Pro GM news- America's masterplan is to force GM food on the world

[Guest guest]

Agnet Feb. 13/06America's masterplan is to force GM food on the worldBiotechnology research provides look into futureAfrican journalists urged to go beyond biotech scare issuesBill would require labeling of genetically modified seedsThe grass stationA success story from PatagoniaOrganic food products to face mandatory testingMediterranean Fruit Fly; add portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Santa Clara Counties, CA, to the list of quarantined areasAvailability of environmental assessment for a proposed field trial of genetically engineered pink bollwormAvailability of environmental assessment for a proposed field trial of genetically engineered tall fescue and genetically engineered Italian ryegrassAmerica's masterplan is to force GM food on the worldFebruary 13, 2006The GuardianJohn VidalJust a few years ago, World Trade Organisation officials used to act hurt when described by social activists as irresponsible, secretive bureaucrats who trampled over national sovereignty and placed free trade over the environment or human rights. But that was when the global-trade policeman ruled on disputes that had little bearing on Europeans.The story says that the WTO court's latest ruling will greatly increase the number of people who believe the organisation needs radical reform, if not burial. This week three judges emerged after years of secret deliberation to rule that Europe had imposed a de facto ban on GM food imports between 1999 and 2003, violating WTO rules. The court also ruled that Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg had no legal grounds to impose their own unilateral import bans. "Europe guilty!" shouted the US press. "This is glorious news for the Bush administration," said one blogger.In fact the US has mostly won a lot of new enemies. Rather than going away, as the biotech companies and Washington fervently hoped, the opposition to GM foods seems to have been growing since 2004 when the case was brought to the WTO. Europe, its member states and its consumers all rejected the ruling last week, making the WTO look even more out of touch and incompetent to rule on issues about the environment, health and consumer choice.The European commission, which has been trying to force GM crops into Europe over the heads of its member states, says the ruling is "irrelevant" because its laws have already been changed. Meanwhile, individual countries who dislike being told what to eat or grow by the EC as much as the WTO say they will resist any attempts to make them accept GM.In the past few days Hungary has declared that it is in its economic interests to remain GM-free, and Greece and Austria have affirmed their total opposition to the crops. Italy has called the WTO ruling "unbalanced" and Poland's prime minister has pledged to keep the country GM-free. Local government is even more opposed: more than 3,500 elected councils in 170 regions of Europe have declared themselves GM-free.There is little the WTO, the EC or the US can do in face of this coalition of the unwilling. If the US again tries to impose its GM products on Europe - as it did in the 90s, sparking the whole debacle - the attempt will backfire. Europe's biotech industry may now try to force the EC to use the WTO judgment to get the six countries with import bans to repeal anti-GM laws, but it will meet an even broader, more determined movement.In fact, Washington and the US companies are not that bothered by Europe's predictable reaction. Europe has all but dropped off the world's GM map. The companies and the supermarkets know there is little or no demand for GM crops, and that Europe's subsidised farmers are reluctant to alienate the public further by growing them.It is now clear that the real reason the US took Europe to the WTO court was was to make it easier for its companies to prise open regulatory doors in China, India, south-east Asia, Latin America and Africa, where most US exports now go. This is where millions of tonnes of US food aid heads, and where US GM companies are desperate to have access, buying up seed companies and schmoozing presidents and prime ministers.topBiotechnology research provides look into futureFebruary 13, 2006AgriNewsTom C. DoranA peek into the future of biotechnology was provided at the Illinois Fertilizer and Chemical Association conference.Steve Padgett, chief agriculture researcher at Monsanto, presented a “What’s Coming Next in the Biotech Pipeline?” during the conference.Available to producers only in the last couple of years, Padgett said Roundup Ready 2 corn and YieldGard Rootworm corn have provided success.“The Roundup Ready 2 corn is doing very well. We had up to 22 million acres planted in the U.S. in 2005. It demonstrated yield improvement,” Padgett said. “This has really turned into a premier weed control system. We see its worldwide market increasing significantly.”YieldGard Rootworm corn recently earned the honors of being one of the top 100 inventions in 2005.“It usage doubled to about four to four and one-half million acres in 2005. It provides very consistent control, especially in years like last year,” Padgett said.He added it also showed a yield advantage of 10 to 20 bushels over competing germplasm with insecticide.“There is a real intense effort at Monsanto of putting together stacks that we’ll need in the market place,” Padgett said. “We’re really moving toward a very detailed and executed plan for delivering all of the traits that the customer needs in a single seed so that the choice of what trait to use will be here in that single seed.”Padgett went onto note some of the new traits that are being developed. Research in the Roundup Ready 2 soybeans has been positive, he said.