REPORT: #4 14th May 2003
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 10:31 PM
Subject: FW: MUST SEE: GE canola story on SBS this Thursday
-----Original Message-----
From: GeneEthics [mailto:info@geneethics.org]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 May 2003 5:56 PM
To: GeneEthics
Subject: MUST SEE: GE canola story on SBS this Thursday
A MUST SEE ON SBS TV THIS WEEK!
INSIGHT, Thursday May 15 at 8.30pm on SBS Television
"GE CANOLA: COMING, READY OR NOT"
In a few weeks the Federal Government is expected to approve the release of genetically engineered (GE) canola in Australia. The decision comes despite surveys showing most shoppers and farmers don't want it, and despite a majority of State Governments introducing moratoria to delay its release. Why is this happening? On INSIGHT, Thursday May 15 at 8.30pm on SBS Television, reporter Alan Sunderland investigates the process leading up to the release of GE canola and makes some startling discoveries. Among them:
* A key committee responsible for deciding whether GE canola will
contaminate other crops was established and run by Avcare, the chemical industry lobby group that represents the makers of GE canola: Monsanto and Bayer Cropscience.
* The National Farmers Federation, which is responsible for representing
the views of farmers, has set up a pro-GE information service in cooperation with Avcare, the chemical industry lobby group.
* A Canadian farmer brought out to Australia by farmer organisations to
argue the benefits of GE canola had undisclosed links to Monsanto, the company that produces GE canola.
* An influential research report that supports the release of GE canola
was partly funded by Monsanto and Bayer, and that funding was not disclosed when the report was published. The report's authors say the omission was accidental. Farmers and environmentalists who are opposed to GE canola tell INSIGHT that the chemical companies and their industry lobby group have been far too influential in the decision to release the controversial crop here, and the voices of ordinary farmers and food buyers are not being heard.
Find out the real story on INSIGHT this week. Reporter Alan Sunderland is available for interview. Please contact INSIGHT's publicist, Kathryn Hibbert on (02) 9430 3709, 0410 509 332 or kathryn.hibbert@sbs.com.au
<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee (GTCCC) which advises the Office of Gene Technology Regulator and the Gene Technology Ministerial Council issued a communique following its meeting of 20 February 2003. Among other things, the committee expressed the following view about the proposal for unrestricted commercial release of GE canola: "The GTCCC expresses concern that a state of community unreadiness exists concerning the risks to the environmen of the commercial release of GM canola, so significant that the applications should be declined at this time."
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>
THANKS TO EVERYONE WHO HELPED MAKE THIS POSSIBLE PLEASE DON'T STOP YET. KEEP THOSE PETITIONS ETC ROLLING IN News Media Release May 8, 200 Halt GE Canola: Consensus Achieved A national consensus was established today, that GE canola releases are unacceptable, at least this year. "GeneEthics welcomes the Victorian Government's decision to ban GE canola for one year but we also urge them to adopt the three to five year freeze in place in NSW, SA, WA and Tasmania," says Gene Ethics Director, Bob Phelps. "Whether Victoria stays GE-free, or sacrifices its favoured GE-free status forever is the core issue to be addressed over the next 12 months," he says. "The Bracks government must develop open, participatory processes that take all Victorians into its confidence, when deciding GE issues," he says. "Their promise to explore marketing, supply chain and farm management issues is good, but an orderly public process is essential so everyone has a say," he says. "The process should also clarify legal, social and liability issues for farmers and food buyers," he says. "The Minister has ruled out commercial releases and we urge the government to also prohibit any expansion of licenced trials, which would allow the companies to continue business as usual," he says. "We oppose the Office of Gene Technology Regulator's intention to grant a licence for the unrestricted commercial release of GE canola in June," he says. "Once Bayer has a commercial licence, ad hoc agreements between governments and companies not to grow GE canola this year may be unenforceable," he says. "The national system for regulating GE crops is not fair or rational, with decisions on markets and farmer's rights left to ad hoc agreements," he says. "We call for an urgent review of the Gene Technology Act so that the welfare of Australians is not sacrificed to the ambitions of transnational agrichemical giants," Mr Phelps concludes.
