Newsletter for the bio-tech industry and how they are pushing GM foods 15/05

[Guest guest]

Agnet Dec. 15/05Updated issue brief on U.S.-EU trade dispute over genetically modified crops released by Pew Initiative on Food and BiotechnologyChanging public attitudes towards GM foods in AustraliaAnimal gene renders tobacco resistant to parasitic weedMultimillion Euro deal on development of higher yielding cropsUW biotech program launches graduates into evolving industry (part 1)NCGR announces University and Industry collaboration to sequence genome pathogen of vegetablesMaize genetics and genomics database available on websiteOzone outlaw: U.S. continues major methyl bromide useUpdated issue brief on U.S.-EU trade dispute over genetically modified crops released by Pew Initiative on Food and BiotechnologyDecember 15, 2005Pew Initiative on Food and BiotechnologyIn light of a decision expected soon by the World Trade Organization (WTO) on the U.S. challenge to the European Union (EU) policy on genetically modified (GM) foods, the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology has updated its brief on the trade dispute between the U.S. and the EU over agricultural biotechnology. Events prompting this update include:In 2004, new EU laws went into effect providing for the approval of GM crops, as well as GM food and feed, and establishing new requirements for labeling and traceability. Since then, the European Commission has moved through a lengthy process to approve several GM crops in addition to food and feeds derived from GM crops.In June 2005, a qualified majority of the Council of Ministers refused to lift certain EU member state bans on GM products that had been approved by the Commission, creating new doubts about the viability of an EU-wide policy on GM crops, food and feed.A decision is expected in January 2006, from a trade panel of the World Trade Organization, on a challenge initiated in 2003 by the U.S. on the EU’s de facto moratorium on the approval of GM crops.These and other developments are discussed in a revised and expanded version of U.S. vs. EU: An Examination of the Trade Issues Surrounding Genetically Modified Food, a brief originally published by the Pew Initiative in June 2002 and updated in August 2003.The new issue brief provides:An overview of the history of the dispute between the U.S. and the EU over GM foods and crops.Estimates of the impacts that the EU de facto moratorium on GM crop approvals has had on U.S. tradeA timeline of critical events relevant to U.S.-EU agricultural biotechnology trade issues.A status report of GM crops and food in the EU and a summary of current EU regulations and its approval process.The complete issue brief is available at: For more information contact:Kara Flynn (202) 347-9044, ext. 222, kflynn kflynnThe Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research project whose goal is to inform the public and policymakers on issues about genetically modified food and agricultural biotechnology, including its importance, as well as concerns about it and its regulation. It is supported by a grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts to the University of Richmond.topChanging public attitudes towards GM foods in AustraliaDecember 15, 2005CheckbiotechCraig CormickOnce upon a time it used to be a reasonably simple task to just ask people if they would or wouldn’t eat Genetically Modified (GM) foods – and that would be a fair indicator of what you wanted to know. Unfortunately that doesn’t work so well any more.The reasons, which have emerged from some in-depth polling from Biotechnology Australia’s latest tracking research study, are that people are becoming more sophisticated in their attitudes and make decisions based on quite complex value chains.The study sought to reach beneath the statistics and determine what drove consumer’s attitudes.So while roughly 50%of the population in Australia will eat GM foods, and roughly 50% won’t – these figures will move depending on:· what benefits are there from eating the food,· what is the final food type – a health food or snack food,· how distant is the gene transfer involved,· who is regulating it for safety,· was it developed by a company or a public research organisation,· and, to a lesser extent, the price of the productTherefore, if you ask somebody these days if they would or wouldn’t eat GM foods, they’re more likely to say, ‘Well that depends. Are we talking about a cake or a tomato? What genes has it had transferred? And who developed it?’However, while attitudes have become a little more complex, there is still a low level of understanding of GM food in Australia, with a quarter of survey respondents (25.8%) incorrectly believing that most of Australia’s fresh produce is GM.Also, nearly half (46.3%) believed that most processed foods in Australian supermarkets are GM.There was, however, great