“We’re seeing up to a five-bushel yield improvement compared to Roundup Ready soybeans out there today. We are working very, very diligently to get this trait into all germplasm for soybeans,” he said.“Another is dicamba resistance in soybeans. It’s really a great weed control option. This will come in stacked with the second generation Roundup Ready soybeans, and is in the early development stage.”Ways to battle against soybean rust also are being investigated at Monsanto.“We found a very interesting result. When we were able to spray Roundup Ready over the top of soybean plants later in the season and challenge them with rust, we actually see a reduction of rust incidents with Roundup treatment,” Padgett said.“This is an off-label application, which we can’t recommend right now, but this is a real phenomena. We’re excited about exploring the potential of developing rust mitigation procedures using Roundup, especially Roundup Ready 2 soybeans where we can spray higher and later in the year. This is not labeled for rust control now, but an exciting result.”Research for genes to increase yields continues at Monsanto.“Yield gene is kind of the holy grail of biotech. We’ve jumped into early development of looking at the yield gene,” Padgett e explained.Eventually, the plan is to place Roundup Ready 2 soybeans, dicamba-resistant soybeans and high-yield soybeans all in on single seed.“That is the plan we’re executing in the lab,” Padgett said.On the corn side, Padgett said a new product soon to enter the market is YieldGard second-generation corn borer. “This one has two BT genes in the second generation corn borer. Since we have two modes of action present there, we have the ability to enhance insect management because the insect will have less of a chance of getting resistance if you have two modes of action in there,” he said.Other seed research includes such areas as drought tolerance and improved water utilization, improved nitrogen utilization, and developments of seed to better benefit processors and consumers.Padgett also provided unique insight into research and development.Padgett has been with Monsanto for 21 years and said the company now focuses 100 percent in the area of agriculture, which was not the case when he started there.The company released its first biotech trait in the form of Roundup Ready soybeans in 1996. By 2004, global sales for seeds and traits reached $3 billion.He said bringing together biotech and breeding is something uniquely done by Monsanto.“When we go out and look for improved seeds, we’re looking whether we can get it through breeding. If we can get this trait through breeding, we’re going to absolutely go with the breeding side of things so there are not the regulations as there is for biotech,” he said.“There are some traits out there that you can’t get by breeding. In those cases, we’ll go with the biotech approach. But, even if we’re doing biotechnology on a trait, it’s linked up with breeding all through the cycle.”Padgett said the acceptance of biotechnology continues to grow.“You can see that the adoption of the biotech technology has been outstanding. Overall, 200 million acres or so were forecasted for (biotech seed planting) in 2005,” he said.“Based on the estimates that we see the biotech acreage increasing to 350 million acres worldwide by 2010. I think what we can see is the benefits are there — economic benefits, environmental benefits, solid record of safety.”topAfrican journalists urged to go beyond biotech scare issuesFebruary 13, 2006Homepage GhanaLinda Asante AgyeiADDIS ABABA - Mr Josue Dione, Director of the Sustainable Development Division of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), was cited as urging African journalists at the end of a three-day regional hands-on training for some journalists on "Improving Media Coverage on Biotechnology in Eastern and Central Africa" to go beyond the usual concentration on scare issues of biotechnology to harness it for progress and conservation, stating, "Biotechnology is a tool of great of opportunities and many challenges. Its potential impacts and benefits are enormous in the areas of agriculture development, health care, trade, environment and natural resources management, industry and energy development. No tool in recent times has been as scrutinized and beset with controversies as modern biotechnology and these controversies are particularly overwhelming in food and agriculture."He said there was the need for journalists to understand the issues of biotechnology and if "they understand the truth about biotech, then, they would be able to report more accurately in a manner that clarifies".The workshop was organized by the International Service for Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) AfriCentre based in Nairobi in collaboration with UNECA, UNESCO and Agricultural Biotechnology Support Program (ABSPII).topBill would require labeling of genetically modified seedsFebruary 13, 2006The Associated PressMark JohnsonA bill introduced in the New york State Legislature would, according to this story, require the labeling of all seeds that include genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.Organic farmers fear having their crops tainted from birds, insects or wind that could transmit pollen from GMO crops while many consumers fear there isn't enough information