
 BERMAN: Graham says scientists hope to get seeds of the higher yielding annual
 varieties delivered soon to farmers, including those in developing countries, to
 start bolstering the worldwide supply of the anti-malarial drug. GRAHAM: "So, I
 think if those processes are effective, we can look forward to reducing malaria.
 That's what our work is contributing to."
 BERMAN: Malaria strikes an estimated 300-500 million people around the world
 each year.
 Will Milhaus of the College of Public Health at the University of South Florida
 says the possibility of increasing the global supply of artemisin is very
 exciting.
 MILHAUS: "I think it will go a long way towards, as they described, making it
 into a crop, and making it economically feasible to maintain world supplies."
 The research study and commentary by Will Milhaus on the the new genetic map of
 artemisinin is published in the journal Science.
 Jessice Berman, VOA News, Washington.
 Scientists May Soybean Genome, Create GM Variety with Omega-3
 In other genetic news, an international team of scientists has sequenced the
 entire genetic map of one of our most important food crops.
 The team, led by researchers at Purdue University, found about 46,000 genes in
 the soybean. But many are duplicates, and one of the lead researchers, Scott
 Jackson, says that may complicate the process of using the genetic map to
 develop improved soybean varieties.
 Even before this week's announcement of the sequencing, genetic researchers have
 been tinkering with the ubiquitous soybean.
 In fact, a new variety of genetically modified, or GM, soybean nearing
 commercialization promises to deliver health benefits that could change how
 people think about agricultural biotechnology. VOA's Steve Baragona has more.
 BARAGONA: Today's genetically modified crops are designed to help farmers by
 making weed and insect control easier. But they're not designed to help
 consumers, says Jane Rissler, with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
 RISSLER: "The farmers and the companies have profited and benefited, and
 consumers have taken whatever risks there are."
 BARAGONA: In the decade or more that GM crops have been on the market, those
 perceived risks -- to the natural environment and to human health -- have not
 materialized. But many consumers remain uncomfortable with anyone tinkering with
 their food. That's especially true in Europe, where farmers are prohibited from
 growing most GM crops.
 But a new crop could complicate the picture. The giant U.S. seed and biotech
 company Monsanto is on the verge of introducing genetically modified soybeans
 that produce substantial amounts of omega-3 fatty acids. Research shows that a
 diet rich in omega-3s is good for the heart and the brain.
 Roy Fuchs heads soybean research at Monsanto. He says conversations with
 European regulators about the new omega-3-rich soybeans have been encouraging.
 FUCHS: "They see this as really the first of a number of products that will have
 direct consumer benefits and an opportunity to change the conversation from
 productivity to human health."
 BARAGONA: Omega-3-rich GM soybeans could change the conversation because soybean
 oil is practically ubiquitous in Western processed foods. It's in everything
 from breads and granola bars to salad dressings. Fuchs says you could get your
 full daily allotment of one type of omega-3s just by eating three products made
 with the new soybean oil.
 These days, Fuchs takes a capsule of fish oil every day to get his omega-3s.
 FUCHS: "But I'd much rather have my yogurt and granola bar and salad dressing
 with omega-3 than having to take a capsule every morning."
 BARAGONA: Providing convenient ways to increase the amount of omega-3s in the
 American diet could provide some real benefits, according to University of
 Southern California pharmacology professor Roger Clemens, a spokesman for the
 American Society for Nutrition.
 CLEMENS: "Particularly as our population gets older, this population's at the
 highest risk of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and
 obviously Alzheimer's [disease]. So, those five major hits [diseases] may be
 impacted by this type of [decision] to provide more omega-3 fatty acids in the
 American diet."
 BARAGONA: While few would argue that a food rich in omega-3 fatty acids would be
 a healthful addition to any diet, skeptics aren't convinced that Monsanto's
 genetically modified soybean is the best source for those nutrients. And Jane
 Rissler with the Union of Concerned Scientists says questions remain about
 possible health risks from the GM soybean oil itself.
 RISSLER: "This is a rather substantial interference with the oil metabolism
 processes of soybeans. And this, to us, raises some potential -- and I say
 potential -- safety issues that we think need more careful consideration."
 BARAGONA: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently gave its approval to
 Monsanto's soybean oil. But Rissler says the FDA's approval process relies too
 heavily on the company's own safety-testing data.
 Monsanto expects their omega-3 soybean oil to hit the market in the next couple
 years. And then the question will be whether consumers will warm to genetically
 modified foods made with their health in mind -- or whether they'll remain wary
 of anyone tinkering with the fundamental chemistry of their food.
 Steve Baragona, VOA News, Washington.
 MUSIC: "Our World" theme
 That's our show for this week.
 We'd like to hear from you. You can email us at ourworld@voanews.com Or write us
 at -
 Our World Voice of America Washington, DC 20237 USA
 Our program was edited by Rob Sivak. Bob Doughty is the technical director.
 And this is Art Chimes inviting you to join us online at voanews.com/ourworld or
 on your radio next Saturday and Sunday as we check out the latest in science and
 technology in Our World.
 LOAD-DATE: January 15, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Journal
            Copyright 2010 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 883
 
                        Austin American-Statesman (Texas)
                             December 27, 2009 Sunday
                                  FINAL Edition
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. F02
 LENGTH: 902 words
 State government isn't a joke
 Re: Dec. 22 column "At mayhem central, we relish team of Hutchison and Earle."
 I take issue with Ken Herman's assessment and his apparent endorsements of U.S.
 Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and ex-Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle.
 While it might make for good theater, the business of our state and leaders are
 too serious for a comedic venue.
 John Nugent
 Georgetown
 Time Warner rates
 Re: Dec. 22 article "Time Warner, Fox battle over fee."
 In the midst of the latest whining by Time Warner Cable, I encourage TWC
 customers to check their bills carefully. Last month TWC advised it were raising
 my cable service rate more than 10 percent. Sure enough, my new bill reflects
 this rate hike.
 Because I am so angry at TWC over its antics, I carefully studied my bill and
 noticed that the rate I am paying for on-line service is $4.96 over the rate
 shown on the pricing sheet. Imagine my shock when its representative told me
 that the rate for Road Runner had been lowered sometime in the past, but because
 I was on an old rate plan they did not decrease my bill.
 Seems they could manage to raise my rates right on time when they raised prices
 but couldn't manage to lower my rates when they lowered prices.
 Anita Moore
 Liberty Hill
 Regarding the cable drama, here's a compromise: Raise the rates and drop Fox.
 That'll be money well spent.
 Kent Santoriello
 Austin
 Health care reform
 Re: Dec. 22 editorial "Enough dealing to make you sick."
 "Opponents of the overhaul say Americans have the best health care system in the
 world," it says. It continues: "That may be true ""
 Allow me the view that this is an unfortunate, if loose, confirmation of the
 opponents statement.
 In at least two other articles in this issue we read "25 percent" and
 "one-fourth" of Texans have no insurance.
 I believe most people agree that the U.S. has some of the best health care in
 the world, but not the best system.
 Leroy H. Haverlah Jr.
 Austin
 Big rigs on the interstate
 Re: Dec. 21 Getting There column "Texas 130 holds little allure for big rigs
 drawn to I-35."
 Thanks, Ben Wear, for identifying the real reason that big rigs take Interstate
 35 instead of Texas 130. It's money.
 A well-serviced tractor gets 6 mpg and pays $6 to drive the extra 12 miles
 bypassing Austin. The toll road advocates goofed thinking trucks would fill the
 lanes on a bypass toll road.
 That's a correctable mistake. Why not swap Interstate 35 for the bypass and make
 the route through Austin a toll road? Truckers will trade the $6 for fuel to
 save $26 in tolls, especially if they can save time or have a dependable
 schedule. Also, lightweights just passing through will avoid the toll road, so
 they're off the route through Austin.
 The increase in revenue should more than offset the cost of relocation and toll
 attendants (new jobs, no less).
 Dwight Silver
 dsilver13@austin.rr.com
 Austin
 Arts omission
 Re: Dec. 20 article "Long on progress."
 Jeanne Claire van Ryzin's piece on the decade's progress of Austin arts
 organizations' building venues had one obvious omission. Austin Lyric Opera
 began the 2000s with the unveiling of its facility at the corner of Barton
 Springs Road and Bouldin Avenue.
 What replaced a brownfield designation on that corner is a facility designed by
 Lake/Flato Architects, winners of the AIA National Firm Award in 2004 and
 recently the Texas Medal of Arts.
 Lake/Flato worked to comply with Austin's Green Building Program to design an
 awarding space that also includes the Armstrong Community Music School, which
 serves 1,200 students weekly.
 Austin Lyric Opera is the only opera company in the world that has a community
 music school. Because Lake/Flato has been selected to build Austin's new
 downtown library, recognizing ALO's facility and the upcoming library would have
 been nice additions that would better round out the decade of the 2000s.
 Molly Browning
 Director of public relations
 Austin Lyric Opera
 mbrowning@austinlyricopera.org
 Austin
 Ban on texting
 Re: Dec. 18 article "Council expands its ban on texting behind the wheel."
 Texting while driving endangers your passengers and everyone nearby. Including
 other uses of electronics in the city ban on texting is a logical extension.
 Although enforcement seems difficult, this law gives passengers authority to
 speak up for all of our safety.
 When driving under the influence of an electronic device is a contributing cause
 to an accident, additional penalties should apply.
 Woody Raine
 wwraine@gmail.com
 Austin
 Genetically modified food
 Re: Dec. 20 article "Monsanto's dominance draws antitrust inquiry."
 The Insight article about Monsanto's monopolisticshenanigans left out the wider
 truth about this company.
 Yes, its anticompetitive practices are drawing notice, but its contempt for
 American consumers has been drawing much greater attention for years now.
 I am just one of the millions of Americans who refuse to be guinea pigs in
 Monsanto's huge genetically modified food experiment. The revolving door between
 our government and Monsanto has ensured that all kinds of strange, untested
 "Frankenfoods" havemade it onto supermarket shelveswith no labeling.
 Only by eating organic can theconsumer avoid these products withtheir
 recklessly manipulated DNA.
 In Europe and other places smarter than us, Monsanto has been forced to play
 fair. In theU.S., many people assume that these GMO crops are fed onlyto
 cattle. I've got some news: You are the cattle.
 Chris Jones
 Austin
 LOAD-DATE: December 27, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2009 The Austin American-Statesman
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 884
 
                                The New York Times
                             December 14, 2009 Monday
                          The New York Times on the Web
 Protesters Mostly Quiet After Day of Action
 BYLINE: By TOM ZELLER Jr.; Andrew C. Revkin and Lars Kroldrup contributed
 reporting.
 SECTION: Section ; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Pg.
 LENGTH: 912 words
 Scattered protests continued on Sunday, but climate activists in Copenhagen were
 largely quiet after a day of mass demonstrations resulted in nearly 1,000
 arrests.
 Per Larsen, coordinator for the Danish police, said that officers arrested about
 230 people by midday Sunday, most in an illegal protest in the northern part of
 the city. The Bella Center, where representatives of nearly 200 countries have
 been meeting to craft a global strategy to combat climate change, was closed for
 the day.
 On Saturday, tens of thousands of demonstrators from around the globe took to
 the streets here for the largest protest planned during the two weeks of talks
 on a global strategy to combat climate change.
 The police and organizers estimated that 60,000 to 100,000 participants joined a
 long march on Saturday from Christiansborg Slotsplads, or Castle Square,
 southward to the Bella Center.
 The main demonstration -- which brought together a broad coalition of hundreds
 of environmental groups, human rights campaigners, climate activists,
 anticapitalists and freelance protesters from dozens of countries -- was mostly
 peaceful. But in other parts of the city, spontaneous demonstrations by bands of
 radical protesters resulted in at least 950 arrests, the police said.
 A spokeswoman for the police department said there were scattered reports of
 localized riots in which protesters threw rocks and smashed windows. The police
 said that four parked cars had been set ablaze in the Christiana neighborhood
 and that at least one police officer had been struck in the jaw by a rock.
 ''We saved the demonstration from being disturbed totally,'' Mr. Larsen said.
 ''There were some hard-core protesters that we have neutralized.''
 The violence was a counterpoint to the otherwise peaceful march, in which a
 rolling sea of flags and banners undulated across the city. Most bore slogans
 related to global warming or urging world leaders to resolve the vast
 differences that still make an international accord seem elusive as talks here
 move into the second and final week.
 ''Bla, Bla, Bla,'' read one popular sign. ''Act Now!''
 On a stage at the eastern edge of the square, a succession of speakers stoked a
 cheering crowd, their voices booming over loudspeakers. ''My words cannot
 replace action,'' said Helle Thorning-Schmidt, the leader of Denmark's Social
 Democrats, the dominant opposition party here. ''We are here to show leaders
 that what is made by man, can be changed by man.''
 In Saturday's throng was 26-year-old Jemimah Maitei, dressed in traditional
 clothing from her native Kenya. She said she had traveled to Copenhagen to be
 part of a delegation representing indigenous peoples at the talks, which are
 overseen by the United Nations.
 ''I came here to give my views on how climate change is impacting my
 community,'' Ms. Maitei said. She cited relentless droughts that had made
 growing crops, among other things, increasingly difficult for the Masai, her
 ethnic group.
 The vast demonstration, which unfolded in crisp temperatures under cloudless
 skies, was not the exclusive province of climate campaigners. Groups of diverse
 social and political pedigree took advantage of the huge gathering to advance
 their agendas, too. One sign urged the overthrow of the Iranian government.
 Another, with the words ''Earth in Need: Delete Meat,'' was one of many
 promoting vegetarian diets.
 People calling for a free Tibet were well represented, and a small contingent of
 climate skeptics and libertarians derided the United Nations talks.
 ''We want to be able to live our lives like we've always led them before -- as
 free citizens in free democracies,'' said David Pontoppidan, a graduate student
 in sociology at the University of Copenhagen, who addressed passers-by through a
 megaphone over the chatter of two helicopters hovering far above. ''We want free
 debate; we want to be able to be taken seriously even though we don't agree with
 the U.N.''
 By midafternoon, as the throng made its way over the canal and southward toward
 the Bella Center, small bands of black-clad youths chanting anticapitalist
 slogans and carrying sticks and rocks could be seen infiltrating the otherwise
 peaceful crowd.
 At around 3:30, dozens of Danish police officers penetrated the parade near its
 tail and surrounded a group of the more radical protesters. At the end of the
 march, a stage was set up for more speeches. One speaker railed against nuclear
 power, and another against genetically modified food. A speaker from India
 demanded that rich nations provide technology to develop flood- and
 drought-resistant crops.
 Given that the lion's share of greenhouse gases have been emitted by
 industrialized nations, developing countries have argued that they have a duty
 to help poor lands deal with the consequences of global warming, including
 drought, floods and tropical storms.
 While several demonstrators made for the Metro trains, others decided to avoid
 the crush of the crowds and walk back to the city the way they came. Among them
 were Lars Leffland and Lise Blaase, a couple from Copenhagen.
 ''The demonstration when it started was very beautiful with all the colors and
 the music,'' Mr. Leffland said. But Ms. Blaase suggested that what had begun
 with exuberance seemed, in the end, to simply fizzle.
 ''It was somewhat of an anticlimax,'' she said as she walked north away from the
 Bella Center. ''It seemed as if no one was in charge, and there was no
 closure.''
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: December 14, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 885
 
                Agriculture Department Documents and Publications
                                 December 9, 2009
 Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.; Determination of Nonregulated Status for
 Corn Genetically Engineered for Tolerance to Glyphosate and Acetolactate
 Synthase-Inhibiting Herbicides;
 Federal Register Extracts
 LENGTH: 1418  words
 SUMMARY: We are advising the public of our determination that a corn line
 developed by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, designated as transformation event
 98140, which has been genetically engineered for tolerance to glyphosate and
 acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides, is no longer considered a regulated
 article under our regulations governing the introduction of certain genetically
 engineered organisms. Our determination is based on our evaluation of data
 submitted by the Pioneer Hi-Bred International in its petition for a
 determination of nonregulated status, our analysis of other scientific data, and
 comments received from the public in response to a previous notice announcing
 the availability of the petition for nonregulated status and its associated
 environmental assessment. This notice also announces the availability of our
 written determination and finding of no significant impact.
 December 9, 2009.
 ADDRESSES: You may read the petition, final environmental assessment,
 determination, finding of no significant impact, comments we received on our
 previous notice, and our responses to those comments in our reading room. The
 reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and
 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m.
 to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is
 there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming. To view these
 documents on the Internet, go to
 (http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetailandd=APHI
 Other Information: Additional information about APHIS and its programs is
 available on the Internet at (http://www.aphis.usda.gov).
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Michael Watson, Biotechnology Regulatory
 Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301)
 734-0846, email: michael.t.watson@aphis.usda.gov To obtain copies of the
 petition or the environmental assessment, contact Mrs. Cindy Eck at (301)
 734-0667, email: cynthia.a.eck@aphis.usda.gov The petition and the environmental
 assessment are also available on the Internet at
 (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/07_15201p.pdf) and
 (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/07_15201p_ea.pdf).
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, "Introduction of
 Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are
 Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests," regulate,
 among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or
 release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced
 through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to
 believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are
 considered "regulated articles."
 The regulations in SEC 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to
 the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination
 that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and
 (c) of SEC 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of
 nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the
 petition.
 On June 1, 2007, APHIS received a petition seeking a determination of
 nonregulated status (APHIS Petition Number 07-152-01p) from Pioneer Hi-Bred
 International, Inc., of Johnston, IA (Pioneer), for corn (Zea mays L.)
 designated as transformation event 98140, which has been genetically engineered
 for tolerance to glyphosate and acetolactate synthase (ALS)-inhibiting
 herbicides, stating that corn line 98140 is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk
 and, therefore, should not be a regulated article under APHIS' regulations in 7
 CFR part 340.
 As described in the petition, the 98140 corn line has been genetically
 engineered to express modified glyphosate acetyltransferase (GAT4621) and
 modified maize acetolactate synthase (ZM-HRA) proteins. The GAT4621 protein,
 encoded by the gat4621 gene, confers tolerance to glyphosate-containing
 herbicides by acetylating glyphosate and thus rendering it non-phytotoxic. The
 ZM-HRA protein, encoded by the zm-hra gene, confers tolerance to the
 ALS-inhibiting class of herbicides (e.g., sulfonylureas and imidazolinones).
 Expression of the zm-hra gene is controlled by the maize ALS (acetolactate
 synthase) promoter. ALS is the enzyme required for the production of essential
 branched-chain amino acids such as valine, leucine, and isoleucine. The gat4621
 gene is based on the sequences of three gat genes from Bacillus licheniformis, a
 common soil bacterium. Expression of the gat4621 gene is driven by the corn
 ubiquitin promoter (ubi ZM1). The zm-hra gene was made by isolating the
 herbicide sensitive maize ALS gene and introducing two specific changes known to
 confer herbicide tolerance to tobacco ALS.
 The genetic insert also contains the terminator sequence from Solanum tuberosum
 (potato) and two sequences from two prevalent plant pests, cauliflower mosaic
 virus (enhancer) and Agrobacterium tumefaciens (border region). All of these
 sequences are well-characterized and are non-coding regulatory regions only.
 Therefore, these sequences will not cause the 98140 corn line to promote plant
 disease.
 A single copy of these genes and other DNA regulatory sequences were introduced
 into the corn genome with the transformation vector PHP24279 using disarmed
 (non-plant pest causing) A. tumefaciens transformation of immature embryos.
 Plant cells containing the introduced DNA were selected by culturing in the
 presence of glyphosate. After the initial transformation, the antibiotic
 carbenicillin was included in the culture medium to kill any remaining
 Agrobacterium. Therefore, no part of the plant pest A. tumefaciens remains in
 Pioneer HT corn due to the transformation method.
 Pioneer's 98140 corn line has been considered a regulated article under the
 regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because it contains gene sequences from plant
 pathogens. The 98140 corn line has been field tested in the United States since
 2005 as authorized by APHIS notifications and permits. In the process of
 reviewing the permits for field trials of the subject corn, APHIS determined
 that the vectors and other elements used to introduce the new genes were
 disarmed and that the trials, which were conducted under conditions of
 reproductive and physical confinement or isolation, would not present a risk of
 plant pest introduction or dissemination. Field tests conducted under APHIS
 regulatory oversight allowed for evaluation in a natural agricultural setting
 while imposing measures to minimize the risk of persistence in the environment
 after completion of the test. Data are gathered on multiple parameters and used
 by the applicant to evaluate agronomic characteristics and product performance.
 These field test data, in turn, are used by APHIS to determine if the regulated
 corn event poses a plant pest risk. Pioneer has petitioned APHIS to make a
 determination that the 98140 corn line and the progeny derived from its crosses
 with other nonregulated corn will no longer be considered regulated articles
 under 7 CFR part 340.
 In a notice /1/ published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2008 (73 FR
 74453-74454, Docket No. APHIS-2008-0094), APHIS announced the availability of
 Pioneer's petition and its associated draft environmental assessment (EA) for
 public comment. APHIS solicited comments on whether the subject corn would
 present a plant pest risk and on the EA. APHIS received 31 unique comments
 during the comment period. There were 12 comments from groups or individuals who
 supported deregulation and 19 from those who opposed deregulation; attached to
 one of these comments were 13,255 form letters (same letter, different
 submitters). In addition, APHIS received a number of documents attached to 12
 blank comments. APHIS has addressed the issues raised during the comment period
 and has provided responses to these comments as an attachment to the finding of
 no significant impact.
 FOOTNOTE 1 To view the notice, petition, EA, and the comments we received, go to
 (http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetailandd=APHI
 Determination
 --This is a summary of a Federal Register article originally published on the
 page number listed below--
 Notice.
 Citation: "74 FR 65088"
 Federal Register Page Number: "65088"
 "Notices"
 LOAD-DATE: December 9, 2009
            Copyright 2009 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 886
 
                         Contra Costa Times (California)
                            November 4, 2009 Wednesday
 Review: Washington, Travolta motor through 'Pelham 123'
 BYLINE: By Barry Caine Oakland Tribune
 SECTION: ENTERTAINMENT; Film; DVD; Movies
 LENGTH: 933 words
 Denzel Washington and John Travolta are both at the top of their game in "The
 Taking of Pelham 123," a remake of the cult-fave 1974 thriller about a hostage
 situation involving a New York City subway car.
 Travolta plays the volatile mastermind behind the crime, involving a ransom
 demand and the threat to kill one hostage for each minute the money is delayed.
 Washington is cast as the harried dispatcher who tries to negotiate with
 Travolta, the source of most of the pyrotechnics.
 The film's more revamp than remake and, except for the far-fetched Hollywood
 ending, it's an exciting   and violent   ride. The original had tighter
 storytelling but the update satisfies, mostly because of the Washington-Travolta
 dynamic. Also on Blu-ray.
 Extras: Commentary, making-of doc, look at the NYC subway system, more.
 Little green men
 Little green aliens land on an extended family's vacation house and begin an
 invasion in "Aliens in the Attic." The grown-ups (including Kevin Nealon, Andy
 Richter and Doris Roberts) stay clueless while the kids (Ashley Tisdale, Robert
 Hoffman and such) do the darnedest things to save themselves, their relatives
 and the planet. Lively but silly, the picture's rated FKO (for kids only). The
 script's skimpy and the animated critters look old-school (think
 "Gremlins"-lite), but some visual gags are funny, the little girl (Ashley
 Boettcher) is cute and Tisdale's charismatic, though, like much of the movie, a
 little shrill. Thomas Haden Church voices one of the Zirkonian invaders. Also on
 Blu-ray.
 Extras: Deleted scenes, so-so gag reel, more.
 Searching for answers
 "The Answer Man" is an affable low-key, low-budget romantic comedy that I
 enjoyed even though it's uneven and only lasted about a day and a half in
 theaters. Jeff Daniels, the main reason to see this, displays excellent comic
 timing as a reclusive author in the throes of a spiritual crisis, despite having
 written a still-popular mega-sellerer about talking to God years ago. Through
 accidental meetings with a single mom/chiropractor (Lauren Graham, a delight as
 always) and a recovering addict (Lou Taylor Pucci) searching for answers, he
 starts to get his life together. John Hindman, the film's writer and director,
 grew up in Pleasanton. Also on Blu-ray.
 Extras: Commentary, making-of short, more.
 Also new on DVD
 "Clone Wars: The Complete Season One": Fills the gap between Episode II and
 Episode III of the live-action films. Basically, animated Jedi Knights and their
 clones battle animated Separatists and their droid army. Excellent sound, good
 animation; for young boys who like a lot of shooting, explosions, and movement
 and don't have trouble with multisyllabic names. Includes all 22 episodes, plus
 extras such as director's cuts and a cool, 64-page production journal with
 sketches, artists' notes and such inserted in the middle of the four-disc set.
 Also on Blu-ray.
 "Columbia Pictures Film Noir Classics Volume 1": Includes "The Big Heat," "The
 Sniper," "5 Against the House," "Murder by Contract" and "The Lineup," all
 restored and digitally remastered; extras include commentary by James Ellroy and
 Eddie Muller.
 "Food, Inc.": Our food industry cuts costs and we eat unhealthy meat and such;
 compelling documentary looks at "factory farms," genetically modified food from
 diseased animals, monopolies influencing government.
 "G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra": The G.I. Joe unit gets a live-action treatment as
 it pursues a nasty arms dealer. Channing Taylor, Dennis Quaid, Sienna Miller and
 Marlon Wayans star. Lots of action. Surprise box-office hit.
 "Lemon Tree": Engaging drama about a Palestinian widow scrounging a living on
 the West Bank from the family's lemon grove. When an Israeli official moves next
 door and demands the trees be cut down because they may hide terroists, she
 hires a Palestinian attorney to help her save her business; in Arabic, Hebrew
 and English.
 "I Love You, Beth Cooper": A Hayden Panettiere ("Heroes") promo about a geeky
 high school valedictorian (Paul Rust) declaring his love for the coolest girl
 (Panettiere) on campus during his speech and, despite their lack of chemistry,
 their attempts at bonding; with alternate ending.
 "It's a Wonderful Life": George and Clarence on a two-disc gift set and, for the
 first time, on Blu-ray; black-and-white and color versions included on both.
 "Merry Sitcom: Christmas Classics from TV's Golden Age": Holiday episodes from
 "Father Knows Best," "Bewitched," "McHale's Navy" and three other shows.
 "Unmistaken Child": Well-reviewed documentary about a young monk's four-year
 search for his master's reincarnation.
 "Where God Left His Shoes": John Leguizamo plays a homeless veteran trying to
 get a job by Christmas morning so he and his family qualify for an apartment;
 don't bet against him.
 Other titles
 "Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life"; "Dark Mirror"; "Dora the Explorer: Dora's
 Christmas Carol Adventure"; "G.I. Joe: Resolute" (animated); "Mission
 Impossible: The Final TV Season"; "The Shield: The Complete Series"; "Thomas &
 Friends: Holiday Express"; "White Christmas: Anniversary Edition"; "Who is KK
 Downey?" (Canadian comic troupe); "Will Ferrell: You're Welcome America. A Final
 Night With George W. Bush" (one-man show); "Zorro: The First Complete Season"
 and "Zorro: The Second Complete Season" (both in black and white).
 On Blu-ray
 "Forrest Gump"; "Rocky: The Undisputed Collection" (all six films); "Say
 Anything... 20th Anniversary Edition" (Cameron Crowe's first, with John Cusack
 and Ione Skye); "Two Girls And A Guy" (includes "A Conversation With James
 Toback").
 Reach Barry Caine at bcaine@bayareanewsgroup.com
 LOAD-DATE: November 8, 2009
 GRAPHIC: John Travolta in Columbia Pictures' action thriller THE TAKING OF
 PELHAM 123, also starring Denzel Washington.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2009 Contra Costa Newspapers
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 887
 
