May 30, 2001
Media Compilation #11: 1. Action Letter on LFAS needed now + 2. It's not an "energy crisis", its a "Bush crisis" + 3. A WAR going on, just not the obvious kind! + 4. Fidelity Must Divest From Slave Stock Now!
Dear media person
The following is too urgent and compelling NOT to pass it on...
Your coverage of those issues would be most precious.
Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator
http://www.cybernaute.com/earthconcert2000
1.
THIS IS THE LAST CALL - TODAY! - TO HELP SAVE ALL MARINE LIFE FROM AN ACOUSTIC HOLOCAUST
Subject: Ocean Sanctity Alert: Protect Whales & Dolphins: Action Letter on LFAS needed now! Date: Thu, 24 May 2001
From: Larry Morningstar <mana7@aloha.net>
Ocean Sanctity Alert
Greetings,
Your help is needed NOW to prevent the deployment of the US Navy's dangerous and deadly Low Frequency Active Sonar in 80% of the world's oceans. The Navy is in the last stage of their permitting process, and if the US National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) grants this one more permit, then the Navy can begin blasting this high intensity active sonar worldwide at sound levels billions of times louder than those known to disturb whales.
Does this disturb you? If so, join thousands of concerned global citizens in writing to the NMFS, asking them to deny a permit to the Navy for LFAS.
We are currently moving towards the end of a public comment period on SURTASS LFA (aka LFA Sonar, Low Frequency Active Sonar, or LFAS), which ends on May 31st. Since this is in regard to the Navy's planned global deployment of LFAS, citizens of nations around the world need to send comments, and also to send copies of their letters to US Embassies and Consulates in their home country, to important government officials in their country, and to the media. Spread the word to your friends and family, co-workers and email lists.
The US National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is accepting letters and faxes (but not emails) from the public, commenting on the US Navy's request for a Letter of Authorization (permit) for a limited take (harassment and killing) of marine mammals (including endangered species) incidental to the US Navy's deployment of SURTASS LFA *WORLDWIDE* for a period of 5 years.
Comments must be postmarked no later than May 31, 2001, or faxed no later than May 30th, so as to be received by May 31st.
Comments should be addressed to:
Donna Wieting, Chief Marine Mammal Conservation Division Office of Protected Resources National Marine Fisheries Service 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD20910–3226
Her fax number is (301) 713-0376.
Following are 3 easy options for sending letters of comment:
1) A sample letter is attached as an email attachment: just open it, print it, and fax or mail it.
2) A sample letter follows in the text of this email message, copy & paste it into a word processing document, then print it, and fax or mail it.
3) A website to go to to fax a letter of comments in 3 minutes +
4) Additional Points to Make, to customize your letters
5) Websites and an Email list for more information
---
1) A sample letter is attached as an email attachment: just open it, print it, and fax or mail it.
A sample letter has been included as an attached file in ".rtf" (Rich Text Format) which is easily opened on a PC or Mac in MicroSoft Word or with most other word processing programs. Add your name, address, your email address, and your list of people/places to whom you are cc'ing the letter. Then modify and personalize the letter as you wish, using points from the "Additional Points to Make" list at the end of this message. Then print it out, sign it, mail or fax it to NMFS, and mail or fax copies to your cc list.
NOTE THIS FILE WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THIS MEDIA COMPILATION
2) A sample letter follows in the text of this email message, copy & paste it into a word processing document, then print it, and fax or mail it.
Following is a sample letter which can be copied and pasted into a new document in a word processing program, modified and personalized using points from the "Additional Points to Make" list at the end of this message, and reformatted as necessary. Then print it out, sign it, mail or fax it to NMFS, and mail or fax copies to your cc list.
--- copy from below this line ---
______________ (date)
Donna Wieting,
Chief Marine Mammal Conservation
Division Office of Protected Resources
National Marine Fisheries Service
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring,
MD 20910-3226, USA
Fax number: (301) 713-0376
Dear Ms. Wieting,
SUBJECT: SURVEILLANCE TOWED ARRAY SENSOR SYSTEM (SURTASS) LOW FREQUENCY ACTIVE (LFA) SONAR PROGRAM (PAF 01-197)
I am deeply concerned about the Navy's plan to flood hundreds of thousands of square miles of our oceans with extremely loud, low frequency noise, and about the National Marine Fisheries Service's proposal to permit it. This plan poses a potentially devastating threat to marine mammals – including endangered species – and other ocean life, such as fish and endangered sea turtles, around the world.