variation in the spread of attitudes, ranging from disgust to indifference and with many opinions in the middle that cannot simply be broken down into for or against.Most participants did express concern about the potential health risks of consuming GM foods and some were sceptical whether the exact nature of the effect of these foods on human health would ever be known.However the correlation between attitudes and behaviour showed a weaker link than has often been presumed, and the type of foods being considered became crucial as the key indicator.Some respondents stated that they would stop purchasing a product if they found out that it was GM, but most said they would be reluctant to change their buying habits.Some even expressed no intention to cease buying familiar items if they learnt that they were GM, given that they had not noticed any ill-effects to date.During the focus group sections of the study participants were shown baked goods (e.g. lamingtons and cakes) which contained ingredients (e.g. soy emulsifiers, canola oil) produced from crops that are among the more commonly GM.Most participants said they would buy and eat the baked goods, even if they contained GM ingredients, as they did not expect the product to be good for them in the first place.Regarding labelling of GM foods, many people were generally confident that GM foods would have strict labelling requirements. However, none of the focus group respondents in the study could recall having ever seen a label on food packaging indicating the food was GM.Most participants felt that the labelling should be obvious, and not simply in the fine print.In this regard, they made reference to common flavours and preservatives, which were only identified by their codes, which made them difficult to identify.The study also looked at awareness of, and trust in, regulators.Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) rated very highly, with awareness levels of 61.3% (prompted) and trust levels of 69.9% amongst that group.The study, which is the fourth in a series, was conducted by Eureka Strategic Research, for Biotechnology Australia, and entailed a telephone interview with 1067 people over the age of 18, supported by 13 focus groups.topAnimal gene renders tobacco resistant to parasitic weedDecember 15, 2005CheckBiotechKatharina SchoebiThe parasitic plant species Orobanche can cause enormous yield losses. Up to now, there are only few control measures that are successful and affordable. An American-Israeli research team has now been able to genetically engineer tobacco plants to enhance their resistance against Orobanche.Parasitic plants heavily contribute to the weed problem for agriculture. Plants of the species Orobanche attack the roots of many crops and abstract water, nutrients and photosynthesis products from their host plant, and by so doing can cause enormous yield losses. Since the parasite is closely associated with the host root, its control is very difficult. Thus, crop species that are resistant to the parasite are in great demand.James Westwood from the Virginia Tech, Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science in Blacksburg, USA, and his Israeli colleagues recently set out to render tobacco plants resistant to Orobanche. They published their work in the Journal Transgenic Research.The research team genetically engineered tobacco plants so that they expressed a protein fragment, called sarcotoxin IA, from the flesh fly Sarcophaga peregrine. Sarcotoxin has toxic effects to several plant pathogenic bacteria and fungi.Already in 1999, Radi Aly from the Agricultural Research Organiszation in Ramat Yishay, Israel, and his colleagues showed that transgenic tobacco plants producing sarcotoxin IA were less parasitized by Orobanche. Yet, resistance was not complete, perhaps due to the low production level of sarcotoxin IA.Westwood has now combined the so called HMG2-promoter (a plant gene sequence that controls a natural plant defence response) with the sarcotoxin IA gene and found, that the transgenic tobacco plants showed parasitic resistance after O. aegyptiaca had penetrated the plant.However, sarcotoxin IA confers only an intermediate level of resistance to Orobanche. Though the transgenic plants accumulated a higher biomass than untransformed plants when grown in soil infected with O. aegyptiaca, the added gene did not enable plants to completely avoid damage by the parasite.Since the number of tubercles of O. aegyptiaca did not differ between transgenic and untransformed plants and parasite biomass was lower in genetically engineered plants, the researchers conclude that sarcotoxin IA first of all affects parasite growth after it has attached to the roots, and second, it does not inhibit the attachment itself.The researchers write in their publication that the resistance level of the genetically engineered tobacco plants fall short of the levels that would be required for reducing Orobanche infestations in the field.