                        The Virginian-Pilot(Norfolk, VA.)
                             October 18, 2009 Sunday
                            The Virginian-Pilot Edition
 SECTION: DAILY BREAK; Pg. E5
 LENGTH: 469 words
 footnotes
 'Hitchhiker' books are adding a 6th
 Eoin Colfer, author of the best-selling "Artemis Fowl" adventure novels for
 young adults, was chosen by Douglas Adams's widow, Jane Belson, to mark the 30th
 anniversary of the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" series with "And Another
 Thing ..." (Hyperion, $25.99). Colfer has brought back Arthur and others, and
 added some characters. The five books have sold more than 16 million copies .
 Online, an interview: www.tinyurl.com/yg6qcvc (Bloomberg).
 Jeff Kinney's latest "Wimpy Kid" book ("Dog Days"), out last week , was in such
 demand that publisher Harry N. Abrams boosted the first printing to 4 million
 copies from 3 million. (Publishers Weekly)
 Obituary: Stuart Kaminsky, film scholar turned detective novelist, has died at
 new reads
 "Just Food," by James E. McWilliams ($25.99, Little, Brown). Think you're doing
 the planet a favor by eating local? Think again. This book bucks the "locavore"
 trend with 222 pages of well-buttressed arguments against it. McWilliams, a
 history professor and former locavore , calls eating local an "easy gesture" but
 posits that it's irresponsible because producing food this way could never feed
 the nearly 10 billion humans on our planet. He debunks the "miles traveled"
 theory and moves on to support genetically modified foods and advocating that
 humans eat less land-raised meat. - Lorraine Eaton, staff writer
 Recommended: "The Good Soldiers" - by David Finkel, who covered the surge for
 The Washington Post - details "the war as experienced on the ground, day by day,
 moment by moment," by members of an Army infantry battalion in Baghdad, 2007
 (NYT). Chat and excerpt: www.tinyurl.com/ld68mh . (FSG, $26)
 Also: "D-Day: The Battle for Normandy," by Antony Beevor. What war was like for
 the troops and for the civilians whose paths they crossed (The Post). Viking,
 $32.95. ... "Juliet, Naked," by Nick Hornby. "A deceptively breezy novel about a
 truly vexing question: What do you do with the suspicion that you've wasted most
 of your adult life?" (San Francisco Chronicle). Riverhead, $25.95.
 what's online
 Michael Chabon discusses his writing process and why he chose manhood as a
 subject ("Manhood for Amateurs: The Pleasures and Regrets of a Husband, Father,
 and Son": Harper, $25.99) - with a link to a review by Steve Almond. L.A. Times:
 www.tinyurl.com/5fs7xt
 events
 Julie Powell, "Julie & Julia," talk, reception, 7 p.m. Monday , Sadler Center,
 College of William & Mary. $10 at door (limited). (757) 221-3300.
 Tony Williams signs "Hurricane of Independence," 1 p.m. Thursday , 10 a.m. Oct
 25 . William & Mary Bookstore, Merchants Square, Williamsburg. (757) 253-4900.
 Poet Jorn Ake, reading ("Boys Whistling Like Canaries," "The Circle Line"), 7
 p.m. Thursday , Prince Books, 109 E. Main St., Norfolk. (757) 622-9223.
 LOAD-DATE: October 18, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2009 Landmark Communications, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 888
 
                        The Indianapolis Business Journal
                                 October 12, 2009
 Dow AgroSciences ratcheting up biotech efforts;
 Company gets results with Monsanto partnership and new corn seed that's more
 resistant against herbicides, bugs
 LENGTH: 831 words
 Dow AgroSciences ratcheting up biotech efforts Company gets results with
 Monsanto partnership and new corn seed that's more resistant against herbicides,
 bugs
 Dow AgroSciences' introduction of a promising new product is helping transform
 the Indianapolis company as it transitions from a focus on traditional
 agricultural chemicals to genetically altered seeds.
 The subsidiary of Michigan-based Dow Chemical Co. partnered with St. Louisbased
 Monsanto Co. to develop what could become its biggest blockbuster, a genetically
 modified corn variety it calls SmartStax.
 SmartStax is set to hit the market next year and could improve crop yields as
 much as 10 percent by better protecting the plants against herbicides and bugs.
 Analysts predict annual sales of the corn seed could peak at $6.6 billion by
 Dow AgroSciences officials declined to speculate on SmartStax's revenue
 potential, but acknowledged its importance to the company's growth.
 "We are very much working on balancing our portfolio," spokeswoman Kenda
 Resler-Friend said. "Today, our bread and butter is our chemicals, but we're
 looking to pump up the seed business."
 Indeed, the growing seed sector last year accounted for 11 percent of Dow Agro
 sales.
 Parent Dow has acquired 11 seed companies in the past two years to build a
 distribution network for SmartStax. The lion's share of sales would go to
 Monsanto, which dominates the seed business, particularly with its popular
 DeKalb brand. But Dow could steal market share from other seed companies.
 SmartStax combines eight genetically modified traits, four from each company and
 the most ever contained in one seed, which makes it deadlier for insects and
 harder for them to develop resistance.
 Furthering its marketability, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and its
 Canadian counterpart said farmers could plant SmartStax seed on nearly all their
 land. Farmers typically must plant conventional seed in a "refuge" to guard
 against insects' becoming resistant to the genetically modified seed.
 Christian Krupke, an assistant professor of entomology at Purdue University,
 said it is unusual for agricultural rivals to collaborate on a product. Dow's
 existing Herculex insect killer is marketed by Pioneer, and Monsanto has its
 YieldGard crop protector.
 "It's hard to get these people to the table when essentially they are
 competitors," Krupke said. "To see these toxins put together and stacked is not
 something very many people saw coming. I know I didn't."
 Dow and Monsanto embarked on the partnership four years ago as part of a mission
 undertaken by former Dow Agro CEO Jerome Peribere to take the company from an
 average-performing maker of lowmargin chemicals to a thriving seed biotechnology
 powerhouse.
 Dow recently promoted Peribere to lead its advanced materials business in
 Philadelphia. He has been replaced by Antonio Galindez, who served as vice
 president of Dow Agro's crops business. The company also makes pesticides for
 household and other uses.
 At IBJ's Life Sciences Power Breakfast in July, Peribere described the alliance
 with Monsanto that produced SmartStax as groundbreaking.
 "Do you think that Monsanto, which is a big giant in plant biotechnology, would
 have done it on their own if they could have?" he asked. "Yes, they would
 [have], and why didn't they? It's because they couldn't put the two together, so
 we did that in collaboration and we are going to allow the farmer and the
 customers around the world to take great benefits from this."
 Dow Agro has enjoyed explosive growth in recent years, helping to bolster its
 parent's overall performance. In fact, Dow would not have been profitable in the
 first quarter if not for the agricultural unit. Dow slid to a loss in the second
 quarter.
 Still, Dow Agro's success prompted its parent to back away from statements made
 earlier this year that Dow might spin off the unit, sell it, or team with
 another agricultural company in order to cut its debt from its April buyout of
 Philadelphiabased Rohm & Haas.
 "Unlocking the value of Dow AgroSciences has always been on our radar screen,"
 Dow CEO Andrew Liveris said Sept. 16 at the Credit Suisse Chemical and
 Agricultural Science Conference. "We will not let that value go out the door."
 That security makes it easier for Dow Agro to forge ahead on research and
 development. The company in July signed a 15-year lease that is spurring
 construction of an 80,000-square-foot research-and-development building, to be
 erected adjacent to its headquarters in the northwestern corner of Indianapolis.
 Dow Agro's commitment is just part of the growing agricultural research being
 conducted in the state, Indiana Agriculture Director Anne Hazlett said.
 "There are very few companies in the world that are able to conduct the type of
 research and push the new technologies like Dow AgroSciences," Hazlett said,
 "and they are right here in our back yard."
 The company plans to hire dozens of additional researchers. Dow Agro currently
 employs 1,200 in Indianapolis.
 LOAD-DATE: February 12, 2010
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2009 IBJ Corporation
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 889
 
                           The Herald-Sun (Durham, NC)
                             August 5, 2009 Wednesday
 Letters to the Editor
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. a6
 LENGTH: 494  words
 Ban genetically modified food
 Don't believe the new wave of media advising us that organic foods are no more
 nutritious than non-organic. Perhaps their definition of nutrition differs from
 mine.
 I consider something that is more healthy to be more nutritious. Only by eating
 organic can you ensure that you are not eating genetically modified produce, not
 to mention avoiding toxic pesticides.
 Proponents of GM crops argue that these methods have increased the yield to help
 feed the increasing population. That statement is completely untrue. In fact,
 the GM crops produce less and pollute the ground on which they are grown.
 According to a recent article by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine,
 which cites numerous studies, GM foods are related to ailments including allergy
 and immune function, reproductive health and metabolic, physiologic and genetic
 health.
 There is no benefit from GM crops, only harm. It needs to stop. This country is
 experiencing a health care crisis, yet the FDA continues to allow unsafe
 "frankenfood" products to flood our stores while claiming they are "within
 normal" range of safety. Healthier people will result in less-needed health
 care, which will result in fewer prescriptions and doctor visits, which will
 result in more affordable health insurance without government assistance.
 Everyone is looking at the wrong issues with our health care. Contact your
 congressman/woman and tell them you want legislation that will prohibit genetic
 modification of our food. We are what we eat. I want to eat healthy.
 Durham
 Protect the public
 I'm concerned about the future of electrical power in the hands of Duke Energy.
 The power company continues to plan for increases in coal and nuclear sources of
 energy rather than earnestly encouraging conservation or developing solar or
 wind possibilities.
 Because of the long-term risk and liabilities of nuclear power plants, such
 investments are rated just above junk bond status by a new report from Moody's
 Investment Services. We are protected by a North Carolina law prohibiting the
 state from holding such devalued investments.
 The watchdog group NC WARN called on Treasurer Janet Cowell to ensure that
 various state funds exclude bonds issued by both Duke Energy and Progress
 Energy. NC WARN also said Duke's downgraded status bolsters the group's pending
 motion for the N.C. Utilities Commission to revoke Duke's permission to build
 the Cliffside coal-fired plant.
 The public interest should be protected by the Utilities Commission, a group
 appointed by the governor to oversee Duke Energy and other utility companies. In
 the past, the Utilities Commission has generally endorsed any plan Duke Energy
 puts forth. As a member of NC WARN, I demand accountability from both the
 Utilities Commission and the state treasurer to protect me as a rate payer from
 corporate interests in short-term gain without regard to responsible
 improvements and innovation.
 Durham
 LOAD-DATE: November 15, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2009 The Durham Herald Co.









Document Number: 890
 
                       Monterey County Herald (California)
                              June 18, 2009 Thursday
 Steve Fennimore: Alarm about food is wrong-headed
 BYLINE: By STEVE FENNIMORE Guest commentary
 LENGTH: 676 words
 In her June 7 column, Joy Colangelo glibly lamented "health care that exists
 only to repair damage done by our farming and eating practices." I disagree.
 Human beings must eat every day, and agriculture is the most practical way to
 make food from photosynthesis. Conventional and organic crops require protection
 from diseases, insects and weeds. Agriculture keeps us from starvation, but this
 is easily forgotten in any supermarket. Hunting and gathering are the
 alternative to agriculture, and when hungry, humans will eat most anything,
 including snakes. We'll get back to snakes.
 Crop protection chemicals   pesticides   help protect all our food supply, and
 we should be grateful to the professional applicators who carefully apply these
 products.
 They help ensure access to a safe and wholesome food supply. Humans, animals and
 crops all require protection from diseases and agents that spread disease such
 as mosquitoes, cockroaches and rats.
 Pharmaceutical and pesticide companies look for biologically active products
 (drugs or pesticides) that can be safely used to protect us from pests that can
 kill or sicken us and ruin our food supply.
 For example, streptococcus bacteria can infect us and often must be controlled
 by antibiotics. Streptomycin, a pesticide/antibiotic, can be used on organic and
 conventional farms to control fire blight, a bacterial disease of pears. Most
 people have been treated for strep throat with oral antibiotics   an oral
 pesticide application. Warfarin is a commonly prescribed blood thinner, and at
 much higher doses, warfarin is used as a pesticide to kill rats.
 Glyphosate, or Roundup, is being evaluated as an antimalarial drug. Used
 properly, pesticides and pharmaceuticals are wonderful tools. They protect our
 families' health and food supply. If we need to worry about crop pesticides,
 don't we also need to worry about pharmaceuticals?
 Colangelo implied that pesticides since the 1930s induced a 300 percent increase
 in testicular cancer in Denmark, but not Finland. Are pesticides the only
 possible reason for this difference? This is a rather odd conclusion because
 Denmark has a vibrant organic agricultural sector. Perhaps Finns are healthier
 because they drink so much milk. The Danes may be eating too much sausage. There
 are thousands of possibilities for this rise in cancer in Denmark.
 Colangelo cited Vietnam as a model for better regulations on the sale of
 "genetically engineered," or GE, food than the United States. Genetic
 engineering of crops involves inserting foreign genes into a crop.
 The insertion of a bacterial "BT" (Bacillus thuringiensis) gene into corn to
 kill worms has been very successful. The BT gene in corn makes BT protein, a
 natural insecticide that is safe to humans. The GE corn plant cells make BT
 insecticide that kills worms eating the plant and replaces the need for
 thousands of pounds of traditional synthetic insecticide that would otherwise be
 used, if not for the BT gene.
 GE corn with the BT gene cannot be used on organic farms. However, the natural
 product BT insecticide can be used on organic farms. So what is the big deal
 about GE crops that makes some people so nervous? The GE corn has a slightly
 different change in its DNA sequence.
 DNA is food. We eat it every day and can easily digest it.
 We eat beef DNA in burgers, apple DNA in apples, rattlesnake DNA in rattlesnake,
 and so on. Rattlesnake DNA has the genes needed for the snake to make its venom.
 Of course, rattlesnake DNA is easily digested   it tastes like chicken and no
 one has ever died from eating a dead rattlesnake. So what is the big deal if our
 muffin mixes don't list DNA on the list of ingredients? Thanks to BT corn, our
 water and air are cleaner.
 So have another muffin and relax.
 Steve Fennimore is an extension specialist for weed control with the University
 of California-Davis in Salinas. He does research on weed management in
 conventional and organic crops throughout coastal California. Views expressed
 here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the University of
 California.
 LOAD-DATE: June 23, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2009 The Monterey County Herald
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 891
 
                                The New York Times
                             April 15, 2009 Wednesday
                          The New York Times on the Web
 Germany Bars Genetically Modified Corn
 BYLINE: By JAMES KANTER
 SECTION: Section ; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Pg.
 LENGTH: 481 words
 Germany announced plans on Tuesday  to ban the only genetically modified  strain
 of corn grown in the European Union, dealing a new blow to the American
 manufacturer, Monsanto, and raising the specter of trade tensions with the
 United States.
 The German agriculture minister, Ilse Aigner, said that the move was intended
 to protect the safety of consumers and the environment. But she underlined that
 it would not represent a blanket ban on genetically modified  crops.
 ''My decision is not a political decision, it's a decision based on the facts,''
 Ms. Aigner said. ''I have come to the conclusion that there is a justifiable
 reason to believe that genetically modified maize of the type MON 810 presents a
 danger to the environment.''
 Kari Matalone, a spokeswoman for Monsanto, said the corn -- which is engineered
 to resist pests -- had been approved for cultivation in Europe more than a
 decade ago and that no ill effects had been detected since then.
 ''We don't really understand where this decision is coming from,'' Ms. Matalone
 said.
 Skepticism among consumers about the safety of genetically modified  products
 and about their effect on the environment has made Europe one of the most
 difficult markets for Monsanto and for other makers of such crops.
 A particular headache for biotechnology companies is that  countries  retain the
 right to impose their own bans on cultivation of products approved by  the
 European Union, while they examine new scientific findings. It can take years
 for a company to force those governments to lift such bans.
 The European Commission, the  executive body, has been pushing member
 governments to ease rules on genetically modified  crops to enable greater
 quantities of lower cost foods and animal feeds to be grown in Europe.
 The commission has also been seeking to ease tensions with Argentina, Canada and
 the United States, where modified crops are grown.
 Those countries won a lawsuit at the World Trade Organization in 2006 obliging
 the European Union to ease remaining bans on the import and cultivation of
 genetically modified  products. The United States still could impose punitive
 duties on the Europeans for continuing to block trade.
 Spain grows about 80,000 hectares of the genetically modified  corn, the largest
 quantity in the European Union. Germany grows  3,000 hectares out of its total
 corn crop of about 2 million hectares, making the move to ban the crop in
 Germany highly symbolic.
 The Czech Republic, Portugal and Poland are among countries still growing the
 crop, while France and Luxembourg are among countries to have recently imposed
 bans on cultivation.
 The European Food Safety Authority currently is reviewing the Monsanto product
 because European Union consent to market the product has expired. Even so, E.U.
 rules allow the product to remain on the market during the authority's
 assessment.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: April 15, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 892
 
                        St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
                              March 29, 2009 Sunday
 Planting cyber seeds Monsanto's blog, started last month, is one of the
 company's latest tools to engage biotech critics and shape the debate on
 hot-button issues such as food labeling.
 BYLINE: BY Jeffrey Tomich St. Louis Post-Dispatch
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. D1
 LENGTH: 1230 words
 Earlier this month, a blogger named Brad fired a virtual salvo at Jeffrey Smith,
 the author of "Seeds of Deception" and one of the most vocal crusaders against
 genetically modified foods.
 In a 600-word post, Brad questioned the credibility of an online petition on
 Smith's website, urging the administration of President Barack Obama to require
 labeling of biotech foods. He called the petition "sheer political theater" and
 prodded the activist for purportedly being a yogic flying instructor.
 More than 30 comments followed in the next few weeks. On one level, the exchange
 was just another online debate about GMOs. But this one was notable because of
 who initiated and hosted it: Monsanto Co.
 For years, environmental and food activists have made good use of YouTube video
 and Facebook to skewer Monsanto in the blogosphere. Now, the biotech giant is
 turning the tables.
 The company's blog, Monsanto According to Monsanto, made its debut Feb. 10, and
 it is the company's latest tool to engage critics on hot-button issues such as
 food labeling. The title spoofs a documentary by French journalist Marie-Monique
 Robin that has been viewed more than 47,000 times on YouTube.
 Beside the blog, Monsanto has hired a full-time social media specialist,
 Kathleen Manning. It has almost 600 followers on the Web-based short messaging
 system Twitter, started a YouTube channel and launched a Facebook page. The
 company is also developing a version of its website for cell phones and
 Blackberries and is creating MonsantoTV.
 Glynn Young, a Monsanto manager in his second stint with the company, is heading
 the effort. Before rejoining the company in 2004, Young, 57, worked for St.
 Louis Public Schools, where he had a trial by fire in crisis management earlier
 this decade after the district slashed its budget, cut staff and closed schools.
 Monsanto's presence on the Web has evolved during the last few years. But only
 last year did the company decide to delve into social media as it witnessed the
 upheaval of traditional media and realized that its existing outreach vehicle -
 news releases - wasn't enough.
 "We asked ourselves, 'Is this a space we should be participating in?' The answer
 was 'yes,'" Young said.
 While some consumer companies have used blogs and Twitter to promote their
 products, Monsanto views social media as a forum to discuss key issues with
 critics, investors and customers.
 "There was this big conversation going on (on the Internet), and we weren't a
 part of it," said John Combest, a manager in public affairs at Monsanto and one
 of the bloggers.
 There was one particular instance that opened the company's eyes to the power of
 social media. It happened at last summer's Farm Progress Show in Boone, Iowa,
 when the company learned, much to its surprise, that some Wall Street analysts
 had been following an agronomist's blog that chronicled the progress of
 Monsanto's "Golden Acre" plot, which showcases some of its crops under
 development.
 But just Google the company's name and it quickly becomes obvious that blogs and
 social media haven't been kind to Monsanto, based in Creve Coeur.
 Monsanto has been in the cross hairs of social activists for decades, going back
 to its days as a maker of Agent Orange and PCBs. That didn't change with the
 company's new focus on biotech and agriculture.
 A decade ago, activists expressed themselves by torching fields of genetically
 modified crops and throwing tofu cream pies at Monsanto's chairman. These days,
 activists are challenging the company through the use of YouTube videos and
 countless blogs that demonize GMOs.
 Facebook, the social networking site, is full of anti-Monsanto groups, including
 one, Millions Against Monsanto, with more than 22,000 members. Another group's
 avatar depicts CEO Hugh Grant with a handful of soybeans. Below the words: "No
 Food Shall Be Grown That We Don't Own." It seems there's a way to revile the
 company in any language.
 Nora Ganim Barnes has studied corporate use of social media at the Center for
 Marketing Research at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, and urges
 companies to not let online criticism go unchallenged.
 "We advise companies to listen to what's being said about them in social media
 and get into social media to reply," she said.
 One example of a company that effectively did that is PC maker Dell Corp.
 Dell-bashing escalated a few years ago, giving rise to the term "Dell Hell."
 When the company finally started its own blog, it became the forum of choice for
 critics.
 Monsanto similarly appears to be trying to steer discussion about critical
 issues to its blog so it's easier to influence the debate, Barnes said.
 "Now they're controlling the posts, they're answering the questions, they're
 directing them to different places within Monsanto and maybe another site," she
 said. "They've taken control of the situation."
 The company and its critics agreed on one thing: Food is an emotional issue.
 Knowing that, Monsanto hopes using social media will help put a human face on
 the company and connect with people who might perceive it as a monolith trying
 to dominate global agriculture.
 Bonnie Azab Powell, a food politics journalist in California and co-founder and
 editor of The Ethicurian (www.ethicurean.com), a three-year-old blog about food,
 sees that as a challenge.
 "I admire their effort and I'm sure they have a lot of money to spend," she
 said. But "the hostility toward the company is very real, and it's not going to
 be corrected by investing heavily in social media."
 There are six dedicated bloggers at Monsanto. But any employee is allowed - even
 encouraged - to participate. A frequent contributor is Daniel Goldstein, a
 pediatrician who works as Monsanto's senior scientist in residence.
 The "official" bloggers go by their first names and are represented by
 personalized South Park avatars. That decision, Young said, "engendered a lot of
 discussion at levels above me."
 Comments on the blog (blog.monsantoblog.com) are patrolled and answered, but
 they'll be permitted to stand unless they contain profanity or personal attacks.
 That's true even if they criticize the company, Young said.
 "As long as it's trying to engage in a civil way, that's fine," he said. "But
 we're not going to let unsubstantiated vitriol go unchallenged."
 Bloggers also watch what is said about the company on other agriculture and
 biotech-themed blogs, such as Biofortified.org.
 Just last week, Monsanto made a splash at OpEdNews.com. The company cross-posted
 three of its blog posts on the liberal website. Also last week, the site's
 editor and publisher, Robb Kall, posted a poll for readers asking them if the
 company should be allowed to cross-post its blog entries.
 "One could argue that getting them into a conversation is a good thing," he
 wrote. "Or one can argue that they have billions to promote their message and
 OEN should not help them sell their propaganda." As of Friday, 420 readers had
 responded; 236 of them voted against letting Monsanto post articles on the site.
 To be sure, Monsanto acknowledges it is still feeling its way around in the
 world of Web 2.0. "It's a sea change for us," Young said. "We're kind of going
 at this in baby steps."
 In the end, the company knows it might not win over its critics. But it will
 continue to engage them.
 "We're not asking people to love us," Young said. "And we don't mind critics,
 but we'd like more informed critics."
 LOAD-DATE: March 31, 2009
 GRAPHIC:  PHOTO Illustration by Tom Borgman - (Woman at computer)
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2009 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 893
 
                           Tri-City Herald (Washington)
                              March 29, 2009 Sunday
 WA Grain Alliance: Wheat farmers look to bounce back after wild ride
 BYLINE: Thomas B. Mick; CEO
 SECTION: PROGRESS - FARM & COMMERCE; Pg. T30
 LENGTH: 759 words
 If there was ever a year to describe wheat farming as a roller coaster ride, the
 2008 crop year must come close. In February 2008, soft white wheat delivered to
 Portland stood above $14 a bushel. In February 2009, the Portland price was
 around $5.60 per bushel. Subtract the transportation cost, and a grower who
 sells at that lower price gets a little more than $5 per bushel.
 That's better than the $3.50 to $4 he was receiving through most of the 2000s,
 but as the cost of wheat increased, so did the "inputs," those ingredients
 needed to grow a healthy crop. A farmer is paying 170 percent more for anhydrous
 nitrogen fertilizer now than he was in 2000 and 90 percent more for fuel even
 following the recent decline.  A farmer would be happy with $5 wheat at 2000
 input prices. The reality is he's getting $5 for grain that, according to a
 government report, costs several dollars more than that to plant and harvest.
 The last time wheat markets took off was in 1996 and that didn't come close to
 the levels achieved in 2008. But markets rise on scarcity and fall on surplus.
 In both 1996 and 2008, farmers responded to the scarcity. Around the world a
 record 687 million tons of wheat was produced in 2008. Australia, the
 Northwest's most direct competitor for Pacific Rim markets, came back from a
 severe drought to produce 20 million tons in 2008, more than twice as much as a
 year earlier.
 Meanwhile, a handful of countries in Eastern Europe, known as the Black Sea
 states for the fact most of them border the Black Sea, have been gearing up
 their production. Low land costs allow wheat to be produced cheaper, but the
 quality is just as cut rate. Ukraine can sell wheat for $3.50 a bushel, but it
 doesn't perform as the flour in products should and complaints abound. There is
 always room for excellence, which is why the Washington wheat industry continues
 down a path of developing quality cultivars with characteristics customers want.
 Helping the industry achieve its goals in 2009 and beyond will be two new wheat
 breeders at Washington State University. These individuals, who should be on
 board by this summer, will utilize the latest technology to ensure we stay ahead
 of our competitors.
 Someday, their advances might include wheat varieties made by using genetic
 engineering. The vast majority of corn and soybean acreage planted in the
 country is done so with varieties that have been transformed by scientists in
 labs to have specific traits. At first, it was resistance to the weed killer
 glyphosate, but newer varieties have "stacked" traits that confer a series of
 added strengths.
 For now, GMO wheat is not a commercial reality, but the National Association of
 Wheat Growers has asked companies to begin looking actively for a trait to
 release. Besides the benefits a transgenic wheat could add agronomically,
 economically or nutritionally, the wheat industry believes the debate comes down
 to an issue of survival. Although it is not yet the case in Washington, wheat
 acres are on a downward trend across the country because of the steady advance
 of GMO corn and soybeans into traditional wheat areas. Farmers may like to grow
 one particular crop more than another, but their bottom lines are built on
 dollars and cents.
 Nowadays, those calculations include various insurance products and a couple of
 new programs that are part of the 2008 Farm Bill. In a world of volatile wheat
 prices, crop insurance has become even more important for wheat farmers - and
 it's not cheap. For a 1,000-acre wheat farm, Crop Revenue Coverage insurance,
 which insures a farmer for price fluctuations and production losses, costs
 upwards of $45,000. But in times of trouble it does pay off and allows farmers
 to survive to farm another year. New programs with catchy acronyms like ACRE
 (Average Crop Revenue Program) and SURE (Supplemental Revenue) look as if they
 may also aid farmers through hard times. Far from being a taxpayer-funded
 handout, these insurance products and farm bill programs ensure the nation and
 the world of a consistent supply of the fuel that powers the human machine.
 As a Northwest trade-dependent industry, the Washington wheat industry is
 sobered by data that shows trade slowing throughout the world. But we are also
 hopeful. A recession is not a death sentence for agriculture. In fact, it is
 often an opportunity. One of the last big recessions in the U.S. occurred in
 1973, a period that began an agricultural resurgence. If that's the case in
 2009, we can only hope that as agriculture goes, so goes the rest of the nation.
 LOAD-DATE: April 1, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2009 Tri-City Herald
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 894
 
                         Chapel Hill Herald (Durham, NC)
                               March 1, 2009 Sunday
 Our science fictions
 SECTION: COMMENTARY; Pg. CH2
 LENGTH: 729  words
 By Joel Stein
 Los Angeles Times
 Nobody likes science. You can tell by the fact that they teach it in school.
 There aren't any high school courses in pizza.
 I don't like science either. I mean, it sounds good when you're a kid with the
 fingerprint kits and the baking-powder volcanoes, but by 10th grade, you realize
 it's just math with special effects.
 But for some reason, only conservatives get blamed for hating science. Which is
 weird, because conservatives are, by definition, the ones who are supposed to
 hate strange new things. They hate foreigners, video games, rap and -- from what
 I could gather from Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's speech Tuesday -- talking to
 adults.
 People on the far right don't believe in evolution, global warming or doing stem
 cell research. Most of their opposition is rooted in the fact that these ideas
 challenge the Bible, which is the oldest book they know. I'm guessing Greek
 conservatives are OK with killing your dad and making love to your mom.
 But since I moved to L.A., I've discovered that liberals hate science just as
 much as conservatives, and they talk about it a lot more. They'll reject any
 study that contradicts their Mother-Nature-is-perfect myth, which is oddly
 similar to the conservatives' thesis: Both sides think the past was purer than
 the technologically corrupted present. Except the liberal vision of the
 idealized past is a pre-insecticide, pastoral paradise where loving animals ran
 free and people had shameless sex. So, basically the same as the conservatives'
 version, plus untainted apples and some gay stuff.
 Liberals have an irrational fear of inoculation and genetically engineered food,
 no matter how conclusive the science is on these topics. They believe that the
 body needs to be detoxified with foot pads, colonics, mud wraps and
 maple-syrup-and-cayenne-pepper fasts. They take echinacea and Emergen-C, heal
 themselves with crystals and magnets, and believe that energy flows through
 different "centers" of their bodies. They practice, I swear, a form of healing
 massage called reiki in which the masseuse usually doesn't even touch you. I
 believe my wife and I have a reiki marriage.
 They suspect modern medicine is part of a corporate conspiracy, while dangerous
 recreational drugs are OK because they come from stuff that grows in the ground,
 man. These are people who will feel virtuous about drinking Kool-Aid as long as
 the bottle has the words "vitamin water" on it.
 I've been in rooms where a normal discussion of organic versus local food
 suddenly turned into an engineering analysis of how the Twin Towers could no way
 have fallen just because two giant jets hit them. That's the part of the
 conversation when I suggest we run an experiment in which we see what happens
 when two giant jets hit the two idiots talking.
 Facts are weak things when they face personal philosophies. It's scary to let go
 of your assumptions of how the world works, to be left with only a set of
 incomplete, seemingly unconnected data points. It is far easier to ignore or
 dispute a study from Princeton's physics department than to readjust your core
 beliefs about where the universe came from. Especially when the Princeton study
 is impossible to read and Genesis tells two awesome, different stories.
 And science is vulnerable to being disputed, because, as Nietzsche posited in
 "Human, All Too Human," we've mistakenly elevated it to another form of
 salvation, so it's just a watered-down religion: "Modern science has as its
 goal: as little pain as possible, as long life as possible -- thus a kind of
 eternal bliss." An eternal bliss that is full of hanging out in a lab and never
 meeting girls, so really more eternal than bliss.
 Maybe the best we can do is join in a bipartisan agreement to engage only in the
 harmless type of science-hating everyone can love: UFOs, psychics and underwater
 kingdoms that appear on Google maps.
 Sure, the right's aliens are anal-probing, cattle-vaporizing invaders, and the
 left's are giant-headed, soil-sampling messengers of peace, but there's room for
 compromise. Maybe, for instance, we keep the anal probing but flick on some
 didgeridoo music, throw in some scented oils and call it detox. If nothing else,
 those rules would keep any sane alien from landing here.
 Joel Stein is a columnist for the Times. E-mail him at
 jstein@latimescolumnists.com
 LOAD-DATE: April 26, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2009 The Durham Herald Co.