The Navy's high intensity Low Frequency Active (LFA) sonar system would operate at noise levels billions of times more intense than those known to disturb the migration and communication behavior of large whales. Yet the Navy has not adequately addressed the long-term effects of the LFA system on whales, dolphins, porpoises, sea turtles, seals, and a host of other marine animals. Nor has it adequately examined the connection between active sonar and mass strandings of whales and other marine life. Amazing at it may seem, the Navy wants to operate this system at sound levels 1000 or more times greater than the levels at which its own tests were performed. This is absolutely unacceptable.
I ask you to withdraw your proposed rule and to deny the Navy's application to deploy LFA sonar.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue.
Sincerely,
______________________________ (signature)
______________________________ (print name)
______________________________ (address)
______________________________ (city, state, zip, country)
______________________________ (email)
cc:
___(ie: PM Tony Blair)
___(ie: US Ambassador, US Embassy, London)
___(ie: London Times)
--- copy to above this line ---
3) A website to go to to fax a letter of comments in 3 minutes Quick, Painless, and Simple... Easy to Pass on to Your Friends:
Go to NRDC's website:
http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/marine/nlfa.asp
There you will find an article about LFAS. To the right of the photo of a dolphin, you will find a link called "ACT NOW to protect whales and other marine life." Click on this link and you will go to a page with an action letter:
http://www.nrdcaction.org/index.asp?step=2&item=377
You can modify or personalized the existing letter, if you like, using points from the "Additional Points to Make" list at the end of this message. Then add your name and personal information, click on the "Send This Message" button, and it will be faxed to NMFS.
4) Additional Points to Make, to customize your letters
Feel free to use your own words. Here are some good points to add. There is no need to use all of them, pick and chose the ones you like.
* The Navy should not be issue a small take permit for deployment of LFA sonar, as it cannot say with any degree of reliability what the size of the take from use of LFAS is likely to be, nor determine a specified area in which a potential take would occur.
* The Navy's data on potential take of sea turtles and fish by LFAS transmissions is virtually nonexistent. The data the Navy has amassed on potential effects of LFAS on cetaceans is severely deficient.
* LFAS was tested at low levels on only four species of whales for about one month each. Consequently, we know virtually nothing about what impact the higher deployment level sonar will have on marine life and humans over the long term.
* The Navy's research has focused on LFAS damaging hearing in cetaceans. This is not the main problem. Evidence now indicates that the damage from high intensity sonar is due to resonance phenomena in the whales' cranial airspaces that tear apart delicate tissues around their brains and ears causing hemorrhaging and death. Necropsies show that this is what caused the death of the whales in the Bahamas stranding in March 2000. The Navy has known about the resonance phenomena issue since 1998.
* A recent Smithsonian analysis determined that, of the seven known mixed-species mass strandings involving beaked whales, all seven occurred over the last 30 years while naval maneuvers were conducted nearby.
* Strategically, LFAS is not an effective system. It highlights the location of our own ships and submarines, compromising our own security and placing our own personnel in jeopardy.
* The Navy has attempted to dismiss the relevance of the stranding of beaked whales in Greece during NATO LFAS exercises in 1996. Faced with a research report's conclusion that there was a less than one percent probability that the cause of the stranding could have been anything other than LFAS, the Navy has attacked the methodology of the researcher who studied the incident and attempted to affirm that the timing of the LFAS transmissions and the unprecedented stranding event could have been a coincidence. The Navy is evidently unaware of the precautionary principle, sufficient grounds to deny the applicant a small take permit.
* The Navy has further denied the relevance of the sonar- incriminating necropsy results from the stranding of beaked whales in the Bahamas in March 2000 during an LWAD sonar exercise on the grounds that LWAD deploys a mid-range, not a low-frequency, sonar. In this arbitrary focus on frequency range, the applicant further demonstrates the unacceptably narrow scope of its testing to determine levels of take. The Navy has given insufficient consideration to the phenomenon of resonance, produced at varying frequencies, causing tissue shear in whales' cranial air spaces. The insufficient consideration of resonance is sufficient cause to the deny the applicant a permit on the grounds that it has not evaluated a likely cause of lethal take of marine mammals in the deployment of high-intensity active sonar systems.
