permaculture

["sal" <sals@rain.org>]

check out an organic farmers homepage
http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html
sals@rain.,org
----- Original Message -----
From: "E. Ann Clark" <eaclark@uoguelph.ca>
To: <sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 6:59 AM
Subject: [Fwd: Guest Editorial: Vilsack & GE crops by Jim Riddle]


Folks:  as requested.  Ann

Ericka wrote:

> Dear Ann,
> Would you be so kind as to post this on Sanet for me? Our governor is at
the
> forefront of a new group of midwestern governors who have banded together
to
> promote biotech crops.
> Thank you -
> Ericka Dana
> ----------
> ORGANIC INDEPENDENTS                 Organicworks!
> James A. Riddle and Joyce E. Ford
> Rt. 3 Box 162-C, Winona, Minnesota, USA, 55987-9514
> Ph/Fax:  507-454-8310
> E-mail: jriddle@luminet.net
> ----------
> Des Moines Register
> Guest Editorial
> May 4, 2000
>
> My name is Jim Riddle. I am a native of Colfax, Iowa. I now live near
> Winona, MN. I have been an organic inspector for 14 years, and was
founding
> president of the Independent Organic Inspectors Association. I have
trained
> hundreds of organic inspectors worldwide. I am a member of the U.S.
> delegation to the Codex Commission on Food Labeling, and chair the
Minnesota
> Department of Agriculture's Organic Advisory Task Force.
>
> I am writing today because I am very concerned about recent remarks made
by
> Iowa Gov. Vilsak in support of genetic engineering. In this article, I
will
> enumerate some of the environmental, economic, and societal concerns
> associated with the GE crops that have been released.
>
> Science is now showing that GE crops have unanticipated ecological
impacts:
>
> · Research at Cornell and Iowa State Universities has confirmed that Bt
corn
> pollen kills Monarch butterflies and other lepidoptera. This impact on
> non-target species was not predicted prior to the release of Bt corn.
> · Research in Europe shows that GE crops damage beneficial insects,
> including lacewings and ladybugs. Beneficial insects that prey on aphids
> which have consumed Bt toxins have lower survival and reproduction rates
> than those which feed on healthy aphids. This impact was not researched or
> anticipated prior to release.
> · Toxins from genetically engineered Bt crops accumulate in the soil,
> killing organisms and altering soil ecology, according to research at New
> York University. The GE Bt toxin was found to exude from the roots of
living
> Bt corn plants. After 234 days, the toxin had not degraded. The research
> abstract concludes "there may be a risk that non-target insects and
> organisms in higher trophic levels could be affected by the toxin." This
is
> a huge, and previously unanticipated, issue.
> · Genetically engineered Bt toxin is significantly different from the
> topically applied Bt sprays which have been used by organic growers for 50
> years. Natural Bt must be digested by an insect and react with enzymes and
> digestive acids in order to be toxic. Left on plants, it degrades under UV
> light in a matter of days. GE Bt is an active toxin found in every cell of
> the altered plant. It is not dependent on digestive enzymes and acids to
> become actively toxic, and it does not degrade in UV light.
> · As confirmed by the EPA's recently published restrictions on Bt corn, it
> is inevitable that insecticidal GE crops will result in pesticide
resistant
> pests, because the GE toxins are present in every cell of every plant at
all
> times. Any biologist or entomologist knows that this is a recipe for
> resistance. As insects develop resistance, organic growers will likely
lose
> access to a previously effective, selective, least-toxic, and natural
> pesticide.
> · Research in Canada shows that herbicide resistant canola
cross-pollinates
> with wild and domestic relatives, creating "superweeds" which are
resistant
> to herbicides.
> · And despite what the biotech industry would like us to believe, farmers
> are spending more on pesticides than ever before.
>
> GE crops are bad for the U.S. economy:
>
> · US corn exports to Europe dropped by 96% in 1999 because we cannot
provide
> non-GE corn.
> · US soybean sales to Europe dropped from $2.1 billion in 1996 to $1.1
> billion in 1999.
> · Genetic engineering is part of a failed farm policy which is driving
> farmers off the land. The USDA predicts corn prices below $2/bu through at
> least 2001 and soybean prices below $5/bu through 2004.
> · Major buyers in Europe, Japan, Canada, and Mexico don't want GE crops.
> · Domestic buyers, including Frito-Lay, Gerber, Heinz, Seagrams, Whole
> Foods, Wild Oats, North America's largest potato processor, and the entire
> sugar industry want non-GE crops.
>
> GE crops are having a negative impact on family farmers:
>
> · GE seeds cost more, yet may yield less. 40 research plots in 1999 showed
> that Roundup Ready soybeans yielded 4% less than non-GE varieties.
> · The November 1, 1999, issue of Chemical and Engineering News reported
that
> DuPont and Monsanto together own 73% of the seed corn companies in the
U.S.
> Novartis, Dow, and Cargill own most of the rest. In the face of this
> concentration, farmers have few planting choices, and most of the best
> genetics are bundled with GE traits.
> · For corn farmers, the share of a farmer's gross income spent on seed and
> chemicals has risen from 9.5% in 1975 to 16.9% in 1997. For soybean
farmers,
> the share spent on seed and chemicals has risen from 10.8% to 16.3%.
> · Over 30 patents have already been issued for Terminator and Traitor
> technology, which is designed to make farmers chemically dependent and
> prevent them from saving their own seeds. This is the most transparently