Document Number: 895
 
                              The Houston Chronicle
                            February 19, 2009 Thursday
 Future Farmers ready for the Houston Rodeo;
 Ag science, calf scrambles help further goal
 SECTION: THISWEEK; Pg. 3
 LENGTH: 1042 words
 Before and after school and on weekends, a group of students in Alief
 Independent School District's Agricultural Science Program are wrangling their
 way through state competitions to the local big show - the Houston Livestock
 Show and Rodeo - in March.
 They are members of the Alief FFA (Future Farmers of America) who have donned
 over the past several months jeans and casual Western dress at calf scrambles or
 spotless suits while making speeches - another, less gritty route to scholarship
 money.
 Ernest Owens, a junior at Elsik High School, 12302 High Star Drive, and
 president of the approximately 30-member Alief FFA, has chosen the latter
 approach.
 On Feb. 7, he won the Reserve Division Champion and a $10,000 scholarship from
 General Motors Corp. at the San Antonio Livestock Exposition for his speech
 about engineered foods.
 "I talked about labeling genetically engineered foods. If we know the calories
 and fat content in the food we're eating, we should also know the origins of the
 food we're eating," Owens said. "I'm not against genetically engineered foods,
 but I think it's the Food and Drug Administration's responsibility to label it."
 He presented the speech again Feb. 15 at the San Antonio Rodeo and Livestock
 Show.
 "I placed first at the school, in the Alief ISD science fair, and I hope to
 advance to state," said Owens, 17.
 He placed third in state for his science fair display on experimental toxin
 waste insulation among about 120 high school competitors at the FFA state
 convention in Lubbock in July 2008.
 "I do speeches and projects and submit them in different things that will
 provide me with opportunities to expand to other competitions," Owens said. "I
 plan to go to the FFA Agriscience Fair in Dallas in July 2009."
 The calf scrambles
 His club's other members, who've been participating in calf scrambles, have had
 it a little rougher.
 "Livestock shows created the calf scrambles in order to provide students who
 would not otherwise have the opportunity to participate in the raising of a
 heifer the opportunity to do so," said Kimberly B. Crow in an e-mail. Crow is
 Alief's program manager for Career and Technology Education, which includes the
 agricultural sciences.
 Calf-roping sponsors donate a specified amount to help students defray the
 purchase cost of a heifer from a breed chosen by the students. They must care
 for the animal and maintain a record and an album that highlights the animal's
 year. Then they show it in the livestock show a year later.
 A student who has caught during a scramble at more than one show in a season is
 allowed to combine their earned money to purchase a better calf, Crow said.
 Johnathon Figueroa, 17, a junior at Hastings High School, 4410 Cook Road, is
 raising a nearly 2-year-old heifer he purchased with money he won at two
 scrambles last year, and he will be entering her in the heifer category at the
 Houston Livestock Show.
 "Her name is Shyann and I bought her at the Cornfield Acres Ranch in
 Schulenberg," Figueroa said. "I've showed her at the Youth Expo, Harris County,
 Fort Worth and San Antonio shows."
 Shyann's lowest score, he said, was in Fort Worth, where she placed 14th out of
 16. Her highest score was as Grand Champion at the Youth Expo at the Humble
 Civic Center last October.
 "I like the experience. It's not something that everybody likes to do," Figuroa
 said.
 He's entered and won at two calf scrambles this year, making $1,800 in combined
 certificates from the Fort Worth and Youth Expo shows, and planned to show in
 San Antonio this weekend and at the Houston show in March.
 "They give a lot of scholarship money there," Figuroa said. "But in the end,
 whether you win it is because of how much work you actually do. Shyann is bred
 and will drop a calf in June, and then I start over."
 Caring for an animal, he said, can be the most enjoyable part of his day, and he
 teaches his fellow classmates at Alief's agricultural barn about how to catch
 calves at scrambles, how to put the halter over their heads and how to drag them
 to the winning mark.
 "(It's) not really that much work. Sometimes it can be the most enjoyable part
 of the day if everything goes right," Figueroa said. "I'd like to keep Shyann
 and start a herd. And eventually, go into ranching."
 Said Alief school district spokeswoman Susan Castro, "Johnathon has been an
 outstanding mentor to the group of young men and women who have chosen to
 scramble this year in hopes of raising a scramble heifer. Through his
 leadership, these students have seen the level of commitment that is required to
 raise an animal."
 Molina wins first event
 Hastings junior Arnoldo Molina won his first calf scramble in October and $900
 toward a heifer. In Fort Worth, he was the sixth student to catch a calf,
 winning $1,000 that he will combine with his first win. He hopes to combine that
 with even more prize money from the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo on March 3
 and get a good breed to raise as a project.
 "This was my first year in FFA and now I'm going to the Houston Livestock Show
 and Rodeo on March 3," Molina said. "You've got them by the head and they are
 not able to move, then you drop him to the ground. You put all of your body on
 top of him, then put a halter and muzzle on him and stand up and drag him -
 about 600 to 800 pounds - into the winner's square. I like it. It's cool."
 Sarah Plasencia, 15, a Hastings sophomore, didn't catch a calf at the Harris
 County Fair in October, but got the Hard Luck Award for being a good sport and
 helping another girl catch one. Now Plasencia is waiting to go to the Houston
 show.
 "I'm going to try again in March. If I catch, I'll get money toward buying a
 heifer," she said. "In Fort Worth, this past weekend, I caught a calf and won. I
 was the fourth one to catch. It's a lot of running and tiring them out, but it's
 pretty interesting."
 She and most other avid FFA students hope to go into a career where they will
 work with animals. Owens, however, plans to use what he's learning in FFA to
 major in political science, with a minor in law, then enter Texas politics where
 he will continue to wear a suit, at least on work days.
 "A politician? Absolutely," he said.
 For more information about the Career and Technology Education program, call
 Crow at 281-498-8110, ext. 4564.
 LOAD-DATE: February 20, 2009
 GRAPHIC: PHOTO: READY TO COMPETE: Alief ISD FFA members Arnoldo Molina, 17,
 left, Johnathon Figueroa, 17, Ernest Owens, 17, and Sarah Plasencia, 15, are
 ready for the big show next month, the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
             Copyright 2009 The Houston Chronicle Publishing Company
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 896
 
                                Modern Healthcare
                                 January 12, 2009
 Battling the clones;
 CHW wants to avoid genetically altered foods
 BYLINE: Shawn Rhea
 SECTION: THE WEEK IN HEALTHCARE; Pg. 17
 LENGTH: 805  words
 In another move to expand its green healthcare effort, Catholic Healthcare West,
 a 38-hospital system with facilities in Arizona, California and Nevada,
 announced last week that it has begun work to eliminate genetically engineered
 sugar beet and cloned-animal meat and dairy products from its food-supply chain.
 The new policy places Catholic Healthcare West among the first U.S. healthcare
 systems to address growing concerns about the effects of genetically altered
 plant and animal products on both consumers and the environment. CHW has made
 innovative moves regarding its supply chain in other ways, such as growing
 fruits and vegetables for a hospital in Santa Cruz, Calif.
 The move comes nearly a year after the Food and Drug Administration approved the
 introduction of genetically engineered sugar beets and the more controversial
 cloned-animal products into the food-supply chain.
 CHW officials didn't provide a cost estimate for the action, but said they
 believe they're making a proper move given the circumstances.
 ``We have numerous unanswered concerns about the imminent introduction of
 genetically engineered sugar beets and marketing of food from animal clones,''
 said Catholic Healthcare West's Ecology Program Coordinator Sister Mary Ellen
 Leciejewski in a statement. ``Previous genetically engineered crops have
 increased pesticide use, and animal cloning is a cruel and unnecessary
 technology in meat production.''
 Pat Burdullis, administrator of nonclinical supply chain contracts for the
 provider, acknowledged that the effort is in its earliest stages and that the
 healthcare system expects significant challenges in meeting its goal since the
 Food and Drug Administration does not require labeling of genetically engineered
 plants and cloned-animal products.
 FDA spokesman Michael Herndon said that the agency does not mandate labeling of
 these food products because scientists there ``have found no material
 difference'' between genetically altered and traditionally bred foods. But Jamie
 Harvie, food coordinator for the green-healthcare advocacy organization Health
 Care Without Harm, argued that the jury is still out on the safety of
 genetically altered food products, and he noted many European countries have
 either banned or require mandatory labeling of such foods.
 ``What we're doing is data gathering with our vendors to see where they are on
 genetically engineered and cloned foods,'' said Burdullis of Catholic Healthcare
 West's effort to address the dilemma. ``We've surveyed eight of our suppliers to
 date, and they have the same struggles (identifying these foods) as we have and
 it has to do with the current labeling laws.''
 Burdullis added that the lack of labeling laws has made it difficult for
 Catholic Healthcare West to set a date for eliminating genetically altered food
 products from its supply chain. But the provider is working with its group
 purchasing organization, Premier, and Health Care Without Harm to identify food
 vendors who can meet its requirements. ``We are going to look at our meat
 suppliers and dairy suppliers on the question of cloned-animal products in the
 next 30 to 60 days,'' said Burdullis of the provider's next steps.
 The issue of genetically altered food is broader than the products identified by
 Catholic Healthcare West, but Harvie said the provider picked sugar beets and
 cloned-animal products because those items have not yet been fully introduced
 into the food supply system. ``Here is where they can send a message (to
 lawmakers) before everything becomes cross-contaminated,'' he said. Still, the
 hospital system has its work cut out since few if any other providers are
 addressing the issue of genetically altered food products in their supply
 chains.
 Bob Juerjens, senior director of program development for Premier, said, however,
 that fast movement is key to addressing the issue, and that the provider's
 effort may ultimately involve work to change food labeling requirements. ``We
 can ask vendors about the source of their products, but a lot of the genetically
 engineered sugar beet (sweeteners) are already being sold as commodities, so the
 vendors don't know where their ingredients are coming from and what they're
 purchasing,'' he said. ``I think to some extent there's going to have to be some
 government intervention that requires labeling.''
 Juerjens could not say, however, whether Premier would in the near future begin
 lobbying lawmakers on behalf of Catholic Healthcare West and its other hospital
 members to address the labeling issues, and Burdullis said her healthcare system
 first hopes to encourage other providers to take similar steps with their
 food-supply vendors. ``We'll have to see if other healthcare systems can work
 with us, because I don't think Catholic Healthcare West alone can change the
 labeling laws,'' Burdullis said.
 (77%)  supply chain  ;  Health
 LOAD-DATE: January 16, 2009
 GRAPHIC: Art Credit: Catholic Healthcare West's Doninican Hospital grows its own
 produce.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Magazine
 JOURNAL-CODE: mh
                       Copyright 2009 Crain Communications
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 897
 
                           The Herald-Sun (Durham, NC)
                             January 11, 2009 Sunday
 Goats genetically engineered to make drug It's on verge of being 1st of its kind
 to win OK
 SECTION: GENERAL NEWS; Pg. A10
 LENGTH: 688  words
 They have four legs, fuzzy faces and udders full of milk.
 To the uninitiated, they looks like dairy goats. To GTC Biotherapeutics Inc.,
 they're cutting-edge drug-making machines.
 The goats being raised on a farm in central Massachusetts are genetically
 engineered to make a human protein in their milk that prevents dangerous blood
 clots from forming. The company extracts the protein and turns it into a
 medicine that fights strokes, pulmonary embolisms and other life-threatening
 conditions.
 GTC has asked the Food and Drug Administration to approve the drug, called
 ATryn. An expert panel voted overwhelmingly Friday that it is safe and
 effective, putting it on the verge of becoming the first drug from a genetically
 engineered animal to be approved in the United States. The agency is expected to
 make a final decision in early February.
 If approved, the drug would be followed by perhaps hundreds of others made from
 milk produced by genetically engineered goats, cows, rabbits and other animals.
 Other products in the pipeline are designed to treat people with hemophilia,
 severe respiratory disease and debilitating swollen tissues.
 "As soon as we were able to make genetically engineered animals, this was an
 obvious thing to do," said James Murray, a geneticist and professor of animal
 science at the University of California, Davis. "It's totally cut and paste.
 This is kindergarten stuff with molecular scissors."
 The biotechnology industry is rooting for ATryn. The FDA's endorsement would
 signal to Americans that they have nothing to fear from the futuristic
 technology -- and suggest that the millions of dollars they've invested in the
 technology could soon begin to pay off.
 If the drug is approved, "it takes a big question mark off the table in terms of
 products that are developed from this technology," said Samir Singh, president
 of U.S. operations for Pharming Group, which is developing medicines using milk
 from genetically engineered cows and rabbits.
 Manipulation critics
 The public has had misgivings about eating food from genetically modified
 animals, and some vocal critics of such technology say the wariness could extend
 to medicines.
 "I think many people are going to have the same revulsion," said Jaydee Hanson,
 a policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety, an advocacy group in Washington,
 D.C., that opposed genetic manipulation of food and animals.
 For scientists, the appeal is obvious. Many drugs are now synthesized in
 bioreactors by bacteria or Chinese hamster ovary cells, and they require
 extensive processing to be suitable for human use. Genetically engineering
 animals is a more straightforward alternative for producing proteins, which form
 the basis of all biological drugs.
 "We're taking advantage of the fact that the mammary gland was designed by
 nature to make proteins," said Tom Newberry, GTC's vice president for government
 relations.
 Genetic herds
 The companies say it's cheaper to create the animals than to build and maintain
 expensive bioreactors. The technique could make it cost-effective for companies
 to develop drugs to treat diseases that affect relatively few patients.
 To make ATryn, GTC used the microinjection technique to insert the human gene
 for antithrombin alfa into goat embryos. The protein is essential for preventing
 blood clots, but about one in every 3,000 to 5,000 people is born with a genetic
 defect that prevents them from making enough of it.
 Most of the time, patients are treated with standard blood thinners like
 warfarin, which can be dangerous if people are undergoing surgery or childbirth.
 In those situations, patients are treated with antithrombin protein extracted
 from human blood plasma.
 But the supply is limited. If all the plasma donated in the U.S. each year were
 used to make antithrombin, the most that could be produced is about 100
 kilograms. "We can match that with 150 goats," Newberry said.
 GTC plans to expand the use of the protein beyond patients with the genetic
 defect to include people who have a short-term deficiency due to burns or other
 traumatic injuries, he said. The European Commission approved ATryn for use
 there in 2006.
 LOAD-DATE: January 28, 2009
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2009 The Durham Herald Co.









Document Number: 898
 
                     The San Francisco Chronicle (California)
                            December 20, 2008 Saturday
                                  FINAL Edition
 Bush's blow to reproductive rights;
 SECTION: Op-Ed; LETTERS TO THE EDITOR; Pg. B4
 LENGTH: 1441 words
 Editor - Ralf Stinson letters, Dec. 18 believes that journalists should hold
 themselves to a higher standard of conduct. He then questions: "Should a
 pharmacist make a moral judgment if you can have birth control pills? Should a
 fireman check your political party before he puts your house fire out?"
 Well, Mr. Stinson, President Bush has the answer to your first question and it
 is a resounding, "Yes!" In a Health and Human Services rule change made official
 today, facilities that receive federal family planning funding such as Planned
 Parenthood must certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other
 providers who object to abortion and certain types of birth control. It has
 redefined abortion to include the most common forms of birth control. It will
 allow pharmacists, doctors and other health care workers to refuse to provide
 contraceptives, prescriptions and referrals to patients.
 Let's hope you keep a lot of fire extinguishers around.
 San Ramon
 Varied voices
  Editor - Many people are calling for President-elect Obama to rescind his
 invitation to evangelical pastor Rick Warren. I think a better approach, more in
 the spirit of Obama's campaign promises, would be for him to add representatives
 of other religions, and have them each participate in his invocation.
 And let's make sure that the additional representatives actually spread the
 "love" message of religion, rather than the ever-popular hate message.
 MITCH TRACHTENBERG Trinidad Humboldt County
 Listen, Gavin
 Editor - I found the Dec. 18 City Insider telling, the way Mayor Gavin Newsom
 found it appropriate to mimic Sen. Dianne Feinstein regarding her calls to
 chastise him about the dirty streets and panhandlers in our city.
 This is really Newsom in a nutshell. He's running for governor and doesn't care
 about following through in San Francisco. He sure is adept at making ridiculous
 videos for YouTube, though. A note to the mayor from a humble taxpayer: The
 senator is correct, and if you plan to get any support when you run in 2010,
 you'd best address what your mentor tells you.
 San Francisco
 Peace and forgiveness
 Editor - I was awestruck by the story of Clara Rojas, a former Colombian vice
 presidential candidate held hostage in a Colombian jungle for 6 years
 "Ex-Colombia hostage tells her tale," Dec. 19.
 Amazingly, wonderfully, this hostage - this victim - is calling for
 reconciliation with Colombia's armed guerrillas. Even after being forcibly
 separated from her son during her hostage ordeal, she is talking about
 forgiveness, which she describes as "an attitude that has to come from the
 heart." Her only wish is that her son, with whom she is now reunited, will be
 able to live in peace.
 Wow. What a powerful message during this holiday season. Indeed, may all
 children live in peace. May we all yearn to embody forgiveness.
 Berkeley
 Vilsack disappointment
 Editor - I am deeply disappointed that President-elect Obama has chosen as
 secretary of agriculture Tom Vilsack, who represents no change and who is the
 ally of Monsanto, undeclared pesticides and herbicides in our food supply and
 the ungodly genetically modified foods.
 I would not have worked so hard on the Obama campaign had I known he would not
 make changes in regards to making our environment safer from chemicals and GMOs.
 San Francisco
 There are bigger issues than Rick Warren
 Editor - I'm gay and I really don't care about the choice of Rev. Rick Warren to
 lead an inaugural invocation. Was it from a LGBT political perspective a
 tone-deaf choice? Yes. Is it the end-of-the-world for gay people everywhere? No
 way. This guy will be leading a prayer, for crying out loud, not writing policy.
 So can we cut the histrionics.
 While I appreciate the operatic perspective which some people can bring to a
 dialogue, this is an inauguration for all Americans. All. Evangelicals included.
 What more gravely concerns me is the United States' refusal to sign a United
 Nations declaration to decriminalize homosexuality. When 70 countries consider
 me a criminal, that concerns me. If I am executed for being my natural
 homosexual self, then, trust me, that is the end of the world.
 LGBT people are often seen as "the other." We do it in reverse. We lost
 Proposition 8, in part, because we did not reach out to those perceived to be
 "not like us." We also represented ourselves on-camera only with palatable STR8
 stand-in surrogates. Without showing who we are, it is hard to erase our past
 social invisibility. We're not real to a lot of people. Therefore, our real need
 for equal civil rights needs to be explained. Ignorance does not erase itself.
 I agree that it is time for gay people to stand up. I also agree that it is time
 for gay people to reach out beyond our comfort zones. But I think it's important
 we keep our eye on the prize.
 San Francisco
 You can say that again, and again ...
 Editor - While I will grudgingly admit that it is what it is, I still
 steadfastly maintain that new is the new new.
 Fairfax
 Death penalty system a huge drain on state
 Editor - Not only should we stop the remodeling of the current death row
 facility at San Quentin, we should also end the dysfunctional death penalty
 system that is a huge financial drain on our state.
 We have the life-without-parole sentence option that keeps us safe and would
 allow our dwindling resources to be put to better use, such as more police on
 the streets and books for our public schools. Wake up, fellow Californians!
 NANCY OLIVEIRA San Francisco
 Horse trading, Oh my
 Editor - It is almost laughable to watch the outraged disbelief voiced by
 politicians, the media and other observers over Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's
 attempt to sell the Senate seat of President-elect Obama. More than anyone,
 these people must surely know that this kind of horse trading goes on all the
 time - it's just that we don't often get to witness it done in public, in such a
 crass and obvious way.
 Actually, we did witness the same thing earlier this year, when it was widely
 reported that Sen. Hillary Clinton made a deal with Obama to sell her support of
 his candidacy for president in exchange for his pledge to help her pay off her
 campaign debts.
 In retrospect, this debt, amounting to millions, makes Blago's demands look like
 peanuts. "These delegates of mine are expletive golden," one can easily imagine
 Clinton saying. "And I am going to get something for them." Well she has -
 nomination for secretary of state and, no doubt, when the dust settles a bit, a
 reduction of her campaign debt. The names change, but the political game stays
 the same.
 ALLEN PARKER Santa Clara
 A moral world
  Editor - I am 12 years old and since I was born, I have been taught by family,
 teachers and friends not to lie, cheat, steal or hurt. But when I read the
 newspaper, almost every day there are articles about scandals or fraudulent
 behavior. So why should we grow up learning to be honest? Why not learn to be a
 great liar and cover up your mistakes?
 The governor of Illinois is still governing, even though he tried to sell a
 Senate seat. Eventually, he will pay the consequences of being deceitful. We
 could learn to be better liars, but we would be cheating ourselves.
 There will always be dishonest people, and some of these people may appear to
 succeed in life. However, I would rather live in a world that is moral, a world
 where I can trust people and they can trust me, rather than in a world where
 everybody lies and cheats to be successful.
 MALIA BOW San Francisco
 Illinois politicians
 Editor - The key to being a successful Illinois politician is honesty. Once you
 learn to fake that, you have it made.
 Hartford, MI
 Backstabbed
 Editor - Count me as one of President-elect Barack Obama's formerly ardent
 supporters who is outraged at the news that Rev. Rick Warren, a man who is
 slightly less homophobic than Jerry Falwell but a lot less honest about it, will
 be delivering the invocation at the inaugural.
 I have donated to Obama's campaign and volunteered to staff the phones for him,
 but will never do so again. Indeed, I regard this choice as a stab in the back.
 One more insult after Proposition 8. What's next?
 PAUL GIURLANDA Vallejo
 Namesake
 Editor - After reading your Dec. 18 editorial, "A view from the dark side," I
 believe we need to name something quite terrible after Vice President Dick
 Cheney, to denote his powerful role behind the worst excesses of the war on
 terror. Would a swamp full of quicksand in Louisiana be appropriate?
 GEORGE BANKS Oakland
 "Under new rule, health providers could refuse to offer birth control advice and
 care"
 LOAD-DATE: December 20, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2008 San Francisco Chronicle
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 899
 
                                   CongressNow
                            December 18, 2008 Thursday
 Gordon Eyes Broad Science Agenda for 2009
 BYLINE: Geof Koss, CongressNow Staff
 SECTION: Science and Technology
 LENGTH: 550 words
 House Science and Technology Chairman Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) today laid out an
 ambitious 2009 committee agenda that spans climate change, nanotechnology and
 space exploration, among other issues.
 He told reporters this morning that President-elect Barack Obama referred to
 himself as a "science guy" in a recent phone conversation.
 "I think you're going to see this administration put more emphasis on science
 and try to make sound decisions," Gordon said.
 Gordon plans to exercise the committee's broad jurisdiction over a variety of
 areas, and will start by pressing for competitiveness funding to be included in
 the economic stimulus package being readied for January passage.
 He noted that Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) share his enthusiasm for
 so-called STEM funding - science, technology, engineering and math. "Both the
 president-elect and the Speaker understand that investment in science is
 investment in the future," he said.
 Gordon plans to reintroduce legislation (H.R. 5940) to reauthorize the National
 Nanotechnology Initiative, a multi-agency task force that coordinates federal
 research on nanotechnology that has been the target of frequent Congressional
 and outside criticism. The bill passed the House earlier this year, but stalled
 in the Senate.
 A recent independent review of the NNI took a dim view of its research into the
 environment, safety and health risks associated with nanotechnology. The field
 holds promise for numerous industries, but concerns about health risks have
 slowed its development, and outside groups have called for strong federal
 research into the field. Gordon echoed that call today, comparing nanotech to
 genetically modified foods, which have been vilified in Europe and elsewhere.
 "We don't want to get into a situation with nanotechnology where the world fears
 it," he said. He's confident the bill will pass next year.
 The science committee will also continue efforts to improve health information
 technology systems, and will focus heavily on clean energy research to reduce
 global warming.
 He praised Obama's selection of physicist Stephen Chu to lead the Energy
 Department, and said he was "very pleased" overall with the energy and
 environment team announced this week.
 The committee will focus on technologies to monitor reporting of greenhouse
 gases, considered essential should Congress move to implement a cap-and-trade
 program, as is expected.
 Additional research efforts will target water conservation, toxic electronics
 waste, and a "wholesale" review of federal weather and ocean research at the
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Research on transportation and
 homeland security improvements will be another priority.
 On space, Gordon said he would defer to the next administration on whether to
 retain NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, but he added that Obama should
 consider doing so.
 "If they were to keep him, I would be comfortable and others would too," he
 said.
 Obama's administration will also have to decide whether to extend space shuttle
 flights, which are scheduled to end in 2010. However, Gordon said he was
 "reticent" to extend the shuttle program, citing safety risks.
 Another key space goal will be encouraging private sector space projects and
 exploring an expansion of international space collaboration.
 LOAD-DATE: December 19, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Online Publication
                           Copyright 2008 GalleryWatch
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 900
 
