Komputer for Alle 1998 #6/1998 CD 6 (Gul).iso/web/ffa/wwwenv~1.org/arrs/digest/news44~3.htm/text0004.txt

Text File | 1998-04-03 | 32.2 KB | 755 lines

WHAT THE BIOTECH INDUSTRY SAYS, THE US GOVERNMENT SAYS!
______________________________________________________________________________
US Dept. of Ag. Talks Tough on Proposed GMO Separation & Labeling

By Christopher Lyddon

LONDON, June 19 (Reuter) - The United States took a firm line against
European misgivings about gene-modified crops on Thursday telling a
conference it would not tolerate segregating them from other exports.

``As long as these products prove safe we will not tolerate their
segregation,'' U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman said in a speech at a
meeting of the 44-nation International Grains Council in London.

The executive Commission of the European Union had on Wednesday given formal
approval to compulsory labelling of all genetically-modified farm products
from July 31. Labels should specify that a product ``may contain or consist
of genetically modified organisms''.

Segregation of shipments would make it easier to use labelling to distinguish
genetically-altered crops. Grain analysts says that if there is no such
segregation it risks making the EU regulation meaningless.

Glickman in his London speech urged the value of biotechnology as a solution
to the world's future food supply problems.

``Sound science ought to be the only arbiter,'' he said. ``The greatest
threat to free trade is bad and phoney science...We know that biotechnology
holds out our greatest hope of dramatically increasing yields.''

``I know biotechnology is an extremely sensitive issue in Europe,'' he said.
But the U.S. consumer movement was stronger than ever and this underlined
confidence in science-based decisions on food safety.

Another warning to importers about curbing trade in gene-modified products
came from Ralph Goodale, minister with responsibility for the Canadian Wheat
Board.

Goodale also hailed the use of biotechnology as a way of improving the
efficiency of agriculture.

``Canada's crop industry is in the midst of a second green revolution,'' he
said.

08:02 06-19-97
_____________________________________________________________________________
Agribusiness Letter to Clinton: Get Tough on Biotech

June 18, 1997

The President
The White House
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

As you prepare for the upcoming G-8 meeting, we respectfully request
that you include agricultural biotechnology in all bilateral
discussions with the member countries of the European Union (EU).

The entire U.S. agricultural food and fiber distribution chain is our
nation's largest single industry, accounting for nearly 1 out of
every 6 jobs, and approximately 16% of the Gross Domestic Product
(GDP).  Exports, which account for as much as one-third of domestic
agricultural commodity production, are key to agriculture's overall
economic health and future growth.  This is especially true uner the
new farm bill (Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of
1996), which gradually reduces domestic farm programs and increases
the importance of maintaining continued access to foreign markets.

Last year, U.S. agricultural exports reached a record high of nearly
$60 billion--leading to a record agricultural trade surplus of almost
$30 billion, strengthening farm income, generating billions more in
related economic activity, and providing jobs for over one million
Americans.  Every billion dollars in additional U.S. agricultural
exports will create as many as 17,000 new jobs.

As one of the most productive industries in the world, U.S.
agriculture is charged with the great responsibility to feed and
clothe an ever-increasing world population.  The World Food Summit in
Rome underscored the fact that the U.S. must become even more
efficient if the goal to eliminate hunger is to be accomplished.  As
the world population continues to expand, technology must be
developed to enable the U.S. agricultural system to produce the
needed food in a manner that fully utilizes our production capacity
in an environmentally conscientious manner.  Biotechnology is an
important component of that needed technology.

Because trade is so important to American agriculture and the U.S.
food industry, it is imperative that policy and regulations governing
international commerce of genetically modified food and agricultural
products are based on sound science and not just emotion which often
turns into pure hyperbole.  It is also important to note that
segregation of bulk commodities is not scientifically justified and
is economically unrealistic.

Some officials of the EU advocate requirements that could be
considered non-tariff trade barriers to the U.S. and other countries
exporting to the EU.  It is critical the EU understand at the highest
level that the U.S. would consider any trade barrier of genetically
modified agricultural products, be it discriminatory labeling or
segregation, unacceptable and subject to challenge in the World Trade
Organization (WTO).

Mr. President, agricultural biotechnology is an evolutionary
technology with revolutionary potential to feed an ever-increasing
world population, while enhancing environmental stewardship.  Placing
biotechnology on the bilateral agenda with member countries of the EU
will help assure international trading rules will be based on sound
science and allow the U.S. to continue providing the safest food
supply in the world.

