Fwd: The Campaign Reporter - September 2003

[Guest guest]

" The Campaign Reporter "

The Campaign Reporter - September 2003

Thu, 18 Sep 2003 05:24:59 -0500

 

 

 

September 2003

 

The Campaign Reporter

 

Now Available in a 2-page printable PDF format

 

 

 

Each month we are now issuing The Campaign Reporter in three formats:

 

1) As a HTML e-mail that is sent out to people who sign up to receive The

Campaign Reporter.

 

2) As an online HTML web page readable at:

www.thecampaign.org/

reporter.php

 

3) As a 2-page Adobe Acrobat PDF that can be printed out and photocopied to

share with friends at:

www.thecampaign.org/

reporter.pdf

 

(The PDF version is optimized for printing so it is a large file. Please be

patient while it loads.)

 

We often need to edit the PDF version to fill the 2-page format. So the e-mail

and online versions are best for getting the most comprehensive coverage of the

news.

 

The PDF format is ideal for retail stores to use to keep their customers

informed on the latest news about genetically engineered foods and the efforts

to get them labeled. The PDF version is in color, but can be printed out and

photocopied in black and white to keep the cost down.

 

Click here (or on the image above) to go to the PDF version.

 

 

 

Sale Extended!

Take Action Packets

 

 

 

50%

off!

thru

September 30

 

In celebration of the introduction of the Genetically Engineered Food Right to

Know Act in the U.S. House of Representatives, until the end of September, we

are offering an incredible 50% off discount on our popular 32-page Take Action

Packets.

 

Order today!

 

 

 

Check out these great educational videos!

 

Fed Up!

 

 

 

Fed Up! takes an enjoyable and informative look at genetic engineering,

industrial agriculture and sustainable alternatives. Fed Up! features interviews

with leading experts who help us look at our food production system from the

Green Revolution to the Biotech Revolution.

 

Because of the humorous and thought-provoking archive film sprinkled throughout

this 57-minute video, Fed Up! will appeal to adults, teenagers and even

inquisitive children.

 

Fed Up! Video

 

[input] [input]

 

$23.95

Active Member Price

$29.95

Non-member Price

 

 

 

Deconstructing Supper

 

 

 

Deconstructing Supper is an excellent 48-minute video that follows renowned

Canadian chef John Bishop as he learns about genetically engineered foods. The

film follows John as he travels from Canada to the United States to India and

back. His journey takes viewers on an eye-opening and engaging adventure into

the billion-dollar battle to control global food production, unraveling fact

from fiction, and information from disinformation.

 

Deconstructing Supper Video

 

[input] [input]

 

$23.95

Active Member Price

$29.95

Non-member Price

 

 

 

Support Our Supporters!

 

Click here to see more of our supporters or to become a supporter.

 

 

 

Videos, Books,

Buttons, Bumper

Stickers, Take Action Packets & more are

available at

The Campaign's

Online Store

 

Become an

" Active Member "

of The Campaign and save 20 percent on your purchases!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Archives of

The Campaign

Reporter Online

 

August 2003

July 2003

June 2003

May 2003

March 2003

January 2003

December 2002

October 2002

September 2002

August 2002

July 2002

June 2002

January/

February 2002

August 2001

June 2001

May 2001

March 2001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Click here to go to the

web site home page of

The Campaign

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright 2003

The Campaign

PO Box 55699

Seattle, WA 98155

425-771-4049

label

www.thecampaign.org

 

 

Featured articles

this month

 

Campaign revamps web site for activists

 

Great new book: 'Seeds of Deception' dazzles

 

Twenty percent of farmers violate biotech rules

 

FDA takes anti-consumer stance on hormone milk

 

UN Cartagena " Biosafety Protocol " treaty enters into force

 

Statement from Dr. Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher about the U.S. WTO challenge

to the EU and the Biosafety Protocol

 

 

 

 

 

 

Campaign revamps web site for activists

 

With an eye toward passing the brand new Genetically Engineered Foods Right to

Know act, The Campaign has upgraded its web site to make it easier for folks to

take quick and easy action. Visit us at www.thecampaign.org to see our new look.

 

Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced House Resolution 2916, the Genetically

Engineered Food Right to Know Act, in late July. The bill would finally give

what an ABC News poll shows 92 percent of Americans want: labeling of

genetically engineered foods.

 

We’re pushing hard to get this legislation passed, and we need your help. Three

quick action steps are listed on our home page: Mail a letter to your U.S.

Representative, asking him or her to co-sponsor HR 2916; print at least 10

additional form letters and give them to your friends and colleagues to mail to

Congress; and visit our Tell A Friend web page and send an e-mail to people you

know asking them to visit The Campaign and mail letters to Congress.

 

The web site also features advanced action steps for those who want to go the

extra mile to get this crucial legislation passed. We look forward to seeing you

at www.thecampaign.org!

 

 

 

 

 

Great new book: " Seeds of Deception " dazzles

 

We have an exceptional new book to tell you about: Seeds of Deception, by

Jeffrey M. Smith. The explosive 290-page exposé documents the significant health

dangers of genetically engineered foods and the intense industry influence and

political corruption that allows them on the market. The Campaign is selling the

book in our online store for $17.95. If you order soon, you can get free

shipping!