                Agriculture Department Documents and Publications
                                November 21, 2008
 Office of the Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics; Notice of the
 Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture Meeting
 LENGTH: 580  words
 SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2,
 the United States Department of Agriculture announces a meeting of the Advisory
 Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21).
 DATES: The meeting dates are December 17, 2008, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and December
 18, 2008, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
 ADDRESSES: Lincoln Room in USDA National Finance Center Client Services Office
 Facilities, South Building Room 1623, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington,
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Schechtman, Telephone (202) 720-3817.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The twenty-first meeting of the AC21 has been
 scheduled for December 17-18, 2008. The AC21 consists of members representing
 the biotechnology industry, farmers, commodity processors and shippers,
 livestock handlers, environmental and consumer groups, and academic researchers.
 In addition, representatives from the Departments of Commerce, Health and Human
 Services, and State, and the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of the
 United States Trade Representative, and the National Association of State
 Departments of Agriculture serve as "ex officio" members. At this meeting, the
 committee will be briefed on U.S. government regulatory developments relevant to
 agricultural biotechnology and will complete substantive work on a paper
 addressing the following charge: "Genetically engineered (GE) food animals are
 being developed in the U.S. and abroad for food and non-food uses. What
 regulatory issues should the U.S. government consider with regard to the
 potential development and commercialization of these animals and the products
 produced from them? Since USDA's legal authorities extend beyond regulation to
 research, education and marketing, what issues pertaining to GE animals will
 USDA need to consider when exercising these authorities? How might the views of
 different stakeholders be obtained and considered?"
 Background information regarding the work of the AC21 will be available on the
 USDA Web site at
 http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?navid=BIOTECHandparentnav=
 AGRICULTUREandnavtype=RT.
 Requests to make oral presentations at the meeting may be sent to Michael
 Schechtman, Designated Federal Official, Office of the Deputy Secretary, USDA,
 202 B Jamie L. Whitten Federal Building, 12th Street and Jefferson Drive, SW.,
 Washington, DC 20250, Telephone (202) 720-3817; Fax (202) 690-4265; E-mail
 Michael.schechtman@ars.usda.gov On December 17, 2008, if time permits,
 reasonable provision will be made for oral presentations of no more than five
 minutes each in duration. Written requests to make oral presentations at the
 meeting must be received by the contact person identified herein at least three
 business days before the meeting. The meeting will be open to the public, but
 space is limited. If you would like to attend the meetings, you must register by
 contacting Ms. Dianne Fowler at (202) 720-4074, by fax at (202) 720-3191 or by
 E-mail at Dianne.fowler@ars.usda.gov at least five business days prior to the
 meeting. Please provide your name, title, business affiliation, address, and
 telephone and fax numbers when you register. If you require a sign language
 interpreter or other special accommodation due to disability, please indicate
 those needs at the time of registration.
 Dated: November 13, 2008.
 Jeremy Stump,
 Deputy Chief of Staff.
 Notice of Meeting.
 Citation: "73 FR 70612"
 Federal Register Page Number: "70612"
 "Notices"
 LOAD-DATE: November 21, 2008
            Copyright 2008 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 901
 
                            Investor's Business Daily
                             October 28, 2008 Tuesday
 SECTION: A; TRENDS & INNOVATIONS; Pg. A02
 LENGTH: 183 words
 Software determines body shape
 A new computer program is the first that can accurately estimate the exact shape
 of a fully clothed person from just pictures or videos, say Brown Univ.
 scientists. Their program eventually may be used by police to identify a suspect
 who was obscured by clothing. The program works by analyzing a person in
 different poses and making intelligent guesses based on its prior analysis of
 2,400 body scans. Other applications may include helping clothing designers who
 want to market their items to people of all sizes, or aiding video game makers
 who want to create a 3-D representation of a player.
 Purple tomatoes fight cancer
 A cancer-fighting tomato that contains more nutrients was developed by European
 scientists. Purple-colored genetically modified tomatoes are rich in
 anthocyanins, a type of antioxidant found in blackberries and blackcurrants. The
 researchers discovered some genes, which help color the snapdragon flower, can
 add anthocyanins to tomatoes. Cancer-prone mice fed the modified tomatoes lived
 significantly longer than those mice fed a standard diet.
 LOAD-DATE: October 27, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2008 Investor's Business Daily, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 902
 
                      The Santa Fe New Mexican (New Mexico)
                            October 22, 2008 Wednesday
 SECTION: TASTE; Pg. D-3
 LENGTH: 2494 words
 By Jessica Emerson
 For The New Mexican
 Grass-root seed and food conferences are springing up everywhere, it seems, and
 there is a common thread woven through each one -- genetically modified
 organisms, or GMOs.
 We have had several such conferences in Northern New Mexico: San Ildefonso and
 Santa Clara pueblos partnered for a spring conference and seed exchange; the
 Dixon Community Seed Exchange met in April.
 Along with the agricultural experts talking about how to propagate and save
 traditional seeds at the 3rd annual symposium for Sustainable Food and Seed
 Sovereignty held at Tesuque Pueblo in late September, was longtime canola farmer
 Percy Schmeiser, who fought the agri-business company Monsanto all the way to
 the Canadian Supreme Court. (Monsanto had sued Schmeiser for patent infringement
 because the company found its herbicide-resistant canola growing in Schmeiser's
 field; Schmeiser said the seed had blown there and counter-sued Monsanto for not
 preventing its genetically modified seed from contaminating his fields.)
 Genetic modification of seeds, such as those that invaded Schmeiser's fields,
 involves the splicing of genes -- from plant, human or nonhuman sources -- into
 the DNA of a plant. The new life forms are called transgenic, genetically
 modified, genetically engineered or genetically modified organisms.
 Existing transgenics include:
 u A tomato that delays softening and ripening, thus extending shelf life. This
 tomato is also antibiotic resistant.
 u Potatoes that have been altered with the gene from a bacterium called Bacillus
 thuringiensis, or Bt. When an insects eats the plant's leaves, the enzymes in
 its stomach digest the Bt protein and convert it to a lethal toxin that causes
 paralysis and death. (These GMO potatoes, however, turned out to be vulnerable
 to other insects; Bt does not deter sapsuckers like aphids.)
 Bt does not degrade; it's at its full potency all the time, even when ingested.
 Long-term effects of ingesting Bt products are unknown. When Dr. Arpad Pusztai
 released the report of a study of GM potatoes fed to rats, the Roweth Research
 Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland fired him. His results, as reported in the
 medical journal The Lancet in 1999: The rats experienced stunted organ and brain
 growth and breakdowns in their immune systems.
 u The Brazil nut gene was spliced into the soybean to improve the nutritional
 value of the soy nut. One cup, or eight large Brazil nuts, contain 4 grams
 protein; one cup of soybeans contains 34 grams protein -- so what is the
 advantage here? Brazil nuts can trigger allergic reactions in some people, and
 companies do not have to label their products as genetically engineered.
 We are growing GMO crops in New Mexico -- corn, cotton and alfalfa. New Mexico
 State University is working with Syngenta, a large biotech corporation that
 genetically engineers seeds and sells them around the world. They are
 researching genetically engineered Roundup Ready herbicide-resistant chile. NMSU
 has received $250,000 from the state of New Mexico to study, research and grow
 out GE chile plants.
 In February 2001, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released a report that
 showed that "virtually all participants surveyed in focus groups want labeling."
 To date, there is still no mandatory labeling required for GE products.
 Most genetically modified products carry fully functioning antibiotic-resistant
 genes -- used as "selectable markers." According to a 1999 article in The
 Journal (Newcastle, UK), the presence of these antibiotic-resistant genes in a
 plant indicate that the organism has been successfully engineered.
 In an Internet posting, The Union of Concerned Scientists says that "eating
 these foods could reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics to fight disease."
 Hospitals around the world have increased incidences of infections from
 Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA. This organism has mutated
 and cannot be killed by most antibiotics. According to the Center for Disease
 Control and Prevention, more than 90,000 Americans a year get deadly infections
 from MRSA. In 2005 the CDC reported 18,650 deaths associated with MRSA
 infections. Do we need more antibiotic-resistant organisms?
 Promises broken?
 Biotechnology and seed companies have made many promises and have declared
 transgenic plants the new hope for the world. But have these plants lived up to
 the promises of their creators? Can the plants provide the nutrition that will
 prevent more than 800 million deaths per year from starvation?
 Studies have not proven the claim of increased yield in GE crops. In a review of
 8,200 field trials, genetically altered Roundup Ready seeds produced fewer
 bushels of soybeans than conventional varieties.
 Roundup Ready-altered seeds are resistant to glyphosate, a chemical so lethal it
 kills almost anything green by disrupting the enzymes necessary for plant
 growth. One recent study (published in Environmental Health Perspectives)
 investigated what happens when glyphosate enters the food chain -- when we as
 humans ingest it, or ingest animals that have ingested glyphosate in their food.
 The study's conclusion was that glyphosate acts as endocrine disrupter, which
 has the potential to induce diabetes, reproductive problems and gender
 alterations.
 The same companies that have been making and promoting pesticide and herbicide
 use are now saying that we need to reduce their use because they are toxic to
 all life. As a means of reducing their use, they say, they are creating plants
 that are resistant to pests, disease and adverse environmental conditions. But
 has use of these poisonous products actually declined?
 A report from the World Wildlife Fund claims that "overall the pesticide
 reduction benefits have been overstated, the ecological risks under-researched
 and reported, and the economic costs and benefits miscalculated."
 Notes from the Mississippi State University Extension service say "preliminary
 research data and industry yield trials suggest the inclusion of a Bt event does
 not increase hybrid yield potential. You would not likely recover the higher
 seed cost of the Bt technology (about $10 per acre unless significant corn-borer
 infestation is likely). Unfortunately, seasonal corn-borer populations are not
 predictable."
 In 1999, the journal Aspects of Applied Biology pointed out that mean yields
 from transgenic varieties were lower; yields of the transgenic varieties showed
 a higher degree of variability; and that any small increase in yield in the
 transgenic varieties derived from weed control were usually insufficient to
 cover the extra cost of the herbicide applied. A report by Benbrook Consulting
 Services in that same year stated that farmers growing RR soybeans used two to
 five times more herbicide measured in pounds applied per acre, compared to the
 other popular weed-management systems used on most soybean fields not planted to
 RR varieties.
 These and other early reports have been largely ignored.
 'Fit for consumption'
 What about the safety issues concerning human consumption of transgenic
 foodstuffs? According to a report by The Royal Society, the United Kingdom's
 foremost scientific society, "the way GM food is tested for safety in Europe
 must be improved before any GM plants are declared fit for human consumption."
 In The New Scientist (February 2002) Eric Brunner at University College, London,
 wrote that "the battery of tests should be spelt out much more clearly. The
 testing must be independently scrutinized, so that companies cannot submit
 selective data about their GM crops, otherwise, companies could carry on
 generating data until they get the answer they want."
 However, there are no clear and universal guidelines on what exactly should be
 tested.
 Liebe Cavalieri, Ph.D., a DNA researcher at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer
 Center and professor of environmental sciences at the State University of New
 York, has been reported in the CRC Press, which publishes material for the
 scientific and technical communities, as saying, "No one can honestly assert
 that a genetically modified food is safe. This implies that an infinite number
 of tests have been carried out, the fact is, and the tests haven't been done. We
 don't even know what type of ill effects to look for or which questions to ask.
 This oversimplification completely denies the reality of the situation. Caution
 must be the guiding principle."
 In an article in The Washington Post on May 18, 1999, The British Medical
 Association recommended "proceeding slowly with GE foods, as there is no proof
 of safety or knowledge of the long-term implications of eating GE foods."
 There has been no post-market monitoring of the long-term effects of eating GM
 food. Studies are just beginning to be done on animals.
 What are the potential health hazards of GMOs?
 Studies indicate that 2 percent of adults and 8 percent of children have food
 allergies. Inhaling pollen from GM crops is creating new threats that need to be
 researched and evaluated. In a 1999 statement posted on Soy Info Online, Joe
 Cummins, professor emeritus of genetics at the University of Western Ontario
 says that "GM pollen is likely to open an extended range of allergy and may
 cause autoimmune disease or other kinds of toxicity."
 Studies indicate that residues of glyphosate in foods may increase the incidence
 of certain cancers, including non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Bovine growth hormone
 (rBGH) found in most milk (unless the package notes otherwise) has been linked
 to breast cancer and diabetes. Transgenic cotton contains Bromorynil (brand name
 Buctril), which causes birth defects and is suspected as a cause of liver
 tumors. Cottonseed oil is found in many food products -- another reason to read
 labels. Dr. Andre Menache, an official with the Israeli Ministry of Health warns
 that genetically engineered pigs, a common source for human organ transplants,
 may carry viruses that are potentially lethal.
 It took 60 years of Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane (or DDT) use for its
 health hazards to be recognized by the government and for it to be banned in the
 United States. (Thank you, Rachel Carson.)
 Right to know
 Prince Charles of Great Britain is an outspoken anti-GE advocate. Who will speak
 for Americans?
 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration consistently maintains that GE foods are
 safe. Margaret Miller, former lab supervisor for Monsanto, helped the company
 develop rBGH. She left the company to become the deputy director of Human Food
 Safety and Consultation services at the FDA, where she helped streamline FDA
 approval for rBGH.
 Consumers are calling for more safety guidelines. In January 2001, the Consumer
 Federation of America, a coalition of 270 consumer groups -- including the
 American Association of Retired People -- called on President George W. Bush and
 Congress to label biotech food and to require strict safety and environmental
 testing. In a 250-page report financed by a grant from the prestigious
 Rockefeller Foundation, the federation said the United States government has
 basically abandoned its responsibility to ensure the safety of genetically
 engineered foods. The report also calls for the end of a government policy that
 holds that GE foods are substantially equivalent to their non-GE counterparts
 Some politicians are speaking out. When he introduced the Genetically Engineered
 Food Right To Know Bill in 2001, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, noted that
 "Government has a moral and legal responsibility to ensure the safety and purity
 of our food supply. We cannot abdicate this responsibility to global
 corporations whose goals may be limited to profit-making."
 Congressman Jack Metcalf, R-Wash., joined Kucinich and a bipartisan group to
 cosponsor HR 3883, the GE Safety Testing Bill. He has been quoted as saying, "I
 am not convinced that enough research has been conducted to determine the
 long-term health effects of genetically modified foods, and I believe that
 American citizens should have the right to know what they are eating."
 Living with the consequences
 There are economic and environmental consequences of transgenics "jumping the
 fence." Terra Prima, an organic producer of potatoes for their brand of potato
 chips, had to destroy 87,000 bags of chips, costing them $147,000, because their
 chips tested positive for GEs and could not be sold as organics. The GE potatoes
 grown on a farm near their organic fields cross-pollinated, creating unwanted
 crossbreeds.
 Remember the rhyme, "Lady bug, lady bug, fly away home"? We like the ladybug
 because she eats the aphids that eat our roses and vegetables. When eating
 aphids that have been fed GE potatoes, though, ladybugs' life span shortens and
 fertility lowers. Green lacewings, another of our "good guy" insect friends, are
 dying after feeding on army worms that have fed on engineered corn containing
 bacteria toxin.
 We are reducing pollination by reducing populations of pollinators. Monarch
 butterflies are threatened. Scientists at Cornell University report monarch
 caterpillars that ate milkweed leaves dusted with pollen from GM corn laced with
 BT died in four days. (The milk weed is the preferred food of the monarch
 butterfly and caterpillar.) When China almost eliminated all its songbirds
 during the Cultural Revolution, the country saw an increase in insects and
 decrease in crops, creating a decrease in food supply.
 A cultural impact
 There also are moral and ethical issues that need to be addressed.
 Human genes have been inserted into plants and animals. Should we be "playing"
 with the building blocks of life? Do we as humans have the right to undo or
 meddle with a system that has taken thousands of years to evolve?
 Biotechnology can have a cultural impact. To the Din (Navajo), corn is freedom,
 a gift from the Mother. Corn pollen is a symbol of fertility and of renewal. Its
 use brings you back into balance and harmony with life.
 Corn has been developed over thousands of years for grinding, texture, length of
 time to grow and length of time to cook. Songs, stories, ceremonies and language
 revolve around corn. With the new crossbreeds, planting and harvesting may no
 longer be in sync with the stars.
 Clayton Brascoup, program director of the Traditional American Farmers
 Association of New Mexico and Arizona, says, "Corn is our Mother. A mother does
 things for us, feeds us, provides medicine. We have a responsibility to Mother
 Corn to treat her in a respectful manner."
 We don't know the long-term effects of eating transgenic food. Do we want to be
 guinea pigs for biotech researchers? How will this affect our children, our
 grandchildren and the human race?
 We do not know the long-term consequences of GM plants breeding with native
 plants. By the time we find out, there may be no biodiversity left on our
 planet: all food crops may depend on a few seed companies. It has been said that
 those who control food production control Earth.
 Jessica Emerson is a registered nurse and a certified clinical herbalist.
 Contact her at 470-1363.
 LOAD-DATE: October 22, 2008
 GRAPHIC: See pdf's for exact rendition, caption, graphics, and photographer
 info.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                          Copyright 2008 The New Mexican









Document Number: 903
 
                                The New York Times
                           September 18, 2008 Thursday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Rules Near for Animals' Engineering
 BYLINE: By ANDREW POLLACK
 SECTION: Section C; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 15
 LENGTH: 583 words
 The Food and Drug Administration is expected on Thursday to announce proposals
 for regulating the meat and milk from genetically engineered animals.
 The guidelines could pave the way for commercialization of creatures like
 fast-growing salmon, environmentally friendlier pigs, cattle resistant to mad
 cow disease, and animals with meat containing healthier nutrients.
 Such animals have been or are being developed by academic scientists and
 biotechnology companies. But the lack of a clear regulatory pathway for
 introducing them into the market has been one factor discouraging investment
 into the field.
 The F.D.A. is expected to say that genetically engineered animals will be
 regulated under laws covering animal drugs, according to industry and consumer
 groups that have been invited to a conference call Thursday. Judy Leon, a
 spokeswoman for the F.D.A., confirmed that it would announce guidelines for
 regulating engineered animals.
 Genetically engineered animals have extra genes put into them, usually from
 other species. They are different from cloned animals, which are genetic copies,
 with no added genes.
 The F.D.A. has already said meat and milk from cloned cows, goats and pigs are
 safe and basically require no regulation.
 But it appears the genetically engineered animals will require stricter
 regulation. It is expected that each type of modified animal will require a
 separate approval, with the F.D.A. evaluating the human health effects of the
 food, the effects on the animal's health and environmental effects.
 F.D.A. officials have said that treating a gene inserted into an animal's DNA as
 a drug was the best approach, because it was unlikely Congress would pass
 entirely new laws governing genetically engineered livestock. The agricultural
 biotechnology industry has been pushing for guidelines to help propel the
 industry.
 ''We feel this will enhance investor confidence in this technology,'' Barbara
 Glenn, managing director of animal biotechnology for the Biotechnology Industry
 Organization, a trade group, said Wednesday night. ''A strong regulatory process
 translates ultimately into public confidence.''
 The first animal to go through these regulatory steps would probably be an
 Atlantic salmon developed by Aqua Bounty Technologies of Waltham, Mass. It
 contains DNA from another type of salmon and from pout, another ocean fish, that
 allows the salmon to grow to market weight in 18 months instead of 30.
 Still, the industry faces challenges beyond regulations. Consumers might reject
 food from modified animals, either because of safety fears or moral opposition
 to genetic tinkering. Meat and milk companies might not want it either. Some
 food companies, for instance, have said they will not use such meat or milk.
 Consumer groups say that the animal drug rules are not ideal for regulating
 modified animals because the F.D.A. does not have enough expertise to evaluate
 the animals' ecological impacts. Also, they say, applications for approval of
 new drugs are confidential, so the public will not know what animals are being
 developed.
 ''It doesn't provide the public the opportunity to comment or see the data,''
 said Gregory Jaffe, director of the biotechnology project at the Center for
 Science in the Public Interest. ''That is problematic for a technology that is
 highly controversial.''
 The F.D.A. has been considering a policy for more than 15 years and its delay
 has irked both the industry and the critics of biotechnology.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: September 18, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 904
 
                                The New York Times
                             August 26, 2008 Tuesday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Calories And Evolution
 SECTION: Section F; Column 0; Science Desk; LETTERS; Pg. 4
 LENGTH: 177 words
 To the Editor:
 Speaking in support of genetically modified foods, Nina V. Fedoroff, the science
 adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, says, ''Genetic modification is
 the basis of all evolution'' (Conversation, Aug. 19). She seems totally unaware
 that nature has been at it for hundreds of millions of years -- unlike
 scientists, who just got off the bus. Remember those guys at Los Alamos who,
 after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, said, ''My God, what have we done?''
 Max Wheeler Woods Hole, Mass.
 To the Editor:
 Nina V. Fedoroff says that ''if everybody switched to organic farming, we
 couldn't support the earth's current population -- maybe half.'' Perhaps. But in
 this country, 70 to 80 percent of cropland is devoted to meat, milk and eggs, at
 two to nine times the number of calories required to grow grain, vegetables or
 fruit.
 Animal protein is not a sustainable food for a world growing by at least 70
 million people a year. Genetic modification can somewhat increase our harvests.
 It can't outrace population growth.
 Mike Fremont Cincinnati
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: August 26, 2008
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Letter
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 905
 
                     Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock)
                             August 21, 2008 Thursday
 Riceland had ties to altered rice in '00
 LENGTH: 1278 words
 LONOKE - Arkansas' largest farmer-owned rice cooperative was actively involved
 in the development of a genetically modified medium-grain rice six years before
 the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that trace amounts of an
 unapproved, transgenic long-grain variety had been discovered in U.S. rice
 supplies, according to documents made public Wednesday in Lonoke County Circuit
 Court.
 Judge Phillip Whiteaker reviewed the confidential nature of about 45 documents -
 out of more than 20,000 - produced by Riceland Foods Inc. during the discovery
 phase of a lawsuit filed in August 2006 by a group of Arkansas rice farmers
 against the co-op and several affiliates of the German company Bayer CropScience
 The rice farmers allege negligence and fraudulent concealment on Riceland's part
 and seek compensation for damages resulting from the contamination of U.S.
 long-grain rice by Bayer CropScience LibertyLink varieties, which were
 genetically modified for herbicide tolerance.
 Most U.S. rice exported to Europe is long-grain rice, while medium-grain rice
 tends to be used in brewing and breakfast cereals.
 The U.S. Department of Agriculture revealed the contamination on Aug. 18, 2006,
 and said that no health, food safety or environmental concerns were associated
 with the rice varieties, which had not been authorized for sale.
 Nonetheless, futures prices for long-grain rice plunged as European importers
 demanded that each rice shipment be tested. Some other countries banned U.S.
 rice altogether.
 Arkansas farmers harvested 1.3 million acres of rice in 2007 worth $1 billion,
 making it the state's most valuable crop. Arkansas ranked No. 1 nationwide in
 rice production, producing 48 percent of the U.S. crop.
 According to one document that was declassified Wednesday, Riceland entered into
 a contractual arrangement with Bayer Crop-Science USA LP on Aug. 18, 2000, to
 handle and market LibertyLink Rice. Riceland agreed to dedicate a portion of its
 Weiner facility for drying and storing the rice, and to "take all possible steps
 to develop a market for the rice produced." The agreement was signed by Richard
 Bell, then president and chief executive officer of Riceland until his
 retirement in August 2004. He has been secretary of the Arkansas Agriculture
 Department since its creation in August 2005. Another document, describing an
 Oct. 24, 2000, meeting that Michael Bellingham of the Northern European Rice
 Miller Association had in Brussels, Belgium, with three representatives from
 Aventis CropScience, a predecessor of Bayer CropScience, indicates that 2,000
 acres of medium-grain LibertyLink rice was planted in Arkansas and Louisiana in
 Bellingham wrote that he told the Aventis representatives "it was difficult to
 ever envisage EU [European Union] consumers being persuaded of the benefit of GM
 [genetically modified] rice unless they could see an end product that had
 substantial advantages over non-GM rice.
 "This was clearly not the case with LibertyLink rice," Bellingham wrote.
 "Further there was a very real danger that if consumers were made aware that GM
 rice was in commercial production in the US, that they might switch to buying
 rice from other countries," he wrote.
 Other documents reveal discrepancies in the amount of LibertyLink rice shipped
 from Weiner and received in Stuttgart.
 The documents say 4,236,960 pounds of LibertyLink rice were shipped from Weiner
 to Stuttgart during May and June 2001 for destruction at Riceland's soy-division
 thermal-energy-conversion unit. The documents indicate that 4,236,490 pounds of
 rice - 470 pounds less than was sent - arrived in Stuttgart. Of the 80 shipping
 tickets involved in the transfer, 39 indicate that more rice arrived than was
 sent, 40 show less rice arrived than was sent, and in just one case were the
 shipping and receiving amounts identical.
 In a Feb. 1, 2006 fax, Nouvelle Rizerie Du Nord in Dunkirk, France, asks
 Riceland to further investigate "the problem of high OGM contents found in the
 USA Regular brown rice." Nouvelle noted that the contamination could be caused
 by genetically modified soybeans or corn that were loaded at the same
 installation as the rice. The company asked Riceland "to demonstrate due
 diligence" by making a full report "on the traceability from loading in the mill
 until the shipment from New Orleans" and to avoid similar problems in the
 future.
 Riceland's attorney, Barry Deacon, managing partner of Barrett & Deacon P.A. in
 Jonesboro, said Riceland had designated the documents that were the subject of
 Wednesday's hearing as "confidential" under the terms of a protective order
 previously issued in the case.
 Rule 26 (c) of Arkansas' rules of civil procedure provides for such orders "to
 protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue
 burden or expense" that might result from the disclosure of, among other things,
 "a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial
 information."
 Deacon said the 45 documents in question contained "commercially sensitive
 information that's not known to the public, it's guarded information within the
 company itself and it certainly could be harmful to Riceland and put it at a
 competitive disadvantage if that information is disclosed to the public." The
 rice farmers' attorney Jerry Kelly, of the Kelly Law Firm PLLC in Lonoke, said
 the issue was one of "dirty laundry" that Riceland wanted to keep secret.
 "They don't want the public to know what they found" during tests of rice
 samples that were conducted after a French buyer complained of positive
 transgenic tests, Kelly said.
 "It has nothing to do with trade secrets, it has nothing to do with a competitor
 who could make money over this," he said.
 Protective orders are "very, very common in complex business lawsuits," said
 Josh Silverstein, a law professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock's
 Bowen School of Law.
 Kelly said that allowing Riceland to place a "cloak of secrecy" over certain
 documents would impede his prosecution of the farmers' case.
 Whiteaker said that was a separate matter from the issue of confidentiality.
 Deacon said the Riceland documents in question fell into five general
 categories: rice test results received from Eurofins GeneScan USA Inc. of
 Metairie, La.; communications with that testing company; communications with a
 French customer, Nouvelle Rizerie Du Nord; internal and external communications
 with AgrEvo, a German company that was a predecessor to Aventis CropScience and
 now Bayer CropScience, regarding field testing of LibertyLink rice in 2000; and
 miscellaneous.
 Whiteaker said he would apply what are known as "Vigoro factors" to determine
 whether any particular information constituted a trade secret. He ruled
 Wednesday on 19 of the documents and said he would do so for the remainder as
 expeditiously as possible.
 This lawsuit, Randy Schafer et. al. v.. Riceland Foods Inc. et. al., originally
 was filed in Lonoke County Circuit Court but was removed at the request of Bayer
 CropScience to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas and then
 transferred to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, where
 more than 225 LibertyLink-related cases have been consolidated.
 In October 2007, the case was remanded to Lonoke County Circuit Court because
 cases involving state-law questions, such as breach of contract, fraud or
 negligence, may be tried in federal court only if "complete diversity" exists,
 law professor Silverstein said.
 "You can't have two parties in the case on opposite sides who are both from the
 same state," he said.
 This article was published 08/21/2008
 LOAD-DATE: August 21, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2008 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 906
 
