SnowBall archive


GE - news march 9th and 10th

lots more on Pusztai giving evidence, amongst other articles
apologies but I have no time for a contents list on this one
>From the Press Association 
Wednesday March 10, 1999 4:05 am
Supermarkets brave enough to ban all genetically modified (GM) foods would 
attract a flood of new customers worried about the possible effects of 
modification, a new survey suggests.
Iceland, the frozen food specialist, remains the only major supermarket 
chain that has introduced a total ban on GM ingredients in its own-label 
Some 86% of consumers questioned in a poll for Here's Health magazine said 
they would switch to a different supermarket if it banned all such 
On top of this, 84% of the same sample of 1,030 shoppers said they would 
be willing to travel double the distance it normally takes to visit their 
supermarket if they could be sure of shopping in a GM-free environment.
The effects of previous food scares such as BSE appear to have had a 
profound impact on consumer confidence with 77% of respondents stating 
they are still worried about the threat of "Mad Cow Disease" and 93% being 
dismayed at the lack of clear labelling on the foodstuffs they buy.
Faced with the vast array of health claims on their food the survey 
revealed that "additive-free" (73%) and "natural" (72%) are the two labels 
most attractive to shoppers.
But despite their wish to eat a healthier diet, only 20% of those surveyed 
thought they managed to achieve this due to the levels of pesticides, 
additives and genetic modification.
Consumers said they can be influenced to buy a particular product if they 
see it recommended in a newspaper or magazine (51%), while 43% said they 
paid attention to recommendations from friends and 29% of consumers tended 
to reach for well-known brands.
Elaine Griffiths, expert editor of Here's Health, said: "Food safety is 
the issue of our times.
"Supermarkets wise enough and brave enough to ban genetically modified 
foods and provide an increasing range of organic products wills secure a 
flood of new customers."
The Independent (London) March 9, 1999, SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 8 
Science Editor Pusztai: Suspended over row on safety of GM food BODY: 
SCIENTISTS at the centre of the controversy over genetically modified 
clashed last night over crucial statements issued about the results of 
experiments on rats fed on GM potatoes. Arpad Pusztai, who was 
last year from the Rowett Research Institute, near Aberdeen, after 
suggesting GM food is unsafe, told the House of Commons Science and 
Technology Committee he had never been shown press releases about his 
issued by the institute. 
He said subsequent confusion in the press over what sort of lectin - 
toxins - had been used in the experiment would not have arisen if he 
been able to see the press releases before they went out. 
His institute said that Dr Pusztai had become confused about the 
"con A" 
lectin and another lectin from the snowdrop plant, which is why he was 
Dr Pusztai's boss, Philip James, the director of the Rowett 
told the committee Dr Pusztai had ample opportunity to correct any 
inaccuracies in the press releases. This contradicted Dr Pusztai's 
to the committee that he had not seen the press releases until they 
had been 
Professor James said that Dr Pusztai had referred to experiments on 
the con 
A lectin, when these experiments had not in fact been carried out at 
time of his interview on television. 
"It's been quite astonishing how events have been misrepresented," 
Professor James said. He said that Dr Pusztai had not only seen a copy 
the press release referring to the experiments but that he had 
rewritten a 
part of it. "Dr Pusztai had actually presented information that turned 
to be untrue, there was confusion in his group and his collaborators 
outraged," Professor James said. 
Dr Pusztai told the committee that after the television broadcast 
people phoned him about the con A lectin experiment, whereas in fact 
he had 
referred only to the snowdrop lectin experiment. Dr Pusztai also said 
he had 
not seen a press release issued by World in Action, which instigated 
publicity that led to his dismissal. 