Comment: Bob Phelps 03 9347 4500/03 9830 1592 Scott Kinnear 0419 881 729 From the Minister for Agriculture Thursday 8 May, 2003 NO COMMERCIAL GM CANOLA THIS YEAR Commercial production of Genetically Modified Canola is being put on hold this season, with an agreed one-year moratorium, the Bracks Government announced today. The Agriculture Minister, Mr Bob Cameron, said the moratorium was needed to allow a detailed study of its impact on Victorian export markets. "This decision is the next step in our careful and cautious approach to addressing marketing issues relating to GM Canola," Mr Cameron said. "A full market impact assessment for Victorian produce will be done before the 2004 season commences. "There have been concerns about the impact of the commercialisation of GM Canola on Victorian export markets. These issues need to be satisfactorily resolved before we can confidently move forward." In March this year, the independent Office of the Gene Technology Regulator issued preliminary advice that GM crops posed no risk to health, safety, or the environment. The final ruling is expected in June. Mr Cameron said the moratorium, agreed to by gene technology companies, meant there would be no commercial planting of GM Canola even if the Gene Technology Regulator issues a general licence. The Federal Regulator does not have the scope to consider or make a ruling on the market impact of commercial planting. Mr Cameron said the Bracks Government wanted to resolve these issues for Victorian producers to ensure any future move to GM crops would not compromise markets. "The Regulator's preliminary ruling is that the canola varieties proposed for Victoria meet all health and environmental requirements. However, the Victorian Government also has a responsibility to ensure our export markets are protected," he said. "For example, both the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) and the Australian Barley Board (ABB) have set out their view that the commercial growing of GM Canola may have an impact on their markets. "A season's pause will help determine and clarify whether there are significant market impacts."
Kym Carter Premier's Media Unit
Tel: +613 9651 5799
Fax: +613 9651 6266
Mobile: 0419 294 049
Email: kym.carter@minstaff.vic.gov.au
Bob Phelps
Executive Director
GeneEthics Network
Level 1, 60 Leicester St, Carlton 3053 Australia
Tel: 03 9347 4500 {Int Code 613} or 1300 133868
email: info@geneethics.org (Bob Phelps)
WWW: http://www.geneethics.org
The problem with the gene pool is, there is no lifeguard. Knowing is not enough, you must also act. "If the people will lead, the leaders will follow." David Suzuki
APPEAL FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS
The GeneEthics Network is dependent on your financial support. Please visit our website: www.geneethics.org for advice on how you can contribute to GeneEthics. Donations over $2 are tax deductible.
Please don't send unsolicited attachments
NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair comment and education".
REPORT: #3 4th May 2003
-----Original Message-----
From: Biofarmtours
[mailto:biofarmtours@optusnet.com.au]
Sent: Sunday, 4 May 2003 6:49 PM
To: Ross Hopper; John Schroder; Glen Bunter; Danny Watson; Karen MacKenzie; William McCourt; Bob Bain; Abby Eagle; Viv Forbes; DrHHNehrlich; Benny Bendfeld; Noela Macqueen; Robie Skerrett; The Village Organic Farm; Ron Sinclair; Jennifer Sharp; Julie Phillips; Kyle Grimshaw-Jones; Philip Higson
Subject: Fw: Acres U.S.A. -- A Voice for Eco-Agriculture.htm
Dear All
Arrived today, the good news.
Don Macfarlane.
Check out ACRES USA WEBSITE
Milk As It Should Be::::-
Wisconsin Family Farm Develops Raw Milk Program
by Patrick Slattery
May 2003, Acres U.S.A.
REPORT: #2 1st April 2003
As new information is provided we will put it up on the site for you to read. Currently A1 & A2 milk issues have arisen. Interesting from a "marketing" point of view. It may have little to do with your health!
Hi guys
Well what do we make of last night's Four Corners TV program?
It sure has set the cat among the pidgeons!! How good is the science? Interesting juxtaposition of vested interests!!! Where does it leave the raw milk debate? Can we turn it into a positive? Is there any data on raw milk? could it be the effect of pasturization and especially homogenization on the proteins? Will it encourage more people to change to soy?
I followed the debate for a while - a lot of concern from mothers especially and I suggested that raw milk may not be a problem and gave the WAPF web address and realmilk but not sure if it got past the moderator. Maybe raw A2 milk is better than raw A1 milk - is this a key factor in old fashioned breeds' milk being better? Not just the butterfat levels? And how does pasture feeding fit in if at all? So many questions! Uffe's response is interesting....
Member
Were you watching "4 Corners" on ABC TV on Monday night 31st March?
Could this A2 milk be what Price talked about the X factor in milk! - NO!
Sally Fallon writes, "Yes I have heard about all this - no one used to have any problems with milk Sounds like another excuse for genetic engineering.