                  The News & Observer (Raleigh, North Carolina)
                              July 19, 2008 Saturday
                                  Final Edition
 Racing toward super seeds
 BYLINE: Sabine Vollmer, Staff Writer
 SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. B5
 LENGTH: 829 words
 Amid rising demand for crops and limited farm acreage, where are tomorrow's
 food, livestock feed and clothing fibers going to come from? Scientists at a
 handful of large agrochemical companies are working on answers. In tightly
 secure, sensor-studded laboratories and greenhouses, they tinker with "climate
 genes," genetic traits that promise to produce larger harvests from plants
 better able to withstand drought, floods and rising ocean levels.
 One of these brain trusts is Syngenta's global biotech research center in
 Research Triangle Park.
 "This is the next wave of [seed] traits to hit the agrochemical market," said
 Roger Kemble, Syngenta's head of crop genetics research. "We want to be
 extremely competitive, and I believe our research backs this up."
 But Syngenta, a Swiss company that employs more than 1,000 in North Carolina,
 including 310 in RTP, is up against the mother of agricultural biotechnology.
 Nobody sells farmers more seeds than Monsanto, based in St. Louis. The company
 corralled 19 percent of the world's $23 billion seed market and 95 percent of
 the $6 billion market for genetically modified seeds, according to 2006 sales
 figures.
 And Monsanto is trying hard to maintain its dominance, said agrochemical analyst
 Mark Gulley of the Soleil Securities Group. Monsanto spends about $1 billion on
 seed-traits research and development a year, about half the industry's annual
 investment.
 To further bolster its prowess, Monsanto last year reached out to BASF, an
 agrochemical giant with crop protection operations in RTP. The companies' $1.5
 billion collaboration is supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
 The market for biotech seeds is expected to grow as farmers, with limited
 acreage for crops, look to increase their yield per acre. That gives Syngenta,
 DuPont's Pioneer, Bayer CropScience and Dow Agrosciences a chance to claw a
 bigger piece of a very profitable pie.
 Gulley projected that by 2015, sales of biotech seeds will more than double to
 about $15 billion -- with Monsanto retaining about a 65 percent share and
 DuPont, Dow and Syngenta carving up the remaining 35 percent.
 "We have the opportunity to bring different solutions to our growers' problems,"
 Kemble said. "We will provide [them] ... with a choice."
 After more than 30 years of research, most crop seeds are available in biotech
 versions, such as soybeans resistant to herbicides and corn and tomatoes less
 susceptible to pests.
 Biotech seeds are more accepted in the United States than in Europe, where
 critics call the resulting crops Frankenfoods, but analysts say the seed
 companies haven't captured as much of the potential market as they could in this
 country.
 For many U.S. farmers, the price of the seeds is a sticking point. But rising
 fuel costs and demand for food, especially in China and India, are expected to
 persuade more U.S. farmers to use biotech seeds, including those designed to
 better withstand extremes of weather.
 The climate genes target the parts of crops that are affected by poor weather
 and soil conditions. Drought-resistant corn, for example, is altered to grow
 longer roots that can better reach water sources or make more of a
 stress-reducing hormone.
 Syngenta's approach aims to protect corn plants from drought stress during
 pollen and ear development, Kemble said. Sufficient amounts of viable pollen are
 critical for the corn plant to form kernels on the ear.
 He declined to provide details of the company's research related to other crops.
 The information is just too sensitive, given the competitive nature of the
 research, he said.
 Syngenta plans to bring the first of the seeds with climate genes to market in
 2011, about two years after Monsanto.
 It's no coincidence that seed-trait research sounds a lot like what
 pharmaceutical companies do to find a new medicine. Indeed, Syngenta was formed
 in 2000 from the ag business units of two pharmaceutical giants, Novartis and
 AstraZeneca.
 And scientists at Syngenta's biotech research center, for example, use genetics
 not unlike their colleagues at GlaxoSmithKline, which has a U.S. headquarters
 and a research center in RTP. The Syngenta laboratories look similar to those at
 GSK, except Syngenta's has stricter security. As in drug development, all ag
 biotech discoveries must be tested many times to pass regulatory muster.
 Genetically modified seeds and biotech drugs have one more thing in common: Both
 generate about 80 cents in profits for every $1 in sales.
 That's why competition among agrochemical companies is so intense, Gulley said,
 adding, "The pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is so juicy."
 FORMED: In 2000 from the agrochemical businesses of two pharmaceutical
 companies, Novartis and AstraZeneca.
 BUSINESS: Provides agricultural chemicals and seeds to growers.
 EMPLOYEES: 21,200 worldwide, including more than 1,000 in North Carolina.
 HOME: Basel, Switzerland
 FINANCIALS: $1.1 billion profit on $9.2 billion in sales in 2007.
 STOCK: Closed at $52.95 Friday.
 BUSINESS FORECASTS (70%); FOUNDATIONS (67%) RTP; Syngenta
 LOAD-DATE: July 19, 2008
 GRAPHIC: Kristina Burgin extracts an element from corn in the lab at Syngenta,
 which is aiming for a bigger share of the multibillion-dollar seed market. Staff
 Photo by Shawn Rocco
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2008 The News and Observer









Document Number: 907
 
                          Anchorage Daily News (Alaska)
                              July 3, 2008 Thursday
 What's hot @adn.com
 SECTION: MAIN; Pg. A2
 LENGTH: 964 words
 adn.com/aktechgirl
 My big fat computer crash
 Last week, my MacBook died. It is the first Mac computer to ever die on me. I
 still haven't quite grasped the magnitude of the incident. Because, you see, I
 must confess: I haven't backed up for almost a year.
 I know, I know, I call myself Tech Girl, but truth be told, I'm much more of an
 Internet expert than computer expert. To me, a computer is like a telephone or
 television -- it should work easily and do what it is supposed to do.
 I've thought about backing up often. Every time a particular computer program
 prompts me to back up, I do consider it. But then I can't bear the thought of
 going downstairs, getting my external hard drive (yes, I own one), find a
 firewire cord, and actually try to figure out how to back something up.
 As the day since the total computer hard drive meltdown moves further and
 further away, I discover little by little exactly what I have lost. Yes, there
 is a chance I can spend upwards of $1,500 for a professional data recovery job,
 but the dead computer is currently at the new Mac shop in town -- MacHaus on
 Northern Lights (across the street from REI) -- being checked to see if it can
 be salvaged locally.
 Here are some of the things I know that I've lost:
 1. Most of the photos and videos of my baby girl and husband from the last 10
 months.
 2. All my iTunes purchases -- music, podcasts (luckily those are free), and the
 20+ kids TV shows I downloaded a week ago for my daughter.
 3. All the snapshots I have taken from the last 15 months that I've been working
 on in Second Life.
 4. Transcripts from the events I held weekly in Second Life with experts.
 5. Manuscripts for my last 3 books.
 6. My most recent book proposal.
 7. My company's electronic check register.
 8. Archival files for client work.
 9. Proposals and contracts for past and upcoming clients.
 10. All drafts of articles, essays and stories I've worked on in the last 10
 months.
 I'll be blogging soon about a variety of data backup solutions, particularly
 Web-based applications. And I'll also blog about the solution that I went with
 when I purchased a new MacBook.
 If you have made it through this entire blog post without running to back up
 your computer, you are a braver person than I. So what are you waiting for? Back
 up your computer NOW!!!
 -- Aliza Sherman Risdahl, AK Tech Girl blog
 Posted June 29, 2008 - 8:38 p.m.
 Fisherman acquitted of  incident at the Rendezvous
 juneauempire.com
 A jury of four men and eight women agreed that the 40-year-old fisherman was
 drunk and disorderly, but prosecutors failed to convince them that John Falcone
 caused the hundreds of dollars of damage to the bar. Falcone took the stand in
 his own defense and argued that he was simply standing at the bar when
 handcuffed by police. "I was too drunk to leave," he said. "I can't get drunk in
 a bar? That's ridiculous." Falcone spent four months in jail between February
 and June at a cost of more than $15,000 to the state.
 Fairbanks taxis are charging how much a foot?
 newsminer.com
 A humorous item in Dermot Cole's column  makes mention of the long-deregulated
 taxis in the Interior city and their struggle to cope with rising gas prices. A
 few years ago, the rate was 10 cents for every 20th of a mile, or $2 a mile.
 Now, some are charging 10 cents for every 31st of a mile, which Cole says his
 wife calculates out to be 10 cents for every 170 feet. "So just how low will the
 fluctuating fraction go?" he wonders.
 Crocodile hunter widow funds Alaska whale studies
 southlincolncountynews.com
 Terri Irwin, widow of Steve Irwin, will fund the research through the Oregon
 State University's Marine Mammal Institute. Breeding, foraging and migration
 will be the focus of the work. In September, the research team will tag up to 25
 humpback whales near Unimak Pass at the eastern end of the Aleutian Island
 chain. In October, they'll travel to the South Pacific, where they'll tag
 humpback whales at American Samoa near the end of their reproductive season.
 Satellites will track their spring migration to Antarctic feeding grounds.
 adn.com/health4all
 Cheap health insurance:  You don't get what you pay for
 The news from the states about reforming health care is less than promising. You
 might even call it grim, foreshadowing what awaits any candidate -- for
 Congress, the statehouse, the governor's office, or the presidency -- who is
 serious about changing the system: It's going to be tough.
 For starters, efforts to achieve universal coverage are turning into options to
 buy bare-bones insurance policies. During the primary campaign, there was tons
 of talk about achieving universal coverage but precious little about what is
 actually meant by "coverage."
 Florida legislators decided to allow insurers to sell policies that will cost no
 more than $150 a month and offer very limited benefits. The policies will cover
 annual check-ups, mammograms, and prostate screening, but if screening reveals
 cancer, good luck -- treatment and hospital stays may not be covered.
 (Excerpted and linked from Columbia Journalism Review: "On Health Care, a
 warning from the states")
 -- Larry Weiss, Health4all blog
 Posted: June 28, 2008 - 12:28 p.m.
 adn.com/akrootcellar
 Have a red, white  and rBGH-free Fourth
 I just received this press release from the Institute for Responsible Technology
 on a new film by Jeffery Smith, author of "Seeds of Deception," about
 genetically modified food. The film, released today, is called "Your Milk on
 Drugs -- Just Say No." It advocates against the use of bovine growth hormones,
 or rBGH,in the U.S. dairy industry.
 The film can be viewed for the Institute for Responsible Technology Web site,
 www.responsibletechnology.org.
 -- Kim Sollien, Ak Root Cellar blog
 Posted: June 30, 2008 - 2:43 p.m.
 LOAD-DATE: July 3, 2008
 GRAPHIC: Photo courtesy of Oregon State University
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Staff
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2008 Anchorage Daily News
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 908
 
                           Grand Rapid Press (Michigan)
                               June 30, 2008 Monday
 Planting seeds of discord;
 Labels would allow consumers to decide if they want to buy genetically-modified
 crops and products made from them
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A6
 LENGTH: 327 words
 People ought to be able to decide if they want to eat genetically-altered foods.
 The federal government should make labeling mandatory. Americans today are more
 concerned than ever about what they are putting into their bodies.
 The proliferation of food labels touting products that are organically-grown,
 farm-raised, fat-free, sugar-free, or free of MSG or trans fats, attest to that
 desire. While companies use labeling as a marketing tool, the government only
 labels for health and safety reasons.
 Last week in Grand Rapids, the head of a Washington, D.C.-based food safety
 group, said genetically modified foods are health and environmental hazards.
 Whether that's the case is debatable. Some researchers and food producers say
 the products are perfectly safe.
 But even some food and health experts say modern biotechnology can alter crops
 so subtly and so swiftly that neither government nor the food industry is
 equipped to spot potential hazards before they enter the food supply.
 Unlike European Union countries and elsewhere, the U.S. government doesn't
 require labeling of such products. There is enough public skepticism about such
 products to change the policy and allow people to make informed choices.
 On the market for the past decade, genetically modified organisms are most
 prevalent in corn, soybean and cotton. Adding genetic components to crops can do
 a variety of things such as improve shelf life, flavor, color, texture and
 nutritional content, help them fend off pests or make them grow in drought
 conditions. Researchers say the vast majority of modifications have been
 beneficial. They are even working on modifying crops to carry vaccines against
 certain diseases.
 Labeling for products containing modified organisms allows people with
 reservations about consuming such products -- regardless of the reason -- to
 avoid them.
 The choice of eating genetically altered goods should be left to consumers who
 been fed a healthy diet of information.
 DROUGHT (68%); VACCINES (65%); PRODUCT SAFETY (78%); FOOD SAFETY (78%) Editorial
 LOAD-DATE: July 1, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
 JOURNAL-CODE: grp
                        Copyright 2008 Grand Rapids Press
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 909
 
                         The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
                              June 4, 2008 Wednesday
                                   Main Edition
 An eco-heretic's weighty reasoning
 BYLINE: DWIGHT R. LEE; For the Journal-Constitution
 SECTION: @ISSUE; Pg. 17A
 LENGTH: 684 words
 Like everyone else, I value a clean and healthy environment and prefer that
 global warming not melt too many glaciers or destroy too much polar bear
 habitat. But like most people, I could do more to protect the environment than I
 do. Indeed, some would consider me an environmental heretic. I prefer plastic to
 paper and paper to a canvas bag for carrying out my groceries. I find
 genetically modified food more appealing than the organic variety. I don't
 recycle newspapers, aluminum cans, glass bottles, batteries, cellphones or
 Styrofoam cups.
 I've never been able to work up an emotional reaction to wetlands. I favor
 drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And I donate far more
 money to free-market think tanks than to environmental organizations.
 I'm confident that my confession of environmental failings will motivate
 condemnation by many of those who are proud of the sacrifices they make to
 reduce their footprints on the planet. And I would never have made my confession
 in such a public forum had I not read something recently that gives me the
 confidence to hold my head up high against the personal criticisms that will be
 directed against me.
 According to a study published in The Engineering Economist, overweight
 Americans are contributing to global warming as a result of increased gasoline
 consumption. Because the average American adult weighs about 25 pounds more than
 in 1960, it is estimated our cars and light trucks burn up close to an
 additional billion gallons of gas each year. That represents a lot of additional
 greenhouse gas to haul around the extra freight the overweight are packing on at
 the dinner table.
 If Americans lost enough weight to get back to the 1960 average (which was
 hardly skinny), we would save almost as much energy while driving as is being
 generated by the heavily subsidized windmills that are killing large numbers of
 birds. And we are not even talking about the extra fuel being burned by the
 airlines to haul the heavier human cargo, or by the trucks to bring the extra
 food to our local grocery stores and restaurants.
 So I see no reason to let personal criticism from overweight environmentalists
 lower my self-esteem. To them I say, sure, I could do more to protect the
 environment, but so could you. Some will respond that their extra poundage makes
 no noticeable difference on the environment. I could counter by claiming that
 neither does my behavior have any noticeable effect on environmental quality.
 But I won't.
 Individual behavior is important, and though no one does all she can to reduce
 pollution, most of us make small contributions to the environment in our own
 ways. I am proud to say that I am making a difference. By watching my diet and
 engaging in strenuous daily exercise, I have kept my weight within a pound or
 two of what it was in 1960 when I was 19 years old.
 Maintaining my weight, however, is not what I consider my most important
 contribution to the environment. Over the years, I have taught thousands of
 university students how to think about environmental problems from an economic
 perspective. In particular, I have shown how environmental policy could do much
 more to improve environmental quality at far less cost by relying more on market
 incentives and individual freedom and less on government commands and controls.
 Furthermore, I have used my classroom to make careful arguments that some of my
 environmental failings (for example, not recycling newspapers, using Styrofoam
 cups and giving money to free-market think tanks) are good for the environment.
 You may disagree with my views on how best to protect the environment, but
 please don't assume that this means I am less concerned about improving
 environmental quality than you are.
 I will be glad to hear from anyone, even an overweight environmentalist, who has
 logical, as opposed to emotional, arguments for why the economic perspective on
 environment protection is flawed.
 * Dwight R. Lee, co-author of "Common Sense Economics: What Everyone Should Know
 About Wealth and Prosperity," is a professor of economics at the University of
 Georgia.
 LOAD-DATE: June 4, 2008
 GRAPHIC: Photo: Dwight R. Lee, co-author of "Common Sense Economics: What
 Everyone Should Know About Wealth and Prosperity," is a professor of economics
 at the University of Georgia./ImageData*
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspapers
                 Copyright 2008 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution









Document Number: 910
 
                            Investor's Business Daily
                              May 21, 2008 Wednesday
 Will Genetically Modified Crops Make Inroads With Prices High? Europe remains
 hostile, but China follows U.S. in adopting GM seeds
 SECTION: FRONT PAGE NEWS; Pg. A01
 LENGTH: 1181 words
 The genie may be coming out of the bottle where genetically modified crops are
 concerned.
 Soaring world food prices appear to be chipping away at public and commercial
 objections to GM crops that sharply raise yields and slash growing costs for
 corn, wheat and other staples at a time when the biggest spike in commodities
 prices since the 1970 s is driving up food prices worldwide.
 Corn prices on commodity indexes have surged by about 65% in the past year. Rice
 prices leapt 76% from December to April, according to the U.N. Food and
 Agriculture Organization.
 What Price Purity?
 Food price surges are fed by burgeoning demand from China and India, higher
 energy costs and using crops to make biofuels. Some say the only answer is to
 grow fruitful, hardy GM-based crops.
 "I think the debate about higher prices and being able to meet the demand of
 people in the world for food is a perfect opportunity to make the case (for GM
 crops)," Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, said at
 a recent global farming conference in Britain.
 Nations leery of GM crops are having second thoughts. An Australian government
 report this month estimated that widespread planting of GM crops would net $7.5
 billion for local farmers. A poll in February found that most Italian maize
 growers would welcome GM crops if a ban is lifted.
 Many still oppose GM crops. On May 7, a key arm of the EU delayed a decision on
 whether farmers may grow more GM crops, saying further research is needed. The
 EU hasn't approved any GM crops since 1998. France on Tuesday passed a bill by a
 single vote over the cultivation of GM crops. Pro-GM members said it was too
 restrictive while opponents said it lacked safeguards.
 Critics oppose these "Frankenfoods," arguing their effects on the human body and
 the environment are unknown. As governments and companies struggle to rein in
 spiraling food prices, agribusiness giants such as Monsanto and Novartis are
 poised to step up development of designer crops to meet escalating global need
 for food.
 "GM crops aren't a silver bullet. But we think biotech can be a very beneficial
 tool in solving the world food crisis," said Monsanto spokesman Brad Mitchell.
 Hardier Crops, Bigger Yields
 The seeds that underlie GM crops are spliced with genes from other organisms to
 help them resist insects, herbicides and plant diseases. They can be made to
 grow on less fertilizer and water with less pollution.
 In addition to cutting cultivating costs, this means that waste and
 drought-stricken lands can be tapped to boost food production. Another promising
 area: growing GM crops that are more nutritious than typical grains or
 vegetables.
 Mitchell says Monsanto has pilot projects to develop more drought-resistant GM
 crops, those that use far less nitrogen fertilizer and others that produce
 far-higher yields.
 The company also is getting ready to offer a type of GM corn that can be grown
 in drought-hit regions in the U.S. and overseas.
 "We're also developing heart-healthy oils that are made mainly from GM
 soybeans."
 DuPont has similar efforts. In March, it announced the development of a new
 soybean cooking oil made from GM soybeans with very low trans fat content.
 Novartis and Syngenta also have new GM strains of corn, maize, rice and other
 grains on the ways.
 Farm consultant Cropnosis says the agricultural biotech market grew to more than
 $6 billion in 2006 from $3 billion in 2001. It's expected to reach $8.4 billion
 by 2011.
 Felicia Wu, an assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of
 Public Health says a powerful benefit of GM crops is that they can increase
 yields.
 "That will have the effect of increasing supply which is what is necessary (to
 bring down prices)," said Wu, a food safety specialist. "We don't want to cut
 down more rain forest to make more agricultural land. We want to do the best
 with what land is available and this is one way to do that."
 No Qualms In China
 In China, authorities show few qualms about using GM crops. They're investing
 heavily in biotech projects. Chinese consumers consume many GM-based foods.
 Japanese and South Korean makers of corn starch and food sweeteners are dropping
 consumer-based objections to using cheap GM corn imports from the U.S. This is
 because the price of corn is soaring as more of the global crop is diverted to
 ethanol production.
 GM crops already are a major part of U.S. energy and food production.
 The vast bulk of the corn being used for ethanol production in the U.S. today is
 genetically modified.
 Seventy-five percent of the field corn grown in the U.S. comes from genetically
 engineered strains, said National Corn Growers Association spokesman Ken
 Colombini. He says this proves how beneficial GM can be in boosting all kinds of
 agricultural production.
 "One thing we've seen is an incredible increase in corn yields, and GM is one of
 the major forces that's behind these increased yields," he said.
 GM corn also is being used for food products in the U.S. without any apparent
 ill-effects. Colombini says it's used to make corn starch, corn oil and
 livestock feed, in addition to ethanol.
 Boosting Nutrition
 GM crops are on tap with more nutrition. Rice is one of the staple foods of
 Africa. But it lacks vitamin A and iron -- contributing to the outbreak of
 nutritional diseases.
 Scientists have spliced genes from a daffodil plant to create a rice strain
 that's rich in vitamin A. The same plant has genes from bacteria that enhances
 iron production.
 If popular opposition to GM foods eases, researchers can harness these same
 methods to create a range of crops and vegetables for consumers that have more
 nutritional value. They can even taste better.
 University of Pittsburgh's Wu says most public fears about eating food from GM
 crops are unfounded. She says, for example, that there's no evidence that
 GM-based foods cause cancer.
 "It floors me how many people are opposed to agricultural biotechnology without
 producing any rationale for why they're against it," Wu said.
 Still Unpopular In The West
 At the same time, she says those who advocate using GM crops to ease the food
 crisis have their work cut out for them.
 According to a CBS News/New York Times poll in early May, 53% of Americans say
 they won't buy genetically modified food. The irony is that many of them already
 do.
 "If people and their governments remain very much against the use of GM crops,
 it's not clear to me how more widespread use of GM crops can be accomplished."
 Monsanto's Mitchell says force of necessity is the main argument in favor of
 using more GM crops.
 "We'll have an additional 3 billion people on this planet in 40 years and
 they're all going to need food, energy and clothing, and a good part of that
 will come from agriculture," Mitchell said.
 Ted Schettler warns that technological cures like GM crops rarely deliver on all
 their promises.
 "They often have unintended consequences, and in this case are likely to divert
 attention from more fundamental causes of food shortages and maldistribution,"
 said Schettler, science director at the nonprofit Science and Environmental
 Health Network.
 COMPANY: NOVARTIS AG (52%); MONSANTO CO (85%) dd; mon; nvs
 LOAD-DATE: May 20, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                  Copyright 2008 Investor's Business Daily, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 911
 
                               The Washington Post
                               May 19, 2008 Monday
                                 Regional Edition
 Rice and Baloney;
 Irrational Policies the World Over Are Making the Food Crisis Worse
 BYLINE: Sebastian Mallaby
 SECTION: EDITORIAL COPY; Pg. A17
 LENGTH: 828 words
 We are now several months into the global food crisis, which is a much bigger
 deal than the subprime meltdown for most people in the world. Food prices have
 almost doubled in three years, threatening to push 100 million people into
 absolute poverty, undoing much of the development progress of the past few
 years. The new hunger has triggered riots from Haiti to Egypt to Ethiopia,
 threatening political stability; it has conjured up a raft of protectionist
 policies, threatening globalization. And yet the response to this crisis from
 governments the world over has been lackadaisical or worse.
 Start with the lunatic story of rice stockpiles in Japan. A new paper from the
 Center for Global Development describes how Japan's government imports rice in
 order to comply with its global trade commitments but withholds most of that
 rice from consumers lest they decide they prefer it to the local sort. Japanese
 traditionalists view the consumption of sticky, short-grained rice as a
 patriotic duty. So rather than letting Mrs. Watanabe corrupt her children's
 dietary habits, Japan stores much of its imported rice until it has become unfit
 for human consumption, whereupon it is sold to feed livestock.
 From the perspective of Japan, stockpiling rice is a costly exercise in
 chauvinism, but Japan can afford that. From the world's perspective, the
 stockpiling is more serious. More than 3 billion people depend on rice as their
 daily staple, and half of them are very poor. Japan could save many of them from
 hunger if it released its stocks.
 The scandal is not just Japanese, however. In order for Japan to sell its rice
 outside its borders, it needs permission from the countries that supplied it --
 the United States, Thailand and Vietnam. A bit of U.S. leadership could deliver
 that permission easily, but the Bush administration is apparently worried about
 a backlash from American rice growers who see no downside in high prices, thank
 you very much. Not for the first time in Washington do the fat welfare queens of
 the farm lobby trample on the poorest people in the world.
 Speaking of welfare queens, Congress passed a farm bill last week with
 thunderous bipartisan support. The bill includes reasonable subsidies for
 low-income Americans hit by high food prices, but it also sprays money at
 farmers who already earn more than the average taxpayer and contains shockingly
 little for the world's poor. Congress is considering a separate bill that would
 boost international food aid more substantially. But that measure has been met
 with shameful indifference by lawmakers and consequently has stalled.
 Congress won't even act on a common-sense proposal from the Bush administration
 that food aid be reformed. If the United States bought some of the food that it
 donates from other countries, it could get aid to the needy faster and more
 cheaply. But that would upset American farmers and shipping interests, as a new
 Council on Foreign Relations paper emphasizes. The president's proposal has few
 takers on the Hill.
 The Europeans, for their part, have their own way of entrenching hunger. Just as
 Japan is wedded to its rice culture, Europe is irrationally hostile to
 genetically modified food. Study after study has found no danger in seeds that
 have been manipulated to grow better, withstand insects or survive in arid soil.
 But the Europeans still feel squeamish, and their hang-up deters Africans from
 taking advantage of crop science lest their exports be barred from European
 markets. Again, a peccadillo that to Europeans is affordable starves people in
 the poor world.
 Finally, poor countries themselves have made things worse. Panicked at the
 prospect of food riots, countries with crop surpluses have forbidden exports in
 an attempt to bottle up supply and keep prices down. More than 40 countries have
 imposed some kind of export restraint, with the result that countries suffering
 food deficits have seen prices hit the roof. This nationalized hoarding is
 frustrating international relief efforts. The World Food Program has sought to
 buy food from countries with surpluses, such as Pakistan, to ship to desperate
 neighbors such as Afghanistan. But Pakistan drags its feet about selling.
 Part of the solution to the food crisis, as the Oxford economist Paul Collier
 has written, is to promote large-scale commercial agriculture in the poor world.
 But for that to happen, investors have to know that there will be a market for
 their exports. They won't risk their money if Congress is going to subsidize
 their American competitors. They won't risk their money if European prejudice is
 going to prevent them from using the best seeds that scientists offer. And they
 won't risk their money if the governments of developing countries short-circuit
 their profits with crazy export bans.
 In short, the governments of the world are conspiring to undermine farming in
 developing countries. Do they mean to inflict hunger on tens of millions of
 people?
 smallaby@cfr.org
 LOAD-DATE: May 19, 2008
 DISTRIBUTION: Maryland
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2008 The Washington Post
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 912
 