HEADLINE: AgrEvo Continues to Pursue LibertyLink Soybean Approvals 
DATELINE: MINNEAPOLIS, March 9 BODY: AgrEvo USA Company officials 
announced they will continue seeking international regulatory 
for LibertyLink(R) soybeans with the support of the American Soybean 
Association (ASA). The two groups will collaborate closely to 
technical questions are answered and public policy makers have access 
the information they seek. 
"We are confident that European Union (EU) and Japanese 
regulators will confirm the safety determinations made earlier 
in the USA. By working together, we hope to advance the 
submissions within the existing legal frameworks," said Glen 
Donald, AgrEvo Vice President of Marketing. Soybean-industry 
groups agree the LibertyLink Soybean system is an important new 
production technology that will provide farmers improved weed 
control options that are friendly to the environment. This 
technology is currently available to North American corn and 
canola producers and is clearly benefiting them. This 
cooperative effort with ASA will result in making LibertyLink 
Soybeans available to US soybean farmers as soon as possible. 
AgrEvo will not offer LibertyLink Soybeans for retail sale in 
spring 1999. This action demonstrates AgrEvo's commitment to 
working with commodity groups like the ASA. 
AgrEvo is a global leader in biotechnology, seeds, crop 
protection and environmental health. The company markets 
globally a wide range of products for enhancing crop production, 
together with applications for urban pest control. AgrEvo 
operates in more than 70 countries with approximately 8,500 
employees. For more information visit the company's website at 
LibertyLink(R) is a registered trademark of Hoechst Schering 
AgrEvo GmbH. SOURCE AgrEvo USA Company 
CONTACT: Mike O'Brien of AgrEvo USA Company, 

HEADLINE: FED: Aussies to judge risks/benefits of gene technology 
By Melissa Langerman BODY: CANBERRA, March 9 AAP - Fourteen 
will this week serve as judge and jury on the dangers and benefits 
advances in gene technology in the country's food chain. The 
conference on gene technology, the first of its type in Australia, 
begin tomorrow at Old Parliament House when the panel quizzes 
experts on 
issues including the acceptable risks of genetically modified foods 
potential negative impacts. 
Scientists, religious and moral experts, agricultural 
organisations and consumer groups will also answer questions on 
ethical issues, the role of multinational corporations and the 
effect for Australia if it rejects gene technology advances. 
Further questioning will follow on Thursday and the panel 
will present a report, or judgment, on their findings on Friday. 
The conference, organised by the Australian Museum, comes as 
federal and state governments consider a new regulatory 
framework for gene technology. It follows overseas 
conferences involving similar citizens' panels to get a layman's 
view on controversial issues. 
"We are very excited about this conference and confident 
that it will achieve greater understanding between government, 
industry, science and the community about gene technology in the 
food chain," conference steering committee chair Sir Laurence 
Street said in a statement. 
"This will be the first time this methodology has been used 
in Australia and the first time such a wide range of views on 
gene technology will be brought together, and each given a fair 
The 14-member panel was chosen from 200 respondents to a 
newspaper advertisement calling for citizen participation in a 
national scientific research project. 
Picked to represent all aspects of Australia's social and 
demographic profile, they range in age from 19 to 57 years, come 
from across Australia and from a wide range of educational, 
ethnic and occupational backgrounds. None have any prior 
knowledge or experience of gene technology. 
Belfast Telegraph March 9, 1999 HEADLINE: Letters: GM bottom line 
unknown BODY: I FEEL I must respond to the article (Belfast 
February 25) by Professor Ian Rowland, Sean Strain and David 
regarding genetically modified food. It is true, as the authors 
that humankind has been altering the genes of plants for centuries 
through selective breeding in order to improve plant characteristics 
as yield and growth. While this type of genetic 
alteration may be peripherally linked with the modern techniques of 
modification, the 
relationship ends there. These scientists have failed to mention 
that the scientific community has no real idea what the side 
effects of mixing genes from unrelated plants, or, indeed, 
plants and animals, might be. 
They have no evidence about what the potential ramifications 
for human health and the environment might be. There appear to 
be no negative effects now but what about over the long-term? 
At the time that Thalidomide was first prescribed, doctors 
had no clue as to the side effects for pregnant women and their 
While problems as critical as that are not likely to occur 
from eating genetically modified food, the bottom line is that 
we really don't know. STEPHEN WINN, 
Belfast 15. 
GENOCIDE DANGER: There are two blatant facts about GM foods: 
first and foremost they are dangerous and, second, we are being 
told to believe they are safe. Unfortunately for us, the pro-GM 
food lobby has unlimited financial resources and those on the 
other side have precious little. We all know that there is a 
shortage of money and we also know that there is an infinite 
supply of credit. The multi- national food conglomerates which 
straddle the globe have unlimited access to credit. 
The ancient tradition of saving seed for the next harvest 
goes back to biblical times and earlier. Whole nations die when 
seed fails them. Selling genetically modified seed to poor 
countries, seed that will not produce next season's crop, is 
potential genocide on a massive scale. 
Founder member, Institute of 
General Practitioners, 
President, British Association 
for Monetary Reform, Surrey. 

