SnowBall archive
[Index][Thread]
GE - mixed news catch up #1
- To: <genetics@gn.apc.org>
- Subject: GE - mixed news catch up #1
- From: genetics <genetics@gn.apc.org>
- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 16:14:04 +0100
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
- Resent-From: snowball@gen.free.de
- Resent-Message-ID: <"8Rv96C.A.4hE._RyA3"@bakunix.free.de>
- Resent-Sender: snowball-request@gen.free.de
1) Shoppers go organic after GM food scare
2) Brazil could allow AgrEvo transgenic corn by June
3) JUDGE ASSAILS SECRECY, HALTS YELLOWSTONE "BIOPROSPECTING"
PRODUCTS ARE WORTH MILLIONS
4) Malaysia: Panel given three months to draft law on biosafety
5) CORPORATE POWER SILENCES RBGH CRITICS, PANEL SAYS
6) U.S. Awareness Slowly Growing Of EU Biotech Crop Concerns
7) New report from RAFI details over 2 dozen "Terminator II"
Today's UK News The Observer
1) Shoppers go organic after GM food scare
Shoppers go organic after GM food scare Supermarkets slap premiums of up
to 169 per cent on 'green' groceries
By Sarah Ryle, Consumer
Affairs Correspondent
Sunday March 28, 1999
Supermarkets are charging premiums of up to 169 per cent for organic food
while more and more consumers are looking for chemical-free produce in the
wake of the health scare about genetically modified food.
Organic farmers fear they will suffer if price gaps are fixed at an
unreasonable level. They argue that an average premium of 30 per cent is
justifiable because it reflects the true increased cost of production. The
supermarkets deny cashing in on the food safety scare, but several reported
that demand for 'natural', chemical-free food doubled in the following
weeks. An Observer survey of food on sale at four leading supermarkets -
Tesco, Sainsbury, Safeway and Waitrose (which came top of the Consumers'
Association organic food survey six months ago) - showed a huge difference
in the premiums they charge.
Sainsbury and Waitrose, which have the most extensive range, have the
lowest mark-ups with the overall difference between their organic and
conventional baskets 37 per cent and 41 per cent lower than their
competitors respectively.
But within these averages were some very high premiums with price
differences of 72 per cent between organic and non-organic beef; 118
percent on sugar; 91 per cent on milk; and 86 per cent on apples. Organic
carrots were twice the
price and an organic chicken had a mark-up of 169 per cent.
Waitrose agronomist Alan Wilson said the premiums on milk were because
non-organic milk has become much cheaper, but he admitted that many
consumers would be 'put off by the prices'.
He added that there was 'a huge shortage' of organic milk and other fresh
produce and that growing consumer demand drove prices up. Policies to
encourage organic farmers, already in place, are expected to increase
volumes.
The chairman of the Soil Association, Helen Browning, a farmer and supplier
to leading supermarkets, accepted that shortages were a serious concern
for the embryonic organic-food industry - but she added that the premiums
on supermarket bread were not justified. Organic bread at Safeway was more
than double an almost identical conventional variety. At Sainsbury, the
mark-up was 61 per cent.
According to the Soil Association's agricultural development director,
Simon Brenman, the raw ingredients account for only 10 per cent of the
loaf on the shelf. 'If it is the case that the middlemen are making a
killing, then I am quite sure it should be exposed. But we need to look at
it very carefully,' he said.
Tesco denied that it was ripping off farmers at one end of the chain and
consumers at the other. 'Our buyers are paying 200 per cent more for
organic
carrots than for conventional ones, so the premium of 100 per cent on the
shelf is not extreme,' said a spokesman.
Peter Segger, head of the Organic Farm Foods Co-op in the Welsh Borders,
supplies apples to supermarkets and said he was 'flabbergasted' by the
prices being charged - especially the £2.83per kilo at Waitrose. He added
that there was little justification for huge differentials on dairy, beef
or lamb products.