> greedy and ecologically dangerous technology of all.
> · Farmers who plant GE crops must sign licensing agreements allowing
biotech
> companies unlimited access to their farms. The farmers don't buy the
seed -
> they only lease the right to grow it.
> · Farmers who save their own seeds are subject to investigation,
harassment,
> and litigation by biotech companies. This is well documented.
> · Farmers whose crops have been subjected to genetic drift have even been
> investigated and accused of saving GE seeds without having signed
licensing
> agreements.
> · Farmers are being exposed to unprecedented economic and environmental
> risks, with no protection from biotech companies. Biotech companies carry
no
> insurance, because the insurance companies claim that genetic engineering
is
> an "unquantifiable risk."
> · Farmers who plant GE crops may be liable for contamination of
neighboring
> non-GE and organic crops due to genetic drift.
> · Genetic pollution is another unanticipated consequence of GE technology,
> especially for wind and insect pollinated crops such as corn, canola,
> potatoes, and squash. Genetic drift is a huge issue for organic growers,
> since genetic engineering is prohibited by all organic standards in the
> world, and consumers expect organic foods to be free of GE ingredients.
> · The development of GE-free labels is not the answer. Segregation and
> certification of non-GE crops  places the burden on farmers and consumers
> who want to avoid genetic engineering, rather than on the corporations who
> profit from the technology. On the other hand, a state wide moratorium
> presents a huge economic opportunity for Iowa farmers and processors.
>
> Genetically engineered foods are being rejected by consumers:
>
> · The British and Portuguese Medical Associations are calling for a global
> moratorium on the planting of GE crops.
> · Research in Great Britain has shown that rats developed tumors when fed
GE
> potatoes.
> · Research also shows that incidences of soy food allergies have increased
> corresponding with the sale of Roundup Ready soybeans.
> · GE crops contain antibiotic resistance marker genes, bacteria genes, and
> virus genes. None of these have ever before been part of the ecosystem or
> the human diet.
> · Germany has banned all planting, growing, and selling of GE corn
produced
> by Novartis, based on research published in Freiburg, Germany, that showed
> the GE corn can cancel out the effect of antibiotic treatments for
illnesses
> because the corn has been modified to resist certain antibiotics.
> · GE crops have been rushed to market without proper testing, and with no
> labeling. The regulatory process has been shrouded in secrecy and conflict
> of interest. Under orders from Vice President Dan Quayle, the Food and
Drug
> Administration ruled in 1992 that GE crops are "substantially equivalent"
to
> regular crops and foods, and do not have to be safety tested or labeled,
> even though they contain unique, altered genes, and can be patented.
> · The FDA's own researchers found that genetic engineering could have
> unpredictable consequences, and urged caution, yet their objections were
> overruled. To this day, there is still no sound science which proves GE
> crops are safe for the environment or human health.
> · A January 1999 Time magazine poll revealed that 81% of respondents want
> genetically engineered foods to be labeled. A January 2000 MSNBC poll
showed
> identical results.
> · The Mexican Senate just unanimously passed mandatory labeling
legislation.
> · The European Union, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan already require
> genetically engineered foods to be labeled, a right recently confirmed by
> the United Nations BioSafety Protocol agreement.
>
> Genetic engineering raises a host of unanswered questions:
>
> · What are the long term impacts of increased Bt toxins on soil ecology?
> · How can genetically engineered toxins be removed from the environment
once
> they have been introduced?
> · What are the impacts of one spliced gene on a target organism's genone?
> What are the impacts on the ecosystem into which the transgenic organism
is
> released?
> · What are the impacts on livestock which consume GE proteins?
> · Why do cows, when given the choice between GE corn fodder and non-GE
> fodder, consistently choose the non-GE feed?
> · Why do farmers complain about burning lungs after breathing Bt corn
dust?
> · Could there be a relationship between GE crops and frog mutations?
> · Organic farming, which takes care of the earth, is the fastest growing
> sector of agriculture, with tremendous domestic and international consumer
> demand. How much money does Iowa State spend on organic agriculture
research
> in comparison to the budget for GE research?
> · How much information do Extension Educators provide on organic
production
> practices?
> · Is there a "revolving door" between the biotech industry and Iowa State
> University?
> · Are Iowa State researchers encouraged to conduct "public interest"
> research, or are they funded to conduct "corporate interest" research?
> · Is research suppressed if the findings contradict the claims and agendas
> of biotech companies?
> · What is Iowa State's liability exposure in supporting and promoting
> genetic engineering?
> · Just because something can be done, does that mean it should be done? We
> can kill bugs with DDT, or kill plants with agent orange, but that doesn't
> mean it's smart.
> · Shouldn't sound science be used to establish a product's safety before
it
> is released into the environment and placed in the food chain?
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Jim Riddle