Calgary Herald March 09, 1999, FINAL SECTION: Opinion; A12 
biotech goals BODY: While an attack of the killer tomatoes is not 
imminent, this past weekend's conference on biotechnology 
illustrates an 
increasingly urgent need for a protocol on genetically engineered 
The science of designer foods -- changing the genetic makeup of 
potatoes, for example, to make them more resistant to pests -- is 
developing at a faster pace than the public's understanding of the 
In the same way that research on human genetics, such as cloning, 
has far 
outstripped society's efforts to grapple with 
the moral implications, so too are there dangers in tinkering 
with the world's food supply without grasping the consequences. 
There are clearly many positives to biotech products. Some 
genetically enhanced plants can better resist disease, better 
tolerate harsh climates and, in some cases, provide improved 
nutrition. But the effects of these new strains on humans, the 
environment and other species, plus the potential for disruption 
of the world's food production and distribution systems are 
still largely unknown. 
As the conference's panel wisely recommended, Canada needs to 
establish guidelines, set policy and outline goals before 
proceeding. Just because scientists have the know-how to create 
this next generation of super foods, doesn't necessarily mean 
that doing so is in the nation's best interests. 
Daily Record March 9, 1999, Tuesday SECTION: Page 20 HEADLINE: I'VE 
SCIENTIST'S OWN STORY BODY: THE scientist who sparked the 
food scare told MPs last night: "I would do it all again." Dr Arpad 
Pusztai, who was forced to retire from the Rowett Institute in 
following his claims, said people were being used as "guinea pigs". 
said more needed to be known about genetically -modified food 
before it 
was released to the public. And asked if his work raised new concerns 
GM foods, he told the Commons Science and Technology committee: "I 
Moments later, his former boss Professor Philip James - 
director of the Rowett Institute - disputed what Pusztai had to 
Mr James said that far from throwing Dr Pusztai to the 
wolves, he had spent 48 hours defending him even though there 
were serious holes in his scientific work. 
The row blew up last year when the scientist told World in 
Action that rats he had fed on GM potatoes suffered stunted 
growth and weight loss. Later, Dr Pusztai was suspended from 
the Rowett and his findings discredited by Professor James. 
But last month, a group of independent scientists said the 
Hungarian- born doctor was right and pressure groups demanded a 
freeze on GM crops. At the height of the ensuing media 
scare, Prime Minister Tony Blair publicly stated that his family 
were happy to eat GM foods. 
Yesterday, Dr Pusztai said the GM foods industry was being 
allowed to develop on the basis of one scientific paper. 
He said: "That is not good enough for me. This is a new 
technology. We must have a new technology in testing 
Asked whether he still thought he was right to blow the 
whistle on GM foods, Dr Pusztai said: "Yes. Yes. I have never 
changed my mind about it. "What we had to put over and I 
think I possibly did it too well, was that based on our 
experiments there ought to be a concern." 
Although Dr Pusztai admitted he did not realise the 
significance of what he said on World in Action or how the 
public would react, he defended his 150-second contribution. 
He said: "It was a long-standing policy of the Institute to 
have a cautious approach to GM- related matters and they felt, 
including Professor James, that the route we had to take should 
be a very, very gradual and well- researched route." 
The doctor also told how he had been effectively gagged by a 
letter sent to him by Mr James after he appeared on the World in 
Action programme. Dr Pusztai said: "He said what I could do 
and what I could not do. Most of it was what I could not do. 
"It was a bit of a shock because it is not a situation I 
ever expected to be in." 
Dr Pusztai also criticised the committee set up to assess 
the evidence for and against GM food, saying there were too few 
practising scientists on it. Supermarket chain Asda said 
yesterday that as part of a policy to eliminate GM ingredients 
from its products, it had signed a deal for GM- free crops. 