* Were the Navy to admit that the Greece and Bahamas strandings were likely to have been caused by high-intensity sonar, and revise its requested take numbers upward accordingly, the resulting estimate of take would still be likely to be too low, as only a small number of cetaceans that are injured or die at sea strand or wash up on a shoreline. The majority of marine mammals that die as a result of LFAS deployment would sink to the bottom, and thus would remain unknown.
* The Navy dismissed as insignificant the exodus of humpback whales from their accustomed breeding grounds in the LFAS test area off Hawaii, clustering on the opposite side of the island; the cessation of vocalizing among several species; and the observation of abandoned calves in the area during the Phase III test period. While the Service should note in this an obvious predisposition to find test results that would favor deployment, it is equally noteworthy that the Navy has defined "harm" as a phenomenon that can be determined by immediate observation. Though the observed take of humpback whales during Phase III should have been sufficient cause to abandon both the test and the LFAS program and begin serious evaluation of safe alternatives, the Navy also has given no consideration to the probability of long-term harm done to whales that do not leave the areas of LFAS deployment. This deficient definition of harm is sufficient cause to deny the Navy's application for a small take permit, as the applicant on this basis essentially cannot define what would constitute a take by deployment of LFAS.
* The Navy has asserted that the LFAS testing program was not designed to evaluate "worst-case scenarios" and thereby justifies its extrapolation from harassment effects at RL 140 dB to effects at RL 180 dB. However, the Navy's definition of "employment" of the system does not include the actual use of the system for the purpose for which it was created. Outside of war games, at any time of declared "heightened threat conditions" the Navy will claim exemption from environmental laws for reasons of national security and all proposed mitigations will be abandoned, meaning LFAS is likely to be operated in near-shore areas, at full 240 dB source levels, and whether or not cetaceans are sighted within 1 km of the deployment vessel. As the Navy intends to exempt itself from NEPA whenever it deems it necessary -- inevitably creating thereby the "worst-case scenario" for which they admit they have not conducted tests -- all the more reason for the Navy to seriously pursue an alternative that has not already proven to generate high levels of harassment at low levels of deployment, as has LFAS.
* On June 27, 2000 Rear Admirals Fages and Davis spoke before a subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee saying the Navy now has two new passive listening systems -- SURTASS Twin Line and Advanced Deployable System (ADS) -- that can detect quiet submarines at considerable distances where previously they were thought to be undetectable. These passive systems will not harm marine life and appear to be a safe alternative to LFAS. The use of safe, passive listening systems was not addressed in the EIS. By using the safe, passive detection systems and shutting down LFAS, the Navy can fulfill its mission for national security and be stewards of the seas. Passive submarine detection systems developed since the introduction of the 1980s-era technology on which LFAS is based, also include TB-29 towed array with Acoustic Rapid Insertion Sonar (ARCI). These passive sonars provide safe and viable alternatives to SURTASS LFA. So why risk the lives of marine mammals when these safe alternatives exist?
* We concur with the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources in their expression of concern to the Secretary of Defense in October 2000 and its request that the Navy "postpone proceeding with the NMFS to obtain a Letter of Authorization for incidental take under the Marine Mammal Protection Act to operate LFA sonar worldwide until such time that NMFS can properly establish scientifically-based noise standards for marine animals."
* We also concur with the Staff of the California Coastal Commission, which, in its Nov. 8, 2000, "no" vote recommendation on the determination of the consistency of the operation of LFAS with the policies of the California Coastal Management Program, noted that the Navy and NMFS are a long way from establishing such standards.
[The preceding comments were submitted by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and the Ocean Mammal Institute regarding the proposed rule granting the U.S. Navy’s request for a small take exemption under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in the deployment of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active Sonar. These comments have been modified slightly by Ocean Sanctity.]