Sincerely,


AG for BIOTECH
AgrEvo USA Company
American Crop Protection Association
American Farm Bureau Federation
American Feed Industry Association
American Meat Institute
American Seed Trade Association
American Soybean Association
American Sugar Alliance
Animal Health Institute
Association of Sales & Marketing Companies
Biotechnology Industry Organization
Corn Refiners Association
Fertilizer Institute
Florida Sugar Cane League
Grocery Manufacturers of America
Hawaiian Sugar Cane League
Louis Dreyfus Corporation
Mid-America Dairymen, Inc.
Monsanto Company
Mycogen Corporation
National Association of Wheat Growers
National Barley Growers Association
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
National Corn Growers Association
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
National Food Processors Association
National Grain and Feed Association
National Grain Sorghum Producers Association
National Grange
National Milk Producers Federation
National Pork Producers Council
Novartis
Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Texas Sugar Cane League
U.S. Beet Sugar Association
U.S. Feed Grains Council
U.S. Meat Export Federation
United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association
Wheat Export Trade Education Committee


===========================================

Rabbit Information Service,
P.O.Box 30,
Riverton,
Western Australia 6148

Email>  [e-mail]

http://www.wantree.com.au/~rabbit/rabbit.htm












Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 12:24:06 -0400
From: "radioactive" <[e-mail]>
To: "Animal Rights" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: Rachel #552: Right to Know Nothing
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
     charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

If you have the time, please send this out to whomever you can, and also an
e-mail to the White House at: http://www.whitehouse.gov and an e-mail to:
The House Of Representatives: http://www.house.gov
 ----
From: Peter Montague <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thursday, June 26, 1997 7:09 AM
Subject: Rachel #552: Right to Know Nothing

=======================Electronic Edition========================
.                                                               .
.           RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #552           .
.                      ---June 26, 1997---                      .
.                          HEADLINES:                           .
.                     RIGHT TO KNOW NOTHING                     .
.                          ==========                           .
.               Environmental Research Foundation               .
.              P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD  21403              .
.      Fax [phone]; Internet: [e-mail]       .
.                          ==========                           .
.RIGHT TO KNOW NOTHING

American corporations are successfully pursuing a new strategy to
evade environmental laws and regulations.  As the NEW YORK TIMES
describes the new strategy, "Urged on by a coalition of big
industries, one state after another is adopting legislation to
protect companies from disclosure or punishment when they
discover environmental offenses at their own plants."[1]  In
essence, state laws are giving corporations immunity from
punishment if they self-report violations of environmental laws.
Furthermore, any documents related to the self-reporting become
officially secret, cannot be divulged to the public, and cannot
be used as evidence in any legal proceedings.  "This is a
disaster for environmental enforcement," says David Ronald, chief
of the environmental crimes division in the Arizona State
Attorney General's Office.  "It has been creeping through the
states without anybody paying much attention."[1]

The strategy took root in 1993 when the Oregon state legislature
passed the first-ever "audit privilege" law, as they are called.
Such laws --which have now been passed in at least 21 states and
are pending in 13 or 14 others --typically contain the following
provisions:

** Corporations that report violations discovered during a
self-audit are immune from prosecution for their violations.
They cannot be fined or otherwise punished if they disclose
violations promptly to government authorities and take
"reasonable" steps to achieve compliance.

** Individuals who participate in conducting an environmental
audit cannot be called to testify in any judicial proceeding or
administrative hearing.

** Perhaps most importantly, if a corporation conducts an
environmental self-audit of its operations, the information in
the self-audit cannot be disclosed to the public and cannot be
used as evidence in any legal proceedings, including lawsuits
and/or regulatory actions.  Any information related to a
self-audit becomes "privileged."  This exemption typically covers
any documents, notes, communications, data, or opinions related
in any way to the audit.  The corporation itself decides what is
related to its self-audit and what is not.  In essence, audit
privilege laws allow a corporation to stamp any document
"audit-related" and thus exempt it from public disclosure,
discovery, or use as evidence in any legal proceeding.  For
companies facing Superfund lawsuits, or toxic tort actions, this
exemption can translate into billions of dollars in avoided costs.