Uffe writes - "I have read the abstracts of the papers given on their website also, but I cannot see anything linking beta casein A1 causally to disease, only the usual guilt by association, or no association at all."
Here's the web site for the company that is promoting it:
A2 Corporation Website
A2 Website with Research on Rabbits
- note it's a corporation listed on the stockexchange looking for you to buy shares, that promoting it, not an independant scientist working to assist humanity! As you know, the figures can always produce whatever the person funding the experiment wants to show. The physchoneuroimmunology conferences that I used to attend even proved the link between the desiring a particular outcome and receiving that response. When a different scientist with a different viewpoint takes over the experiments - suddenly a different outcome - how little we really understand about the power of thought and intention!
Real feed for cows is green grass in Spring, Summer and Fall; silage, hay and root vegetables in Winter. It is not soy meal, cottonseed meal or other commercial feeds. Vital nutrients like vitamins A and D, and the "Price Factor" or "Activator X"-- a fat soluble catalyst than encourages optimum assimilation of vitamins and minerals -- are greatest in milk from cows eating green grass, especially rapidly growing green grass. Vitamin A and D are greatly diminished, and the Price Factor disappears, when milk cows are fed soy or cottonseed meal. Soy meal has the wrong protein profile for the dairy cow resulting in a shortened life span, and making her milk less well tolerated by allergic individuals.
| |
| Buy Only Organic Milk Products From Herds Allowed to Graze on Green Pasture. | |
|
| |
Pasteurization destroys enzymes, diminishes vitamin content, denatures fragile milk proteins, alters vitamin B12, and vitamin B6, kills beneficial bacteria, promotes pathogens and is associated with allergies, increased tooth decay, colic in infants, growth problems in children, osteoporosis, arthritis, heart disease and cancer. Calves fed pasteurized milk die before maturity. Raw milk sours naturally but pasteurized milk turns putrid and processors must remove slime and pus from pasteurized milk by a process of centrifugal clarification. Inspection of dairy herds for disease is not required for pasteurized milk. The practice of heating milk to kill germs was instituted in the 1920s to combat TB, infant diarrhea, undulant fever and other diseases caused by poor animal nutrition and dirty production methods. Proponents of pasteurization used lies and blatant propaganda to achieve consumer acceptance. But times have changed and modern stainless steel tanks, milking machines, refrigerated trucks and inspection methods make pasteurization absolutely unnecessary for public protection. Clean raw milk from certified healthy cows is available commercially in several states and may be bought directly from the farm in many more. (Sources are listed on here). By executive order, former President Reagan forbade the transportation of raw milk across state lines. Pasteurization laws favor large, industrialized dairy operations and squeeze out small farmers. |
Real Milk is not pasteurized. |
| |
| Demand access to clean, certified raw milk in all states. | |
|
| |
|
|
Homogenization is a process that breaks down butterfat globules so they do not rise to the top. Homogenized milk has been linked to heart disease. |
| |
| Use only milk with "Cream on the Top." | |
|
| |
|
Average butterfat content at the turn of the century, when American dairy farmers used Jersey and Guernsey cows, was over 4% (more than 50% of calories). Today butterfat comprises less than 3% (under 35% of calories). Worse, the consumer has been duped into believing that low fat and skim milk products are good for them. Only by marketing low fat and skim milk as a health food can the modern dairy industry get rid of its excess poor quality, low fat milk from Holstein herds. Butterfat contains vitamins A and D needed for the assimilation of calcium and protein in the water fraction of the milk. Without them, protein and calcium are more difficult to utilize and possibly toxic. Butterfat is rich in short and medium chain fatty acids which protect against disease and stimulate the immune system. It contains glycospingolipids that prevent intestinal distress, and conjugated linoleic acid that has strong anticancer properties. |
Real Milk contains butterfat, and lots of it!. |
| |
| Buy only full-fat milk products. Avoid butter substitutes. | |
|
| |
|
|
Powdered skim milk, a source of dangerous oxidized cholesterol and neurotoxic proteins, is added to 1% and 2% milk. Some producers are now adding vegetable oils to skim milk! Low-fat yogurts and sour creams contain mucopolysaccharide slime to give them body. Pale butter from hay-fed cows contains colorings to make it look like vitamin-rich butter from grass-fed cows. Bioengineered enzymes are used in large-scale cheese production. Many mass-produced cheeses contain additives and imitation cheese products made from vegetable oils are passed off as the real thing. |
| |
| Boycott Counterfeits. | |
|
| |
More About "Real Milk" by Sally Fallon |
We have been taught that pasteurization is a good thing, a method of protecting ourselves against infectious diseases, but closer examination reveals that its merits have been highly exaggerated.