5) Websites and an Email list for more information
Ocean Mammal Institute http://www.oceanmammalinst.org
http://www.oceanmammalinst.org/lfa-navy.html
http://www.oceanmammalinst.org/kenbalcombletter.htm
http://www.oceanmammalinst.org/navyconclusionsflawed.htm
National Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
http://www.nrdc.org
http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/marine/nlfa.asp
http://www.nrdcaction.org/index.asp?step=2&item=377
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society http://www.seashepherd.org
http://www.seashepherd.org/issues/habitat/cnnnoise.html
http://www.seashepherd.org/issues/habitat/sscslognoise.html
Stop LFAS Worldwide Network http://listen.to/lfas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoplfas
http://go.to/stoplfas
Quiet Sea Coalition http://www.maui.net/~mailbot/quietsea.html
New York Times Article
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/10/science/10WHAL.html
Cetacean Nation http://www.cetacean-nation.com
http://www.cetacean-nation.com/LFAS.html
CNN Report: http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9906/30/sea.noise.part1
http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9907/01/sea.noise.part2
http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9907/02/sea.noise.part3
Official Navy Site / EIS for SURTASS LFA http://www.surtass-lfa-eis.com
Ocean Sanctity eMail Newsletter and Alerts To keep updated on LFAS and other issues and stories related to whales, dolphins, and the oceans, subscribe to the Ocean Sanctity Network's free email newsletter and alerts. to subscribe, reply to this message, by sending an email to: mana7@aloha.net with these words in the subject of the message: Subscribe Ocean Sanctity eMail List
Thank you for caring about whales and dolphins, sea turtles and seals, fish and sea birds, not to mention human divers, snorkelers, swimmers, and surfers.
Please forward this message far and wide.
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*: Ocean Sanctity Alert :*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
Ocean Sanctity Larry Morningstar mana7@aloha.net
To subscribe to the Ocean Sanctity Newsletter and Alerts: just send a message with the words: "subscribe: Ocean Sanctity Newsletter" to: mana7@aloha.net To unsubscribe to this list: just send a message with the words: "unsubscribe: Ocean Sanctity Newsletter" to: mana7@aloha.net
And remember...
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world: Indeed it is the only thing that ever has!"
Margaret Meade
ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS!
2.
From: "Jerry Rothstein" <jerry@turquoise.net>
Subject: It's not an "energy crisis", its a "Bush crisis"
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001
WHO'S RUNNING THE SHOW?
Here is a list of some of the biggest energy industry donors to the Republican party during Bush's campaign:
ENRON - $1,800,000.00
EXXON - $1,200,000.00
KOCH INDUSTRIES - $970,000.00
SOUTHERN POWER - $900,000.00
BP AMOCO - $800,000.00
LEHMAN BROTHERS - $808,000.00
EL PASO ENERGY - $787,000.00
CHEVRON OIL CORP - $780,000.00
RELIANT ENERGY - $642,000.00
TEXAS UTILITIES TXU - $635,000.00
Ever hear of Enron Corporation? They're America's Number One power trading team and they know you can't win the power game unless you play the political game and they're the champs. No one's given more money to the political campaigns of George W. Bush than Enron - let's go see if we can find their HQ... Oops! Houston, Texas!
Investigations are proceeding into profiteering by power traders during the California energy crisis and black-outs. The State of California has accused El Paso Corporation and Dynegy (both subsidaries of Enron Corp) of deliberately restricting the flow of natural gas through the pipeline from Texas CREATING an artificial shortage which caused prices to go up ten fold.
Who stands to profit from the artificially created "energy crisis" in the USA? Why has this "crisis" only occured since G W Bush took office? On December 14, 2000, President Clinton ordered an end to speculation in energy prices in California - which bit into the profits of El Paso and Dynegy... and Enron and Reliant too. But they were betting on another horse. Between them they gave $3.5 million to Bush and the Republicans.
Reliant told us "Frankly, we feel some candidate's philosophies will benefit the company, its stockholders, and its customers more than will others." Three days after his inauguation Bush swept away Clinton's anti-speculation orders. After Bush lifted controls Enron's profits jumped up by 87 million... not a bad return on political contributions of 1.8 million dollars.
Alcoa was facing a demand to cut emissions by 50%, that would have meant replacing the cheap and dirty lignite (the filthiest fuel you can burn) with clean but expensive natural gas. But within a month of passage of Bush's 'voluntary' pollution law, attorneys with the law firm pleading Alcoa's case to the regulators gave $170,000 to the Republican campaign.
