Pesticides linked to frog mutations

[Guest guest]

Agnet March 1/06 -- IIUS likely to enhance agricultural cooperation with India10-year ban proposed for genetically modified agricultureCypriot authorities rapped for GMO non-disclosureLeaked report: US misled the world on biotech foods "Victory": WTO ruling does not prevent countries from restricting or banning GM foodsThird floor perspectives... 'Stirring public fears without a valid scientific basis'What on earth is JIGMOD and what does science have to say about it?Papaya ripening genes identifiedChina to push biotech crop studiesPest-removing treatments examined for cherry packing operationsPesticides linked to frog mutationsHawaii's anthurium growers cope with plant diseasehow to US likely to enhance agricultural cooperation with IndiaMarch 1, 2006newKerala.comNEW DELHI - A knowledge initiative on agriculture with a $100 million commitment for research and further liberalisation of high-tech trade are among key announcements expected to mark President George W. Bush's three-day visit here beginning Wednesday evening."India needs a new, second 'green revolution'. And one of the things we're exploring in connection with this visit - and hopefully we'll announce - is an initiative between the US and India, a knowledge initiative on agriculture, that would be a three-year, $100-million commitment to enhance cooperation in this area," National Security Advisor Stephen Hardley said aboard Air Force One.In a transcript made available to media, Hardley said: "I think you'll see cooperation in other areas, in science and technology, and in a full range of issues in the relationship."Indicative of the US interest in enhancing collaboration with India is President Bush's planned visit to the Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University at Hyderabad Friday to interact with scientists and farmers who have adopted modern water efficient technologies, high yielding varieties of crops and also those using only organic manure and fertilisers.India's tie-up with US institutions in agriculture dates back to the 1960s when noted scientist Norman Borlaug played a key role in helping the country usher in a green revolution, paving way for self-sufficiency in food production. top10-year ban proposed for genetically modified agricultureMarch 1, 2006KHON2Gina MangieriHAWAII -- Field testing and growing some genetically modified Hawaii crops could, according to this story, be banned for 10 years, according to bills making their way through the legislature.Supporters say a moratorium is the only way to protect organic crops from genetically modified experiments. But opponents of the ban say it puts coffee and taro in great danger of succumbing to diseases.The story explains that taro is one of Hawaii's oldest crops. But it's at the heart of debate about modern genetically modified agriculture.Una Greenaway, an organic coffee grower, was quoted as saying, "Any abuse or disturbance to this sacred plant and family member is nothing short of genocide."Two state Senate committees vote next week on bills that would ban most testing and all growth of genetically modified coffee and taro for a decade. Supporters applaud the protection of authentic crops.Bill supporter Apolei Kahai Bargamento was quoted as saying, "There are unexpected genetic changes that could occur that could have a drastic effect upon our health."But opponents say it leaves Hawaii agriculture vulnerable to diseases genetic modification could counter.John Stiles of biotech agriculture company Integrated Coffee Technologies, was quoted as saying, "There are some very nasty coffee diseases out in other places in the world that are not here. I don't think it's a matter of them never getting here, I think it's a matter of when they get here and are we prepared for them?"The story adds that genetic modification is credited with saving Hawaii's papaya industry from the ringspot virus.Adolph Helm of Dow Agroscience on Molokai, was quoted as saying, "We believe all farmers should be able to freely choose their preferred growing methods, which could include using the tools of modern biotechnology as one way of improving plant varieties."Regulations already are enforced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But ban supporters say regulation doesn't give full protection from cross-pollination, or factors that might not yet be known.topCypriot authorities rapped for GMO non-disclosureMarch 1, 2006Reuters NICOSIA - Cyprus's public administration watchdog has, according to this story, rapped health authorities for keeping the public in the dark over foodstuffs on the market containing GMOs, a red flag for environmentalists.The Commissioner for Public Administration has upheld a complaint from the Greens Party that it had been wrongly refused access to the brand names of items ranging from baby