available on the long-range consequences of eating genetically modified foods or on their environmental impacts.Sarah Johnston, executive director of the Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York, which represents 650 farms, was quoted as saying, "Organic food is considered healthy because it's natural. The one thing genetically modified food is not is natural. Farmers are in some cases purchasing genetically modified seeds unbeknownst to them. At the very least, people need to know what they are purchasing."The story says that the measure, one of several bills around the country relating to genetically modified crops, is backed by the New York Farm Bureau and the Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York.Democratic Assemblyman Peter Rivera, a sponsor of the bill, was cited as saying that since GMO crops are patented, farmers also fear they could be sued for patent infringement. Republican state Sen. James Seward is sponsoring the bill in the Senate.Maureen Knapp, whose family owns an organic dairy farm in Preble, about 20 miles south of Syracuse, was quoted as saying, "Really there has not been enough testing done on the effects genetically modified crops have on people, the environment and animals. We grow crops to feed our animals and we do have conventional farmers all around us growing (pesticide resistant) corn. It's scary."topThe grass stationFebruary 11, 2006The New York TimesConstance Casey, a former New York City Parks Department gardener, who writes about gardening for Slate, says in this op-ed that those of us who labor in the garden got an unexpected thrill listening to the State of the Union last week when President Bush touted a plant, switch grass to be exact, as a way to "make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."How pleasing, writes Casey, to see official presidential recognition of the usefulness and worthiness of this common member (panicum virgatum) of the millet family. Previously insufficiently appreciated in our capital, switch grass is inexpensive food for cattle, horses, sheep and goats. This deep-rooted perennial controls erosion by slowing down water run off and keeping beneficial sediments in the field, and it is habitat for songbirds, game birds and waterfowl.And yes, ethanol can be made from switch grass, which grows in abundance on the prairies of the Great Plains. If grass had ambition (besides wanting to propagate), the panicum virgatum might see itself as a cure for global warming and a savior of the family farm. If burning compressed switch grass really does work to reduce the use of fossil fuels, it would reduce the carbon we release into the air. Then farmers could find new profits in growing the stuff. And the more, he better. Switch grass, like every other plant, takes carbon dioxide out of the air and uses it to build plant tissue. Fold that, Republicans, into your Clear Skies legislation.Switch grass cleans water as well as air; its wide-spreading roots filter out pesticides, herbicides and excess fertilizer before they reach the waterways. Up in Manitoba, Canada, where they care deeply about staying warm, they're experimenting with stoves that burn pellets of switch grass.Casey goes on to conclude that the clue to achieving clean fuel, clean air, clean water, world peace has been right there all the time in those "amber waves of grain."topA success story from PatagoniaFebruary 9, 2006FAO Press ReleaseRome - Pest control using low environmental impact technology has marked up another success with the eradication of the Mediterranean fruit fly in Argentina's Patagonia region through the use of a method known as the Sterile Insect Technique (SIT) in combination with other pest control and monitoring strategies.The successful implementation of these techniques was made possible thanks to years of technical support from the Joint FAO/International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) programme.The effectiveness of this integrated approach received official recognition from international plant health authorities in December 2005, when the Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States declared Argentina's Patagonia region to be fruit fly-free.This success crowned a decade of technical support provided to Argentina by the Joint FAO/International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Programme of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture. The Programme fielded one of its experts in Patagonia in the 1990s to advise the Argentine plant protection authorities on the use of SIT as part of an integrated pest control strategy.SIT involves sterilizing large numbers of insects by subjecting them to low levels of gamma radiation. Sterilized males are then released in infested areas, where they mate with fertile wild females but produce no offspring. If sterile males outnumber wild males, the wild population rapidly declines and gradually disappears."It is a birth control technology, which unlike most other pest control methods is ecologically friendly and cannot impact biodiversity or harm the environment. Since the released insects are sterile, they cannot become established in the ecosystems and thus have no potential to cause future adverse effects on the environment," explained Walther R. Enkerlin, a member of the joint FAO/AIEA programme, which for many years has promoted the application of atomic energy in agriculture.Mr Enkerlin also emphasized another benefit of SIT: sterile insects can be released from the air, even at high altitudes, resulting in a uniform