Coincidence? Alcoa deny any link they told us they "exert no control over the legal and lobbying firms" they retain. According to Alcoa's own figures not switching to gas saved them $100 million.
Newsnight has discovered, deep in Bush's new budget, the million-dollar fund for civil enforcement to deter pollution will be axed. Law enforcement will be left to locals - and in Texas, the weak State watchdog is letting Alcoa open a new lignite pit 20 miles away.
Alcoa's former CEO Paul O'Neill is making new friends - Bush named him Secretary of the US Treasury - so O'Neill has to sell off his Alcoa shares - he'll get about $100 million. Alcoa made a $100,000 contribution to the Bush Cheney inaugural. They told us this was in honor of Paul O'Neill. He's also on Vice President Dick Cheney's "Energy Group."
Apart from Paul O'Neill, the committee includes Bush's Commerce Secretary Don Evans - he was CEO of Tom Brown Inc. a billion dollar oil and gas company, and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, a motor industry favorite - they gave him $700,000 last year... and of course Dick Cheney, the Vice President, former boss of Halliburton which builds nuclear power plants and is the world's largest oil services company. And what a coincidence.Today, the Cheney group recommended building more nukes, drilling more oil and burning more coal.
One of the first major pieces of legislation to go through Congress under President Bush is a bankruptcy bill that protects MBNA the largest manufacturer and seller of credit cards, citizens in this country can no longer write off credit card debt when they file for bankruptcy it was a key priority of Mr Cawley and his bank and he bet early and he bet often on our Governor would some day be in the White House and would some day be able to deliver on this favour. Wall Street analysts put MBNA's gain at $75 million PER YEAR!
I don't know what else to say. We'll keep digging, but this has to get out.
VERY DISTURBING STUFF ON GMOs!
3.
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001
From: Chere Rae <heartvisions@earthlink.net>
Subject: A WAR going on, just not the obvious kind!
Greetings Jean,
This article summarizes 8 years of the research I have done, I found it powerful and motivating. Hopefully you will as well. There are Solutions, understanding the magnitude is essential in my opinion.
Health and Wellness,
Chere
This article is from the May 2001 issue of TOTAL WELLNESS, a monthly Newsletter by Dr. Sherry Rogers, M.D.
THE WORLD’S MOST VICIOUS MACC ATTACK
I started out nearly 30 years ago being poisoned by formaldehyde myself when we foam insulated the interior walls of our office. Little did I know how following recommendations for the latest advances in construction, superimposed on a lifetime of allergies and bad eating habits, would lead to the indescribable years of misery before I learned how to conquer and cure the resulting chemical sensitivities. Surprised to see that we were not alone, entire families who had been forced out of their homes into tents on their lawns in order to survive were coming in for treatment. Even household pets had rashes and vomiting. Because we were the first generation to suffer from urea foam formaldehyde insulation sensitivity, our ideas were often ostracized. Two decades later just about everybody knew that formaldehyde can mimic nearly every symptom as well as be a trigger for cancers. And by using up and depleting important detox nutrients, it and other chemicals potentiate the most common diseases like arteriosclerosis, cancer and premature aging. Now the only folks who deny the thousands of published scientific reports documenting the nightmare that chemicals have caused are those with a vested interest. The Gulf War veterans and those exposed to agent orange, and folks poisoned at work by pesticides and volatile hydrocarbons have been given a raw deal by those responsible who do not want to pay up. Even Government studies confirm that at least 90% of cancers are caused by diet and environment, and this statistic holds for all disease.
Up until now I never dreamed there could be anything worse than the chemical catastrophes we have experienced in this century, but I was wrong, for at least with chemical sensitivity you can find evidence for it's bioacumulation in the body, and get rid of it. On the other hand there is a newer plague that is nearly impossible to detect and it is irreversible. Worse, it causes an unmistakable, inescapable domino effect. GENETIC ENGINEERING is the culprit.