“We are in the very early stages of research on this line of resistance, and I don’t foresee any of our current generation of plants being planted in the field,” Dr. Westwood told Checkbiotech.When plants armed with this resistance mechanism would be released, the development of possible resistant Orobanche populations might be a concern. Dr. Westwood answered, “I hypothesize that the sarcotoxin IA mechanism is acting as a general membrane disrupter, and resistance may be slow to develop against such a non-specific mechanism.”But since resistance is always possible, the best strategy is to combine it with other resistance mechanisms, or effective control measures to further delay the emergence of resistant Orobanche populations.The researchers are currently investigating the precise mechanism of action of sarcotoxin IA against Orobanche. Dr. Westwood said, “We think we can enhance the activity by modifying the protein, but again, we are in the first steps of this research and it is too early to say what resistance levels can be expected.”If they are able to increase Orobanche resistance in tobacco plants enough, Dr. Westwood’ team will test it against other parasitic weeds to see if it is generally useful against them as well.“Genetically engineered plants are not very different from the plants we encounter and consume every day,” explained Dr. Westwood about his research with transgenic plants. He further explained that nearly all crops would have been substantially modified over the years by conventional genetic breeding, in many cases with little knowledge or concern about unintended changes that may have been made along the way.“When I think about the crop losses suffered due to parasitic plants, and that we still have few good tools to protect these crops, I think we must be open to new approaches.”Hamamouch et al. A peptide from insets protects transgenic tobacco from a parasitic weed. Transgenic Research (2005) 14, pp. 227-236.Link to the abstract:http://springerlink.metapress.com/(i11vqjzjxgifsbr443ibzd55)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent & backto=issue,1,13;journal,3,52;linkingpublicationresults,1:100225,1Contact:James H. WestwoodVirginia TechDepartment of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed ScienceBlacksburg VA 24061USAE-Mail: westwoodtopMultimillion Euro deal on development of higher yielding cropsDecember 15, 2005BASFBASF Plant Science and CropDesign sign broad license and research cooperation agreement to genetically improve crops.CropDesign´s high-quality trait portfolio will be used by BASF Plant Science to develop higher yielding crops such as corn, soybean and wheat.BASF Plant Science obtains exclusive license rights to genetic traits discovered and validated by CropDesign for commercial use in major crops. This agreement also initiates a multi-year research cooperation between the two companies in developing additional yield traits for the market. The aim is to genetically improve yield of agricultural crops and to enhance their protection against environmental stress conditions, such as drought. Traits are commercially important characteristics controlled by corresponding genes in crops.In return, CropDesign will receive multimillion Euro payments from BASF Plant Science consisting of substantial upfront fees, milestone payments as well as royalties on sales of products.“Knowing the function of genes is key to success in plant biotechnology. CropDesign’s excellent trait portfolio will significantly strengthen and complement our product pipeline”, states Hans Kast, president and CEO of BASF´s plant biotechnology company BASF Plant Science. “It gives us a strong competitive advantage. Our goal is to be amongst the market leaders in the genetic improvement of crops.”Johan Cardoen, CEO of CropDesign adds: “This agreement clearly validates the competitive edge of our discovery platform of genetic traits and the quality of our trait portfolio. We are pleased to have BASF Plant Science as a partner for developing our traits for the market. In addition this cooperation contributes significantly to CropDesign’s strategy for future growth and preserves the opportunity to develop our own trait-based products in crops such as rice.”About CropDesignCropDesign is a biotechnology company delivering traits for the global seed market and for plant-based products. CropDesign uses its proprietary TraitMillTM platform to discover genetic traits for the improvement of corn, rice and other plants. Founded in 1998, CropDesign employs 75 people at its research facilities in Gent, Belgium and has an extensive network of research and commercial partners.About BASF Plant ScienceTo exploit the potential of biotechnology, BASF, a leading player in agricultural products and fine