                         The Gazette (Cedar Rapids, Iowa)
                  Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News
                             April 17, 2008 Thursday
 Monsanto gets warm reception in Independence: 15 sites considered
 BYLINE: Erika Binegar, The Gazette, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
 LENGTH: 740 words
 Apr. 17--INDEPENDENCE -- Dave Tierney, with Monsanto Government Affairs, drew
 applause last night as he unveiled a map of Iowa with a red star designating
 Independence as the preferred home to a new $90 million Monsanto seed corn
 production facility.
 "You can see we kind of needed something in that part of the state, didn't we?"
 Tierney joked to a largely receptive crowd. "Let's hope it stays up," he said of
 the star.
 Monsanto officials announced last night that the proposed facility -- which
 would create about 44 new full-time positions and 800 seasonal jobs -- would be
 built on a 150-acre site north of Highway 20 and east of Henley Avenue.
 "There's still a lot of uncertainty," Darren Wallis, spokesman for St.
 Louis-based Monsanto, said. He cited soil sampling, zoning and drainage
 questions that must still be worked out, as well as Federal Aviation
 Administration approval because of the site's proximity to the local airport.
 "We're hopeful everything will stay the course and we'll be able to move
 forward," he said, adding the land has been contracted.
 Officials said they hope to be able to know for sure in the next 45 days whether
 it's a done deal.
 More than 400 people packed into the Heartland Acres Agribition Center last
 night to hear Monsanto's reasons for choosing Independence, to voice concerns
 and to embrace the idea that Monsanto will positively impact the community.
 That community support is important to the project moving ahead.
 "We work real hard to be a good neighbor," Wallis said before the meeting. "So
 it's important the community understands what the plant is and what it does."
 Kent Martin, head of Monsanto corn seed production, said Monsanto is 100 percent
 focused on agriculture, participates in communities and uses state-of-the-art
 technology to supply Iowa farmers with high quality products.
 Monsanto chose Independence after evaluating 15 sites in north-central Iowa
 because of its proximity to good roads, natural gas and work force -- a number
 of growers in Buchanan County already produce seed for the company, Wallis said.
 During the question-and-answer period, most people stood up to welcome Monsanto
 into the community. Letters and posters lined the walls of the Agribition
 Center, expressing support for the proposed site.
 A sign along Highway 20 read: "Independence welcomes Monsanto." But some in the
 crowd voiced concerns about where profits will end up, genetically modified corn
 and how Monsanto treats small companies, with one man calling the company a
 "junkyard dog." Others asked who would get the new jobs, which could help
 Independence recover from the loss of nearly 300 jobs about two years ago when
 Tyson Foods closed its meat processing plant.
 "I think it's great for this city, but my main interest is the 40 jobs. If we
 don't get the40 jobs, to hell with you, I don't care," said Independence City
 Council member Dick Engen as the crowd laughed.
 Martin answered that Monsanto plans to hire mostly local employees, but a few
 will probably come in from other Monsanto sites.
 "It's going to be a great deal," Jerry Axmear, 42, of Malcolm said.
 He said he's seen the good Monsanto in Poweshiek County has done for the
 community. The proposed facility would include two large grain dryers, bulk
 storage, a conditioning tower capable of packaging 1,200 bags of seed corn per
 hour, offices, a 175,000 squarefoot warehouse, a parking lot and access roads
 for trucks.
 Officials haven't pinpointed when construction would begin, but hope the plant
 would be up and running by 2010.
 In January, Monsanto scrapped plans to build a seed corn plant at Washburn Road
 and Kimball Avenue in southern Black Hawk County, where residents didn't welcome
 the idea as people in Independence have. The idea was voted down by the Black
 Hawk County Planning and Zoning Commission.
 Also in January, more than 100 people in Waterloo signed a petition opposing
 plans to rezone farmland south of the city for the plant.
 ¦Contact the writer: (319) 398-8255 or erika.binegar@ gazettecommunications.com
 To see more of The Gazette, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to
 http://www.gazetteonline.com. Copyright (c) 2008, The Gazette, Cedar Rapids,
 Iowa Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. For reprints, email
 tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax
 to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave.,
 Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.
 General
 LOAD-DATE: April 17, 2008
 ACC-NO: 20080417-CR-Monsanto-gets-warm-reception-in-Independence-0417
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                            Copyright 2008 The Gazette









Document Number: 913
 
                               NewsReleaseWire.com
                              April 14, 2008 Monday
 Discontinuity: Health-Enhanced Crops
 LENGTH: 824 words
 As part of our series on discontinuities (those sudden, sharp breaks that can
 strike consumers, business sectors, nations, or the world with disruptive
 force), comes this brief on health-enhanced crops by Social Technologies'
 analyst Christopher Kent.
 "Enhanced crops are those that have been genetically modified to express a
 nutrient (such as a vitamin) or a vaccine for a common illness," Kent explains,
 noting that a number of different crops are being modified to express
 nutritional or medicinal traits:
 * Rice. The best-known enhanced crop is so-called "golden rice," which has been
 modified to produce
 elevated levels of vitamin A to treat vitamin A deficiency.
 * Tomatoes. Researchers are working to create tomatoes able to produce vaccines
 for diphtheria and
 * Potatoes. Spuds have also been engineered to produce vaccines for the Norwalk
 virus, cholera, and hepatitis B.
 Health-enhanced crops defined
 In addition to heralding a new model for disease treatment in Worlds 2 and 3,
 Kent believes the development and dissemination of enhanced food crops could
 save millions of lives a year in those countries alone.
 "Health-enhanced crops would give people access to needed medicines that, in
 conventional form, never reach the poorest populations due to lack of money and
 infrastructure," says Kent, who believes the impact of easily grown or easily
 delivered vaccines and fortified crops would be considerable.
 "Vitamin A deficiency affects 120 million children each year in Worlds 2 and 3,"
 he notes. "Of those afflicted, as many as 500,000 go blind as a result. Plus,
 vitamin A deficiency contributes to childhood mortality associated with measles
 and diarrhea. The commercial development of vitamin A-fortified rice could be a
 cheap and easy way to boost vitamin A intake in Worlds 2 and 3, reducing infant
 mortality and blindness."
 Other diseases being addressed by enhanced crops would also affect large numbers
 of people: diarrheal diseases contribute to 10 million deaths in Worlds 2 and 3
 per year, and globally, 350 million people are infected with hepatitis B.
 Cumulative probability of a health-enhanced crop revolution
 Of course, many of these fortified plants are already in field trials, though
 the testing may not be complete until nearly 2020.
 "If trials are successful, these plants could be grown commercially to treat
 their targeted conditions," Kent says. "Such crops might in time be replaced by
 other, more efficient ways of treating vitamin and nutrient deficiencies and
 diseases plaguing the world's poor."
 Consumer impact
 Health-enhanced crops could have local or global implications. For example:
 * The most immediate impact of enhanced crops could be improved health for
 millions of malnourished consumers in Worlds 2 and 3.
 * Successful adoption and use of any of these health-enhanced crops could
 support efforts to completely eliminate more diseases, as was done with
 smallpox.
 Learn more
 To talk to Christopher Kent about this discontinuity and its relevance to major
 business sectors, contact Hope Gibbs, Social Technologies' leader of corporate
 communications: hope.gibbs@socialtechnologies.com
 About ) The Discontinuities Series
 Social Technologies recently released a series of briefs called Discontinuities,
 which are those sudden, sharp breaks that can strike consumers, business
 sectors, nations, or the world with disruptive force. Exactly when, where, or
 how such events will occur is inherently hard to foresee. This brief explores
 one potential discontinuity in the food sector. In the coming weeks, be on the
 lookout for more of our Discontinuities press releases regarding the food,
 health, and mobility industries.
 Christopher Kent ) Futurist
 Christopher Kent is a writer/analyst with more than 10 years' experience
 tracking emerging public policy and social policy issues, primarily with
 Stratfor (Strategic Forecasting), a leading geopolitical-intelligence service.
 His expertise spans topics such as consumer and industry trends in the energy
 sector, the future of China, consumer lifestyles in Europe, and the impacts of
 microcredit in World 3. Christopher also oversees Social Technologies'
 internship program. He has an MA in the history of the Middle Ages and the
 Renaissance from the University of Toronto, and an undergraduate degree in
 history and English from Marquette University. Areas of expertise: Media and
 entertainment, tourism and leisure.
 About ) Social Technologies
 Social Technologies is a global research and consulting firm specializing in the
 integration of foresight, strategy, and innovation. With offices in Washington
 DC, London, and Shanghai, Social Technologies serves the world's leading
 companies, government agencies, and nonprofits. For information visit
 www.socialtechnologies.com, our blog: http://changewaves.socialtechnologies.com,
 and our newsletter: www.socialtechnologies.com/changewaves
 http://www.ExpertClick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail&ID=2
 LOAD-DATE: April 15, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Reference
                 Copyright 2008 Broadcast Interview Source, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 914
 
                         Lincoln Journal Star (Nebraska)
                             March 5, 2008 Wednesday
                                   CITY Edition
 Genetically modified revolution continues
 SECTION: B; Pg. 5
 LENGTH: 437 words
 It won't be long before Nebraska farmers will be climbing into their
 computer-equipped tractor cabs and heading to the fields with planters loaded
 with genetically modified corn and soybean seeds.
 The lack of controversy attending the planting season is in marked contrast to
 Europe, which is in the midst of another round of debate on whether genetically
 modified crops should be allowed.
 In Nebraska, the percentage of acres planted in genetically modified corn went
 from 34 percent in 2000 to 79 percent in 2007, according to the U.S. Department
 of Agriculture. The comparable national figures were 25 percent in 2000 and 73
 percent in 2007.
 The percentage of genetically modified soybeans in Nebraska went from 72 percent
 in 2000 to 96 percent in 2007. Nationally, the figures were 54 percent in 2000
 and 91 percent in 2007.
 Europe is proving to be the last bastion against genetically modified crops.
 Countries such as Argentina, Brazil, India and China annually expand the number
 of acres raising genetically modified crops.
 Internationally, the number of acres planted with genetically modified crops
 grew 12 percent last year, according to an industry group.
 Pressure is mounting on the holdouts as the world's need for food continues to
 climb and diversion of farmland to biofuels contributes to rising demand and
 higher prices.
 This makes the promise of genetically modified crops - higher yields with less
 water and fertilizer - difficult to resist.
 "India can become self-sufficient in food production by use of biotechnology in
 food crops," Clive James, chairman of the International Service for the
 Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, told Reuters in an interview.
 The Economist magazine reported last month that a farming lobby group,
 Copa-Cogeca, warned that the rising cost of feed could jeopardize Europe's
 livestock industry. The organizations wants the European Commission to lift
 restrictions on genetically modified feed grains.
 Opponents continue to raise alarm of the supposed dangers of what they like to
 call "Frankenfood," but after years of widespread use in places including
 Nebraska, the dire predictions have failed to come true.
 Researchers are predicting that the next generation of genetically modified
 crops will provide even more benefits. Pioneer Hi-Bred, for example, says it
 will have a new type of soybean on the market next year containing high oleic
 oil that tastes better and produces no harmful trans-fats during frying.
 When researchers can hold up genetically modified food products scientifically
 proven to be healthier for consumers, even the skeptical Europeans may finally
 give in.
 LOAD-DATE: May 16, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2008 Lincoln Journal Star,
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 915
 
                           Inside Bay Area (California)
                           February 27, 2008 Wednesday
 'Green' rice next product to battle global warming
 BYLINE: By Jim Downing, McCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS
 LENGTH: 1202 words
 SACRAMENTO -- The war on global warming has entrepreneurs racing to find new
 ways to trim the carbon emissions linked to everything from wine to washing
 machines.
 But Eric Rey was the first to see the promise of low-emissions rice.
 In Davis, Rey's Arcadia Biosciences is crafting genetically modified rice that
 thrives on just half the typical dose of nitrogen fertilizer -- a source of
 greenhouse emissions on par with all the world's passenger vehicles.
 By growing rice that needs less nitrogen, farmers would save money on fertilizer
 and plug into the booming global market in carbon offsets. Rey would be able to
 price his rice seed the same as conventional varieties and make a profit by
 taking a share of the carbon-credit revenue.
 The environmental benefits of the rice would be enough to win over biotech
 skeptics, said Rey, a life member of the Sierra Club. In addition to cutting
 greenhouse gases, the rice has the potential to reduce nitrate pollution, a
 scourge of rivers and aquifers worldwide.
 On the farms in rural China where he hopes to launch the plan and where he is
 focusing his efforts, Rey figures each acre planted with Arcadia's rice could
 yield close to one metric ton of carbon offsets, now trading at $22 a ton on
 European markets and expected to climb in the future. Even at current rates, the
 offsets alone would boost farmers' profits by as much as 25 percent.
 But Rey can't count his money just yet.
 Arcadia's rice is at least five years from commercialization, and unforeseen
 hiccups could make the wait much longer. Farmers and rice processors around the
 world now shun genetically modified rice, fearful of a backlash in export
 markets. In California, the rice industry is so leery of the technology that it
 has forced Arcadia to test-plant its creations in Fresno County, more than 100
 miles from prime rice-growing areas.
 What's more, the future value of the carbon offsets is uncertain. If global
 emissions-cutting efforts fizzle, demand for carbon offsets will evaporate.
 But that isn't enough to deter Rey, for one key reason: The market potential is
 huge. Rice is the planet's third most widely planted crop, grown on roughly 390
 million acres. China grows more rice than any other country.
 "If you win, you win really big," said Andrew Baum, a biotech industry veteran
 who chairs the food and agriculture committee of the Biotechnology Industry
 Organization, a trade group.
 Rey's timing has proved just right. His plan meshes with efforts in California,
 Europe and the rest of the world to cut greenhouse emissions. Those regulations
 are driving a booming trade in carbon credits, now a $5 billion-a-year global
 business.
 Rey's big idea for nitrogen-efficient rice has boosted him onto the
 international media stage: He's been the subject of a front-page feature in The
 Wall Street Journal and scored a spot on a list of "50 people who could save the
 planet" in the United Kingdom's Guardian newspaper.
 Biotech seed giants Monsanto Co. and Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. are also
 working on nitrogen efficiency, but they're focusing on corn. In rice, Arcadia
 is out front: It's the only U.S. company that has progressed to the level of
 outdoor test plantings for nitrogen efficiency, according to U.S. Department of
 Agriculture records.
 Still, while Arcadia's field trials of rice in California and China are
 promising, it has yet to breed the nitrogen-efficiency gene, borrowed from
 barley, into the commercial rice varieties popular in China. At best, Rey hopes
 to have seeds ready by 2013.
 Skeptics say it could take much longer to work out the kinks. "It's unusual for
 a gene to just do one isolated thing in an organism. We can expect that there
 will be some unintended consequences," said Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior
 scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C.
 Even if Arcadia clears the technical hurdles, genetically engineered rice may be
 a hard sell to farmers.
 While genetically engineered corn and soy are now planted widely, virtually no
 such rice is grown commercially because of opposition from key markets in
 Europe, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Keeping buyers in those markets happy is
 especially important to California growers, who frequently export more than half
 their rice.
 So Rey is piloting his emissions-reduction plans in north-central China, where
 nitrogen use is especially high and farmers and government officials appear open
 to genetically modified rice.
 There, Arcadia is monitoring the nitrous oxide gas that burbles from fertilized
 rice paddies. The measurements will provide baseline data needed to demonstrate
 that large-scale plantings of Arcadia's rice would actually reduce emissions.
 That's important, because while researchers have estimated the climate impact of
 fertilizer on a global scale, international emissions traders don't yet
 recognize offsets generated by reductions in nitrous oxide emissions from a
 particular farm field.
 Rey, a fit, ruddy-faced 51-year-old with close-cropped hair, is a veteran of the
 long biotech haul. He spent 17 years with Davis biotech pioneer Calgene,
 starting as a greenhouse manager in 1982 and rising to vice president.
 Calgene shot into world headlines in 1994 when it launched the Flavr Savr
 tomato, the first biotech crop to reach supermarkets. But the Flavr Savr
 flopped, dragged down by low crop yields and a fragile skin. By fall 1996,
 Calgene had lost roughly $150 million on the program. It sold out to Monsanto in
 early 1997.
 Rey didn't work directly on the Flavr Savr, but he says its rise and fall taught
 him, among other things, to place his bets widely.
 "These types of products take a long time to get to the marketplace, and there's
 risk all the way along the line," he said.
 So Arcadia, which employs about 80 people in Davis, Seattle and Phoenix, is
 working on other technologies besides nitrogen efficiency. It is breeding
 salt-tolerant varieties of rice, cotton and tomatoes, has a Department of
 Defense contract to develop vegetables with longer shelf life, and is breeding
 wheat so that it can be tolerated by people on gluten-free diets.
 This summer, fields in the Sacramento Valley are scheduled to bear Arcadia's
 first commercial harvest -- safflower engineered to contain extremely high
 levels of a key omega-6 fatty acid valued as a nutritional supplement. Rey says
 producing the fatty acid with the company's safflower will cut production costs
 roughly 15-fold compared with current sources.
 Rey sees Arcadia's work as helping to settle the long-running debate between the
 biotech industry and its critics over the environmental benefits of crop
 biotechnology.
 While the global acreage planted with genetically modified crops reached 282
 million acres last year, resistance to the technology remains strong in many
 countries, including the United States. Critics point out that 80 percent of all
 biotech crops are designed to withstand certain herbicides, a trait that has led
 to herbicide-resistant weeds, in turn prompting farmers to spray more chemicals,
 according to some studies.
 Rey is convinced that the water-quality and greenhouse-gas benefits of Arcadia's
 rice have a shot at winning over critics. Global warming, he reckons, may have
 changed the game.
 LOAD-DATE: February 27, 2008
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
             Copyright 2008 MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 916
 
                              The Houston Chronicle
                            January 12, 2008 Saturday
 BYLINE: From wire reports
 SECTION: A; Pg. 24
 LENGTH: 460 words
 Taiwanese voted today on a new 113-seat Legislature, a contest widely seen as a
 referendum on President Chen Shui-bian's efforts to carve out a non-Chinese
 identity for the self-governing island. The election could end years of
 political deadlock and stabilize the island's rocky relations with neighbor
 China, which considers Taiwan a part of its territory and has threatened war if
 Taiwan tries to make its de facto independence formal.
 Businessman says he saw Fujimori
 LIMA - A Peruvian businessman allegedly abducted in 1992 by security forces
 testified against Peru's former president on Friday, saying he saw Alberto
 Fujimori walk through an army base where he was being held captive. Fujimori,
 69, whose autocratic government ruled Peru between 1990 and 2000, is facing up
 to 30 years in prison on charges he authorized two death squad massacres and
 ordered the kidnappings of businessman Samuel Dyer and a prominent journalist.
 On Friday, Dyer testified he saw Fujimori at the army base where he was held for
 10 days after being abducted at Lima's airport in 1992.
 Former president granted parole
 MANAGUA - A Nicaraguan judge has granted parole to former President Arnoldo
 Aleman, reversing an earlier court order that he serve out a 20-year conviction
 on money laundering charges under house arrest. Aleman announced the ruling
 Friday during a news conference, and denied allegations that it was a result of
 a pact with the governing Sandinista party. Aleman was convicted and sentenced
 for money laundering and embezzlement in 2003 but was later freed under a
 restricted parole that allowed him to move freely within the capital, Managua.
 Portugal intercepts terror message
 PARIS - Portuguese aviation authorities have alerted French counterterrorism
 officials to an intercepted message threatening terrorist attacks against
 targets in Paris including the Eiffel Tower, a French newspaper reported Friday.
 The communication by short-wave radio, intercepted Thursday, was "vague and
 confused," and Portuguese officials quickly alerted French authorities, French
 daily Le Monde reported, citing unidentified police officials. French
 counterterrorism officials were trying to identify possible suspects behind the
 message, the report said.
 Hunger strike ends use of genetic corn
 PARIS - Militant French farmer Jose Bove and about 15 supporters called off
 their hunger strike in its eighth day after the government ordered the
 suspension of the use of genetically modified corn Friday. France will suspend
 cultivation of MON810, the seed for the only type of genetically modified corn
 now allowed in the country, until a European Union review has been conducted,
 the office of Prime Minister Francois Fillon said.
 CONVICTIONS (88%); HOUSE ARREST (73%); JAIL SENTENCING (68%) world Elections
 Terrorism Strikes
 LOAD-DATE: January 12, 2008
 GRAPHIC: Photo: ENTHUSIASTIC: A supporter of Taiwan's opposition Nationalist
 Party cheers and waves flags on the eve of the last rally before the legislative
 elections in Taipei county on Friday.
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
             Copyright 2008 The Houston Chronicle Publishing Company
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 917
 
                                The New York Times
                            January 9, 2008 Wednesday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Food Allergies Stir a Mother To Action
 BYLINE: By KIM SEVERSON
 SECTION: Section F; Column 0; Dining, Dining Out/Cultural Desk; Pg. 1
 LENGTH: 1847 words
 DATELINE: Lafayette, Colo.
 ROBYN O'BRIEN likes to joke that at least she hasn't started checking the
 rearview mirror to see if she's being followed.
 But some days, her imagination gets away from her and she wonders if it's only a
 matter of time before Big Food tries to stop her from exposing what she sees as
 a profit-driven global conspiracy whose collateral damage is an alarming
 increase in childhood food allergies.
 Ms. O'Brien has presented her views, albeit in a less radical wrapper, on CNN,
 CBS and in frequent print interviews. Frontier Airlines and Wild Oats stores
 distribute the allergy-awareness gear she designed.
 Her story is one of several in a new book, ''Healthy Child, Healthy World''
 (Dutton, March 2008), whose contributors include doctors, parents and
 celebrities like Meryl Streep.
 Sitting at the table in her suburban kitchen, with her four young children
 tumbling in and out, Ms. O'Brien, 36, seems an unlikely candidate to be food's
 Erin Brockovich (who, by the way, has taken Ms. O'Brien under her wing).
 She grew up in a staunchly Republican family in Houston where lunch at the
 country club frequented by George and Barbara Bush followed Sunday church
 services. She was an honors student, earned a master's degree in business and,
 like her husband, Jeff, made a living as a financial analyst.
 Ms. O'Brien was also the kind of mom who rolled her eyes when the kid with a
 peanut allergy showed up at the birthday party. Then, about two years ago, she
 fed her youngest child scrambled eggs. The baby's face quickly swelled into a
 grotesque mask. ''What did you spray on her?'' she screamed at her other
 children. Little Tory had a severe food allergy, and Ms. O'Brien's journey had
 begun.
 By late that night, she had designed a universal symbol to identify children
 with food allergies. She now puts the icon, a green stop sign with an
 exclamation point, on lunch bags, stickers and even the little charms children
 use to dress up their Crocs. These products and others are sold on her Web site,
 AllergyKids.com, which she unveiled, strategically, on Mother's Day in 2006.
 The $30,000 Ms. O'Brien made from the products last year is incidental, she
 said. Working largely from a laptop on her dining room table, she has looked
 deep into the perplexing world of childhood food allergies and seen a conspiracy
 that threatens the health of America's children. And, she profoundly believes,
 it is up to her and parents everywhere to stop it.
 Her theory -- that the food supply is being manipulated with additives, genetic
 modification, hormones and herbicides, causing increases in allergies, autism
 and other disorders in children -- is not supported by leading researchers or
 the largest allergy advocacy groups.
 That only feeds Ms. O'Brien's conviction that the influence of what she sees as
 the profit-hungry food industry runs deep. In just a few dizzying steps, she can
 take you from a box of Kraft macaroni and cheese to Monsanto's genetically
 modified seeds to Donald H. Rumsfeld, who once ran the company that created the
 sweetener aspartame.
 Through creative use of e-mail, relentless inquiry and a persona carefully
 crafted around the protective mother archetype, Ms. O'Brien has emerged as a
 populist hero among parents who troll the Internet for any hint about why their
 children have food allergies.
 ''You have changed my life ... my diet ... my health ... my spirit ... and I
 thank YOU,''  a father who had lost his teenage daughter to anaphylactic shock
 told her by e-mail.
 Ms. O'Brien encourages people to do what she did: throw out as much nonorganic
 processed food as you can afford to. Avoid anything genetically modified,
 artificially created or raised with hormones. Don't eat food with ingredients
 you can't pronounce.
 Once she cleaned out her cupboards, she said, her four children started behaving
 better. Their health problems, which her doctor attributed to allergies to milk
 and other foods, cleared up.
 ''It was absolutely terrifying to unearth this story,'' she said over lunch at a
 restaurant in Boulder, Colo. ''These big food companies have an intimate
 relationship with every household in America, and they are making our children
 sick. I was rocked. You don't want to hear that this has actually happened.''
 But has it?
 Record numbers of parents are heading to doctors concerned that their children
 are allergic to a long list of foods. States are passing laws requiring schools
 to have policies protecting children with food allergies. But no one knows why
 the number of allergies seems to be on the rise, or even if they are rising as
 fast as some believe.
 Ms. O'Brien and leading allergy researchers agree that few reliable studies on
 food allergies exist. The best estimates suggest that 4 to 8 percent of young
 children suffer from them, though the reactions tend to grow less serious and
 less frequent as children grow older.
 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention put the number of deaths linked
 to food allergies at 12 in 2004, the most recent year for which data are
 available. However, its statisticians point out that such figures are drawn only
 from doctors' notations on death certificates.
 ''It's a soft number, and it might well be an understatement,'' said Arialdi
 Minino, a statistician at the agency's National Center for Health Statistics.
 Dr. Elizabeth Gleghorn is the director of pediatric gastroenterology  at the
 Children's Hospital and Research Center in Oakland, Calif. She has been in
 practice for 20 years, and has noticed a recent increase in eczema, which can
 indicate food allergies. But she doesn't think food allergies are increasing
 dramatically.
 Often, a child might have intolerance to a food and not a true allergy. But the
 Internet has afforded more ways for parents to inform themselves and do their
 own diagnosing, which could add to the popular impression that food allergies
 are rising at alarming rates, Dr. Gleghorn said.
 Many health professionals, though, agree that something is changing. Among the
 amalgam of theories that weigh the effects of genetics and environment, the
 hygiene hypothesis intrigues many researchers. It holds that children are being
 exposed to fewer micro-organisms and, as a result, have weaker immune systems.
 ''But this alone cannot account for the massive relative increase in food
 allergy compared with other allergic disease such as asthma,'' said Dr. Marc E.
 Rothenberg, the director of allergy and immunology at  Cincinnati Children's
 Hospital Medical Center, the second-largest pediatric research facility in the
 country.
 Could it be that a toxic food environment has made children's immune systems go
 haywire? It's hard to find an expert in the field who supports Ms. O'Brien's
 theory. ''I don't think it can be proven, so I can't say scientifically one way
 or the other,'' Dr. Gleghorn said.
 Mix the lack of hard data with an increasingly complex food landscape, and
 you've got Robyn O'Brien.
 ''Food allergies just become a focus for a broader fear about the food system,''
 said the author Michael Pollan, a contributor  to The New York Times Magazine.
 Mr. Pollan, in both ''The Omnivore's Dilemma'' and his new book, ''In Defense of
 Food'' (January, Penguin), shares many of Ms. O'Brien's views about
 industrialized agriculture. He also has a niece with a peanut allergy. So Ms.
 O'Brien sent him an e-mail message, and a correspondence began.
 Ms. O'Brien took his responses as an endorsement of her work, and then mentioned
 his support in messages to other people. Mr. Pollan, who said he has no idea if
 her theories are accurate, asked her to stop telling people he was working with
 her.
 Leveraging brief e-mail exchanges with notable people is an important method
 that Ms. O'Brien uses to build her universe. The unlikely mix includes members
 of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s staff; Mary Alice Stephenson, a host of ''America's
 Most Smartest Model''; and, recently, Dr. Mehmet Oz, a regular on Oprah
 Winfrey's show.
 ''The fact that people like him and Malcolm Gladwell, presidential campaigns,
 celebs take the time to reply means a lot as it gives me hope that people are
 still engaged,'' she said in an e-mail message to this reporter.
 While some of her contacts, like Mr. Gladwell, an author and a writer for The
 New Yorker, don't remember her, the strategy has worked. Nell Newman, who runs
 the organic arm of Newman's Own products, spoke up on her behalf on the national
 news. Deborah Koons Garcia, the widow of Jerry Garcia and director of the
 documentary ''The Future of Food,'' invited her to lunch.
 But her biggest asset might be a relentless drive to wind together obscure
 health theories, blog postings and corporate financial statements. She then
 posts her analyses on her Web site.
 She chides top allergy doctors who are connected to Monsanto, the producer of
 herbicides and genetically modified seeds. She asserts that the Food Allergy and
 Anaphylaxis Network, the nation's leading food allergy advocacy group, is
 tainted by the money it receives from food manufacturers and peanut growers.
 Anne Munoz-Furlong founded the network in 1991 after her daughter was found to
 have milk and egg allergies. She said the group now has 30,000 members and a
 $5.6 million budget.
 Although Kraft did help the organization start its Web site and other food
 manufacturing companies and trade groups sponsor some of its programs, that
 support has amounted to about $100,000. Mrs. Munoz-Furlong said that she and
 doctors on her medical board do not believe that genetically modified foods
 cause food allergies because most children with allergies react to specific
 foods, like eggs or milk.
 And, she said, communicating regularly with industry can help get the word to
 parents about potential allergens in products, and supporting research to
 identify causes of allergies helps consumers more than companies.
 She also cautioned against taking the advice of people who have no medical
 training or run Web sites not certified to have reliable medical information.
 ''She's a dot-com,'' Mrs. Munoz-Furlong said of Ms. O'Brien. ''It's completely
 different than a dot-org. From the very beginning our intent was education.''
 (Ms. O'Brien did recently start a nonprofit foundation to support research that
 is not tied to the food industry.)
 On the days when Ms. O'Brien grows discouraged at being David against the
 Goliath of Big Food, she turns to the people who believe her.
 Erin Brockovich, whose brother died of a food allergy years ago, was a legal
 file clerk who helped land a record judgment against the Pacific Gas and
 Electric Company for contaminating drinking water. She is an environmental
 consultant who is popular on the inspirational lecture circuit.
 Ms. Brockovich said her new friend does a great job of arming everyday people
 with facts, so they can take a stand.
 ''You don't have to be a doctor or a scientist to look into whether our food
 supply is safe,'' she said. ''Being obsessed doesn't mean she's crazy. Frankly,
 I think it takes a little bit of being crazy to make a difference in this
 world.''
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: January 9, 2008
 GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: ON ALERT: Robyn O'Brien, at home with her children in Colorado,
 advises parents to throw out nonorganic processed foods. (PHOTOGRAPH BY KEVIN
 MOLONEY FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES) (pg. F8)
  IMPASSIONED: Robyn O'Brien with her daughter Tory at  home in Lafayette, Colo.
 (PHOTOGRAPH BY KEVIN MOLONEY FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES)(pg. F1)
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 918
 