distribution. It is therefore a feasible technique even in difficult-to-access habitats such as forests or mountains, or in protected areas."Animal and crop losses are reduced, while at the same time insecticide use is reduced as well, letting natural predators take on pests instead," he explained, emphasizing the advantages of SIT over conventional pesticides and insecticides, which destroy all types of fauna and can, in the case of substances containing neurotoxins, be dangerous to humans.Economic benefits to exportersAs a result of APHIS's decision to certify Patagonia as fruit fly-free, the region will now be able to export fresh fruits and vegetables - mostly pears and apples - to the U.S. without any quarantine requirements, which, according Argentina's Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria (SENASA), will add up to annual savings of about two million dollars for exporters. The most benefited production areas are Río Negro and Neuquén.Following this success, Argentina's Ministry of Agriculture has announced that it will fund a new integrated pest management programme, also involving SIT, over a 56 000 hectare area in the country's main citrus producing provinces of Entre Ríos and Corrientes, in the northeast.The results in Patagonia were possible thanks to close cooperation between several governmental and non-governmental organizations and producers, including Senasa and the Fundación Barrera Patagónica (FUNBAPA).Positive experiences in other countriesFAO and the AIEA have also helped Chile and Mexico to eradicate the Mediterranean fruit fly using SIT.Additionally, the technique was used to eradicate the screw-worm in North Africa in the early 1990s, with great success. There, FAO launched an intense eradication campaign involving the release of 40 million sterile males every week over an area of more than 40 000 square kilometres. The insects were flown by air from the only production centre existant at the time, in Mexico. That campaign was successfully completed in 1991.SIT has also been successfully used against other pests, including the Tsetse fly in Africa.The experience built up over years of work has been recently set out in a new FAO/AIEA book, Sterile Insect Technique: Principles and Practice in area-wide Integrated Pest Management, the first comprehensive analysis of SIT to be published.topOrganic food products to face mandatory testingFebruary 11, 2006Knight Ridder TribuneThe Economic Times, IndiaDELHI -- The Export Inspection Council of India (EICI) is working on an ambitious project for certification for organic food products from India. Being done in collaboration with European experts, the project would be a major boost for exporters in view of the growing potential for organic foods in western countries.Ms Shashi Sareen, director, EICI, was cited as saying the certification would cover both products as well as producers, and would involve tracking the history of the fields, the inputs used by farmers and the inputs used by the processing industries. For example, no farmer can obtain certification for an 'organic' products before proving that no chemicals are used in his field for at least three years.Ms Sareen told ET that the Council would also set up testing facilities for GM foods which are not accepted in some parts of the world. The testing procedure for GM foods would involve analysing their DNA structure. As of now, exporters have to get marine foods, dairy products, meat, poultry, egg products and honey certified by EICI.topMediterranean Fruit Fly; add portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Santa Clara Counties, CA, to the list of quarantined areasFebruary 13, 2006[Federal Register: (Volume 71, Number 29)][Page 7393-7395][DOCID:fr13fe06-1]7 CFR Part 301[Docket No. APHIS-2005-0116]AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.ACTION: Interim rule and request for comments.SUMMARY: We are amending the Mediterranean fruit fly regulations byadding portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Santa ClaraCounties, CA, to the list of quarantined areas and restricting theinterstate movement of regulated articles from those areas. This actionis necessary on an emergency basis to prevent the spread of theMediterranean fruit fly into noninfested areas of the United States. Weare also amending the regulations to provide for the use of spinosadbait spray as an alternative treatment for premises. This new treatmentoption will provide an alternative to the use of malathion bait spray for premises that produce regulated articles within the quarantined area but outside the infested core area.DATES: This interim rule was effective February 7, 2006. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before April 14, 2006.ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.govand, in the ``Search for Open Regulations'' box,select ``Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service'' from the agencydrop-down menu, then click on ``Submit.'' In the Docket ID column,select APHIS-2005-0116 to submit or view public comments and to viewsupporting and related materials available electronically. After the close of the comment period, the docket can be viewed using the ``Advanced Search'' function in Regulations.gov.Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copiesof your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2005-0116, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please statethat your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2005-0116.Reading Room: You may read any comments that we receive on thisdocket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 ofthe 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 tohelp 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. Wayne D. Burnett, National Fruit Fly Program Manager, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 134, Riverdale,MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-4387.topAvailability of environmental assessment for a proposed field trial of genetically engineered pink bollwormFebruary 13, 2006[Federal Register: (Volume 71, Number 29)][Page 7503-7504][DOCID:fr13fe06-28][Docket No. APHIS-2006-0015]AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.SUMMARY: We are advising the public that an environmental assessmenthas been prepared for a proposed field trial of pink bollwormgenetically engineered to express green fluorescence as a marker. TheAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) proposes to use thismarked strain to assess the effectiveness of lower doses of radiationto create sterile insects for its pink bollworm sterile insect program.This program, using sterile insect technique, has been conducted byAPHIS, with State and grower cooperation, since 1968. Data gained fromthis field experiment will be used to improve the current program. Theenvironmental assessment is available to the public for review and comment.DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before March15, 2006.ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.govand, in the ``Search for Open Regulations'' box,select ``Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service'' from the agencydrop-down menu, then click on ``Submit.'' In the Docket ID column,select APHIS-2006-0015 to submit or view public comments and to viewsupporting and related materials available electronically. After the close of the comment period, the docket can be viewed using the ``Advanced Search'' function in Regulations.gov.Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copiesof your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0015, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please statethat your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0015.Reading Room: You may read the environmental assessment and anycomments that we receive in our reading room. The reading room islocated in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street andIndependence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be suresomeone 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, BiotechnologyRegulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD20737-1236; (301) 734-0489. To obtain copies of the environmentalassessment, contact Ms. Ingrid Berlanger at (301) 734-4885; e-mail:ingrid.e.berlanger.topAvailability of environmental assessment for a proposed field trial of genetically engineered tall fescue and genetically engineered Italian ryegrassFebruary 13, 2006[Federal Register: (Volume 71, Number 29)][Page 7504-7505][DOCID:fr13fe06-29][Docket No. APHIS-2006-0016]AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.SUMMARY: We are advising the public that an environmental assessmenthas been prepared for a proposed field trial using three transgenicgrass lines. The trial consists of tall fescue plants that aregenetically engineered for hygromycin resistance and that express themarker beta-glucuronidase, Italian ryegrass plants that are geneticallyengineered for hygromycin resistance, and Italian ryegrass plants thatare genetically engineered to lower the expression of the pollenallergen gene, Lol p1, and that are also hygromycin resistant andexpress the marker beta-glucuronidase. The purpose of the field trialis to study pollen viability, outcrossing, and hybridization betweenthe two types of grasses. The study will also examine the effect ofdown-regulating the Lol p1 gene. Data gained from this field experimentwill also be used to evaluate current confinement practices for these species of transgenic grasses. The environmental assessment is available to the public for review and comment.DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before March15, 2006.ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.govand, in the ``Search for Open Regulations'' box,select ``Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service'' from the agencydrop-down menu, then click on ``Submit.'' In the Docket ID column,select APHIS-2006-0016 to submit or view public comments and to viewsupporting and related materials available electronically. After the close of the comment period, the docket can be viewed using the ``Advanced Search'' function in Regulations.gov.Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copiesof your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0016, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please statethat your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0016.Reading Room: You may read the environmental assessment and anycomments that we receive in our reading room. The reading room islocated in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street andIndependence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be suresomeone 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 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-0659. To obtain copies of the environmentalassessment, contact Ms. Ingrid Berlanger at (301) 734-4885; e-mail:ingrid.e.berlanger.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, JIFSAN, 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: dpowellFor 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