The price gaps on organic and non-organic bag at Safeway and Tesco were 87
per cent and 82 per cent respectively.
The Consumers' Association said the Monopolies and Mergers Commission
should include organic food prices in the investigation of the supermarket
sector recommended last week by the Office of Fair Trading.
=====================================
Monday March 29, 3:10 pm Eastern Time
2) Brazil could allow AgrEvo transgenic corn by June
SAO PAULO, March 29 (Reuters) - Brazil's government is expected to
approve by June the safety of genetically-modified corn produced by a local
unit of German biotechnology joint venture AgrEvo, a company executive
said on Monday.
``We submitted the first petition for final clearance in December and last
week we received two additional questions. I
could say (safety approval will be granted) by June,'' said Andre Abreu,
head of AgrEvo's biotechnology program in
Brazil.
AgrEvo is an agribusiness joint venture between Germany's Hoechst AG (quote
from Yahoo! UK & Ireland: HOEG.F) and
Schering AG (quote from Yahoo! UK & Ireland: SCHG.F).
Government safety approval would allow AgrEvo's herbicide-resistant
LibertyLink corn to be regulated like any other
agricultural product and clear the major hurdle for seed sales in Brazil
next year, Abreu told Reuters.
If successful, LibertyLink corn would be the second genetically-modified
crop to win safety approval from Brazil's
National Commission for Biological Security (CTNBio) for commercialization,
and would then have to be registered with
the Agriculture Ministry before seed sales could begin.
CTNBio is charged with the approval, or rejection, of AgrEvo's application
for safety approval.
Brazil broke its ban on transgenic crops last September when it approved
the safety of Monsanto Co's (NYSE:MTC -
news) Roundup Ready genetically-modified soybeans, which are still awaiting
registration for seed sales expected later
this year.
Speaking to Reuters on the fringes of a two-day biotechnology conference,
Abreu said he expected seed sales of AgrEvo
corn to start next year and cover 15,000 hectares.
Farmers would sow LibertyLink corn over 300,000 hectares within three to
four years, he said, adding that Brazil's planted
corn area currently stood at some 12 million hectares.
CTNBio President Luiz Antonio Barreto de Castro said he saw no obstacles to
approval of LibertyLink corn by June.
``I don't see a problem personally to approve it. I think it will be
resolved after the two (monthly) meetings,'' he said.
Castro said he expected less controversy over granting safety approval to
LibertyLink corn than seen over Monsanto's
Roundup Ready soybeans.
=============================
2) Brazil could allow AgrEvo transgenic corn by June
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Those geysers and hot springs draw more than tourists to
Yellowstone National Park. With the government's blessing,
"bioprospectors" are showing up to mine the bubbling thermal
waters for organisms that could be worth millions of dollars.
But in a court ruling announced Thursday, a federal judge in the District
of Columbia halted a
Yellowstone bioprospecting deal until potential environmental damage is
weighed.
The ruling could be important in the biotechnology-rich St. Louis- area.
The Missouri Botanical
Garden and [ Monsanto Co. ] have been leaders globally in bioprospecting
for plants that can be
used in pharmaceuticals and, more recently, in genetically engineered crops.
The court opinion was written by U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth,
who suggested that the
government should not be keeping details of such arrangements secret and
that the public should
have a say when companies want to tap resources on government land.
"Essentially, the future of bioprospecting on federal lands is a work in
progress, but the
government as of yet has not engaged in any public debate on the issue nor
made any definitive
policy statement through regulations or less formal means," the judge wrote.
A trial later could decide whether the government is acting legally and
whether bioprospecting at
Yellowstone will continue. But for now, the government's arrangement with
Diversa, a San
Diego-based biotechnology company, is suspended.
Monsanto's David Corley said that his company had operated on federal
lands in the past but that
he knew of no current projects. He said Monsanto and its agents are
careful when collecting in
sensitive lands not to endanger the surrounding environment. Missouri
Botanical Garden experts
were not immediately available for comment.