The modern milking machine and stainless steel tank, along with efficient packaging and distribution, make pasteurization totally unnecessary for the purposes of sanitation. And pasteurization is no guarantee of cleanliness. All outbreaks of salmonella from contaminated milk in recent decades -- and there have been many -- have occurred in pasteurized milk. This includes a 1985 outbreak in Illinois that struck 14,316 people causing at least one death. The salmonella strain in that batch of pasteurized milk was found to be genetically resistant to both penicillin and tetracycline. Raw milk contains lactic-acid-producing bacteria that protect against pathogens. Pasteurization destroys these helpful organisms, leaving the finished product devoid of any protective mechanism should undesirable bacteria inadvertently contaminate the supply. Raw milk in time turns pleasantly sour while pasteurized milk, lacking beneficial bacteria, will putrefy.
But that’s not all that pasteurization does to milk. Heat alters milk’s amino acids lysine and tyrosine, making the whole complex of proteins less available; it promotes rancidity of unsaturated fatty acids and destruction of vitamins. Vitamin C loss in pasteurization usually exceeds 50%; loss of other water-soluble vitamins can run as high as 80%; the Wulzen or anti-stiffness factor is totally destroyed. Pasteurization alters milk’s mineral components such as calcium, chlorine, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium and sulphur as well as many trace minerals, making them less available. There is some evidence that pasteurization alters lactose, making it more readily absorbable. This, and the fact that pasteurized milk puts an unnecessary strain on the pancreas to produce digestive enzymes, may explain why milk consumption in civilized societies has been linked with diabetes.
Last but not least, pasteurization destroys all the enzymes in milk -- in fact, the test for successful pasteurization is absence of enzymes. These enzymes help the body assimilate all bodybuilding factors, including calcium. That is why those who drink pasteurized milk may suffer, nevertheless, from osteoporosis. Lipase in raw milk helps the body digest and utilize butterfat. After pasteurization, chemicals may be added to suppress odor and restore taste. Synthetic vitamin D2 or D3 is added -- the former is toxic and has been linked to heart disease while the latter is difficult to absorb. The final indignity is homogenization which has also been linked to heart disease.
Powdered skim milk is added to the most popular varieties of commercial milk -- one-percent and two-percent milk. Commercial dehydration methods oxidize cholesterol in powdered milk, rendering it harmful to the arteries. High temperature drying also creates large quantities of nitrate compounds, which are potent carcinogens.
Modern pasteurized milk, devoid of its enzyme content, puts an enormous strain on the body’s digestive mechanism. In the elderly, and those with milk intolerance or inherited weaknesses of digestion, this milk passes through not fully digested and can clog the tiny villi of the small intestine, preventing the absorption of vital nutrients and promoting the uptake of toxic substances. The result is allergies, chronic fatigue and a host of degenerative diseases.
All the healthy milk-drinking populations studied by Dr. Weston A. Price DDS subsisted on raw milk, raw cultured milk or raw cheese from normal animals eating fresh grass or fodder. It is very difficult to find this kind of milk in America. In California and Georgia, raw milk was formerly available in health food stores. Intense harassment by state sanitation authorities has all but driven raw milk from the market in these states, in spite of the fact that it is technically legal. Even when available, this milk suffers from the same drawbacks as most supermarket milk -- it comes from freak-pituitary cows, often raised in crowded barns on inappropriate feed. In some states you can buy raw milk at the farm. If you can find a farmer who will sell you raw milk from old fashioned Jersey or Guernsey cows, allowed to feed on fresh pasturage, then by all means avail yourself of this source. Some stores now carry pasteurized, but not homogenized, milk from cows raised on natural feed. Such milk may be used to make cultured milk products such as kefir, yoghurt, cultured buttermilk and cultured cream. Traditionally cultured buttermilk, which is low in casein but high in lactic acid, is often well tolerated by those with milk allergies, and gives excellent results when used to soak whole grain flours for baking. If you cannot find good quality raw milk, you should limit your consumption of milk products to cultured milk, cultured buttermilk, whole milk yoghurt, butter, cream and raw cheeses. Raw cheese ia available in all states. Much imported cheese is raw -- look for the words "milk" or "fresh milk" on the label -- and of very high quality.
Reprinted from "Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats" by Sally Fallon
Purchase this book here from Philip Higson in Australia - $66 plus postage.