food to soya sauces and corn snacks tested by the island's state lab for GMO content in 2003.Some of the foods which tested positive for genetically modified organisms carried "GMO-free" labels on their packaging.George Perdikis, a Green Party member of Cyprus's parliament, was quoted as saying on Tuesday that, "We've been asking for the list for two years. The excuse we have been hearing was that it was a violation of the data of the companies concerned."Last year a plan pursued by Cypriot legislators to put GMO food on separate supermarket shelves angered the United States, which warned the move could harm bilateral ties.Perdikis, who had supported the legislative bill, said he hoped parliament could take a vote on the subject before elections scheduled on May 21.topLeaked report: US misled the world on biotech foods "Victory": WTO ruling does not prevent countries from restricting or banning GM foodsFebruary 28, 2006Friends of the Earth Media Releasehttp://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0228-05.htmBRUSSELS / WASHINGTON - - Friends of the Earth International made available online today a confidential World Trade Organization ruling on the trade dispute on biotech, or genetically modified (GM) foods. [1]The 1000-page report, which was distributed earlier this month only to the countries involved in the dispute, was leaked to Friends of the Earth, which published today February 28 a preliminary analysis in the briefing 'Looking behind the US spin'. [2]The leaked report reveals that:Despite claims of victory by the US Administration and the biotechnology industry -widely reported in the media in February 2006- the three countries that started the trade dispute against the European Union (US, Canada and Argentina) failed to win most of their arguments;The World Trade Organization (WTO) did not rule on two of the most important questions, namely whether GM foods are effectively the same as non-GM foods and if they are safe."The WTO ruling is not a victory for the US administration and the biotech giants. Countries around the world should continue to enforce tough legislation protecting their citizens and the environment from the risks of genetically modified crops," said Juan Lopez, GM Campaign Coordinator of Friends of the Earth International.According to Friends of the Earth International the WTO is not and should not be the appropriate body to deal with conflicts between trade rules and environmental protection since it ignores the internationally recognised 'Precautionary Principle' and considers only trade principles.The leaked WTO report argues that:Europe's 4-year moratorium on GM Organisms (GMOs) only broke trade rules because it caused "undue delay" in the approval of new GM foods. The WTO dismissed eight other complaints in relation to the moratorium, and did not recommend any further action, since the moratorium ended in 2004.There was also an "undue delay" in the EU's approval procedures for over 20 specified biotech products. However, eleven other claims of the complainants related to the product-specific EU measures were dismissed by the WTO Panel.National bans by EU member states broke trade rules because the risk assessments used by the countries in question did not comply with the WTO requirements; "This is the report that the WTO didn't want the public to see. It reveals that the big corporations that stand behind the WTO failed to get the big win they were hoping for. Free trade proponents needed a clear victory in this dispute to be able to push governments in the EU and the developing world to accept genetically modified food. They failed and now is the time to build a consensus that the WTO, with its business-only agenda, is the wrong place to decide on what people eat and how we protect our environment," said Adrian Bebb, GMO campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe in Brussels.NOTES TO EDITORS:[1] The WTO report is available online in two parts at:http://www.foei.org/media/2006/WTO_report_descriptive.pdfhttp://www.foei.org/media/2006/WTO_report_findings.pdf[2] The Friends of the Earth preliminary analysis in the briefing 'Looking behind the US spin' is online athttp://www.foei.org/media/2006/WTO_briefing.pdftopThird floor perspectives... 