The Edmonds Institute, a Washington state nonprofit group that sued the
government, said the
ruling paves the way for protecting the environment and giving the public
a say in bioprospecting
on federal land.
Parties engaged in bioprospecting usually operate in secret. In the
Yellowstone case, the
government even refused requests by Congress for details of the arrangement.
Mike Bader, an ex-forest ranger and executive director of the Alliance for
the Rockies, said the
ruling has "big implications for how these resources are going to be
managed and whether they
will be adequately protected. .o.o. We're talking about a modern-day gold
rush" in hunting genetic
materials.
The stakes are enormous. In his ruling, Lamberth noted that the patent on
an enzyme found in a
Yellowstone pool near Old Faithful in 1966 was sold for $300 million and
now generates $100
million a year in revenue. None of those proceeds are returned to
Yellowstone or to taxpayers.
"As the benefits of biotechnology have become increasingly visible, the
demand for
bioprospecting has also grown," Lamberth wrote. "This increased demand
places greater and
greater value on places like Yellowstone National Park that have a high
level of biological
diversity."
The deal in question was described as novel when it was announced in front
of television cameras
in August 1997 with Vice President Al Gore and Interior Secretary Bruce
Babbitt on hand.
Unlike previous bioprospecting ventures, the arrangement with Diversa
called for sharing
potential royalties with the park. The government has declined to say how
much beyond
disclosing that Yellowstone will receive $20,000 annual payments and
royalties of 0.5 percent to
10 percent of products.
Organisms from Yellowstone's hot, bubbling waters are desirable because of
their ability to
withstand extremely high temperatures. They could become additives that
improve paint, gold
extraction, DNA fingerprinting and a host of products.
(Copyright 1999)
_____via IntellX_____
Publication Date: March 26, 1999
=========================
4) Malaysia: Panel given three months to draft law on biosafety
The New Straits Times
KUALA LUMPUR, Wed. - The Genetic Modification
Advisory Committee (GMAC) has been given three months to
come up with the first draft of national legislation on biosafety.
It will regulate the introduction, use and handling of genetically
modified organisms (GMOs), Science, Technology and Environment Minister
Datuk Law Hieng
Ding said today.
Work on the proposed Gene Act is expected to be completed by year's end,
in a bid to keep up
with rapid developments in food and plant biotechnology.
"We will have to decide whether to have a single comprehensive law on
biosafety or a sectoral
one, as several agencies are involved in biosafety issues."
"With this decision, it will also be possible to identify the agency that
will be responsible for
enforcement."
GMAC, set up under the ministry's National Committee on Biodiversity in
1996, will look at
legislation in use in Europe, the Philippines and Scandinavian countries.
While the labelling of genetically modified foods would be addressed, Law
said it did not
necessarily mean that this would be made mandatory here.
Consumers in Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Japan are actively
campaigning for
mandatory segregation and labelling of transgenic crops and foods.
"GMAC will have to take into account the impact of labelling on downstream
products of our
export commodities like palm oil and cocoa," Law said.
"It is not possible for us to take a stand on the issue immediately, as we
will have to examine
how the national position would be affected by such a move."
GMAC will work with authorities like the Ministries of Health, Agriculture
and Primary
Industries on related issues, and may consult private biotechnology
companies on the law "if the
need arises".
Another key provision of legislation will be on an "advance information
agreement" to keep track
of the entry of GMOs into the country, and to reduce associated risks.
Law also confirmed that GMAC would initiate an awareness and education
programme on
biosafety and biotechnology, so that the public was kept informed of
related issues.
"The ministry is seriously concerned about consumer apprehension about
genetically modified
foods and its effect on human health," he said.
As the relevant government agencies, universities and a non-governmental
organisation, Third
World Network, were represented in GMAC, decisions would reflect all concerns.
