Komputer for Alle 1998 #6/1998 CD 6 (Gul).iso/web/ffa/wwwenv~1.org/arrs/digest/news63~4.htm/text0000.txt

Text File | 1998-04-02 | 87.5 KB | 2,251 lines

Cow eggs can develop for a while with genes from other species

The Associated Press

NEW YORK, January 19, 1998

Scientists have put genes from adult sheep, pigs and other species into
cow eggs and the eggs have grown into early embryos.

If the technique can be improved, it might help scientists produce
genetically altered animal organs for transplanting into people, said
researcher Neal L. First of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Scientists might be able to produce organs rather than whole animals
from the transformed eggs, he said.

The work is to be reported Monday in Boston at a meeting of the
International Embryo Transfer Society.

Researchers replaced the cow genes in the eggs with sheep, pig, rat or
monkey genes, taken from the ear cells of adult animals. Eggs then
developed according to the timetable of whatever species donated the
genes, First said.

At least some of the inserted genes were apparently reprogrammed by the
eggs to promote early development of the species they came from, First
said.

Some embryos were put into females of the appropriate species for
further development, but the pregnancies ended in miscarriage early on,
First said.

"We have lots of things to learn if we are going to make it go to
completion," First said in a telephone interview. He said it's not clear
whether the technique could produce baby animals.
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 21:32:06 -0800
From: Andrew Gach <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Knee-jerk reactions & ill-informed hysteria
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

British science magazine opposes hasty ban on human cloning

Agence France-Presse
LONDON, January 19, 1998 4:13 p.m.

The British medical review The Lancet cautioned Monday against a
'precipitous' ban on human cloning, quoting an expert as saying the
cloning of human organs and tissues could have 'immense clinical value.'

In an editorial, The Lancet noted the storm of protest, led by US
President Bill Clinton, to a report that US physicist Richard Seed
planned to open a cloning clinic to help childless couples.

Britain, on the contrary, has shown a 'refreshing' attitude toward
cloning, a 'more considered and informed route toward decision on human
cloning,' said the review.

It applauded Britain's Human Genetics Advisory Commission for its
intention to issue a public consultative document by the end of this
month.

'The aim of this publication is to explain the process by which a human
clone could be made, and to list the possible benefits of such a
technique together with the inevitable ethical pitfalls.

'The approach seems sensible and neatly cuts through knee-jerk reactions
of blanket bans and ill-informed hysteria,' said The Lancet.

It quoted Robert Winston, fertility professor at the University of
London, as saying, 'There will be immense clinical value in being able
to clone human tissues and organs, rather than whole people.'

US scientists will soon report the first use of a cloned human vein in
laboratory animal experiments, said the editorial.

Cloning could help with presently untreatable infertility, and would
enable the production of transgenic animals for transplant organs.

But despite the benefits cited by Winston, said The Lancet, he describes
Richard Seed as 'clearly unhinged.'
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 21:32:55 -0800
From: Andrew Gach <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: From the pasture to the plate
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Big profit in mini-cows?

The Associated Press
BISMARCK, N.D. January 19, 1998

Can half-size cows turn giant profits for American producers? Yes, says
Neil Effertz, a rancher north of Bismarck who is promoting a rare breed
that he calls "Loala" -- to rhyme with koala, the little Australian
marsupial that looks like a teddy bear.

"It's going to be profitable right away. We have got a vertically
integrated system in place ... from the pasture to the plate," he said.

The key, he said, is high-tech breeding and multilevel marketing.

Effertz recently established American Loala Management LLC, a marketing
company with exclusive rights to import Loala embryos and semen to the
United States from Canada and Australia. The breed was developed in
Australia from more traditional Angus stock.
Loala is known in other parts of the world as miniature Angus, miniature
lowline, lowline Angus or lowline.

Aggressive marketing is needed because many ranchers and farmers,
accustomed to gambling on the weather, are reluctant to take a chance on
a new kind of cattle, said Wade Moser, executive vice president of the
North Dakota Stockmen's Association.

"It's unpredictable," Moser said. "There's a tendency to go back to the
established breeds that people have got a lot of information on."

Only 500 to 700 miniature Angus exist, Effertz said, and he touts them
as "the most valuable cattle in the world."

"By the end of the year 1999, we should have probably 200 to 300 females
in production" in the United States, Effertz said. "Then you can start
to generate quite a bit more."

Most cows deliver one calf a year, but technology will allow Loala
heifers to produce about 30 calves annually.

Loala semen is artificially inseminated into cows that have been given
fertility drugs so they produce more than one egg. Once the eggs are
fertilized to become embryos, they are removed and frozen. They can be
sold or placed in a normal cow that becomes what is called a pregnant
recipient, which also can be sold.