The Gazette (Montreal) March 09, 1999, FINAL SECTION: Editorial / 
B2 HEADLINE: Little confidence in biotech BODY: Perhaps Douglas 
Powell of 
the University of Guelph's plant agriculture department (Letters, 
March 1) 
is too trusting. He writes, ''When a potential risk is identified, an 
appropriate management scheme can be developed, one that maximizes the 
benefits of a particular technology while minimizing the risks.'' 
Gulp: the 
tone is pure biotech PR, not something to inspire confidence, 
unfortunately. He must be aware that the efforts of 170 countries at a 
conference in Cartagena, Colombia, to hammer out a policy to ensure 
trade in genetically modified organisms have just been thwarted by 
United States (read biotech companies). If genetically engineered 
are so innocuous, as Professor Powell would have us believe, why are 
biotech companies so up-tight about telling us about them? 
Their ''out of sight, out of mind'' attitude doesn't inspire public 
confidence. Neither do Professor Powell's ''relax, don't worry'' 
''The agricultural products of biotech technology are increasingly 
grown by 
North America because they are safe, and in many cases yield a good 
on investment for farmers.'' 
Sure. Such platitudes are little more than biotech-company fluff, 
or his 
own wishful thinking. Why not give consumers the information we 
Unfortunately, Monsanto, Dow and other companies are adamant that we 
stay in 
the dark, that the results of their tinkering remain unlabeled. 
powerful companies sabotaged a treaty that 170 countries were willing 
sign. Apparently, safety and the information to make informed 
decisions must 
take a back seat to biotrade and short-term profits. Guelph's plant 
agriculture department should be on the side of the consumer to 
provide us 
with needed information, rather than in bed with the biotech giants. 
Patrick Vallely Montreal 

The Independent (London) March 9, 1999, Tuesday SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 
HEADLINE: THE HOUSE BODY: GM animals Some 350,000 genetically 
animals were produced and bred in the UK for scientific 
experiments, the 
Home Office minister Lord Williams of Mostyn said. Today's agenda 
Commons: 2.30pm: Questions on Environment, the Regions and 
Budget speech by Gordon Brown; Budget debate opened by William 
Debate on long -term care funding. Lords: 2.30pm: Trustee Delegation 
Bill; Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill; Debate on European 
airline competition; Births and Deaths Registration Bill; 
Obscenity Bill; Rent Acts Order. 

The Independent (London) March 9, 1999, Tuesday SECTION: COMMENT; 
Pg. 2 
Letter: Interfere for nature Sir: I am a retired British citizen 
with no 
connection to the food industry apart from the pleasure of eating. 
crops will provide the last nail in the coffin of the ecology of 
sceptered isle which has been under sustained attack from the 
companies for years. Inspired by the slogans of cheap food and larger 
profits we have watched wildlife rapidly disappear under attack from 
herbicides and pesticides and are in a fair way to producing a 
When we came to live here on the outskirts of Bromley, Kent, 
in 1959, bats were commonplace and owls could be heard calling 
at night; all have gone. The wheeling flocks of peewits in the 
Vale of Keston were a joy, as was the song of the skylark; all 
have gone. House martins, once common, have gone. We used to be 
awakened by a glorious dawn chorus in the summer; no more. The 
latest casualties are sparrows and starlings. 
Politicians seem to be unaware or lack the moral fibre and 
guts to stand up and be counted. 
Bromley, Kent 

The Irish Times March 9, 1999, CITY EDITION SECTION: WORLD NEWS; Pg. 
HEADLINE: Scientist tells MPs he backs calls for GM safety screen 
(PA) DATELINE: LONDON BODY: The head of the research institute 
terminated the contract of a scientist who raised concerns over 
genetically modified food, last night backed his calls for a new, 
tougher, safety regime for the products. Prof Philip James, head of 
Rowett Research Institute, told a committee of MPs "more effective 
accurate screening methods" were needed to monitor "the unexpected 
consequences" of genetic modification. Prof James' criticisms of 
current system for testing so- 
called Frankenstein foods echo calls made by Dr Arpad Pusztai, 
whose contract with the institute was terminated last summer 
after he appeared on an ITV World in Action programme which 
raised concerns about GM food. 
In written evidence to the Science and Technology Select 
Committee, Prof James attacked US food safety standards, saying 
"more stringent testing systems are needed than those which 
appear to be acceptable in the US". He also criticised the 
World Trade Organisation - which would rule on any British or 
European attempt to restrict imports of American GM foods - as 
treating public health as of "little import". 
Dr Pusztai told the MPs there was a "compelling case" for an 
"over-arching body to advise on and oversee genetically 
modified food". He said government advisory committees on new 
scientific developments were likely to be "severely tested" in 
verifying GM safety as more and more foods were brought to 
market. They were also very limited in commissioning their own 
research, meaning their judgements were "mainly based on 
information received from the companies" developing the foods. 
The number of genetically modified animals produced and 
bred in the UK for scientific experiments totalled more than 
350,000 in the latest figures available, the British government 
disclosed last night. The junior Home Office minister, Lord 
Williams, said in a House of Lords written reply 355,396 GM 
animals were reared in the UK in 1997, including 5,000 imported, 
and were used for "scientific procedures". 