On consumer calls to ban the import of transgenic (gene-altered) soyabean
following the recent
link between this and allergic reactions, Law said available scientific
findings and documents
would be studied.
However, no moratorium would be imposed on the import of transgenic
soyabean for food and
animal feed here "until findings to the contrary" with regard to its
safety for human health.
Transgenic soyabean has been available in Malaysia since GMAC approved its
import in 1997
based on documents supplied by the producer, [ Monsanto ] .
This is the biggest of five transnational firms developing and marketing
transgenic food and
industrial crops like wheat and corn.
(Copyright 1999)
_____via IntellX_____
Publication Date: March 25, 1999
=========================
5) CORPORATE POWER SILENCES RBGH CRITICS, PANEL SAYS
The Capital Times
Last week, the European Union stated that milk from
rBGH-treated cows could increase the risk of breast and
prostate cancer in humans.
Canada, Japan and Australia have banned the genetically
engineered dairy hormone, citing concerns about its effects on animals and
humans.
Yet farmers in the United States are injecting rBGH into dairy cows from
coast to coast.
"What is it they know in Canada, Europe, Australia and Japan that we
don't?" journalist Steve
Wilson asked a University of Wisconsin audience Wednesday.
Plenty, according to Wilson, who maintains that a combination of forces is
keeping the U.S.
press silent on a critical food safety issue.
Wilson and Jane Akre, two veteran investigative television reporters,
discussed the rBGH
controversy during this week's UW- Madison Democracy Teach-In. They were
joined by John
Stauber of Madison-based PR Watch.
Wilson and Akre were fired by Fox News in Tampa, Fla., after producing a
four-part series
about the potential risks of rBGH milk. The television station maintains
that the husband-wife
team were dismissed for being "difficult to work with." But Wilson and
Akre say the reason was
their story, which was critical of the hormone and drew the ire of its
manufacturer, biotech giant
[ Monsanto Co. ]
"In February of 1997, right before the story was set to run, the letters
(from Monsanto) started
coming, saying the story was all wrong and predicting dire consequences if
we ran it," Akre said.
Several months later, she said, the story was shelved and she and Wilson
were out of work.
Stauber, who studies the influence of corporations and public relations
professionals, said such
situations are all too typical. The reasons, he said, have much to do with
three major forces in
America:
*The media. Corporate ownership of major news outlets, concern about angry
advertisers and
falling standards are causing many journalists to turn away from
investigative reporting and
toward easier, more simplistic work, he said. When reporters like Wilson
and Akre take the
initiative, he said, they are often thwarted by their superiors. That
silence allows corporations to
"spin" their products unchallenged.
"The fact the U.S. media haven't paid attention to rBGH has allowed the
controversy to drop off
the front page," he said.
*Corporations. With savvy public relations campaigns and deep pockets,
corporations like
Monsanto have become adept at creating a positive image of products like
rBGH even as they
silence critics, Stauber said.
Such companies also tend to have friends in high places, he contended.
*Public opinion. More than any other population, Americans believe deeply
in the benefits of
scientific progress, Stauber said, a belief that leads many to view
critics with suspicion.
"There's almost a patriotic lock step that has developed to the idea that
technology is going to be
beneficial," he said.
But rBGH could still receive the attention they feel it deserves, the
panelists agreed. In December,
a U.S. consumer group called on the FDA to pull bovine growth hormone off
the market,
charging the agency overlooked key evidence about the drug's safety. (The
agency had 180 days
to conduct the investigation and either reject the claim or pull the drug.)
Continued opposition in Canada and Europe, backed by research into the
hormone that has been
difficult to obtain here, is beginning to gain attention in the United States.
And Wilson and Akre, who are suing Fox for allegedly firing them under
pressure from
Monsanto, are traveling around the United States to raise public awareness
of the hormone's
potential downside.
More attention can only work to the benefit of American consumers, Stauber
said.