'Stirring public fears without a valid scientific basis'March 1, 2006Donald Danforth Plant Science Center Via AgBioView at www.agbioworld.orgDr. Roger Beachy, Commentary from the President, The Leaflet, Fall 2005. http:// www.danforthcenter.org/newsmedia/leaflet/fall_05/fall05.pdfThe United States has led the world in innovative plant science, as well as in developing technologies that ensure a safe, secure and relatively inexpensive food supply. Yet, this same American innovation is under attack, not only by those outside our country but also by assailants within the U.S. who deliberately exploit unfounded public fears.The process of scientific research is immensely difficult, fraught with countless roadblocks and frequent failure. Scientists work very hard to ensure that their results are trustworthy and that public safety is never compromised. After all, as members of the public, scientists themselves and their families could be affected adversely if scientific findings were not soundly based or if regulatory policies were not carefully considered.Given the hurdles and difficulties of scientific research, it can truly be discouraging when useful agricultural technologies are attacked by those with no evidence to support their claims. Today, even though the United States Department of Agriculture has certified genetically improved crops as safe for consumption based on innumerable scientific studies and critical peer review, protest groups loudly denounce these crops as unsafe, using utterly implausible "what-if" scenarios to twist the facts.For example, a recent article in the Wall Street Journal unabashedly assailed genetically modified corn as contaminating organically-grown corn. The authors imply that such pollen transfer, if it occurs, would create a hazard to public health, when in fact all available data show otherwise. Such exploitation of public perception is completely reprehensible.Fortunately, the general public discounts this fear-mongering and understands the importance of plant science. For example, voters in Sonoma County, California resoundingly supported biotechnology and recently rejected a ballot initiative to ban biotechnology. But the battle is certainly not over.The imagination of scientists and their willingness to overcome failure constitute the ultimate basis for new technologies that improve our standard of living, help us to live longer, healthier lives, and ensure that we and our children will have an adequate supply of safe, nutritious food.When the huge natural barriers to achieving these goals are further complicated by those who deliberately stir public fear without a valid scientific basis for their concern, we risk compromising the security of our own lives and the lives of our children.topWhat on earth is JIGMOD and what does science have to say about it?February 15, 2006GMO PunditVia AgBioView at www.agbioworld.orghttp://GMOpundit.blogspot.com/2006/02/what-on-earth-is-jiGMOd-and-what-does.html8th of April 2006: Joint International GM Opposition Day (JIGMOD). 100 international organizations from more than 40 countries are now announcing April 8, 2006 as a Joint International GM Opposition Day. The day will feature major public events in several of these countries to demonstrate continuing global opposition to genetically modified foods and crops .....( more details at the end)Anti-GMO organisations seem to be staging a big talk-fest in Paris April 2006. Good time, Good place, the Pundit would love to be there, and maybe even attend some of the conference.It will be interesting to see though whether this is pure street theatre, or whether there is any scientific substance to the stream of press releases, letters, and long signature lists that will flood the media around that time.People associated with JIGMOD have been circulating a MEMORANDUM containing a list of scare stories about GM technology. Almost all of this MEMORANDUM is wrong or misleading, or is based on unsubstantiated newspaper stories started by the sponsor's of JIGMODThe assist appreciation of how these Green scares are mostly misleading, RED colour coded of rebbutals are provided within the text of the MEMORANDUM reproduced below. A more detailed annotation of the MEMORANDUM is given here.In this JIGMOD document here is only one case where the science quoted in this Green listing of scares is substantial enough to allow a realistic GM issue risk to be raised. This issue concerns the Australian CSIRO GMO pea which is not in any case proceeding further as a commercial project, and about which there is no dispute about the main scientific findings.Because of the known properties of the digestion-antagonist (transgenic inhibitor) used in the CSIRO pea experiments, which was originally present in beans, special attention was placed on the evaluation of its safety by reguatory guidelines, and this attention was merited by the known history of similar inhibitors. In the Pundit's view, this case shows that cautious introduction of GM crops is proceeding with appropriate attention to safety.Generally speaking, the current generation of genetically modified (GM) crops have been shown to greatly reduce risks to the health of the population and the environment, and, indeed, to make positive contributions to both. Present knowledge is sufficient to safely and predictably modify the plant genome, and the proof is, these crops have been planted on over hundreds of millions acres worldwide and have reliably performed