EDITORIAL COMMENT; Pg. 15 HEADLINE: Going Bananas BODY: The 134 
represented at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) talks in Geneva 
could be 
forgiven for thinking that the business of trade had moved into 
territory. Improbable as it may seem, a dispute over what might 
appear to 
be a relatively trivial issue, the marketing of bananas, has pushed 
the EU 
and the US to the brink of a transatlantic trade war - with 
serious consequences for a fragile world economy. 
Washington has already unveiled arrangements to impose 100 per cent 
or import taxes on certain EU imports. But in pushing hard, the United 
States has widened the dispute way beyond its original confines. The 
member Caribbean Community announced at the weekend that it might 
renege on 
a treaty with the United States aimed at fighting drug trafficking if 
Washington doesn't reconsider its stance. Around (pounds) 3 million in 
annual Irish exports are among the $ 520 million EU exports under 
As in all disputes of this nature, there is a certain amount of 
bluff and 
bluster in the US threat - and, indeed, in the riposte from the EU's 
Commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan, who declared that the US measures were 
"unacceptable and unlawful". But, on this occasion, there is also 
concern that the banana dispute could spiral out of control, damaging 
relations between the world's two most important trading blocs and 
undermining the work of the (WTO) as it seeks to lower protectionist 
barriers to international trade. 
Washington has been trying to break up the EU banana regime since 
it was 
established six years ago. The regime was modified slightly after a 
1997 WTO 
ruling that it discriminated against US exporters. But the US 
maintains that 
it still favours fruit from former British and French colonies and 
discriminates over US distributors of cheaper Latin American fruit. In 
US multinationals, like the Chiquita brand, control some 70 per cent 
of the 
world banana market, which gives them a great deal of political clout 
Washington. The US is demanding much greater access for these 
companies to 
the lucrative EU market; it claims that the current regime is costing 
distributors about $ 500 million per year. In the cross-fire between 
Brussels and Washington, there is fault on both sides. EU import 
do appear discriminatory and unfair. Brussels is also vulnerable to 
charge that it has dragged its feet on the issue and that it was 
until recently, to allow arbitration. But the EU is also entitled to 
angry about Washington's threat of sanctions - even before a WTO panel 
ruled on the dispute. The Government has already expressed its 
about the US threats. There is a danger that innocent parties, 
some Irish exporters, could be badly damaged by this dispute. And 
there will 
be wider concerns: the increasing trade tensions come at a time when 
transatlantic trade relations are already soured by other disputes 
hormones in beef, genetically modified food and aircraft. All of 
could hardly come at a less propitious time for the world economy. The 
world's biggest 
trading powers seem intent on a disastrous course which could 
herald a new period of protectionism and prevent global economic 
recovery - unless good sense prevails.
The Mirror March 9, 1999, SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 2 HEADLINE: SCIENTIST'S 
SHOCK BYLINE: Jo Dillon BODY: THE scientist who sparked the 
food scare said last night that he originally thought it was safe. Dr 
Pusztai said he was "shocked" at his own bombshell findings that rats 
fed on 
genetically modified potatoes suffered weakened immune systems and 
damage. He told MPs: "I didn't realise the huge commercial and 
significance of what I said." Dr Pusztai said he was "explicitly" 
told, in 
secret letters from his boss at the Aberdeen's Rowett Institute, Prof 
James, not to discuss his work. And his research findings were taken 