"I think Americans are extremely interested," he said.
(Copyright (c) Madison Newspapers, Inc. 1999)
_____via IntellX_____
Publication Date: March 25, 1999
==========================
[The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition]
Dow Jones Newswires -- March 25, 1999
Dow Jones Newswires
6) U.S. Awareness Slowly Growing Of EU Biotech Crop Concerns
By DANIEL ROSENBERG
Dow Jones Newswires
CHICAGO -- With Europe increasingly reluctant to import genetically
modified crops, U.S. farm groups and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are
taking steps to raise producers' awareness.
However, many U.S. farmers don't realize the extent of Europe's concerns,
processors and producers say.
"I'm afraid there's a disconnect - farmers don't see the tie between the
decisions they make and foreign markets," said Dave Erickson, a corn and
soybean farmer in Altoona, Ill.
Last week, the National Corn Growers Association warned farmers to "get
the facts" before they plant genetically modified seeds not approved for
export to the European Union. "If the biotech hybrid you plant isn't
approved for export, take the necessary steps to keep harvested grain in
the domestic distribution chain and out of export channels," the NCGA said
on its web site.
The sole variety of U.S. genetically modified soybeans - Monsanto's
"Roundup Ready" - has E.U. approval. But many European consumers aren't
convinced about the safety of any genetically modified products, even those
approved by the E.U., the American Soybean Association acknowledged.
.......
Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) News Release
29 March 1999
http://www.rafi.org
** TRAITOR TECHNOLOGY: "Damaged Goods" from the Gene Giants **
-------------------------------------------------------
7) New report from RAFI details over 2 dozen "Terminator II"
patents that link suicide seeds to proprietary chemicals,
genetically-weakened plants, and the patented power to
make genetically-inviable plants rise from the dead.
-------------------------------------------------------
Beyond the prognostications of even its most pessimistic critics,
Terminator science is snowballing into the corporate profit centre of the
next decade and beyond. And, if the major seed and agrochemical
multinationals have their way, Terminator and Traitor (negative trait)
technologies will come on the heels of the new millennium to a farm near
you. RAFI's Executive Director Pat Mooney declares, "With this report and
our previous work on the Terminator, RAFI is sounding the alarm that
without government action, these technologies will be commercialized within
a few years with potentially disastrous consequences."
Says RAFI Programme Officer Edward Hammond, "Since we discovered the
original Terminator patent a year ago, even at our most pessimistic we
never forecast negative trait genetic engineering to explode as quickly as
it has." Most observers thought there would be a delay of two or three
years before second and third generation Terminator refinements were
patented; but instead says Hammond, "a survey of patent offices reveals
that the cat is completely out of the bag. In fact, the original Terminator
may be a dead letter because enhanced Terminator seeds are already in the
laboratory."
RAFI reports that every Gene Giant multinational has patented, or admits it
is working on genetically-sterilized or chemically-dependent seeds. RAFI's
report provides details and analysis on over two dozen such patents
recently obtained by 12 institutions. The patents seek to exploit - or
could exploit - new genetic engineering techniques that use inducible
promoters to disable critical plant functions governing reproduction,
disease resistance, and seed viability.
If commercialization of such seeds proceeds, farmers worldwide will be
tangled in an expensive web of chemicals, intellectual property, and
disabled germplasm that leads to bioserfdom. The technology spells
disaster for farmers and global food security because over three quarters
of the world's farmers - mainly poor farmers - depend on farm saved seed.
The complete removal of farmers from the age-old process of plant breeding
through sterilized seed could also signify a disastrous narrowing of the
genepool on which everyone depends for food security.
SCARY SCOPE: According to RAFI's Research Director Hope Shand, "The
patents describe the use of external chemicals to turn on and off genetic
traits in plants and go well beyond DeltaPine's original 'Terminator'
patent. They are techniques to control a wide variety of 'input' and
'output' (production and processing) traits by spraying with proprietary
herbicides or fertilizers. Others take us beyond crop plants to the use of
Terminator-style tactics on insects and even possibly mammals."