** Some states, such as Texas, have included additional
provisions that make it a crime for employees or government
officials to divulge anything related to environmental
self-audits.  In Texas, if a person divulges such information and
it leads to penalties against a polluter, the individual who
divulged the information must pay the polluters' fines,
penalties, and other costs.  This is a blatant
"anti-whistle-blower" provision, clearly intended to silence
individuals who might otherwise come forward with information
about violations of law.

Audit privilege laws --which are sometimes called Corporate Dirty
Secrets Laws, or Right to Know Nothing Laws --apply not only to
private corporations but also to governments as well.  Thus
citizens of a municipality can lose their right to know about
pollution from their own local landfill when their state
legislature passes an "audit privilege" law.

The 21 states that have, so far, passed "audit privilege" laws
include: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana,
Ohio, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.

The Clinton administration supports environmental self-auditing.
They say that companies know how to audit their own facilities
better than the government does, and can do a better job of it.
However, initially the administration took the position that
companies should receive no immunity from fines or other
punishment if their self-audits revealed violations.  Further,
the administration initially took the position that self-audit
information should not be privileged or secret, saying workers
and communities had a right to know what local corporations were
doing to the environment.

To give these views clout, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
administrator Carol Browner threatened to take enforcement
authority away from any state that passed a typical audit
privilege law.  (Most U.S. federal environmental laws allow EPA
to delegate enforcement authority to the states with the
provision that federal standards must be met.)

Specifically, EPA put Texas on notice that their audit privilege
law was unacceptable because it would compromise the ability of
all governments (federal, state, and local) to enforce
environmental laws. However, in March, 1997, Ms. Browner reversed
her position and said that the Texas law, with minor changes,
would be acceptable to EPA. The Texas law gives both immunity
from prosecution AND privilege to the information produced during
a self-audit, and, as we have seen, it contains a blatant
anti-whistle-blower provision.

Most observers believe the administration cut a deal with Texas
to appease anti-environment forces in the 105th Congress.  As
expected, EPA's stance in Texas has been widely regarded as the
administration's acceptance of all states' audit privilege laws.
More state laws are expected to pass, now that the threat of EPA
sanctions has been withdrawn.

However, the anti-environment forces in Congress have refused to
be appeased.  This month, they proposed national "audit
privilege" legislation.  Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott
(R-Miss.) personally endorsed S. 866, "The Environmental
Protection Partnership Act," which is a standard audit privilege
bill.[2]  It gives immunity to violators who self-report
violations; and it gives a privilege of secrecy to all
information related to self-audits.  Notably, S. 866 specifically
prohibits EPA from revoking enforcement authority of states who
pass audit privilege laws.  A companion bill has been introduced
in the House of Representatives --H.R. 1884, the "Voluntary
Environmental Self-Evaluation Act."

For five years, corporations have been promoting environmental
audit bills around the country, arguing that such laws would
improve environmental protection and public health.  Companies
promoting audit privilege laws include AT&T, Caterpillar, Coors
Brewing, DuPont, Eli Lilly, 3M, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble,
Weyerhauser, and Waste Management, Inc. (WMI).

However, protecting public health may not be the first priority
for all these corporations.  For example, as soon as Ohio passed
its "audit privilege" law in December, 1996, WMI demanded that a
citizens' group return documents --some of them dating back to
1988 --which the citizens had obtained during litigation aimed at
forcing the cleanup of the ELDA landfill near Cincinnati.  WMI
says the documents are now "privileged" under Ohio law and cannot
be used in a federal court case brought by local citizens.[3]
Some of the documents in question are stamped "audit" and others
were simply claimed to be "audits" after the fact. Thus WMI has
revealed unmistakably what "audit privilege" laws are really
about.

Some 80 citizen groups have formed a vigorous coalition to fight
audit privilege laws.  Contact The Network Against Corporate
Secrecy led by Sanford Lewis in Boston: [phone]; or
[e-mail]. Their informative Web site can be found at
http://www.envirolink.org/orgs/gnp/nacs_toc.htm .

As we step back and try to get this "right to know nothing" trend
into perspective, it appears to us that this is just another
aspect of the rapidly-growing power of corporations in America
and worldwide.

Big corporations approved the passage of all the major U.S.
environmental laws now on the books.  (If they had seriously
opposed any of them, they would not be on the books.)  These laws
impose onerous requirements for gathering and reporting data.
Large corporations complain about these features of our national
laws, but in truth these reporting requirements provide a
competitive advantage for large corporations vs. small.  It is
small businesses that get hurt by all the paperwork that our
environmental laws entail.  A big company just assigns a team to
the task and gets it done.  So big corporations created our
complicated laws, partly for the competitive advantage that it
gives them over their smaller, more nimble competitors.