The Times (London) March 9, 1999, Tuesday SECTION: Home news 
'Flawed' GM tests sparked food scare BYLINE: Roland Watson and James 
Landale BODY: THE experiments that caused a scare over the health 
of genetically modified food had never actually been completed, the 
of the institute at which they were conducted said yesterday. 
James, the director of the Rowett Research Institute, accused Arpad 
Pusztai, the scientist at the centre of the row, of going public with 
unproven theory "that turned out not to be true". Dr Pusztai had been 
researching the effect of GM potatoes on rats, but Professor James 
"There was confusion in his 
group about whether the studies had been conducted." 
Professor James told the Commons Science and Technology 
Committee that the episode had been a "complete disaster" for 
the Aberdeen-based institute. But in his own evidence to the 
MPs, Dr Pusztai insisted he had been right to voice his concerns 
because his experiments showed that rats eating GM potatoes had 
suffered from stunted growth and damaged immune systems. 
Although his results have been widely disputed by other 
scientists, his remarks prompted a health scare and the 
Government was urged to ban GM products. Professor James said 
that the confusion arose because several different experiments 
were being conducted. The conclusion that the GM potatoes 
damaged the rats had been wrongly derived from experiments 
involving potatoes injected with insecticide. 
He said that Dr Pusztai had got himself into a "terrible 
fix", but had continued to leave the institute in the dark. 
Professor James and his senior colleagues spent more than two 
hours questioning him on the findings, but were left "really 
very confused about what experiments had been conducted". 
However, Dr Pusztai, 68, who has since lost his post at the 
institute, said that he would continue to voice his fears about 
GM foods. "I would never change my mind about it," he said. 
"What I achieved is that we are all sitting here and talking 
about this. (The experiments) certainly gave me concern and I 
thought it was shared with the institute." 
Dr Pusztai admitted that he had been "naive" not to have 
been aware of the impact his remarks would have, but insisted he 
had "no strong regret" about the controversy. 
Dr Pusztai said that he knew he was not supposed to speak 
out before his work had been published, but said that he felt 
frustrated and "had to do something about it". 
He also voiced concerns yesterday about the regulatory 
bodies covering GM foods and said that there should be more 
working scientists on the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and 
Process. The advisory committee that is conducting an inquiry 
into the way scientific developments are communicated between 
scientists and ministers, and how the Government reacts. 

BBC Summary of World Broadcasts March 10, 1999, Wednesday HEADLINE: 
types of seed for grain, food staples evolved by mutation SOURCE: 
Radio Pakistan external service, Islamabad in English 1100 gmt 3 Mar 
BODY: 13] Text of report by Radio Pakistan Pakistan Atomic Energy 
Commission has successfully evolved 35 varieties of wheat, rice, 
sugar cane, (?meal) and chickpea through radiation mutations. This 
stated by the renowned nuclear scientist Dr (?Saman Malikman) while 
speaking at the annual Farmers' Day in (?Tandurjan). The new 
have already been released for the benefit of the farmers. 

The Guardian Tuesday 9th March 99. "Recombinant insulin"is it safe?
Guinea pig doctor became aggressive and forgot things.
Matthew Kiln unwittingly used himself as a human guinea pig to test the 
effects of human insulin. At first he was delighted modern science had 
produced a genetically engineered human version which could replace the 
bovine and pork varieties in use for fifty years.
Asa diabetic himself he had chosen to specialise in the illness and in his 
job as registrar at Torbay hospital ran a diabetic clinic . Diabetics, 
unable to produce insulin, keep their blood sugar levels at the correct 
level by twice daily injections, and can correct any problems by eating 
glucose tablets or other sweet foods .
If they fail to act when they begin to feel unwell or dizzy they may 
relapse into a coma known as hypoglycaemic episode, But Dr Kiln found that 
in a few cases with human insulin, patients complained that these episodes 
were more frequent and occurred when cooking or driving, without any normal 
signs of stress.
Dr Kiln went on to human insulin as soon as it was available,"I kept 
passing out, I had low blood sugars. I had auguments with consultants. My 
father noticed all of this and urged me to change back. He just said that I 
was obstinate and and more difficult.I changed back and my condition 
Dr Kiln said his experiences were mirrored by patients and their carers who 
written to the Diabetic Association-"an extraordinary number who could not 
be ignored". He said "It needs a big scientific study to investigate the 
problems of genetically engineered insulin properly."
In his south London practice he has 100 diabetics who inject themselves 
twice daily. He believes about ten per cent have had a bad reaction to 
human insulin.