                                   Gulf Shipper
                             December 31, 2007 Monday
 Pricey food
 SECTION: Editorial; Pg. WP
 LENGTH: 404  words
 Anyone who has done price-comparison shopping at the grocery store recently
 realizes that food prices are rising sharply. While climbing shipping costs have
 certainly contributed to this trend, there are many other factors at work as
 well.
 The exhausting number of hurricanes in 2006 took a toll on the Sunshine State's
 citrus crops, and an ongoing canker disease problem has hurt exports.
 California's more recent wildfires reportedly destroyed about one-third of that
 state's avocado crop. Most recently, we read about the shortage of corn caused
 by biofuel demand and higher fuel prices.
 Dwindling international grain reserves and inflating food prices among all
 agricultural sectors have prompted prices for staples such as rice, wheat,
 soybeans and maize to increase, leading to higher food prices for meat and dairy
 products.
 Like everything else, food has been globalized. U.S. grocery stores are filled
 year-round with grapes from Chile, New Zealand lamb and fresh products from
 almost any country that can ship them. Conversely, the rapidly growing middle
 classes in China, India and Brazil want the same consumer choices that Americans
 enjoy.
 Biofuel development   particularly ethanol   is causing a shortage of corn.
 Nearly 16 percent of last year's U.S. grain harvest was used to produce ethanol,
 causing the price of tortillas in Mexico to leap some 60 percent and resulting
 in government price controls on tortillas.
 Higher food prices are prompting nations such as China to look for ways to lock
 down supplies with restrictions on exports and reductions in import tariffs.
 China this month eliminated export rebates for 84 agricultural products. Similar
 export controls have been imposed in Argentina, Russia and Kazakhstan.
 Meanwhile, several countries, including Taiwan and Peru, have cut some import
 tariffs on food. During the first half of next year, the European Union will
 briefly eliminate import duties on all cereals.
 The United Nations reports that demand from developing nations such as China and
 India will outpace exports of the world's food-basket nations: the U.S., EU
 countries, Brazil and Australia.
 Whether this will result in loosening of restrictions on genetically modified
 food remains to be seen. Recent news reports have indicated several EU countries
 are doing an about-face on previous stances opposing genetically modified food.
 2008 promises to be an interesting year for food.
 Janet Plume
 LOAD-DATE: December 28, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Magazine
                    Copyright 2007 Commonwealth Business Media
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 919
 
                               NewsReleaseWire.com
                            December 20, 2007 Thursday
 Health Expert Byron Richards, CCN Discussed Corn-When Food is No Longer Food-on
 Michael Dresser's Syndicated Radio Show
 LENGTH: 395 words
 On the December 19 episode of Byron Richards' Weekly Wellness Update, which can
 be heard every Wednesday at 4:30 pm Central Time on the syndicated Michael
 Dresser Radio Show, discussed "Corn-When Food is No Longer Food." Richards,
 author of the just released "The Leptin Diet: How Fit is Your Fat?," is one of
 the nation's foremost health experts and is regular guest on numerous radio
 shows around the country.
 Below is the Byron Richards' from his "Health Freedom Update" which lays out
 what he discussed with Michael Dresser. The Michael Dresser Radio Show is
 syndicated to over 50 stations through the Lifestyle Talk Radio Network. To hear
 the radio show live online or to find an affiliate in your area go to
 www.michaeldressershow.com. The Weekly Wellness Update, and all Michael Dresser
 Shows, are archived for one week at www.lifestyletalkradio.com. The edited
 Weekly Wellness Updates can be heard at
 www.promotioninmotion.net/weeklywellnessupdate.html
 "Farmers growing corn for ethanol are no longer farmers in any traditional
 sense; they are part of the oil industry. It is now being reported that the
 millions of pounds of nitrogen-based fertilizer needed to grow the corn are
 entering the Mississippi and going out into the gulf wherein they create a
 7,900-square-mile "dead zone" void of oxygen wherein fish, crabs and shrimp
 suffocate and hostile algae grow.
 "Idiots on Capital Hill, with the full support of the Bush administration, just
 passed a bill that will dramatically boost ethanol use, making this problem much
 worse for years to come.
 "There are other side effects in the agricultural market, such as driving up the
 cost of food as it is now more expensive to feed animals. Then there is the
 issue that this means big profits for genetically modified seed producers like
 Monsanto. The issue of the safety of GMO foods like corn has never been verified
 and is an incredibly dangerous experiment on our entire food supply and the
 health of humans.
 "Maybe it is a blessing in disguise that corn can be used for fuel. It is no
 longer safe to eat. Let's just hope that winds don't blow too much corn pollen
 into the neighboring crops and cross-contaminate what is left of a real food
 supply."
 For media interviews contact Promotion in Motion at 3233921 or
 irwinzuckerpr@aol.com
 http://www.ExpertClick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail&ID=1
 LOAD-DATE: December 21, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Reference
                 Copyright 2007 Broadcast Interview Source, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 920
 
                 Intelligencer Journal (Lancaster, Pennsylvania)
                           November 28, 2007 Wednesday
 Ag Dept. wrong to ban milk labeling
 BYLINE: Intelligencer Journal Staff
 SECTION: A; Pg. 9
 LENGTH: 378  words
 DATELINE: Lancaster, PA
 Bovine growth hormone is brought to you by Monsanto, a leading proponent of
 dangerous genetic modifications to the nation's food supply. This same huge
 company brought us the Terminator seed, designed to resist the highly toxic
 pesticide, Roundup, and has no ability to reproduce, and is now spreading to
 pure corn crops, contaminating crops with its genetic deviations. The European
 Union, which boasts much less corporate influence in policy-making, banned this
 threat to their food supply along with other genetically modified food.
 Now, Monsanto, with its ally for big agri-business, the Pennsylvania Farm
 Bureau, is attacking family dairies and family farms that choose to refuse to
 pollute their dairy cows with the dangerous bovine growth hormone and
 antibiotics. These dairies do a public service by labeling their products
 clearly and accurately so consumers can make intelligent choices about whether
 to put clean milk in their bodies or not. Milk with bovine growth hormone is
 banned in Europe, and has been linked to diseased cows. Recent studies show this
 hormone generates many times the natural amount of a certain type of insulin
 linked to cancer.
 Further, bovine growth hormone depletes milk of vital nutrients. According to
 the The Organic Center report (September 2007), nutrient levels drop
 significantly in food pushed unnaturally through synthetic hormones and genetic
 modification.
 Finally, the U.S. Federal District Court in Seattle recently upheld the freedom
 of speech in advertising and labeling. Gov. Rendell should therefore rescind the
 ban on dairies from labeling their milk in the way they choose to best market
 it. The governor has violated their civil rights and the Department of
 Agriculture is losing the public trust by supporting Monsanto in its push to
 continue selling the unnatural and dangerous injections of bovine growth hormone
 instead of protecting the public and working for the public interest. It's
 shameful and wrong.
 Call your representatives and stand up for family farms and dairies. And in the
 meantime, keep yourself and your children safe: Don't give your children milk
 not labeled Organic, which by very definition contains no antibiotics or
 Monsanto's dangerous growth hormones.
 Charlie Crystle, Lancaster
 LOAD-DATE: November 28, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2007 Lancaster Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 921
 
                     Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock)
                             October 6, 2007 Saturday
 Rice-taint dead end dismays growers
 LENGTH: 1569 words
 More than 14 months after the U.S. Department of Agriculture began investigating
 how traces of an unapproved genetically engineered rice entered the U.S.
 commercial long-grain rice supply, the government said Friday that it cannot
 explain how the contamination occurred and has no plans to take any enforcement
 actions.
 Cindy Smith, the administrator of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
 Service, said Friday that the agency is considering some changes, including a
 requirement for better record keeping by researchers and developers.
 That was hardly enough to satisfy the rice industry, members of which, as well
 as others, condemned the effort.
 "Once again USDA has let the American farmer down," said Ray Vester, a Stuttgart
 rice farmer who served on the state Plant Board last winter when the agency
 banned the planting this year of two rice varieties, Cheniere and Clearfield
 131. Both tested positive for trace amounts of the protein that makes Bayer
 CropScience's LibertyLink rice varieties resistant to the herbicide Liberty,
 also known as glufosinate.
 "[USDA] didn't have the protocols in place to keep this from happening or to
 find out how it happened," Vester said. "It appears to me they just whitewashed
 over [the problem] and went on.
 "They spent all these months trying to find reasons not to blame anybody or make
 a decision, and I think that's what they accomplished," Vester said.
 The Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit public interest and environmental
 advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., said in a prepared statement
 that it was "shameful that USDA refuses to hold [Bayer CropScience] responsible"
 for contaminating the U.S. rice supply.
 Bayer CropScience is a subsidiary of Leverkusen, Germany-based Bayer AG, a
 multinational chemical and health-care corporation, whose list of products
 includes Bayer aspirin and Alka-Seltzer.
 Although the USDA and the Food and Drug Administration have said that
 LibertyLink rice varieties pose no health, foodsafety or environmental risks,
 many foreign countries shun all genetically engineered foods.
 About half of all U.S. rice is exported, and news last year of the contamination
 negatively affected almost half of all U.S. rice export markets. U.S. rice sales
 in the 27 member nations of the European Union have nearly halted, and increased
 testing of U.S. rice shipments has been required in many foreign markets.
 The fallout from the LibertyLink problem has been particularly acute in
 Arkansas, where the state's farmers produce about half of all U.S. rice. In
 2006, Arkansas' rice harvest was worth $892 million, making it the state's
 single most valuable crop.
 News of the contamination cut demand, which many in the industry say lowered
 prices, though no one claims to be able to measure that damage.
 "Once again we find out too late that the government is uninterested in
 protecting farmers, consumers or the environment from genetic crop experiments,"
 said Joseph Mendelson III, legal director for the Center for Food Safety.
 "Remarkably, the USDA report also reveals that the agency has no formal rules
 requiring biotech companies to retain records of their experimental field trials
 or to require companies to keep seed samples for genetic tests that are
 essential to detect and track potential sources of contamination," the center
 said.
 Darryl Little, director of the state Plant Board, said, "[USDA] really didn't
 tell us a whole lot." Preventing future transgenic contamination is the most
 important goal to keep in mind, said Kenneth Graves, president of the Arkansas
 Rice Growers Association.
 "We obviously need more stringent regulations with some tough penalties and
 accountability," Graves said.
 Both U.S. rice industry trade groups, USA Rice Federation in Washington, D.C.
 and US Rice Producers Association in Houston, Texas, expressed disappointment
 with the government investigation.
 John Alter, a DeWitt rice farmer and member of the Arkansas Rice Research and
 Promotion Board, said Friday's report "underscores the extreme importance to us
 here in Arkansas of keeping our right to further regulate something that is as
 potentially damaging to our No. 1 cash crop." In the past year, the USA Rice
 Federation has taken a leading role in trying to restore the competitiveness and
 marketability of U.S. long-grain rice in export markets around the world,
 particularly the European Union. The federation said Friday that testing of this
 year's U.S. long-grain rice crop "show the overwhelming absence of genetically
 engineered LibertyLink traits." The lack of significant findings by the USDA
 indicates the need for increased corporate responsibility and stewardship by the
 biotechnology industry, the federation said.
 "Imagine if we had waited for the [Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service]
 report before taking decisive action," Chairman Al Montna said.
 Last week the federation said a comprehensive investigative report by the USDA
 was essential for the U.S. rice industry to be able to renew exports to the
 European Union.
 Smith said Rebecca Bech, deputy administrator for biotechnology regulatory
 services, was in Brussels, Belgium on Friday "briefing representatives from the
 European Commission about the investigation and what we learned." US Rice
 Producers said in a prepared statement that it lamented that "current record
 keeping and related regulatory requirements did not provide investigators the
 tools they needed to reconstruct the complete picture of what caused this
 expensive episode.
 "But most of all, we are concerned about the lack of corporate responsibility
 demonstrated by certain industry players throughout this entire episode. Their
 irresponsibility and determination to avoid any liability for their actions has
 - and continues to - cost U.S. rice farmers hundreds of millions of dollars,"
 the association said.
 Smith said the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's 8,500-hour
 investigation, which began Aug. 1, 2006, determined that the Cheniere rice
 variety had been contaminated by only LibertyLink 601 or LLRICE601, while
 Clearfield 131 had been contaminated by only LLRICE604.
 "We had hoped to identify how each [genetically engineered] rice line entered
 the commercial rice supply, but the exact mechanism for introduction could not
 be determined in either instance," she said.
 The one common denominator in both cases was Louisiana State University
 AgCenter's Rice Research Station near Crowley, Smith said. From 1999 to 2001,
 LLRICE601 and Cheniere were both grown at the same time at the LSU station,
 "which was working under a Bayer CropScience contract," she said. In addition,
 LLRICE604 and Clearfield 131 were also grown at the station, but not grown at
 the same time.
 "This means ... that the most likely entry point for LLRICE604 into Clearfield
 131 was through a means other than direct cross-pollination," leaving only
 mixing or other means, Smith said.
 Ruling out cross-pollination as the source of contamination for Clearfield 131
 was the only real news in the report, Plant Board Director Little said.
 Nevertheless, the agency is considering increasing the isolation distances
 required between seed-breeding fields and transgenic varieties to reduce the
 likelihood of cross-pollination, Smith said. In the case of so-called
 self-pollinating plants like rice, that distance now is 10 feet.
 Smith said that the USDA never "negotiated" with Bayer during the course of the
 investigation.
 "We invited Bayer in this morning and we shared with them the documents that are
 going to be posted on our Web site," she said.
 Those documents are available at: www.aphis.usda.gov. One eight-page document,
 "Report of LibertyLink rice incidents," reviews the contamination of the two
 rice varieties. Another four-page document, titled "Lessons learned and
 revisions under consideration for APHIS' biotechnology framework," summarizes
 the actions that the agency may take to strengthen its regulations regarding
 genetically engineered crops.
 The LibertyLink contamination has spawned hundreds of lawsuits during the past
 year. Most of the cases have been brought by farmers who are suing Bayer
 CropScience. To date, 184 of those cases have been consolidated in U.S. District
 Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
 Adam Levitt, a partner in the Chicago office of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
 Herz LLP, who serves as co-lead counsel for the farmer plaintiffs, said the USDA
 report got one thing correct.
 "[The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service] very correctly and repeatedly
 pointed out that whatever happened happened on Bayer's watch, under contract
 from Bayer," Levitt said.
 "It confirms our belief that the damages caused to U.S. farmers with respect to
 the LLRICE601 and 604 issues lays at the feet of Bayer, and we're confident that
 in litigation and through our discovery process we'll be able to establish that
 on a class-wide basis," he said.
 Paul Byrd, Little Rock managing counsel for Birmingham, Ala.-based Hare, Wynn,
 Newell and Newton LLP, who filed one of the first lawsuits on behalf of Arkansas
 farmers, said the USDA report points out the importance of the U.S. civil
 justice system.
 Government regulation alone is inadequate, "especially when you have a
 multibilliondollar corporation," Byrd said. "They're not scared of government
 regulation and here's an example why."
 This article was published 10/06/2007
 LOAD-DATE: October 8, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                   Copyright 2007 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.









Document Number: 922
 
                Agriculture Department Documents and Publications
                                 October 5, 2007
 Release No. 0284.07
 LENGTH: 694  words
 WASHINGTON, Oct. 5, 2007--The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Under Secretary
 for Marketing and Regulatory Programs Bruce Knight today announced the
 conclusion of the genetically engineered rice (GE) investigation. The
 investigation, which was conducted by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
 Service (APHIS) Investigative and Enforcement Services in coordination with
 USDA's Office of the Inspector General, focused on the unintentional release of
 trace amounts of regulated genetically engineered rice detected in two
 commercial varieties of long-grain rice.
 "USDA conducted an extensive investigation that involved more than 8,500 staff
 hours and site visits to more than 45 locations in 11 states and Puerto Rico,"
 said Knight. "Based on our findings, we are considering a number of actions to
 strengthen our enforcement and investigation capabilities and to foster better
 quality management practices."
 Bayer CropScience developed and field tested the regulated GE rice lines known
 as LLRICE601 and LLRICE604, which were designed for herbicide tolerance. Both GE
 rice lines have the same added protein, commonly referred to as the PAT protein,
 which has been safely used in other deregulated products for more than ten
 years.
 The investigation was initiated on Aug. 1, 2006, after Bayer CropScience
 reported that regulated LLRICE601 had been detected in the long-grain rice
 variety Cheniere. LLRICE601, which is similar to two previously deregulated
 lines, was subsequently deregulated in November 2006. The investigation was
 expanded on Feb. 16, 2007 to include the discovery of regulated GE rice, later
 identified as LLRICE604, in the long-grain rice variety Clearfield 131 (CL131).
 To assist investigators, USDA officials tested 396 samples from 57 rice
 varieties that had been harvested between 2002 and 2006. Other USDA agencies
 instrumental in this effort were the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
 Administration, the Agricultural Marketing Service and the Economic Research
 Service.
 As a result of this extensive sampling, investigators were able to determine
 that the presence of LLRICE601 was limited to Cheniere and that the presence of
 LLRICE604 was limited to CL131. In both cases, only trace amounts of GE material
 were present. No short- or medium-grain rice varieties tested positive for
 either LLRICE601 or LLRICE604.
 Investigators had hoped to identify how each GE rice line entered the commercial
 rice supply, but the exact mechanism for introduction could not be determined in
 either instance. Investigators found that from 1999 to 2001, LLRICE601 and
 Cheniere were both grown at the same time at the Rice Research Station in
 Crowley, La which was operated by Louisiana State University. The Crowley
 research station was working under a Bayer CropScience contract. LLRICE604 and
 CL131 also were grown at the Crowley research station, but the planting of
 LLRICE604 and CL131 did not occur at the same time. This means that the most
 likely entry point for LLRICE604 into CL131 was through a means other than
 direct cross-pollination.
 Based upon the findings of the investigation, APHIS will not be pursuing
 enforcement against Bayer CropScience. Given the lack of available information
 and evidence, USDA was unable to make any definitive determinations that could
 have resulted in enforcement action.
 APHIS is releasing a report of the findings as well as lessons learned from this
 and other investigations and from its experience as regulators. For example,
 APHIS is considering establishing retention requirements for records. APHIS also
 is considering greater isolation distances between seed breeding fields and GE
 varieties in order to reduce the likelihood of pollen flow.
 The new Biotechnology Quality Management System, announced in September, will
 help industry to establish best management practices. APHIS will encourage
 universities, small businesses and large companies to participate. The goal of
 the voluntary program is to help developers establish policies and quality
 control practices that proactively address potential issues before they
 materialize.
 To view the report and lessons learned, go to www.aphis.usda.gov.
 LOAD-DATE: October 5, 2007
            Copyright 2007 Federal Information and News Dispatch, Inc.









Document Number: 923
 
            St. Louis Daily Record/St. Louis Countian (St. Louis, MO)
                            October 3, 2007 Wednesday
 Attorneys in Coeur-based Monsanto antitrust action asks fed judge to shut state
 court case in Tenn.
 BYLINE: Allison Retka
 LENGTH: 650  words
 Attorneys for a potential class-action suit against Creve Coeur-based Monsanto
 Co. and two other biotech companies have asked a federal judge to shut down a
 state court case in Tennessee that deals with similar antirust claims.
 The court case in Sevierville, Tenn., also alleges that a biotech company
 conspired with Monsanto to fix high prices for genetically modified corn and
 soybeans, subsequently forcing farmers to pay more money for seed they could not
 buy elsewhere.
 Attorneys on both sides of the federal case, Schoenbaum v. E.I. DuPont et al.,
 are scheduled to argue the motion this morning on a conference call with U.S.
 District Judge E. Richard Webber.
 The plaintiffs, concerned that an adverse ruling in the state case could be
 touted by the defendants in the federal case, have asked Webber to intervene in
 the Tennessee case before a trial date in November.
 But the lawyers for the Tennessee plaintiffs are fighting the possibility of
 federal interference in their state court case and are resisting a pending
 motion to enjoin their case with the much larger litigation. That case was filed
 in St. Louis-based federal court.
 "The motion to enjoin is wholly frivolous and filed to apply 'leverage' over the
 Tennessee plaintiffs and their attorneys," they said in their motion opposing
 the idea of federal intervention in the matter. The same court document accused
 the Schoenbaum plaintiffs' attorneys, including St. Louis attorney Don Downing,
 of attempting to turn the state court process on its head.
 Pioneer Hi-Bred, the defendant in the Tennessee case, is equally adamant about
 keeping its distance from the St. Louis litigation, according to the biotech
 company's response to the motion. Attorneys from Lewis, Rice & Fingersh are
 representing Pioneer in the matter.
 Adam Levitt, a Chicago attorney for the farmers in the Schoenbaum case, said the
 Tennessee case alleges similar antitrust and conspiracy claims and should move
 forward with the St. Louis case, which is representing the interests of corn and
 soybean farmers from 13 states, including Missouri.
 Less than two weeks ago, Webber issued a 50-page order that dismissed a number
 of claims against Monsanto, including eight sets of state law claims that argued
 Monsanto participated in deceptive trade practices or misled farmers about the
 pricing of genetically modified seeds.
 But the judge also wrote in the Sept. 20 order that at this stage in the
 litigation, the plaintiffs' antitrust claims must survive summary judgment, even
 if he found the idea that Pioneer and DuPont would bow to Monsanto's dominance
 in the modified seed market "so very unlikely. "
 Webber didn't agree with the defendants' argument that they were exercising
 their rights as patent holders.
 "While a patent holder enjoys certain statutory rights, those rights are not
 unbounded," he wrote.
 The judge also refused to sustain the plaintiffs' claims under the National
 Stolen Properties Act because the possibly inflated technology fees charged to
 farmers cannot be considered money that was stolen or fraudulently obtained.
 Despite the split opinion, both sides of the case said it was a positive
 development for their arguments.
 Levitt said Webber's ruling still sustained a number of plaintiff claims and
 narrowed the scope of the litigation.
 "It now enables us to continue our aggressive prosecution of these claims
 against Monsanto, Pioneer and DuPont for what we believe is their wrongful and
 anticompetitive conduct ... and to protect the interests of the American farmers
 in a way that these companies did not," Levitt said.
 Tami Craig-Schilling, a spokeswoman for Monsanto, said the companies were
 pleased with Webber's dismissals and maintained there was no evidence of
 conspiracy among the companies.
 "The ironic piece is that we're very competitive in the agriculture industry and
 there would be no reason for a conspiracy, nor did one occur," she said.
 LOAD-DATE: October 4, 2007
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Legal activity (lawsuits etc.)
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2007 Dolan Media Newswires