just as intended. These crops perform so well in fact, that farmers in Brazil, India, China, Mexico, France, Russia and Thailand have defied government bans and turned to the black market in order to access this technology.Read on athttp://GMOpundit.blogspot.com/2006/02/what-on-earth-is-jiGMOd-and-what-does.htmltopPapaya ripening genes identifiedMarch 1, 2006Global Knowledge Center On Crop Biotechnologyhttp://www.isaaa.org/Papaya is an important fruit for the tropics, where it is used in both the food and cosmetics industries.As a result, studies are on the way on the the papaya’s genome, in order to identify candidate genes that may be used to improve the nutritional quality of papaya through marker-assisted breeding or genetic engineering. Luke C. Devitt and colleagues of the Queensland Agricultural Biotechnology Center contribute their findings as they report the “Discovery of genes associated with fruit ripening in Carica papaya using expressed sequence tags.” Their work appears in a recent issue of Plant Science.To identify genes involved in papaya fruit ripening, researchers generated a total of 1171 expressed sequence tags (ESTs) from clones of two independent fruit cDNA libraries derived from yellow and red-fleshed fruit varieties. ESTs are short DNA fragments of expressed genes. They have been used extensively and effectively in a number of fruit species as a tool for rapid gene discovery.Researchers found that the most abundant gene sequences isolated were those coding for the enzymes chitinase, which breaks down chitin; 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC) oxidase, which controls the release of ethylene in plants; catalase, which breaks down harmful hydrogen peroxide into hydrogen and water; and methionine synthase, which processes amino acids. Researchers also found putative genes contributing to fruit softening, among them cell wall hydrolases, cell membrane hydrolases, and ethylene synthesis and regulation sequences. By comparing ESTs with gene sequences in other plant species, researchers identified expressed papaya genes which could play a role in fruit aroma and color.topChina to push biotech crop studiesMarch 1, 2006Global Knowledge Center On Crop Biotechnologyhttp://www.isaaa.org/China is prepared to work toward finding wider applications of agricultural biotechnology in the next five years, since the sector’s growth is important to the country’s overall development.According to Qi Chengyuan, director of the High and New Technology Department under the National Development and Reform Committee, the country has already drafted its biotech development strategy for 2006-2010. Within the strategy are efforts to develop biotech seeds for major crops and to increase investment in biosafety monitoring, and the establishment of a new biosafety committee.Zhu Zhen, leading promoter of genetically modified (GM) rice technology in China, believes the strategy will help increase the number of biotech applications in agriculture. “The better regulation of the GM plants is a good thing,” Zhu says, “With more biosafety and environmental scientists joining the review team for GM crops, the team will have more direct experience on the safety and efficiency of GM technology."According to the China Bio-Industrial Report, released by the China National Center of Biotechnology Development (CNCBD), the Ministry of Agriculture has approved as of mid-2003 585 GM plant experiments, including 154 environmental releases and 48 pre-production trials. The Chinese Government approved commercialization of GM cotton, tomato, pepper, and a species of morning glory in the late 1990’s.Read the complete article at http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/ english/doc/2006-02/14/content_519769.htm. Fore more information, write to the China Agricultural Biotechnology Information Center (CABIC) at cabic.topPest-removing treatments examined for cherry packing operationsMarch 1, 2006 ARS News ServiceUsing food-grade surfactants, Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists in Wapato, Wash., are testing a new method of ridding packed sweet cherries of mites, thrips and other surface-feeding pests.According to ARS entomologist Jim Hansen, such pests pose more of a consumer-marketing problem than a field-production one, since they can occur on sweet cherries that have been packed for domestic sale or export. In addition to culling and sorting measures, Hansen is experimenting with dips, baths and sprays containing polydimethyl silicone emulsions and other food-grade surfactants, which, in effect, wash the pests off the cherries' surface.Surfactants are typically used as wetting or dispersing agents in products ranging from soaps and shampoos to paints and insecticides. But recent studies by Hansen and others have shown that some silicone-based surfactants will remove spider