 

Chapters read like adventure stories:

 

Scientists were offered bribes or threatened. Evidence was stolen. Data was

omitted or distorted.

Government employees who complained were harassed, stripped of

responsibilities, or fired.

Laboratory rats fed a GM crop developed stomach lesions and seven of the

forty died within two weeks. The crop was approved without further tests.

When a top scientist tried to alert the public about his alarming

discoveries, he lost his job and was silenced with threats of a lawsuit.

 

Read the actual internal memos by FDA scientists, warning of toxins, allergies,

and new diseases-all ignored by their superiors, including a former attorney for

Monsanto. Discover how industry studies are designed to avoid finding problems.

 

Learn why the FDA withheld information from Congress after a genetically

modified supplement killed nearly a hundred people and disabled thousands.

 

Eating such experimental food is gambling with your health. Find out how you can

protect yourself and your family.

 

Jeffrey Smith is a master storyteller. His style captivates and charms, while

his meticulously documented facts leave no doubt about a massive injustice.

 

Smith is the founding director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and a

member of the Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee. He has a master’s

degree in business administration and lives with his wife in Iowa, surrounded by

genetically modified corn and soybeans.

 

 

 

Twenty percent of farmers violate biotech rules

 

Analysts have long realized that the government’s regulatory oversight of

genetically engineered foods is lax. Another example of this was revealed by a

U.S. Department of Agriculture survey released last month. As many as 20 percent

of farmers growing pesticide-resistant corn have failed to comply with federal

requirements.

The farmers in question are not planting a refuge barrier around their

genetically engineered corn, as required by law.

 

The lack of a buffer zone around the corn is a direct assault on organic corn,

for two reasons. First, pollen from genetically engineered corn can travel more

easily to neighboring organic fields without a buffer zone. Second, the lack of

a refuge barrier allows insects to more rapidly develop immunity to the toxin Bt

(bacillus thuringiensis) because of overexposure. (Organic farmers use a spray

form of Bt when needed. But that spray form of Bt is losing effectiveness as

more and more insects become exposed to the Bt toxin engineered into altered

corn.)

 

The USDA survey examined nearly 290,000 farms in 10 Midwestern states. It found

that 32 percent (or about 93,500) were growing a total of 4.2 million acres of

Bt corn. Only about 80 percent of those were complying with an Environmental

Protection Agency requirement to grow conventional, non-altered corn in a buffer

zone that surrounds their altered corn.

 

Gregory Jaffe, director for biotechnology at the Center for Science in the

Public Interest, told the Associated Press that the EPA should implement a

system that would give companies an incentive to ensure farmers follow the

rules.

 

“ They don’t have an incentive to penalize and fine noncompliant farmers because

those farmers are their customers,” he said, adding that the EPA should restrict

the sale of altered seeds in counties where a high proportion of farmers are

violating the EPA planting requirements.

 

 

 

FDA takes anti-consumer stance on hormone milk

 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration told four dairy and ice cream companies to

stop labeling their products free of hormones, according to a Sept. 12 Reuters

news article.

 

The FDA says no milk product can truthfully be labeled as " hormone-free " because

all milk contains naturally occurring hormones.

 

The dairy companies, the FDA says, may have been trying to inform customers that

their milk and ice cream are free of the engineered hormone rbST, recombinant

bovine somatropine. rbST is also known as rBGH, or recombinant Bovine Growth

Hormone.

 

" Producers have no basis for claiming that milk from cows not treated with rbST

is safer than milk from rbST-treated cows, " the FDA added.

Consumers have long called for labeling of rBGH milk. rBGH is injected into

about 30 percent of the nation’s cows, according to Monsanto, the company behind

the controversial hormone.

 

Extracted from cows' pituitary glands, rBGH increases milk input by as much as

20 or 30 percent. rBGH milk is added to cream, cheese, yogurts and baked goods,

but is not labeled.

While Monsanto claims that rBGH milk is just as safe as regular milk, experts

say dozens of studies show otherwise.

 

Dr. Samuel Epstein, professor of environmental and occupational medicine at

University of Illinois School of Public Health in Chicago, told MSNBC that some

studies indicate that insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), a protein found in

slightly higher levels in milk from hormone-treated cows than normal milk, has

been linked to cancer.

 

The Food and Drug Administration gave its stamp of approval to rBGH in 1993,

dismissing safety concerns. Two FDA scientists cleared rBGH in an article

appearing in the journal Science. In Canada, however, government scientists came

to a much different conclusion. Shiv Chopra of Canada's Health Protection Branch

and four of his colleagues found evidence that the FDA had overlooked, or even

suppressed, studies showing adverse reactions to rBGH in rats, Chopra says.

 

" Although the paper published in Science gave the product a clean bill of

health, the U.S. FDA ignored the harder information, a 90-day study of rats

showing that the hormone did indeed get absorbed into their bloodstreams, and

that it produced antibodies and lesions, " Chopra told MSNBC. He added, " I'm

afraid to say that despite all that is known about the adverse reactions that

cows have to the drug, and the ample evidence of human health concerns as well,

that the U.S. government took an expedient route to approval with this drug. "

 

In 1999, Canada decided not to approve rBGH milk.