--- Begin Message ---

• From: "Ericka " <doodles@netins.net>
• To: eaclark@uoguelph.ca
• Subject: Guest Editorial: Vilsack & GE crops by Jim Riddle
• Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 08:01:47 -0500

Dear Ann,
Would you be so kind as to post this on Sanet for me? Our governor is at the
forefront of a new group of midwestern governors who have banded together to
promote biotech crops.
Thank you -
Ericka Dana
----------
ORGANIC INDEPENDENTS Organicworks!
James A. Riddle and Joyce E. Ford
Rt. 3 Box 162-C, Winona, Minnesota, USA, 55987-9514
Ph/Fax: 507-454-8310
E-mail: jriddle@luminet.net
----------
Des Moines Register
Guest Editorial
May 4, 2000

My name is Jim Riddle. I am a native of Colfax, Iowa. I now live near
Winona, MN. I have been an organic inspector for 14 years, and was founding
president of the Independent Organic Inspectors Association. I have trained
hundreds of organic inspectors worldwide. I am a member of the U.S.
delegation to the Codex Commission on Food Labeling, and chair the Minnesota
Department of Agriculture's Organic Advisory Task Force.

I am writing today because I am very concerned about recent remarks made by
Iowa Gov. Vilsak in support of genetic engineering. In this article, I will
enumerate some of the environmental, economic, and societal concerns
associated with the GE crops that have been released.