mites, thrips and mealy bugs from apples and pears.Hansen's surfactant studies at ARS' Fruit and Vegetable Insect Research Unit in Wapato kicked into high gear in 2005 when ARS entered into a research agreement with the California Cherry Advisory Board (CCAB). The collaboration makes sense since Washington and California are the nation's top two sweet cherry producers, exporting more than half their fresh-market harvests.Besides fruit quality, the success of international sales hinges on U.S. cherry exporters' ensuring pest- and disease-free shipments to avoid rejection or delay of the shipments at the trader's port.Under the ARS-CCAB agreement, Hansen is conducting research to identify emulsifiers and other surfactants that will remove a variety of pests. He's also looking for ways to identify exposure times that won't delay online packing operations, as well as ways to compare the effectiveness of spraying cherries versus immersing them in surfactants. In a supporting study, Hansen's collaborators at the University of California-Davis examined surfactant-treated cherries for fruit damage, but they found nothing significant.topPesticides linked to frog mutationsFebruary 28, 2006Pesticide Action Network North Americahttp://www.panna.orgAccording to two new related studies by scientists at the University of California at Berkeley, commonly used pesticides disrupt the development of sex organs in frogs, weaken their immune systems, delay and stunt development, and otherwise contribute to declining frog populations."If you look at one of these frogs, it's probably a hermaphrodite - plus, it metamorphoses late, which means it is subject to its pool drying up before it can become a frog," said lead researcher Tyrone Hayes, professor of integrative biology at U.C. Berkeley, and a Pesticide Action Network associate. "It's also smaller, if it metamorphoses at all, which increases the likelihood it will be eaten and decreases its ability to eat. Plus, it's immuno-suppressed, and more prone to die from infection." The group observed that mixtures of pesticides that accumulate in ponds near farms increased frog stress hormone levels, creating holes in the thymus gland that likely causes the impaired immune response."It's not the pesticides alone or introduced predators or ultraviolet light or global warming that's causing this decline, but the interaction between these on an animal that is pretty sensitive to its environment," said Hayes.In research conducted four years ago, Hayes showed that atrazine, the most common weed killer used on corn in the United States, disrupts the sexual development of frogs by producing more hermaphrodites, decreasing the size of their vocal organs (critical to mating success), and causing a tenfold drop in testosterone in mature male frogs.In one of the studies published online in Environmental Health Perspectives, Hayes reported even stronger evidence that atrazine, a powerful endocrine disruptor, both chemically castrates male frogs by blocking the action of the male steroid androgen and by stimulating the production of the female hormone estrogen. He was able to produce identical hermaphroditic malformations in frogs by administering estrogen or blocking androgen at the proper time of development."One week of exposure at the critical time is all that's required to make these males look feminine, which probably interferes with mating," he said. While noting that some frogs seem to adapt to atrazine by delaying development, presumably so that the critical developmental period takes place when the herbicide is at its lowest, Hayes suspects that not all frogs would adapt quickly enough to survive. Plus, delayed maturation comes at the risk of having the pond turn into a puddle and dry up before the frog completely metamorphoses.In the other study also published online in Environmental Health Perspectives, Hayes looked at the combined effect of various pesticides on the health of frogs. His research group again examined atrazine as well as three other herbicides, two fungicides and three insecticides used on Midwestern cornfields. All nine were found in the scientists' study area in Nebraska in pools of water beside cornfields early in the growing season, when spraying typically occurs. Levels ranged from 0.1 parts per billion (ppb) to 10 or more ppb.Hayes and his colleagues analyzed four years of data indicating that while some of the pesticides, herbicides and fungicides used on corn fields may not by themselves have a noticeable impact on frogs, in combination they create significant effects. Among these are delayed maturation (the tadpoles take longer to metamorphose into frogs), retarded growth, and an increased susceptibility to meningitis caused by normally benign bacteria.When pesticides were combined, they had a stronger effect. All nine compounds together at 0.1 ppb - one of