chemicals, established BASF Plant Science as its proper plant biotechnology company in 1998. BASF Plant Science operates a research and development platform in Europe and North America, where more than 450 employees are developing products in the following areas: crops for a more efficient agriculture and for the production of renewable raw materials as well as plants for healthier nutrition. Examples are plants with higher vitamin content, or with omega-3-fatty acids that can prevent cardiovascular diseases.BASF is the world’s leading chemical company: The Chemical Company. In 2004, BASF had approximately 82,000 employees and posted sales of more than € 37 billion.To find out more about BASF Plant Science, please see our web site at:www.basf.com/biotechnology.To find out more about CropDesign, please see the web site at:www.cropdesign.comtopUW biotech program launches graduates into evolving industry (part 1)December 15, 2005Wisconsin Technology NetworkBill ShepardPredicting the future is tricky business. Yet it is a widely held truth that biotechnology will be an integral part of the future “new economy.” And UW-Madison’s Master of Science in Biotechnology degree program is jump-starting the careers of many who are hoping to succeed in the brave new world of biotech.“The mission of the program is to provide leaders and advocates for biotechnology through a fusion of science, business and law,” says Richard L. Moss, executive director of the M.S. in Biotechnology Program and chair of the Department of Physiology, where he also serves as a professor. “Once the idea for this program began to develop, the tremendous groundswell of support from across the university, the state and the local industry made it impossible not to develop this program.”The program’s cross-disciplinary curriculum is offered in a flexible, two-year format geared specifically toward professionals who work full time. Graduates and employers alike value the program’s rigorous, leading-edge courses taught by UW-Madison’s world-class faculty in tandem with leaders from the biotech industry.“This is a graduate-level biotechnology program of choice for technical professionals, scientists, attorneys and business strategists from around the country,” says Kurt J. Zimmerman, the program’s associate director. “In fact, 90 percent of our graduates cite a considerable impact on their careers even prior to graduation. This program enhances their ability to serve as technological entrepreneurs, facilitating product development and technology transfer — a role that is as valuable in a three-person startup as it is in a Fortune 500 enterprise.”How is this program transforming professionals into the future leaders of the biotechnology industry?Just ask some of the M.S. in Biotechnology Program’s recent graduates.Michael Bragin, Class of 2005A California native, Michael Bragin was no stranger to biotechnology.He had worked and attended school in what many consider to be the “birthplace of biotech” — San Francisco. He also gained significant business experience in biotech while at CIBC World Markets’ Healthcare Investment Banking Division in Menlo Park, Calif., where he helped chalk up more than $1.25 billion dollars in transactions relating to the life sciences.So when he set his sights on a graduate degree in biotech, you’d think he might have selected one of the Golden State’s prestigious university programs in the field.Think again.Bragin chose UW-Madison’s M.S. in Biotechnology Program, hands down.“What sets the UW program apart from others is the all-encompassing approach to business, science, law and ethics,” Bragin says. “It helps turn scientists into better business people, and vice versa.”While Bragin already had a strong business and economic background, he says he appreciated the program’s “firm commitment to teaching business, finance, marketing and management principles.”Not only did he strengthen his theoretical understanding of scientific principles, but he also found that he immediately could apply what he learned in practical settings.“While I was enrolled in the program, I worked for Bone Care International, Inc., in Madison,” he recalls. "Someone at work had been discussing the complications of running and interpreting results for certain tests on potential drug compounds, and right away I understood what they were talking about, as we had discussed these tests in class the week before."For Bragin, the UW’s M.S. in Biotechnology Program has paved his path to the future.Erik Dersch, Class of 2004As a Laboratory Technician working at the Monsanto Co.’s Agracetus Campus in Middleton, Wis., Erik Dersch had been putting his scientific background to good use. But after about two and a half years, he wanted to further his scientific career.“While I enjoyed my work on genetically modified soybeans, I didn’t want to limit myself to a graduate degree focused on soy genetics,” he says.Instead, he wanted to augment his scientific background with business courses.