Occasionally, however, our environmental laws cost some big
polluter a major fine of $50 or $100 million dollars.  And toxic
tort lawsuits can cost them hundreds of millions from time to
time.  To reduce the likelihood of bearing such costs, big
polluters now want "audit privilege" laws to protect them from
public scrutiny and to give them immunity against major
penalties.  This retains the burdensome paperwork in the laws,
which gives them a competitive advantage, while reducing the
risks of major costs. The anti-environment Congress is doing its
part to carry out this corporate strategy.  Passing a federal
"audit privilege" law would clearly benefit the big polluters.
Congress has already taken other steps that fit into this
strategy: the federal EPA is now so weak that it cannot possibly
enforce all the laws on the books.  Speaking of EPA's Carol
Browner recently, the NEW YORK TIMES said in an editorial, "As a
practical matter, the task of issuing individual permits for
thousands of companies nationwide is beyond her staff's
capabilities."[4]  This weakening has not happened by accident.
Congress has systematically reduced the capacity of the federal
government to enforce our laws.  In response, Ms. Browner has
willingly formed voluntary "partnerships" with the states, giving
them greater enforcement authority.

State enforcement is weaker than federal enforcement because
states compete with each other for jobs.  Any state that becomes
known as a "pollution haven" will be looked upon favorably by
polluters. Conscientious states find themselves at a disadvantage
under these circumstances.

Sure enough, reports the NEW YORK TIMES, "Pennsylvania and some
other big industrial states are reporting only a handful of major
pollution violations, suggesting that inspectors in those states
may be turning a blind eye to pollution problems.... Federal
inspectors said the state [Pennsylvania] should have found at
least 10 times as many violations as were reported in 1995."[5]
The TIMES later said about 25% of all the states are failing to
enforce the nation's environmental laws.[4]

We must note once again that the fundamental problem is the
unfettered power of the modern corporation.  The Clinton
administration bears as much responsibility as any in this
department.  As the TIMES has said, "Ever since Bill Clinton came
to office, he has done more for the Fortune 500 than virtually
any other President in this century...."[6]

Corporations have limited capacity for self-restraint; they want
it all and they want it now and they don't want anyone telling
them what they can and cannot do.  Until we recognize this --the
nature of the corporate form --as the key problem of our time,
the environment and human health will continue to deteriorate.
                                                --Peter Montague
                (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)

===============
[1] John H. Cushman, Jr., "Many States Give Polluting Firms New
Protections," NEW YORK TIMES April 7, 1996, pg. 1.  See also,
John H. Cushman, Jr., "Colorado and Ohio Accused of Skirting
Federal Environmental Laws," NEW YORK TIMES January 30, 1997, pg.
B7.

[2] Trent Lott, "Voluntary Environmental Self-Audit,"
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD June 11, 1997, pg. S5494.

[3] The attorney representing the citizens is David Altman;
phone: [phone].

[4] "Environmental Defiance [editorial]," NEW YORK TIMES December
20, 1996, pg. A38.

[5] John H. Cushman, Jr., "State Neglecting Pollution Rules,
White House Says," NEW YORK TIMES December 15, 1996, pg. A1.

[6] David E. Sanger, "The Big One: Washington's Political
Earthquake," NEW YORK TIMES September 24, 1995, Section 4 ("Week
in Review"), pg. 1.

Descriptor terms:  enforcement; audit privilege laws;
environmental audits; right to know nothing; corporate dirty
secrets laws; corporations; Alaska; Arkansas; Colorado; Idaho;
Illinois; Indiana; Ohio; Kansas; Kentucky; Michigan; Minnesota;
Mississippi; Montana; New Hampshire; Oregon; South Carolina;
South Dakota; Texas; Utah; Virginia; and Wyoming; bill clinton;
congress;

################################################################
                             NOTICE
Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic
version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge
even though it costs our organization considerable time and money
to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service
free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution
(anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send
your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research
Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do
not send credit card information via E-mail. For further
information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F.
by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL.
                                        --Peter Montague, Editor
################################################################




Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:35:25 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Marcus Samanni)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Painful experiments with rats on homosexuality
Message-ID: <v01520d03afd8ac51cb47@[195.100.24.34]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi!