You probably were first aware of genetic engineering when I told you about Monsanto inserting genes from plants of unrelated species into the soybean plant to make it resistant to the potent herbicide, Roundup [glyphosate]. The Roundup resistant soybean seed can now be heavily sprayed with Roundup to kill weeds, and never damage the soybean. However, the beans do pack quite a wallop for those who ingest them because they are heavily contaminated with the toxic herbicide, Roundup. These genetically modified soybean products, which comprise about 80% of the beans available, have been found in most baby formulas including Carnation, Similac, Enfamil, Isomil, and Neocare as well as Doritos, Fritos, vegetable oils, soybean oil, margarine, and much more.
As well, one of the genes is from the petunia plant which is a nightshade.That means folks with nightshade-induced arthritis can now get arthritis from soybean products. When Monsanto inserted the Brazil nut gene into soy,folks allergic to Brazil nuts were suddenly anaphylaxis[serious life threatening reaction where one is not able to breathe] from soybean. They quickly removed the gene because the symptom was so dramatic.
Unfortunately, genetic engineering is not limited to a simple matter o trying to improve upon a few species of plant food. For when a gene from one species is placed in a wholly different animal or plant, you need a vector, or something that will carry that gene into the genetic factory of the unrelated organism. Oftentimes a VIRUS is used, since a virus is merely a piece of genetic material with a protein coat that is so small that it can easily "infect" other genetic material.
CANCER VIRUSES ARE DELIBERATELY INSERTED INTO YOUR FOOD
Cancer in chickens, often results from infection with the Rous Sarcoma virus. Hold your seat, for you'll probably find this as difficult to believe as I did. Scientists who make money for companies through genetic engineering have decided there is no problem with using this chicken cancer virus as a vector or carrier to implant the growth hormone gene into farmed fish so they will grow faster. The problem is that once inside the fish, this virus can persist and infect the next host, you, that eats that fish. Scientists glibly say that there is no danger here and can get away with it because the U.S Government does not require any testing or proof of the safety of genetically engineered foods. And the scary part is far from over.
LEUKEMIA virus in chicken has been used as a vector to carry genes, many of which are human, into developing poultry. In addition, a retrovirus was used as a virus vector in pigs to insert human fetal cells to grow aortas for transplantation into humans. These have led to infections in humans with the pig's retrovirus. Have they lost their minds and all ethics?
These viruses can also combine with one another to create new plant and animal diseases. And more important, foreign genetic material from these viruses can be absorbed through our intestines and become incorporated into the cells of our own bodies creating new diseases in us. Wow! What a sci-fi nightmare! Genes inserted into plants are put there to make them resistant to certain pests, pesticides, herbicides or antibiotics. But these vectors or gene transporters can also infect the bacteria and other organisms in our intestinal tracts. Creating a new antibiotic resistance in them. How would you like to be harboring Klebsiella or Candida in your gut that is resistant to all treatments? If that weren't enough of a problem, one of the most common genes inserted into plants is the Bt gene. Bt stands for Bacillus thuringiensis, a particular bacteria that secretes a toxin that kills many types of pests that infect plants. The problem is that this toxin, once inside some people makes them extremely ill. It can mimic the symptoms of nightshade s where you seemingly overnight have to crawl to the bathroom for days because of such sore body muscles and joints. As with a nightshade attack [November 1999 issue] days or weeks later it can end as precipitously as it began, baffling every physician. The Bt gene has been put in potatoes, corn and not only have soybeans become Roundup resistant but so has the sugar beet from which vitamin C powder can be made.
Genes have been put into tomatoes to change their ripening time, into cotton [used in junk food oil called vegetable oil, as on roasted nuts given out on airlines] to make that plant resistant to pesticides. Canola oil is another product of genetic engineering and should never be ingested.
In 1994 the U.S FDA approved the genetically engineered hormone rBGH which is a growth hormone designed to increase milk production in cows. This growth hormone caused increased mastitis and need for antibiotics [which go into the milk] and as well over 800 farmers using it reported adverse health problems in their cows. Monsanto, the developer, tried to bribe Health Canada Govt. officials with several million dollars to approve this hormone which is used by about a third of U.S. farmers.