“But pursuing an MBA was not a good fit for me,” he says. “I wanted a more well-rounded science-business background. That’s why I chose UW-Madison’s M.S. in Biotechnology Program.”Dersch found that the program’s flexible format accommodated his full-time work schedule at Monsanto. Upon graduation, he was promoted to the position of Research Associate at the company, entailing a higher level of responsibility in the realm of research and development.“I bring more to the table now, as I have a stronger foundation in licensing, patenting, marketing and regulatory issues,” he notes. “I’m also pursuing science in its purest form, designing and performing experiments that could lead to patents. In short, I enjoy my work more.”topNCGR announces University and Industry collaboration to sequence genome pathogen of vegetablesDecember 15, 2005NGGR Press ReleaseSANTA FE - The National Center for Genome Resources (NCGR), in partnership with investigators at the Ohio State University, the Department of Energy (DOE) Joint Genome Institute (JGI), the University of Tennessee, and 454 Life Sciences Corporation announced today the receipt of awards totaling approximately $3M from the US Department of Agriculture-CSREES, the National Science Foundation and the DOE Community Sequencing Program to obtain the DNA sequence for the entire genome of a major pathogen of vegetable crops, Phytophthora capsici.Phytophthora capsici, a fungus-like oomycete, is a devastating pathogen of vegetable crops such as cucumber, squash, pumpkin, tomato, and pepper. First reported in the US in 1922 on chili peppers in New Mexico, P. capsici has spread widely to become a pathogen of national economic importance.Recently, P. capsici’s host range has expanded to include snap and lima beans. Sequencing the genome of P. capsici will provide the critical knowledge and tools needed to discover the genes that cause virulent outbreaks and determine host range and epidemiology of this pathogen. In turn, these studies will help farmers, breeders, and producers nationwide by development of improved diagnostics, resistant plant cultivars, and better control measures.“New Mexico has been a pioneer in genome sequencing and analysis,” said Governor Bill Richardson, who oversaw the Human Genome Project while Secretary for Energy. “These grants will allow this outstanding partnership to develop tools to fight a major economic threat to New Mexico’s farmers.”454 Life Sciences’ Measurement Service Center, located in Branford, Connecticut, will provide a comprehensive sequence of the genome of P. capsici. 454 Life Sciences’ novel technology greatly accelerates genome sequencing, making it possible to sequence and compare the genome of multiple strains that infect different vegetable crops and differ in virulence and resistance to antifungal agents.The collaborators will provide sequence information to researchers nationwide using the world-wide-web through the Phytophthora Functional Genomics Database (www.pfgd.org).topMaize genetics and genomics database available on websiteDecember 15, 2005USDA Agricultural Research ServiceLuis PonsNeed some detailed data on the genetics and genomics of maize? Then the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and Iowa State University (ISU) have just the website for you.The Maize Genetics and Genomics Database, also known as the MaizeGDB, offers loads of information on the traits, genetic sequences and other related features of maize (Zea mays L. ssp. mays), including those aspects having to do with breeding and crop improvement.The site is a portal to cutting-edge research on this staple crop, as well as to landmark work done decades ago. It also provides contact information for more than 2,400 cooperative researchers, along with web-based tools for ordering items such as maize stocks and cloned sequences.MaizeGDB was developed by geneticist Carolyn Lawrence and information technology specialists Trent Seigfried and Darwin Campbell at ARS' Corn Insects and Crop Genetics Research Unit in Ames, Iowa, in collaboration with ISU researcher Volker Brendel in Ames and geneticist Mary Schaeffer of ARS' Plant Genetics Research Unit in Columbia, Mo.According to Lawrence, the site presents maize information in a way that clearly summarizes biological relationships, and features easy-to-use computational tools. With it, a researcher can connect how a plant looks to the genetic sequences responsible for causing its phenotype.Lawrence explained that maize is much more than a source of food for both people and livestock worldwide. It's also used in the manufacture of diverse commodities including glue, paint, insecticides, toothpaste, rubber tires, rayon and molded plastics. It is also the nation's major source of ethanol.MaizeGDB is the