In Gothenburg, Sweden there's a kind of dubious experiment with rats going
on. The purpose of the experiments is to measure differences in sex in
different areas of the brain during sexual activity. The goal is to find
mechanisms which control sexual character of an individual.

The rats go through a lot of pain. They are among other things isolated for
two weeks (need I say that is very painful for such a social being as the
rat?), castrated and injected with testosterone.


Take a look at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3327/ and write
these scientists an e-mail!


Marcus Samanni


Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 22:00:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Debbie Leahy <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [US] Land O'Lorin Makes Deal
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

     USDA SENTENCES ABUSED ANIMALS
  TO ANOTHER DECADE OF NEGLECT - 6/26/96

A USDA official has confirmed that Land O'Lorin--despite previous
suspensions and penalties levied by the USDA--is to be issued a brand
new license with an unblemished record as a result of a settlement
agreement between owner Lorin Womack and the USDA.  Womack, a
convicted felon, will simply arrange for the license to be issued
under the names of his friends.

Land O'Lorin located at 37W408 Main Street in Batavia, IL is a
pitiful roadside zoo where over 100 animals suffer and die from
extreme neglect and abuse. It is also Womack's home.  Womack has been
a chronic, serious violator of the Animal Welfare Act for nearly a
decade.  Re-issuing a new USDA license to Womack's backyard under a
different name changes nothing for the animals who languish in
miserable conditions.  It will be neglect as usual while we wait
another eight years for the USDA to enforce the minimum standards of
care established by the Animal Welfare Act.  This is yet another
tragic example of the USDA's failure to put habitual violators out of
business.

USDA inspectors have found dead and dying animals, lack of veterinary
care, filthy conditions, poorly maintained cages, insufficient
shelter and space, and failure to provide food and water.  Former
workers charge intentional neglect is rampant.  Womack complains
frequently of lack of funding to excuse his substandard facility, yet
purposefully breeds animals, acquires new animals at exotic animal
auctions, and purchases $80,000 vehicles for his personal use.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:
In a letter dated May 8, 1997 to USDA Animal Care Inspectors, USDA
Secretary Dan Glickman wrote (excerpts):

"An increase in the number of incidences involving mistreatment of
captive wildlife and exotic animals has raised the level of public
concern for the proper handling of these animals."  And "... go
after the chronic violators--let's put them out of business."

According to USDA internal documents, Land O'Lorin "has been in
chronic non-compliance with the Animal Welfare Act since 1989."
Another document states "... it appears that this licensee may be a
candidate for an injunction to protect the health of the animals at
his facility ... the Secretary may seek an injunction whenever
there is reason to believe an exhibitor is 'placing the health of
any animal in serious danger.' ... I recommend we seek an
injunction against Mr. Womack ..."

Due to the severity of the problems at Land O'Lorin, the USDA
considered this a high priority case.  Please write/fax polite
comments to Dan Glickman and urge him to put his words into action
by permanently closing Land O'Lorin's facility--to any licensee.
Re-issuing a new license under a different name simply makes a
mockery of the Animal Welfare Act and will set a precedence for
other facilities to skirt the law.  Contact:

The Honorable Dan Glickman, Secretary
U.S. Department of Agriculture
200-A Whitten Building
14th St. & Independence Ave. SW
Washington, D.C.  20250
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]

-------------------------------------
Illinois Animal Action
P.O. Box 507
Warrenville, IL  60555
630/393-2935
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 22:59:58 -0400
From: Vegetarian Resource Center <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Soybean Processing Solvent -> Chicken Dioxin Contamination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

From: jeff <[e-mail]>
Subject: chicken & dioxins
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:31:03 -0700

The following is exerpted from an article in
Food Chemical News, June 23, 1997:

"Soybean processing solvent may have led to dioxin
contamination"

Investigators have homed in on an Arkansas plant's soybean
feed-processing operation as a possible cause of unusually
high levels of dioxin detected in two chicken samples from
Tyson Foods plants.

An interagency federal investigation is underway into how
dioxins may have entered feed and contaminated two
chickens.  The tainted samples - each made up of fatty
tissues from three different birds - were discovered as
part of a sampling effort for foods under the EPA's yet-to-
be released dioxin reassessment effort. EPA is considering
whether the govt should readjust the std. for dioxins
emitted into the environment.