the lower concentrations measured in the field - lengthened the time to metamorphosis by 15 days, or about 25 to 30 percent. The mixture also caused a frog mortality of 35 percent.All nine compounds together also produced a startling effect: the longer a tadpole took to mature into a frog, the smaller it was. It's normally the other way around, Hayes said. Separately, six of the pesticides did not affect this correlation, but three disrupted frog metamorphosis to the degree that there was no relationship between time and size. "In humans, this is like saying, 'The longer you are pregnant, the smaller your baby will be,' which means the womb is no longer a nurturing environment," Hayes said."Estimating the ecological risk and the impact of pesticides on amphibians using studies that examine single pesticides at high concentrations only may lead to gross underestimations of the role of pesticides in amphibian declines," Hayes concluded.Hayes' laboratory colleagues were UC Berkeley students Paola Case, Sarah Chui, Duc Chung, Cathryn Haefele, Kelly Haston, Melissa Lee, Vien Pheng Mai, Youssra Marjuoa, John Parker and Mable Tsui. Co-authors on the atrazine paper were former UC Berkeley students A. Ali Stuart, Atif Collins, Nigel Noriega, Aaron Vonk, Gwynne Johnston and Dzifa Kpodzo, and current students Magdalena Mendoza and Roger Liu.The work was supported by the National Science Foundation, Henry H. Wheeler, the Park Water Co. and the Howard Hughes Biology Scholars' Program.Sources:Hayes, Tyrone B., et al. 2006. "Pesticide mixtures, Endocrine disruption, and amphibian declines: Are we underestimating the impact?" Environmental Health Perspectives Online , published January 24th, 2006.http://www.ehponline.org/members/2006/8051/8051.pdfHayes, Tyrone B., et al. 2006. " Characterization of atrazine-induced gonadal malformations in African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis) and comparisons with effects of an androgen antagonist (cyproterone acetate) and exogenous estrogen (estradiol 17Beta]): Support for the demasculinization /feminization hypothesis." Environmental Health Perspectives Online , published January 24th, 2006. http://www.ehponline.org/members/2006/8067/8067.pdfContact:PannatopHawaii's anthurium growers cope with plant diseaseMarch 1, 2006American Phytopathological SocietySt. Paul, Minn. – A destructive pathogen is impacting Hawaii’s production of anthuriums, a plant known for its heart-shaped flower and leaves, say plant pathologists with The American Phytopathological Society (APS).Anthuriums’s flower portion, or spathe, is available in a variety of colors including brilliant shades of red, orange, pink, and salmon. Although they originated in Central America, anthuriums are now the most important cut flowers in the Hawaiian floriculture industry, said Anne Alvarez, Department of Plant and Environmental Protection Sciences, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. In 2004, Hawaii’s cut flower sales were valued at $13.1 million, with anthuriums ranking as the top seller at $4.7 million. At the peak of production in the early 1980s, Hawaii was supplying up to 232,000 dozen flowers per month to the world.Anthurium production levels have been significantly reduced due to bacterial blight caused by the bacterial pathogen Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. dieffenbachiae. This disease was first reported in Kauai, HI in 1971 but had little impact on the industry until 1981 when plants began to die in large numbers on farms in Hilo, HI. “Once introduced into a new growing area, bacterial blight may result in 50-100 percent loss of plants,” said Alvarez.The disease reached epidemic proportions during 1985-1989, destroying the production of approximately 200 small farms existent in Hawaii at the time. During the 1980s, Hawaii’s anthurium production dropped from a record high of approximately 30 million stems to 15.6 million stems in 1990. Following implementation of an integrated disease management program, losses were eventually reduced to five percent or less, Alvarez said.Various components of an integrated disease management program for anthurium blight include sanitation, disinfection of harvesting containers, chemical sprays, modification of cultural practices, production of pathogen-free planting stocks in vitro, use of resistant cultivars, and biological control.More information on anthuriums is available on the APS website at http://www.apsnet.org/online/feature/anthurium. APS is a non-profit, professional scientific organization. The research of the organization’s 5,000 worldwide members advances the understanding of the science of plant pathology and its application to plant health.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: 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)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