successor to, and encapsulates the data from, two pioneer databases devoted to maize research: the Maize Database (MaizeDB), started by former ARS geneticist Ed Coe in 1991, and ZmDB, which was launched by the National Science Foundation-funded Maize Gene Discovery Project (MGDP).The MaizeGDB website can be accessed at http://www.maizegdb.org/.ARS is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's chief in-house scientific research agency.topOzone outlaw: U.S. continues major methyl bromide useDecember 15, 2005PANNAA special report for the International Day of No Pesticide Use*The Bush administration continues to play the role of global environmental outlaw, endangering public and environmental health while protecting polluting industries. Most recently, the U.S. government is reneging on commitments under the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances at a key meeting this week in Senegal. The U.S. is refusing to phaseout methyl bromide, a toxic pesticide and ozone-depleting chemical widely used on strawberries and tomatoes. Conventional growers in the United States inject methyl bromide gas into the soil in order to kill almost all living organisms before planting. Although growers cover the ground with plastic afterwards, the gas quickly escapes into the air, endangering the health of workers and local communities and enlarging the hole in the earth's stratospheric ozone layer. The Montreal Protocol, the 1987 global environmental treaty to stop the use of ozone-depleting chemicals, called for the phase-out of the use of methyl bromide in industrialized countries by January 2005. Countries that have signed the Montreal Protocol are meeting in Dakar, Senegal from December 12-16 to continue the phase-out of ozone-depleting chemicals. Once a strong supporter of the Protocol, the United States is now aggressively undermining the treaty and ignoring the treaty's limits, phase-out deadlines and reporting requirements. Instead of reducing its methyl bromide use as it had promised, the Bush administration is now demanding "emergency exemptions" to the phase-out totaling more than 6,500 tons of methyl bromide--more than any other country in the world--violating both the spirit and the letter of the treaty. "As countries around the world reduce their methyl bromide use, the U.S. government is back-tracking and actually encouraging methyl bromide users to continue their reliance on this terrible poison," says Monica Moore, Co-director of Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA). Methyl bromide breaks down in the stratosphere and releases bromine, which destroys ozone and allows the sun's ultraviolet rays to penetrate the earth's atmosphere more easily. Bromine is forty five times more damaging to ozone than chlorine, which is released from ozone-depleting substances such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The growing hole in the ozone layer means increasing rates of skin cancer and cataracts from UV exposures, disruption of aquatic food chains in the rich fisheries around the earth's poles, and other serious problems. Methyl bromide is also directly dangerous to health here on earth. The gas is an acutely toxic and highly volatile reproductive and nervous system poison. Animal studies indicate that exposures cause birth defects, repeated exposures cause neurobehavioral problems, and higher exposure levels can permanently damage the nervous system. A 2002 study of more than 55,000 agricultural workers and professional pesticide applicators singled out methyl bromide for its association with increased prostate cancer risk at all levels of exposure. In areas of California with high methyl bromide use (including Santa Cruz, Monterey and Ventura counties), many residents report chronic headaches, severe asthma attacks, nausea, sore throats and dry cough during methyl bromide season. The Modesto Bee reported the case of farmworker Arturo Becerra, who was fumigating an Oakdale almond orchard with methyl bromide in March 2004, when the hose broke and sprayed him in the face with the toxic pesticide. Becerra spent eight days nauseated and vomiting in the hospital. "My eyes and face felt tingly, and it felt like my eyes were going to pop out of my head," the Bee quotes Becerra describing the incident. Officials at Golden West Nuts now face charges in Stanislaus County Superior Court in the first criminal case of pesticide poisoning in California since 1991. Methyl bromide gas has also drifted from farm fields into schools to expose students to elevated levels of this toxic pesticide. Studies conducted by California Department of Pesticide Regulation in 2001 discovered alarming concentrations of methyl bromide in the air at least three public schools in Watsonville and Salinas, in California's Central Coast strawberry growing region. Methyl bromide levels at Pajaro Middle School in