KILLER GENES, JUNKIE SEEDS, AND MODERN-DAY "MIRACLES": Some patents aim to
switch the plant's germination on or off. AstraZeneca's Verminator patents
use what it calls 'killer genes' for this purpose. Yet AstraZeneca has
been telling governments, scientists, and the press that despite their
continuing pursuit of its patents around the world, they won't stop farmers
from saving seed. RAFI's Pat Mooney says, "Something didn't add up, so we
set out to investigate."
Newly discovered patent claims explain the confusing AstraZeneca position.
The new patents refine AstraZeneca's "Verminator" technology that links
plant growth and germination to repeated application of proprietary
chemicals. Without specific patented chemicals, the plant doesn't grow.
"Essentially," says RAFI's Edward Hammond, "they're talking about the
manufacture of junkie plants that are physically dependent on a patented
chemical cocktail." AstraZeneca says it will patent the technology in 77
countries.
See AstraZeneca's Verminator II patent:
<http://wo.dips.org/search97cgi/s97is.dll?Action=View&ViewTemplate=ep/en/vi
ewer.h>http://wo.dips.org/search97cgi/s97is.dll?Action=View&ViewTemplate=ep
/en/viewer.h
ts&SearchType=4&VdkVgwKey=9735983
Says RAFI's Mooney, "So, you see AstraZeneca and the other Gene Giants
don't want farmers to buy new seed every year so much as to force them to
repurchase their old seed." Monsanto is already pioneering such 'pay by
the generation' techniques through legal means - the infamous grower
agreements - in the US and Canada; but research is steering toward
biological means of achieving the same sad end. Mooney says "It will be
vastly more profitable for multinationals to sell seeds programmed to
commit suicide at harvest so that farmers must pay the company to obtain
the chemicals to have them re-activated for the next planting - either
through a seed conditioning process or through the purchase of a
specialized chemicals that bring saved seed back to life, Lazarus-style."
"In effect, this shifts all the seed costs to farmers, and the companies
won't have to multiply, ship, and warehouse massive seed stocks," Hammond
adds, "As the seed oligopoly strengthens, companies will have less and less
incentive to invest in plant breeding research, after all they'll already
have the farmers in a position of utter dependency." Pat Mooney agrees,
"With these 'Lazarus-link seeds' the advertising investment will continue
but the research investment will wither away."
GENETIC MUTILATION: An especially disturbing feature of some of the new
patents profiled in RAFI's report is the deliberate disabling of natural
plant functions that help to fight disease. Swiss biotech giant Novartis
is most advanced in this aspect of Traitor technology. Novartis blandly
refers to it as "inactivation of endogenous regulation" so that "genes
which are natively regulated can be regulated exclusively by the
application to the plant of a chemical regulator."
Among the genes which Novartis can control in this manner are patented SAR
(systemic acquired resistance) genes which are critical to plant's ability
to fight off infections from many viruses and bacteria. Thus, Novartis has
patented techniques to create plants with natural healthy functions turned
off. "The only way to turn them back on and fix these 'damaged goods' "
says RAFI's Edward Hammond, "is, well, you guessed it, the application of a
propietary chemical."
8) See the Novartis antisense regulation of SAR systems patent:
TIGHT-LIPPED MONSANTO: Caught like a deer in the headlights during recent
battles over genetically-modified plants - especially in Europe - Monsanto
has sought to deflect questions and criticism about Terminator technology
by saying that the Terminator belongs to its soon-to-be subsidiary Delta
and Pine Land Company. As such, the oft-repeated PR position goes, Monsanto
doesn't yet have access to the Terminator and can't inform concerned
governments and people about plans for Terminator seed.