Out of 80 chicken samples from 24 states, two were found to
have unusually elevated dioxin levels.  When measurements
were converted to edible tissue, the two samples tested for
dioxin at 3.9 and 3.2 ppt.  The other 78 samples averaged
0.09 ppt on an edible basis - 30-40 times less.  The two
aberrant samples were traced to Tyson complexes in Pine
Bluff AK and Seguin TX

The traceback investigation is reportedly focusing on the
processing of soybeans for feed ingredients at a Riceland
Foods plant in Stuttgart AK.  Riceland is the largest
rice processor in the US but also processes soybean for
feed ingredients.

According to the company's WWW site, "Riceland's soybean
processing plant located in Stuttgart AK has provided
high-protein soybean meal and soybean mill run to many
Delta and Southwestern poultry processors, catfish
processors and livestock producers for many years."

Officials suspect the dioxin contamination may be linked to
solvent extracts used in processing soybean as a protein
supplement for feed.  Crushed soybeans are washed with
chemical to extract soybean meal for processing.

EPA, FDA,CDC, and USDA are coordinating with state health
authorities in sampling the feed, sending samples off to
EPA's Mississippi lab for analysis and conducting a hazard
analysis.  They've also been sent to an independent lab.

Results of the tests have yet to be released and it is
unknown how extensively the contamination was spread at the
suspected feed processing operation.  A federal official
confirmed that contamination at the processing plant has
ceased.  Since the incident is subject to an enforcement
action and a possible recall of feed or chicken products,
details are scarce and official word is that the
investigation is still underway.

But govt sources acknowledge that new data on dioxins may
place regulators in a dilemma.  There is no standard or
tolerance level for dioxin-like chemicals in feed or foods,
so it is unknown what level would constitute a public
health hazard.  What level of dioxin in feed, other than
zero, would be considered safe?

USDA has reportedly eliminated the possiblity of a chicken
recall after being unable to confirm that eating
contaminated chickens could represent a genuine public
health threat.  A feed recall is still a possibility.

Tyson Foods released a statement last week announcing that
"we have been assured bu the govt agencies involved that
these levels do not pose any immediated health risk to the
public and no product "hold" or recall is necessary.  Their
concern, as well as ours, is identifying the source of the
dioxin and eliminating it."

Tyson is also doing its own independent testing but is
hampered by a scarcity of labs equipped to perform dioxin
testing in the region.  Tyson tests are pointing toward a
feed ingredient - that ingredient has been removed -
according to Tyson's spokesperson.

------------------------------

How long has this been going on?

Has any of the soy extract been used for other purposes,
such as infant formula?

Why does USDA eliminate the possiblity of a recall?  What
is a "genuine public health threat" from dioxin?

What are the implications of this discovery for the dioxin
reassessment?




</pre>
                            <!-- END OF PAGE CONTENT -->

    </TD>


    <TD width=50 align=center>

    </TD>
</TR>

                            <!-- THE BOTTOM TOOLBAR -->

<TR>

    <TD colspan=3 align=center fontsize=2>
    <a href="../SUB~1.HTM" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/sub.html">ARRS Tools</a>  |
<a href="../NEWSPA~1.HTM" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/newspage.html">News</a>  |
<a href="../ORGS~1.HTM" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/Orgs.html">Orgs</a>  |
<a href="../SEARCH~1.HTM" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/search.html">Search</a>  |
<a href="../SUPPOR~1.HTM" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/Support.html">Support</a>  |
<a href="../ABOUT/INDEX.HTM" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/about">About the ARRS</a>  |
<a href="mailto:[e-mail]">Contact ARRS</a>
    </TD>
</TR>


                                <!-- END OF MAIN -->

</TABLE></center>




        <!-- THE UNDERWRITERS -->

<table border=0 width=100%>
    <tr><td>

<center>    <hr width=285>
<Font Size=1>THIS SITE UNDERWRITTEN IN PART BY:</FONT>
<BR>


<a href="../../../tppmsgs/msgs9.htm#981" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/cgi-bin/show_support.pl?id=t889237342&sec=sbn_bottom&url=http%3a//www.go-organic.com/" target=_top><img src="../../SUPPORT/BANNERS/CROSS-~1/GO-ORG~1.GIF" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/support/banners/cross-promotion/go-organic.gif" border=0 alt="Go Organic"></a>


<hr width=285>

    <br><font size=2>
    <b>The views and opinions expressed within this page are not
necessarily those of the <br>EnviroLink Network nor the Underwriters.  The views
are those of the authors of the work.</b></font>
    </center>
    </td></tr>

</table>

</BODY>

</HTML>