Document Number: 924
 
                      Morning Call (Allentown, Pennsylvania)
                           September 20, 2007 Thursday
 Green grows the festival
 BYLINE: By Joanna Poncavage Of The Morning Call
 SECTION: GO_GUIDE; Pg. GO3
 LENGTH: 1384 words
 At the foot of scenic Hawk Mountain next to the WK&S Railroad station this
 weekend, tents and tables filled with ideas and tools for solving the most
 pressing environmental issue of the time will sprout on 66 acres at the Kempton
 Community Center Fairgrounds.
 The third annual Pennsylvania Renewable Energy and Sustainable Living Festival
 features a hundred speakers, a dozen theater and music groups, non-stop
 activities for children, an environmental film fest and hot and cold running
 ideas to ease global warming.
 Want to convert a car to run on recycled vegetable oil? All day Sunday.
 Interested in capturing rain water to irrigate your garden when it's dry? In the
 tent with the white flag, 9:30 a.m. Saturday.
 Want to know if Pennsylvania will be a site for storing radioactive waste?
 Orange flag, 10:30 a.m. Saturday.
 How to renovate a house to consume zero energy? Pink flag, 11:30 a.m. Sunday.
 Or how to combine wind and solar energy for home use? Red flag, 2:30 p.m.
 Saturday.
 How about a grilled veggie wrap, jambalaya, a mocha latte -- or a good ol' hot
 dog? Check out the concessions.
 You don't have to be a member of the deeply green set to enjoy this festival.
 There are wandering minstrels, Japanese drummers, giant puppets, concerts by
 Lehigh Valley-area musicians and art from recycled materials. The festival
 offers lots of fun, all in a beautiful setting of rural vistas of fields,
 mountains and sky.
 The serious side of the festival is far from doom and gloom, too. Nothing
 brightens spirits like taking action.
 "We're offering solutions for real energy independence and homeland security by
 doing small things to address some of the big issues like climate change," says
 Bill Hennessy of Mertztown, president of the Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy
 Association, sponsor of the festival. The theme is "Sow the Seeds of Change."
 Three keynote speakers include Will Fantle of the Cornucopia Institute, clearing
 up questions about organic food; Meghan Murphy of Ithaca Biodiesel on the
 promises and pitfalls of biofuels, and Jeffery M. Smith of the Campaign for
 Healthier Eating in America on the genetically modified foods.
 Among the one-hour lectures and workshops: alternative fuels, the future of
 transportation, designing and installing wind and solar power systems, hybrid
 electric school buses, contractor training for green building, and zero energy
 homes. Sustainable living topics range from natural plant dyes, growing fruit
 without chemical sprays, and weedless gardening. Most of these events take place
 in nine venues, each flying a different color flag for identification. Most are
 comfortable, airy tents with folding chair seats, so the event is rain or shine.
 Hands-on workshops will teach you to convert a vehicle or tractor to burn
 non-petroleum fuels (biofuels) such as vegetable oil; how to spin yarn, or how
 to install a basic solar power system. Some workshops require an extra fee and
 registration. Free demonstrations include sheep-dog herding, heating a home on
 biofuels, seed saving and building with wood.
 New this year as the world looks for carbon-free sources of energy is a two-day
 program within a program that argues "The Power of the Future is Renewable, not
 Nuclear," sponsored by the Pennsylvania Chapter of the Sierra Club. Speakers
 include representatives of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Three Mile
 Island Alert, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and other energy research
 groups.
 With its 15-foot puppets, Arm-Of-The-Sea Theater's Turtle Island Medicine Show
 on Saturday tells the Leni Lenape creation myth. More fun for youngsters
 includes clay modeling, a hay pile for jumping, a petting zoo, a live butterfly
 display and paper garden insect crafts from the Rodale Institute's kidsregen.org
 project.
 The festival unofficially begins Friday with a day of programs for school
 groups.
 "We're probably going to have 900 students," says Bill Hennessy, whose day job
 is installing solar electricity systems.
 This part of the festival may grow, however. Organizers received word on Monday
 that they had been awarded a $15,000 grant from the state's Department of
 Environmental Protection for the next three years.
 joanna.poncavage@mcall.com
 When: 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. Saturday and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Sunday
 Where: Kempton Community Center Fairgrounds, Route 143
 Admission: $12; $6, ages 13-21, free, 12 and under; $15, campers
 Info: 610-451-8268; www.paenergyfest.com
 "Genetic Roulette," 1 p.m. Saturday
 Jeffrey Smith is author of "Genetic Roulette: the Documented Health Risks of
 Genetically Engineered Foods" and "Seeds of Deception." He has testified before
 Congress that "the current generation of GM crops is not safe, regulatory
 oversight is insufficient, industry-funded studies are incompetent by intention
 and design, and public health would be served by the immediate withdrawal of
 these high-risk foods."
 "Organic Agriculture and Sustainability: The Promise and Pitfalls," 5:30 p.m.
 Saturday
 Will Fantle is co-founder of Wisconsin's Cornucopia Institute, a farm and food
 policy group in the news for holding Wal-Mart and the organic dairy industry to
 USDA organic standards.
 "Ithaca Biodiesel: How Does Biodiesel Affect U.S Energy Consumption?" 1 p.m.
 Sunday
 Meghan Murphy is co-founder of Biodiesel America, a non-profit cooperative in
 New York planning to manufacture, distribute and sell vegetable-based fuels.
 MUSIC (on the Main Stage unless noted)
 Friday
 6:30 p.m.: Sarah Ayers Band, blues rock band
 Saturday
 9 a.m.: Caribbean Spice steel drum band at main entrance
 11:30 a.m.: Arm-Of-The-Sea Theater Presents: Turtle Island Medicine Show -- The
 Lenape Indian creation story with masks, puppets, and 16-foot Tree of Life
 7 p.m.: Makoto Taiko, Japanese drumming
 7:45 p.m.: Fresh Cut Salads, indie pop Delaware Valley band
 9 p.m.: Big Beat Tornado, funk from eight-piece Reading band with two female
 vocalists.
 Sunday
 6 p.m. Rhythm Road, five-piece Berks County band plays blues, jazz, rock
 From Bullfrog Films, Oley, an award-winning publisher of independent
 environmental videos; both days, Main Stage.
 9:30 a.m. "Radically Simple" (35 min.); "Compost -- Truth or Consequences" (16
 min.)
 10:30 a..m. "Buyer Be Fair -- The Promise of Product Certification" (57 min.)
 11:30 a.m. "Designing a Great Neighborhood -- Behind the Scenes at Holiday" (54
 min.)
 2:30 p.m. "Living the Good Life with Helen and Scott Nearing" (30 min.); "Turtle
 World" (9 min.)
 3:30 p.m. "Granny D Goes to Washington" (27 min.); "Possum's Rest" (5 min.)
 4:15 p.m. "Black Diamonds" (72 min.)
 Registration required online or by phone: Vegetable Oil Car Conversion, $50 fee,
 9:30-5 p.m. Sunday; Vegetable Oil Tractor Conversion, $50, 9:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
 Saturday; Women's Electrical Workshop, $30, 9:30 a.m.-noon Sunday; Spinning Yarn
 on a Spinning Wheel, $50, 9:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Saturday; Harvest-Time Traditions
 of the Pennsylvania Germans, $15, 10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. Sunday; Bread Basket
 Weaving, $4, 9:30 a.m.-11:30 p.m., 12:30-2:30 p.m., or 3-5 p.m. Saturday.
 No registration required for sheep dog herding, seed saving, outdoor clay bake
 oven, timber frame construction, solar site evaluation, more.
 100 educational presentations on sustainable ways to save money and energy and
 help protect the environment: green investing; solar, wind and biofuel; organic
 lawns and no-spray fruits, green investing, energy independence, meat goats,
 more. New this year: Two days of continuous presentations by the Pennsylvania
 Sierra Club on the case against nuclear power.
 Non-stop playground activities include clay modeling, chalk murals, crafts, face
 painting, a hay pile for jumping, petting zoo, a live butterfly display and
 paper garden insect crafts from the Rodale Institute's kidsregen.org project.
 Lots of coffee concoctions, organic and vegetarian fare, Haika's Kitchen baked
 goods, and good, old-fashioned fair food from the Albany Township Historic
 Society and the Kempton Community Center cooks. Biodegradable plates, cups and
 utensils. Farmers market for fresh fruits and vegetables, more, from a dozen
 regional producers.
 Nearly 100 individuals and businesses offering green goods and services.
 LOAD-DATE: September 21, 2007
 GRAPHIC: 4 Photos by Contributed photo and Don Fisher, The Morning Call
  **1. FESTIVAL POSTER by David Bascelli of Berks County is based on a World  War
 I poster by James Montgomery Flagg ("Sow the Seeds of Liberty') that  asked
 Americans to grow food to help the war effort. The figure in the  poster will
 come to life at the festival when several women wear  stars-and-stripes dresses
 made by Ashley Fetherolf Myers, a former  Kempton-area resident. Bascelli is
 vice president of the Mid-Atlantic  Renewable Energy Association, festival
 sponsor. **2. GIANT PUPPETS are in  the 'Turtle Island Medicine Show' Saturday.
 **3. TAKE A SEAT ON A HAY BALE  and listen to experts talk about renewable
 energy, global warming and the  other 'green' topics. **4. WILL FANTLE will
 detail his fight to force  Wal-Mart to obey organic industry rules. {Edition}
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Entertainment
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                      Copyright 2007 The Morning Call, Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 925
 
                          Brattleboro Reformer (Vermont)
                            September 4, 2007 Tuesday
 Around Windham County
 BYLINE: Reformer.com
 LENGTH: 673 words
 In Brattleboro...
 HEALTH RISKS IN CHILDREN'S FOODS: On Wednesday from 4-6 p.m., the Windham County
 Genetic Engineering Action Group will host a free "Chat & Chew" at the
 Brattleboro Food Co-op's demonstration booth.
 They will discuss the harmful effects of genetically engineered (GE) organisms
 in our children's every day foods, because children are still developing and
 therefore are more sensitive to the foods they eat. They will also provide
 information to help both identify and avoid GE foods. Examples and samples of
 foods that are and are not genetically engineered will be demonstrated.
 All those interested in learning more about the dangers of GE foods and what one
 can do about it are encouraged to attend this event. For additional information,
 call 802-251-0577 or send an email to integra7@comcast.net .
 BLUEBERRY SUPPER: The Daughters of Isabella will sponsor a blueberry supper on
 Saturday with servings from 5 until 7 p.m. at St. Michael's School on Walnut
 Street in Brattleboro.
 The menu will be chicken and biscuits and blueberry pie with ice cream.
 The cost will be $9 for adults and $4 for children under 12 years old.
 CANNING WORKSHOP: Post Oil Solutions will kickoff the fall schedule of its
 "(Re)learning to Feed Ourselves" workshop series with a canning workshop.
 This will be held Saturday from 10 a.m.-2 p.m., at the West Village Meeting
 House in West Brattlboro.
 The workshop will feature canning with a pressure cooker (string beans) and
 without (tomatoes). Participants who bring canning jars, string beans, and/or
 tomatoes, will have something to bring home; but people are also welcome to
 simply come and observe and learn the process.
 The workshop will be led by Treah Pichette, an artist who lives in Athens. She's
 been growing and preserving food for over 40 years, having learned from
 generations in her family who loved to garden.
 The workshop fee is $5, and pre-registration is required: 802-869-2141.
 In Dummerston...
 CHICKEN PIE SUPPER SATURDAY: Evening Star Grange will sponsor an old-fashioned
 chicken pie supper on Saturday from 5 to 7 p.m. at the Dummerston Center Grange
 Hall.
 The menu will include chicken pie, mashed potatoes, scalloped onions, gold
 dollar carrots, coleslaw, cranberry sauce, apple desserts and beverages. The
 cost will be $9 for adults, and $4 for children under 12.
 No reservations are necessary. For information call 802-254-2009. This is the
 final supper for the season.
 In Williamsville...
 HERB WALK AT THE MANITOU PROJECT: On Saturday, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., Betzy
 Bancroft will lead an herb walk on the land at the Manitou Project.
 Meet in the parking lot and bring a bag lunch. The suggested donation is $5.
 Bancroft's herb walks are more than just a botanical tour: they are an
 introduction to the plants as friends and allies. Positively identifying a
 plant, whether tree, shrub or herb, becomes much easier when you know what to
 look, feel and smell for.
 Medicinal and edible uses, including suggestions for preparations, will also be
 discussed along the way. Since Bancroft works for United Plant Savers,
 conservation status of the plants will be included.
 Bancroft is a professional member of the American Herbalists Guild and has
 taught classes throughout the Northeast for more than a decade, including the
 New England Women's Herbal Conference. She is now a core faculty member and
 clinical herbalist at the Vermont Center for Integrative Herbalism in
 Montpelier.
 The Manitou Project recently received a grant from United Plant Savers and is
 now an official plant sanctuary. They will be planting endangered medicinals in
 the Manitou woods this fall, and will host educational programs about endangered
 plant species and restoring native medicinals to the forest. On Oct. 6, Tim
 Scott, acupuncturist at Water Course Way, will be leading a workshop at Manitou
 on cultivating medicinal plants in your forest or garden.
 The Manitou Project is located on Sunset Lake Road, 1.4 miles up from the center
 of Williamsville village. For more information, call Hollis Melton at
 LOAD-DATE: September 6, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
    Copyright 2007 MediaNews Group, Inc. and New England Newspaper Group Inc.
                               All Rights Reserved









Document Number: 926
 
                                The New York Times
                               June 29, 2007 Friday
                               Late Edition - Final
 Monsanto Net Up 71%; Corn Seed Cited
 BYLINE: By REUTERS
 SECTION: Section C; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 4
 LENGTH: 298 words
 Monsanto said yesterday that quarterly earnings rose 71 percent, largely because
 of surging sales of its genetically modified corn.
 Monsanto said net income rose to $570 million, or $1.03 a share, in its fiscal
 third quarter, which ended May 31, from $334 million, or 60 cents a share, a
 year earlier.
 Analysts on average estimated $1 a share, according to Reuters Knowledge.
 Monsanto, which is based in St. Louis, said strong demand for its branded corn
 seed products in the United States, as well as in Italy, France and Germany,
 contributed to the sharp profit increase.
 Farmers are planting more corn this year because of sharply higher prices caused
 by strong demand for corn to use in making ethanol, food and livestock feed.
 The company's shares rose 68 cents, or 1 percent, to close at $67.68 on the New
 York Stock Exchange.
 Over all, sales for Monsanto's seeds and genomics division totaled $1.7 billion
 for the third quarter, up 32 percent from a year earlier.
 Yesterday, Monsanto raised its projections for American corn planting and said
 it was undertaking a three-year $610 million capital investment for its United
 States corn production.
 It expects corn tolerant of the herbicide Roundup to be grown on about 80
 million acres, up from its previous estimate of 60 million acres.
 The Department of Agriculture will issue a June plantings report today. Analysts
 on average expect total 2007 corn plantings of 90.6 million acres.
 Monsanto said it had increased prices across the board for 2008 in its DeKalb
 brand, including Roundup Ready herbicide-tolerant corn, in the 10 to 25 percent
 range.
 Monsanto reiterated expectations for full-year earnings of $1.75 to $1.80 a
 share. It raised the forecast this month from a previous estimate of $1.60 to
 $1.65 a share.
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com
 LOAD-DATE: June 29, 2007
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                    Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company









Document Number: 927
 
            St. Louis Daily Record/St. Louis Countian (St. Louis, MO)
                                May 4, 2007 Friday
 St. Louis attorneys will face off in genetically modified organism (GMO)
 class-action
 BYLINE: Allison Retka
 LENGTH: 619  words
 Dozens of transferred cases from Louisiana and Texas continue to pour into the
 St. Louis federal court for a class-action litigation that will pit rice farmers
 against biotechnology giant Bayer CropScience.
 Two St. Louis attorneys have been named as lead counsel on either side of the
 case, which was shuttled to the U.S. District Court, Eastern District, in
 December by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
 Terry Lueckenhoff of Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin will lead Bayer's defense of
 the class action, which alleges one of the company's genetically modified rice
 varieties contaminated the rice crops of hundreds of farmers, spurring an
 economic disaster when they tried to sell the crops domestically and overseas.
 Don M. Downing of Gray, Ritter & Graham, will take up the plaintiff's case as
 lead counsel, and shares his position with Adam Levitt, an attorney with
 Chicago-based Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Hertz.
 U.S. District Judge Catherine D. Perry cemented the lead counsel positions in an
 April 18 order, but not before two factions of the plaintiffs attorneys both
 petitioned her for the lead counsel spots.
 The "GRWH Group" - a mashup of the names of Downing's and Levitt's firms - was
 backed by four other firms from New York, New Jersey, Arkansas and Louisiana
 that are also representing farmers in the case.
 In a March 30 motion, the group touted its collective experience and success in
 similar complex litigation cases involving farmers.
 "As a result, more than 460 rice farmers representing over 248,000 acres of rice
 land from throughout the rice growing regions of this country have flocked to
 these attorneys and their law firms, seeking representation in these important
 cases," the group wrote in its motion.
 At the same time, a second group of firms, led by Houston-based Susman Godfrey,
 directly challenged the leadership structure submitted by the GRWH Group. The
 leadership slate advanced by Gray Ritter was riddled with defects and glaring
 deficiencies, Susman Godfrey argued in a March 30 motion signed by 21 other
 attorneys for the plaintiffs in the case. The proposal excluded attorneys from
 Mississippi, Texas or Arkansas, the state where more than half the nation's rice
 crop is grown, the motions said.
 Susman Godfrey also alleged the leadership proposal was put together with "a
 flawed process utilized by the members of the Gray Ritter group to anoint
 themselves with control of this multi-state consolidated litigation. "
 Despite the Houston firm's pleas for Perry to refrain from rubber stamping Gray
 Ritter's plans, the judge named Levitt and Downing to head the plaintiff's case
 and added a lawyer from each of the GRWH Group's backing firms to the
 Plaintiff's Executive Committee, which reports to lead counsel.
 "On large scale cases, there's almost always a contested leadership fight,"
 Levitt said Thursday. "We all come to these cases wanting to represent them
 properly. We take it very seriously. Both Don and I have represented farmers in
 classes and other sorts of actions for very long time. "
 Downing said the opposing group of plaintiffs attorneys vying for the co-lead
 counsel spot did not mean any ill will with their petition.
 "They were wanting to represent the farmers as well as we wanted to," he said.
 "We had differing views on how that could be done. "
 Levitt said since Perry's order, the firms are hard at work preparing the
 plaintiffs amended complaint against Bayer CropScience, which is due May 17.
 "I'm always very honored to represent farmers when they've been victimized and
 certainly that's the case here," Downing said of the suit. "We are going to be
 very vigilant about seeking justice for the farmers and some compensation for
 their losses. "
 LOAD-DATE: May 5, 2007
 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Legal activity (lawsuits etc.)
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                       Copyright 2007 Dolan Media Newswires









Document Number: 928
 
                      Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania)
                              April 22, 2007 Sunday
 SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. H-6
 LENGTH: 2233 words
 Today is Earth Day. Celebrants are wearing hemp instead of smoking it. What a
 difference 37 years makes.
 To put the changes in some sort of hazy perspective, a little time-traveling
 music, if you please. (Some Jefferson Airplane perhaps, or a little Canned
 Heat.) Crank it up.
 In 1970, the first Party for the Planet dawned in Day-Glo. It was less than a
 year after the Cuyahoga River burned a fiery orange in Cleveland and just months
 after a massive oil spill in the aquamarine off Southern California blackened
 golden surfing beaches. When Sen. Gaylord Nelson, a liberal Wisconsin Democrat,
 called for the nationwide gathering in spring sunshine to celebrate our
 blue-green orb and rally support to save it, more than 20 million people showed
 up across the nation, kicking into high gear a young but already thriving
 grass-roots movement. It was the largest public demonstration since World War
 Modeled after the era's teach-ins held to protest the Vietnam War, the first
 Earth Day "happenings" tapped in to a blooming political and social movement,
 initiated by Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" eight years earlier, that had
 already helped produce the Wilderness Act, the National Environmental Policy Act
 and the classic college dorm poster of the Earth inscribed with the message
 "Love Your Mother."
 The first celebration -- which folks looking for a red lining noted coincided
 with the 100th anniversary of Vladimir Lenin's birth -- occurred on 2,000
 college and university campuses, at 10,000 elementary and high schools and in
 hundreds of communities, persuading political leaders that legislation targeting
 environmental problems had a substantial and growing constituency. Before the
 end of that year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (perhaps President
 Richard Nixon's best "trick") was launched, and the Clean Air Act was amended to
 set air quality, auto emission and antipollution standards for the first time.
 Within two years, the pesticide DDT was banned, starting the endangered bald
 eagle and peregrine falcon on a flight path to recovery. And by the end of the
 1980s, Congress had passed more than a dozen other core laws needed to protect
 the environment, including the Water Quality Improvement Act, the Resource
 Recovery Act, the Environmental Pesticide Control Act, the Endangered Species
 Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Land Policy and Management Act, and the
 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. It was, obviously, a time of action.
 Subsequent years were not always as kind to the environment or efforts to
 protect or restore it. Recurring obituaries for the environmental movement
 sought to marginalize it, claimed public interest and political will had waned,
 and asserted that inflation, the energy crisis, international conflicts and
 terrorism had, at various times, stolen its relevance and thunder. Not
 withstanding its author's first name, Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America"
 put out a contract on the nation's environmental laws that sought to repeal or
 weaken them. To paraphrase another amphibian, Kermit the Frog, it wasn't easy
 being green.
 Earth Day, too, was down on its negatively sloped Earth Shoe heels. Increasingly
 over the years it was co-opted by polluting corporations that found PR value in
 slapping sponsorship tags on events and green-washing the Volkswagen bus they'd
 climbed aboard. And little more than two years ago, an essay by two former
 environmental group organizers, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, titled
 "The Death of Environmentalism," endorsed the notion that environmentalists and
 their ideas were out of touch with mainstream Americans.
 But fast-forward to today and environmentalists are feeling their biodiesel.
 Everything --from wine to luxury eco-spas in Bali to diapers to whole buildings
 -- has gone green. Once-next-president Al Gore is a movie star. Many movie stars
 have come out as environmentalists.
 Earth Day has bounced back too, now with more corporate sponsors than even a
 NASCAR driver, though that's not necessarily a bad thing if it signals a true
 corporate conversion to the ideas of reducing waste and energy use, shortening
 supply lines and streamlining production. Wal-Mart is stocking compact
 fluorescent bulbs that look like soft-serve ice cream complete with the curl,
 lowering prices and bringing energy savings to the masses.
 Green is suddenly so trendy, chic and fashionable that environmental
 fashionistas have dubbed it "the new black." And New York Times foreign affairs
 columnist Thomas Friedman is writing that it could potentially become "the new
 red, white and blue," wielding enough power to shape oil policy in the Middle
 East and pollution control in a rapidly industrializing and mobilizing China.
 That's a very ambitious vision.
 SO WHAT'S CHANGED? Compared with 1970, the short answer is almost everything.
 Many of the biggest environmental issues and initiatives, problems and programs
 that will be part of the focus on this Earth Day weren't even on the
 environmental landscape for that first teach-in.
 A sampling:
 First in that all things new category, of course, is the biggest and most
 important issue of our time, the 1,000 pound gorilla that is global
 warming/climate change. Science drove and continues to drive this debate, which
 has spurred the revival of public interest in a host of related issues.
 (Coincidentally, this year just happens to be the centenary of scientist Rachel
 Carson's birth in Springdale.)
 Recent unseasonably cold weather not withstanding, all credible scientific
 research on climate trends shows we have entered a period of potentially
 devastating warming of the Earth. There is little doubt too that human-produced
 emissions of greenhouse gases have had a smokestack or tailpipe in causing it,
 and that actions to slow or minimize its effects as much as is possible must be
 taken sooner rather than later.
 And last week's report by climate scientists that more droughts, floods, heat
 waves, infectious diseases and extinctions are possible in the United States and
 Canada, and that they will hit faster and harder than previously thought, makes
 it increasingly clear that climate change is the century's biggest challenge.
 In spite of that, the Bush administration has refused to enter the battle
 against global warming with the science it has, inconvenient though it may be.
 And its inaction -- on everything from the Kyoto Protocol to higher vehicle fuel
 efficiency standards -- has cost the United States the global environmental
 leadership role it has held since at least Yellowstone was designated as the
 first national park.
 Politicians and pundits will undoubtedly continue to debate the details, but the
 last word on the subject here will go to a U.S. Supreme Court majority, which
 wrote the following earlier this month in a decision that allows the EPA to
 regulate carbon dioxide emissions:
 "The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized. The
 Government's own objective assessment of the relevant science and a strong
 consensus among qualified experts indicate that global warming threatens, inter
 alia, a precipitate rise in sea levels, severe and irreversible changes to
 natural ecosystems, a significant reduction in winter snowpack with direct and
 important economic consequences, and increases in the spread of disease and the
 ferocity of weather events."
 And, even in his dissent in the case, Chief Justice John Roberts agreed that
 "[g]lobal warming may be a 'crisis,' even 'the most pressing environmental
 problem of our time.'... Indeed, it may ultimately affect nearly everyone on the
 planet in some potentially adverse way, and it may be that governments have done
 too little to address it."
 As a measure of environmental impact, the carbon footprint -- that is the amount
 of carbon dioxide emitted by an industry, country, state, household or
 individual -- has become vitally important to efforts to control greenhouse
 gases and rein in global warming.
 One way to reduce that footprint is to increase use of alternative energy
 sources like solar, wind and small hydro generation, along with biofuels made
 from corn, old french-fry grease and other cooking oils.
 Also benefiting from public notions on environmental economizing is green
 building and green architecture, which use environmentally sustainable materials
 and target energy efficiency, and green chemistry, which encourages the design
 of products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use and generation of
 hazardous substances.
 Hybrid vehicles got a big consumer power boost as oil prices topped $60 a
 barrel. It may still be a while before you see a Prius on MTV's "Pimp My Ride,"
 but it's coming.
 Environmental health and the links between diseases and our exposure to
 pervasive pollutants in the air, water, soil and food has sparked increased
 public interest and scientific research.
 Agriculture and our diet on this small planet is a component of that concern.
 Corporate farming has changed the rural landscape, creating waste problems from
 concentrated animal feeding operations, runoff problems from increased pesticide
 use and raising the issue of genetically modified food. On the other side of the
 farm fence, more people believe exposure to chemicals is harmful to their
 health, causing organic food production and the idea of eating local to become
 so big that multinational corporations have sought to hoe their way into the
 marketplace.
 Ocean health and pollution remain big concerns, even though it's been a while
 since big waves of medical waste have washed ashore. Sewage, chemical, oil and
 plastic pollution continue to degrade water quality and close beaches.
 Overfishing has depleted important fish stocks, and many of those that remain
 contain unhealthy amounts of mercury and PCBs.
 Another big change has been the mushrooming growth of citizen groups focused on
 environmental issues, from forest management to stream restoration to water
 quality to air quality to wilderness. Those groups have emerged as significant
 players in determining everything from how our natural resources should be used
 or conserved to how environmental regulations should be written. Natural
 alliances with traditional and non-traditional recreation groups have also
 formed to promote and lobby for common environmental interests like clean
 streams, wilderness and forest health.
 Citizen lawsuit provisions contained in many environmental laws have also helped
 empower individuals and local groups, allowing them to challenge government
 agency decisions on a variety of issues that in the past have favored corporate
 and establishment interests.
 The Internet has further democratized and empowered the environmentalism in the
 information age. In a sometimes lighter vein, the Web-based publication
 Grist.com has proven that the environmental movement has grown up enough to shed
 some of its early earnestness and laugh at itself. Writer Tim Dickinson in this
 month's Outside magazine characterized the site as a hostile takeover of Sierra
 Magazine by "The Daily Show."
 SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE NEW ISSUES we're dealing with this Earth Day. But the
 bulk of today's scheduled programming is distressingly familiar. Most of the
 hundreds of thousands who turn out to celebrate in good cheer and sunshine will
 face the backbreaking task of picking up after those who don't.
 Generations have been admonished to "Keep America Beautiful," and even tracked
 an Indian's tear down his chiseled cheek. Still, the notion that bottles, cans,
 wrappers, sofas, tires and cigarette butts can be easily and properly disposed
 of continues to elude some segments of the population. We have long called them
 "litterbugs," and it is an unfortunate reality that they will not become extinct
 anytime soon.
 Thousands of volunteers for The Great Pennsylvania Cleanup picked up 2,000 tons
 of trash in 2004, 3,100 tons in 2005 and another 3,150 tons last year. It's
 amazing there was anything left for volunteers to lift off the streets, streams
 and hillsides yesterday, but there was. And cigarette butts remain the most
 common type of litter, totaling 176 million pounds annually nationwide, 90
 percent of which are dropped within 10 feet of an ashtray or other receptacle.
 Despite Earth Day's long-term employment as the garbage man of the environmental
 movement, its originator, Sen. Nelson, said in 1980 that it remained an
 effective reminder that management of the Earth's resources will forever be the
 most fundamental of issues faced by humans.
 "Our very survival will depend upon whether or not we are able to preserve,
 protect and defend our environment," he said. "We are not free to decide about
 whether or not our environment 'matters.' It does matter, apart from any
 political exigencies. We disregard the needs of our ecosystem at our mortal
 peril.
 "That was the great lesson of Earth Day. It must never be forgotten."
 And so today, along with people in almost 200 nations around the globe (who will
 also be picking up cigarette butts), Americans will celebrate Earth Day, not so
 much to preserve distant wilderness or pristine streams, but to protect our
 communities and our commons. So go lift some trash or plant a tree or learn
 about your carbon footprint. It's all good.
 But the big question -- as University of Pittsburgh environmental historian
 Samuel P. Hays always used to ask the Earth Day crowds he addressed -- is: "What
 are you doing tomorrow?"
 LOAD-DATE: April 22, 2007
 NOTES: Don Hopey is a Post-Gazette staff writer (dhopey@post-gazette.com,
 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
                        Copyright 2007 P.G. Publishing Co.