"It's been their mantra across the world." says RAFI's Mooney, "We've heard
the same confusing statements from Monsanto representatives in New Zealand,
India, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Brazil, the EU, and the US." Even last week, at a
Harvard University presentation, Monsanto's representative similarly
shrugged off the question. "In fact," says RAFI's Mooney, "it's a
deliberate ploy - or, at best, incomplete information - that obfuscates
facts about the company's own research agenda. Monsanto already has its
own in-house, patented Terminator technology, which it says it will patent
in a whopping 89 countries. Obviously, the company is not being
forthright. If Monsanto doesn't start coming clean, it risks further
damage to its already tarnished image."
See Monsanto's Terminator II patent:
<http://wo.dips.org/search97cgi/s97is.dll?Action=View&ViewTemplate=ep/en/vi
ewer.h>http://wo.dips.org/search97cgi/s97is.dll?Action=View&ViewTemplate=ep
/en/viewer.h
ts&SearchType=4&VdkVgwKey=9744465
WILL TERMINATOR WORK? RAFI notes that some plant scientists are skeptical
that Traitor Technology will work successfully in the field. Monsanto, one
of the original Traitor Tech proponents, is encouraging this view. There
is no doubt that Traitor Tech will be continually refined as it moves
toward the market; but terminator plants are already in the greenhouse and
profit estimates are being calculated. "It's only a matter of time. Every
major pesticide-producing Gene Giant is hard at work perfecting the
technology." Shand adds, "Companies don't patent for the fun of the
paperwork and paying lawyer's fees. Those who think corporations will drop
the Terminator - or think it won't make it to market - are living in
Fantasyland. There's too much money to be made. Unless it is banned by
governments, Terminator is going to happen, and probably sooner rather than
later."
WILL FARMERS BUY IT? Delta & Pine Land and Monsanto insist that no one
will force farmers to buy Terminator seed. The real question is, will
farmers have a choice? The commercial seed industry is imploding, and a
handful of Gene Giants already control a rapidly expanding share of major
seed markets. After DuPont announced earlier this month that it would buy
Pioneer Hi-Bred, the world's largest seed company, the Wall Street Journal
concluded that the deal "effectively divides" most of the US seed industry
between DuPont and Monsanto. With the disappearance of public sector plant
breeders, farmers are becoming increasingly vulnerable and have fewer
choices in the marketplace.
TERMINATING THE TERMINATOR: RAFI and its partners around the world are
contacting governments asking them to declare all of the Terminator-style
patent claims as contrary to ordre public. In January, Global Response (a
US based non-profit organization) encouraged its 4,000 members in forty
countries to write to the Director-General of FAO asking him to oppose the
Terminator as a matter of world food security. FAO has replied that
governments may take up the issue in Rome April 19 to 23 during the meeting
of the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. RAFI
will be at that meeting and will make a presentation to governments.
Further, concerned individuals from 71 countries have sent almost 7,000
letters to US Agriculture Secretary Glickman asking him to ban the
Terminator.
Although global opposition is mounting, RAFI worries that the UN's
Biodiversity Convention may go "soft" on the environmental and social
implications of the technology. When the Convention meets in Montreal in
June, it is to receive a scientific study on Terminator. "We will read and
respond to that study very quickly," Pat Mooney advises.
------
For further information:
Website: <http://www.rafi.org/>http://www.rafi.org
Pat Roy Mooney, Executive Director, RAFI
110 Osborne Street South, Suite 202
Winnipeg, MB, R3L 1Y5 CANADA
Tel: +1 204 453-5259
Fax: +1 204 925-8134
E-mail: rafi@rafi.org
Hope Shand, Research Director, RAFI
Tel: +1 717 337-6482
Fax: +1 717 337-6499
E-mail: hope@rafi.org
Edward Hammond, Programme Officer, RAFI
Tel: +1 206 323-7378
Fax: +1 206 323-6052
E-mail: hammond@rafi.org
----------------------------------------