Science is now showing that GE crops have unanticipated ecological impacts:

· Research at Cornell and Iowa State Universities has confirmed that Bt corn
pollen kills Monarch butterflies and other lepidoptera. This impact on
non-target species was not predicted prior to the release of Bt corn.
· Research in Europe shows that GE crops damage beneficial insects,
including lacewings and ladybugs. Beneficial insects that prey on aphids
which have consumed Bt toxins have lower survival and reproduction rates
than those which feed on healthy aphids. This impact was not researched or
anticipated prior to release.
· Toxins from genetically engineered Bt crops accumulate in the soil,
killing organisms and altering soil ecology, according to research at New
York University. The GE Bt toxin was found to exude from the roots of living
Bt corn plants. After 234 days, the toxin had not degraded. The research
abstract concludes "there may be a risk that non-target insects and
organisms in higher trophic levels could be affected by the toxin." This is
a huge, and previously unanticipated, issue.
· Genetically engineered Bt toxin is significantly different from the
topically applied Bt sprays which have been used by organic growers for 50
years. Natural Bt must be digested by an insect and react with enzymes and
digestive acids in order to be toxic. Left on plants, it degrades under UV
light in a matter of days. GE Bt is an active toxin found in every cell of
the altered plant. It is not dependent on digestive enzymes and acids to
become actively toxic, and it does not degrade in UV light.
· As confirmed by the EPA's recently published restrictions on Bt corn, it
is inevitable that insecticidal GE crops will result in pesticide resistant
pests, because the GE toxins are present in every cell of every plant at all
times. Any biologist or entomologist knows that this is a recipe for
resistance. As insects develop resistance, organic growers will likely lose
access to a previously effective, selective, least-toxic, and natural
pesticide.
· Research in Canada shows that herbicide resistant canola cross-pollinates
with wild and domestic relatives, creating "superweeds" which are resistant
to herbicides.
· And despite what the biotech industry would like us to believe, farmers
are spending more on pesticides than ever before.

GE crops are bad for the U.S. economy:

· US corn exports to Europe dropped by 96% in 1999 because we cannot provide
non-GE corn.
· US soybean sales to Europe dropped from $2.1 billion in 1996 to $1.1
billion in 1999.
· Genetic engineering is part of a failed farm policy which is driving
farmers off the land. The USDA predicts corn prices below $2/bu through at
least 2001 and soybean prices below $5/bu through 2004.
· Major buyers in Europe, Japan, Canada, and Mexico don't want GE crops.
· Domestic buyers, including Frito-Lay, Gerber, Heinz, Seagrams, Whole
Foods, Wild Oats, North America's largest potato processor, and the entire
sugar industry want non-GE crops.

GE crops are having a negative impact on family farmers:

· GE seeds cost more, yet may yield less. 40 research plots in 1999 showed
that Roundup Ready soybeans yielded 4% less than non-GE varieties.
· The November 1, 1999, issue of Chemical and Engineering News reported that
DuPont and Monsanto together own 73% of the seed corn companies in the U.S.
Novartis, Dow, and Cargill own most of the rest. In the face of this
concentration, farmers have few planting choices, and most of the best
genetics are bundled with GE traits.
· For corn farmers, the share of a farmer's gross income spent on seed and
chemicals has risen from 9.5% in 1975 to 16.9% in 1997. For soybean farmers,
the share spent on seed and chemicals has risen from 10.8% to 16.3%.
· Over 30 patents have already been issued for Terminator and Traitor
technology, which is designed to make farmers chemically dependent and
prevent them from saving their own seeds. This is the most transparently
greedy and ecologically dangerous technology of all.
· Farmers who plant GE crops must sign licensing agreements allowing biotech
companies unlimited access to their farms. The farmers don't buy the seed -
they only lease the right to grow it.
· Farmers who save their own seeds are subject to investigation, harassment,
and litigation by biotech companies. This is well documented.
· Farmers whose crops have been subjected to genetic drift have even been
investigated and accused of saving GE seeds without having signed licensing
agreements.
· Farmers are being exposed to unprecedented economic and environmental
risks, with no protection from biotech companies. Biotech companies carry no
insurance, because the insurance companies claim that genetic engineering is
an "unquantifiable risk."
· Farmers who plant GE crops may be liable for contamination of neighboring
non-GE and organic crops due to genetic drift.
· Genetic pollution is another unanticipated consequence of GE technology,
especially for wind and insect pollinated crops such as corn, canola,
potatoes, and squash. Genetic drift is a huge issue for organic growers,
since genetic engineering is prohibited by all organic standards in the
world, and consumers expect organic foods to be free of GE ingredients.
· The development of GE-free labels is not the answer. Segregation and
certification of non-GE crops places the burden on farmers and consumers
who want to avoid genetic engineering, rather than on the corporations who
profit from the technology. On the other hand, a state wide moratorium
presents a huge economic opportunity for Iowa farmers and processors.