The prestigious medical journal, Lancet [May 9,1998], shows that breast cancer is SEVEN times higher in women with tiny increases in growth hormone, Insulin like Growth Factor [IGF-1], which comes from cows injected with BGH. In January 1996 the International Journal of Health Sciences reported that IGF-1 concentrations are ten times higher in BGH milk and can be absorbed through our intestines and increase our risk of cancer. As well there is evidence that it has caused abnormal cysts on the thyroid gland and in the prostate gland and a myriad of other symptoms. There is no turning back. By forcing genes from one species to another entirely unrelated species, we are creating new entities. This is another example of the arrogance and ignorance of man when he thinks that he can one-up God and create an improved organism.
There are so many fallacies with this reasoning that over a dozen books have already been written to begin to collate much of the evidence against genetically modified organisms. The difficulty is that there are not enough people even aware of the problem to make a significant impact. By the time the damage is done it will be to late. It's not like cleaning up a lake from decades of pollution. Once we have [1] lost thousands of species of plants, [2] driven all small farmers out of business, [3] created Frankenstein foods, [4] super weeds resistant to all herbicides, [5] plants resistant to pesticides, [6] new viruses and new illnesses in humans, there will be no turning back.
You might be surprised as I was to find that there is no testing required even after these and many more facts have come to light. Genetically modified foods are already unavoidable and there is absolutely no labeling required. We are already eating genetically modified foods, as 60% of processed foods now contain at least one genetically modified food. A common snack might be chips with firefly gene or potato chips with chicken gene [watch out for leukemia and sarcoma, muscle cancer, virus genes]. Or perhaps you like salsa with tomato having a flounder gene. A common meal might include creamy broccoli soup with a bacteria gene and a salad made with canola oil, vegetable oil or soybean oil, all GMO products.
People like myself who are nightshade sensitive are really out of luck because the tobacco gene is used in lettuce and cucumbers and the petunia gene is used in soybeans and carrots. Folks with celiac disease might be fooled because walnuts can have the barley gene in them. And some foods like strawberries have "undisclosed genes" so all bets are off. Would we expect anything different from an industry that has carte blanche regulation-free control over our total food supply? You might think cheese is a safe food but they've genetically engineered bacterial rennet. Apple juice can have the silkworm gene and grapes can contain a virus gene. Well including trout, salmon, catfish, bass and even shrimp. In May of 1999, three giant multinational food companies announced they would no longer market genetically engineered foods or their ingredients in England, because the Limeys were smart enough to protest, so guess who will get the leftovers? U.S.
Proponents of GMO foods say they will lessen the amount of pesticides that must be used, but that is not true. Didn't we already fall for this line with the promise that new pesticides would reduce the need for others? First of all many of the toxins that plants have been genetically manipulated or forced to produce also kill beneficial things like ladybugs so that even more pesticides are needed to do the job that they would have done.These genes can also spread from the crops to the weeds making the weeds more resistant and stronger than ever, creating an epidemic of super weeds.
Also disturbing is a report that Monsanto's Roundup ready resistant GE soybeans have higher than normal levels of estrogen. Is this something we want for male babies growing up on soybean formula? As well, some of the viruses used as vectors for genes and inserted into plants to make them virus resistant can be combined with genetic material from another invading virus [as from a cold] forming a brand new more virulent virus and creating a new fatal epidemic that has never before been seen.
Clearly NAFTA has allowed our illegal "recycled" pesticides access to us, while our FDA and USDA cannot police what they already have on their plates, much less handle the billion dollar graft associated with genetic engineering that is so carefully documented in BEYOND EVOLUTION. The FDA has allowed Olestra into your foods, which has no proven ability to decrease the rampant obesity. But it does decrease you absorption of priceless nutrients like vitamin E, D, and K that are absolutely crucial in inhibiting the top two most common causes of death and disease, arteriosclerosis and cancer.
In the past we have talked about how many people are not "Better Through Chemistry" as DuPont's old motto suggested. Because many have lost loved ones to cancer and other diseases caused by environmental chemicals, they have become "bitter through chemistry". These chemicals are allowed in our air, food and water so that multinational corporations can make huge profits. Now with the wildfire spread of genetic engineering, small farms will fade into extinction as multinational agriculture and chemical corporations [MACC] gain control over all of your food.