Watsonville, where most students are of Mexican descent, were found to be seven times higher than the level considered safe for children over a seven to eight-week period. Practical least toxic and non-chemical alternatives to most methyl bromide uses exist, and many more are being researched and need greater support. Well-proven alternatives include the time honored sustainable agriculture practice of crop rotation. "We rotate strawberries with broccoli, cauliflower, or brussel sprouts, and we haven't seen build up of soil pathogens," notes Patrick Troy of the Agriculture and Land-Based Training Association (ALBA), which trains new farmers in organic production in Salinas, California. Solarization, the practice of covering fields with plastic and allowing the sun to heat the soil to temperatures that kill plant pathogens has been shown to be more cost effective than methyl bromide under certain conditions. The sustained growth of organic production in the U.S, further underscores that alternatives to methyl bromide are available and feasible. "Methyl bromide is the most dangerous ozone-destroying chemical still in widespread use. But some factions in the pesticide industry have chosen denial and obstruction and are waging a campaign to stop or even reverse the phase-out of methyl bromide," David Doniger, Policy Director for the Climate Center for the Natural Resource Defense Council explains. "Their campaign, based on misrepresentation and innuendo, must not be allowed to succeed. Leaders who pander to their pressure are punishing those farmers who played by the rules, endangering the health of millions of Americans, and making our country into an international outlaw." To make your voice heard in upcoming actions to stop the use of methyl bromide, to the Pesticide Action Network North America's PAN Alerts service. Sources:Alavanja, Michael C. R., Claudine Samanic, Mustafa Dosemeci, et al. 2002. Use of Agricultural Pesticides and Prostate Cancer Risk in Agricultural Health. American Journal of Epidemiology, October, 2002. California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 2001. Summary of Ambient Air Monitoring for Methyl Bromide.http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/dprdocs/methbrom/msum2000.pdf topAgnet is produced by the Food Safety Network at the University of Guelph, and is supported by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Health Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, AGCare, the Agricultural Adaptation Council (CanAdapt Program), CropLife Canada, National Pork Board, ConAgra Foods, Inc, Monsanto Canada, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Ltd.,Food Safety & Security at Kansas State University, Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food , Canadian Animal Health Institute, Council for Biotechnology Information, Syngenta Seeds, Inc USA, Pfizer Animal Health, National Food Processor's Association, Potash and Phosphate Institute, Ag-West Bio Inc., Ontario Agri-Food Technologies, Feedlot Health Management Services, Syngenta Crop Protection Canada, Inc., Institute of Environmental Science and Research, Molecular Plant Breeding CRC, Tyson, Southern Crop Production Association, Canadian Grain Commission, Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Tactix Government Consulting, Inc., Oregon State University Dept of Forest Science, Global Public Affairs and Agri Business Group, Inc. The Food Safety Network's national toll-free line for obtaining food safety information: 1-866-50-FSNET (1-866-503-7638).The Food Safety Network presents a unique opportunity to bring together all those associated with agriculture and food, to enhance the safety of the food supply. To provide financial support to the Food Safety Network, please visit http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/en/donation.php. For information on collaboration or fee-for-service opportunities, please contact Dr. Doug Powell: dpowellTo to the html version of Agnet (subscription is free), send mail to:listservleave subject line blankin the body of the message type: agnet-L firstname lastnamei.e. agnet-L Doug Powell(replace agnet-L with agnettext to to the text version of agnet)To to the html version of Agnet, send mail to:listservleave subject line blankin the body of the message type:signoff agnet-L(replace agnet-L with agnettext to to the text version of agnet)For more information about the Agnet research program, please contact:Dr. Douglas PowellAssociate Professordept. of plant agricultureUniversity of GuelphGuelph, Ont.N1G 2W1tel: 519-824-4120 x54280cell: 519-835-3015fax: 519-763-8933dpowellhttp://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca The Food Safety Network's bilingual toll-free line for obtaining food safetyinformation: 1-866-50-FSNET (1-866-503-7638)archived at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet-archives.htm