 

Ben & Jerry's ice cream, which has an arrangement with its dairy supplier to

purchase only non-rBGH dairy products, has a web page devoted to its arguments

against the hormone. According to Ben & Jerry's, some studies report a 79

percent increase in mastisis (infection of the udder) in cows, resulting in the

need for greater use of antibiotics, reduced pregnancy rates, cystic ovaries and

uterine disorders, digestive disorders and lacerations, and enlargements and

calluses of the knee.

 

The Campaign believes all rBGH foods should be labeled so consumers can decide

whether or not to purchase these controversial foods.

 

 

 

UN Cartagena " Biosafety Protocol " treaty enters into force

 

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, signed by 57 nations but not by the United

States, entered into force Sept. 11.

 

The U.N. treaty gives countries greater latitude to reject genetically modified

foods. The United Nations ratified the protocol in 2000, and U.N.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan is urging the implement it.

 

Under the treaty, genetically modified food exporters must provide more

information about GMO products such as soybeans or corn. Importing countries may

also reject GMO imports or donations if they believe the genetically altered

foods pose a risk to traditionally grown foods, undermine local cultures or harm

biodiversity.

 

" The entry into force of the Cartagena Protocol...is a landmark for sustainable

development and another milestone in the global effort to reconcile

environmental conservation and development, " Annan said in a statement.

 

Environmentalists have criticized the United States' refusal to sign the

protocol.

 

" This is another example where the United States is lagging behind the rest of

the world in dealing with global environmental concerns, " Tony La Vina, of the

U.S.-based World Resources Institute, told the Reuters news service.

 

 

 

Statement from Dr. Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher about the U.S. WTO challenge

to the EU and the Biosafety Protocol

General of the Environmental Protection Authority, Addis Ababa,

Ethiopia.

 

4th September 2003

 

The United States' challenge to the European Union in the WTO courts over

Genetically Modified Organisms primarily presents a threat to African and

developing countries' food sovereignty and the Biosafety Protocol.

 

We in African countries, who have fought long and hard for the agreement and

ratification of the Biosafety Protocol, feel that U.S. actions are intended to

send a strong and aggressive message to us: that should we choose to implement

the Protocol and reject the import of GM foods, we may also face the possibility

of a WTO challenge. We cannot help but perceive that U.S. actions are a

pre-emptive strike on the Biosafety Protocol and developing country interests.

 

The Protocol is due to come into effect on the 11th of September, coinciding

with the WTO's 5th Ministerial Meeting in Cancun, Mexico. At Cancun, the US/EU

GM debate is expected to be high on the agenda. Part of the U.S. argument for

forcing the EU to accept GM without any kind of labelling

restrictions, is that the EU rejection creates hunger in the developing world.

Supposedly, we would willingly grow GM crops if we weren't afraid of losing our

lucrative European markets.

 

But this premise is untrue. The only African country to support the WTO

challenge was Egypt, who soon retracted support on the grounds of consumer and

environmental concerns. Developing countries, and African countries in

particular, do not want to grow GM crops uncritically and without the due

process of their regulatory systems approving them. They will not have their

crops contaminated by GM crops, for many reasons other than market access to

Europe. The one important consideration is safety to human health, domestic

animals and the environment. This can only be assured, as provided by the

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, only through informed risk assessments and

decisions based on the Precautionary Principle.

 

Secondly, we reject the patenting of living things, as has been made clear by

our negotiations in the WTO. Otherwise, Article 34 of TRIPs would, in

combination with the natural processes of cross pollination, not only

contaminate our crops, but also turn our farmers into patent infringers. This

would remove control of food production into the hands of multinational

corporations, thereby wresting away food sovereignty into the hands of these

companies. Besides paying royalties, we would lose food sovereignty.

 

Developing world agriculture systems are adapted to their geography, economy and

culture, and GM farming systems that require capital and chemicals

threaten our agriculture and food security. Ethiopia is strongly against the

hasty introduction of GM crops, for, as a centre of origin and diversity of

crops, we recognise the assets that come from a biologically diverse, locally

adapted, small-scale agriculture.

 

This is why African nations have fought so hard for the Biosafety Protocol,

which can provide us with a legal basis on which to protect our own food

sovereignty. We suspect that Africa is high on the agenda for the United States'

next push for GM acceptance. And we resent the way that the stereotyped image of

the hungry in developing countries has been used to force a style of agriculture

that will only exacerbate problems of hunger and poverty.

 

The arguments that the EU must give up its right to label, or even reject GM,

because of the developing countries must stop. We have the right to implement

the Biosafety Protocol, and we must do so without delay.

 

 

 

 

 

 

---------

To be d from the The Campaign Reporter mailing list, simply click on

the link below:

Un califpacific

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEW WEB MESSAGE BOARDS - JOIN HERE.

Alternative Medicine Message Boards.Info

http://alternative-medicine-message-boards.info