Are you ready for the greatest MACC attack in the history of the world? Worse than chemical pollution ever thought of being, genetic pollution has the irreversible potential and probability of changing the very nature of all of or food and even our own genetics. As veterinarian, Michael W Fox, warns in his excellent and highly recommended book, BEYOND EVOLUTION [which details and references the dangers of GMO foods], our only chance to save ourselves and the future is with people power.
But uninformed people are powerless. Multinational corporations are changing our food and animals and they have free reign. They're not accountable to anyone since they do not have to label their foods and they are not required to do any safety testing. It is irreversible, unstoppable and has the capability of snowballing us into a veritable Jurassic Park.
You vote with your shopping basket and can make your voice heard by letting your legislators know that you want all genetically engineered food labeled and all engineering stopped until there are appropriate studies done on the long range human side effects and safety.
Recommended reading: Fox, Michael W BEYOND EVOLUTION, the Lyons Press, 123 W 18th New York, N. Y. - 10011 - Phone 212 620 9580
Cummins R Lilliston B. GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS, A SELF DEFENSE GUIDE FOR CONSUMERS, available from Natural Lifestyles, 1 800 752 2775
4.
From: action@iabolish.com
Subject: Fidelity Must Divest From Slave Stock Now!
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001
Fidelity's investment in Talisman Energy is fueling slave raids in Sudan. Raise your voice and urge Fidelity to divest.
You can take action on this alert either via email (please see directions below) or via the web at: http://www.GetActiveHub.com/take-action.tcl?key=1558482A12876B0529010642C277
Help build the chorus of protest. Tell your friends that they may be funding slavery. Then get them involved. http://www.GetActiveHub.com/campaign/fidelity_protest/forward?rk=w7zALZM1s7qsW
We encourage you to take action by June 3, 2001
Get Fidelity to Divest from Talisman
---
Tell Fidelity to divest from Talisman Energy, a partner with the genocidal Sudanese government. Talisman helps fund government militias in their campaign of gang-rape, mass murder and slavery--all to clear the land for more oil drilling.
Edit and send the e-mail below to Jeffrey Hamilton, assistant to Fidelity's CEO, Edward Johnson. And take two minutes to call Mr. Hamilton at 1-800-771-7213.
---
INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPOND VIA THE WEB: If you have access to a web browser, you can take action on this alert by going to the following URL:
http://www.GetActiveHub.com/take-action.tcl?key=1558482A12876B0529010642C277
INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPOND VIA EMAIL: Just choose the "reply to sender" option on your email program, and edit the letter below as you wish. Do not delete "-YOU MAY EDIT THE LETTER BELOW-" and "-END OF LETTER-". Please do not add your name and address to your letter. Our system automatically does this for you.
We STRONGLY encourage you to make edits directly to our sample letter below, and put the alert talking points into your own words. An individualized letter is worth ten computer generated letters. Of course, hundreds of unedited letters will still create a large impact, so please reply even if you don't have time to personalize the letter.
Your letter will be addressed and sent to: Mr. Jeffrey Hamilton
--- YOU MAY EDIT THE LETTER BELOW ---
I write to protest Fidelity's investment in Talisman Energy--and your company's unwillingness to address the consequences of its investment in Talisman.
Talisman is a major financial partner with the Sudanese government, a regime Congress calls "genocidal." The money you invest in Talisman enables the Sudanese government to launch vicious slave raids against black civilians in southern Sudan. Government forces gang-rape women and girls, and have abducted thousands into bondage.
Talisman only compounds the problem by filling Sudan's war coffers with oil profits and by creating one more reason to clear the oil-rich land of southern Sudan. For this reason, many prominent funds have divested from Talisman--including TIAA-CREF, Vanguard, and the State of New York.
But Fidelity has failed to follow suit, and is now one of the largest shareholders in Talisman. This is an outrage. You argue that Fidelity cannot take responsibility for the actions of companies in its portfolio. But surely Fidelity would not have invested in Southern cotton plantations or Nazi munitions factories.
Please inform your boss, Mr. Edward Johnson, that I am telling my friends and family of Fidelity's shameful record on this matter. Fidelity should stay faithful to its professed values--and divest immediately from Talisman.
****
Powered by GetActive Software, Inc.
Enabling Organizations To Achieve Their Mission
http://www.getactivesoftware.com