Genetically engineered foods are being rejected by consumers:

· The British and Portuguese Medical Associations are calling for a global
moratorium on the planting of GE crops.
· Research in Great Britain has shown that rats developed tumors when fed GE
potatoes.
· Research also shows that incidences of soy food allergies have increased
corresponding with the sale of Roundup Ready soybeans.
· GE crops contain antibiotic resistance marker genes, bacteria genes, and
virus genes. None of these have ever before been part of the ecosystem or
the human diet.
· Germany has banned all planting, growing, and selling of GE corn produced
by Novartis, based on research published in Freiburg, Germany, that showed
the GE corn can cancel out the effect of antibiotic treatments for illnesses
because the corn has been modified to resist certain antibiotics.
· GE crops have been rushed to market without proper testing, and with no
labeling. The regulatory process has been shrouded in secrecy and conflict
of interest. Under orders from Vice President Dan Quayle, the Food and Drug
Administration ruled in 1992 that GE crops are "substantially equivalent" to
regular crops and foods, and do not have to be safety tested or labeled,
even though they contain unique, altered genes, and can be patented.
· The FDA's own researchers found that genetic engineering could have
unpredictable consequences, and urged caution, yet their objections were
overruled. To this day, there is still no sound science which proves GE
crops are safe for the environment or human health.
· A January 1999 Time magazine poll revealed that 81% of respondents want
genetically engineered foods to be labeled. A January 2000 MSNBC poll showed
identical results.
· The Mexican Senate just unanimously passed mandatory labeling legislation.
· The European Union, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan already require
genetically engineered foods to be labeled, a right recently confirmed by
the United Nations BioSafety Protocol agreement.

Genetic engineering raises a host of unanswered questions:

· What are the long term impacts of increased Bt toxins on soil ecology?
· How can genetically engineered toxins be removed from the environment once
they have been introduced?
· What are the impacts of one spliced gene on a target organism's genone?
What are the impacts on the ecosystem into which the transgenic organism is
released?
· What are the impacts on livestock which consume GE proteins?
· Why do cows, when given the choice between GE corn fodder and non-GE
fodder, consistently choose the non-GE feed?
· Why do farmers complain about burning lungs after breathing Bt corn dust?
· Could there be a relationship between GE crops and frog mutations?
· Organic farming, which takes care of the earth, is the fastest growing
sector of agriculture, with tremendous domestic and international consumer
demand. How much money does Iowa State spend on organic agriculture research
in comparison to the budget for GE research?
· How much information do Extension Educators provide on organic production
practices?
· Is there a "revolving door" between the biotech industry and Iowa State
University?
· Are Iowa State researchers encouraged to conduct "public interest"
research, or are they funded to conduct "corporate interest" research?
· Is research suppressed if the findings contradict the claims and agendas
of biotech companies?
· What is Iowa State's liability exposure in supporting and promoting
genetic engineering?
· Just because something can be done, does that mean it should be done? We
can kill bugs with DDT, or kill plants with agent orange, but that doesn't
mean it's smart.
· Shouldn't sound science be used to establish a product's safety before it
is released into the environment and placed in the food chain?

Respectfully,


Jim Riddle

--- End Message ---