The new company is selling Loala semen ($25 a unit), embryos ($3,000
apiece) and pregnant recipients ($17,500 each), all at significantly
higher prices than those of more traditional cattle breeds. Buyers can
earn commissions by getting new customers.

"We are establishing a nationwide marketing network to market the
embryos, the semen and the pregnant recipients, and eventually the live
cattle from this breed," Effertz said.

The long-term allure of the Loala may be its quality. Although cute and
cuddly at only about half the size of most cattle, Loalas produce a 30
percent higher ratio of prime cuts and reach market weight (about 750
pounds) for roughly one-third the feed costs, Effertz said.

He said there is an upscale niche market for Loala meat, which has
smaller cuts more suitable to many consumers' appetites.

"These cattle can produce $60,000 to $90,000 a year in annual income,"
Effertz said.

Dick Jensen, who ranches near Williston, N.D., has one bull calf Loala
and two pregnant recipients that will deliver heifers next month. He
said investing in the new breed is no more risky than other farm
venture.

"If you buy ... land for $40,000 to $50,000, you don't know how much
you're going to get out of that either," he said.

"I figured it would be a good semi-retirement project. You have a few
less cattle around and less work, and make more money, I hope."

By JEREMIAH GARDNER, Associated Press Writer
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 14:28:34 +0800 (SST)
From: Vadivu Govind <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: (HK) 26 more ill after eating big reef fish
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"



>Hong Kong Standard
20 Jan 98

26 more ill after eating big reef fish
By Cindy Sui

CONSUMERS should avoid eating tiger garoupa and other large coral reef fish,
health officials advised on Monday after 26 more people fell ill with
ciguatoxin poisoning.

The latest cases raise the total number of people affected to 76 in 13
incidents that all happened this month.

``This is a little out of the ordinary because in this short period we're
seeing this many cases,'' said Thomas Tsang Ho-fai, a Department of Health
medical officer.

All the victims are in good condition with only seven still in hospital for
observation.

The victims suffered symptoms including vomiting and diarrhoea after eating
tiger garoupa and flowery cod either in a restaurant or at home.

The cases were spread throughout Hong Kong.

The fish contained ciguatoxin from poisonous algae they had consumed.

In the last three quarters of last year, 95 people were affected in 13
cases. In 1996, 70 people were affected in 17 cases.

But incidents in previous years happened over a longer period of time.

Mr Tsang said officials were investigating whether the fish involved in the
recent cases came from one catch.
He advised people to take the following precautions:

    Avoid eating reef fish heavier than three catties (about 2 kilograms).

    Eat only small quantities at any one time and cut down on the frequency
of consumption.

    Avoid alcohol before eating the fish because it can aggravate the symptoms.

The outbreak of recent cases is unlikely to prompt the government to step up
fish testing, officials said.

The government does not inspect fish. The only testing is small samplings
done by the Health Department at markets as part of its food surveillance
program.

``It's not a surveillance issue,'' said an Agriculture and Fisheries
Department spokesman.

``There's a risk in eating this kind of fish. When people know that, they
can exercise their own judgment instead of Big Brother _ the government _
doing everything.''

The coral reef fish sold in Hong Kong come from the mainland, Indonesia, the
Philippines, Sri Lanka and other Asian countries.

Keung Yin-man, chairman of the Hong Kong & Kowloon Floating Fishermen
Welfare Promotion Association, urged the government to pin down the origin
of the fish quickly to prevent a public scare that could harm the fishing
industry.

``Not all coral reef fish are unsafe. We need to find out in which area the
problem occurred,'' Mr Keung said.

``Don't wait until the public is as scared of fish as they are of chickens.''


Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 00:38:48 PST
From: "Cari Gehl" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Iran Experiments on Dogs, Humans
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Content-Type: text/plain

The Press Telegram
16 January 1998

CHEMICALS: UN says videotapes seized in '95 show chemical, biological
experiments on animals.

By Roger H. Reid
AP

UN - The American-led team banned by Iraq had been pursuing leads raised
in a 1995 UN Raid, UN officials said Thursday: pictures showing beagles
writhing in agony from chemical and biological agents and a human arm
covered with lesions.

The videotapes and photo were among a wealth of evidence UN teams found
in August 1995 in a search of a chicken ranch owned by a son-in-law of
Saddam Hussein. The cache supplied much of what the UN knows about the
status of banned chemical and biological weapons programs in Iraq.

UN spokesman Fred Eckhard confirmed the raid found videotapes showing
"there does seem to have been experimentation on dogs."

Eckhard refused to release the tapes, although the AP obtained a copy of
the UN video that showed what the narrator said were apparently the
empty cages of animals used in experiments.

UN sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said other parts of the
tapes showed beagles and other dogs squirming in pain as chemical and
biological weapons were sprayed on them.

Ewan Buchanan, a spokesman for the UN Special Commission on Iraq, said a
photograph was found at the same time showing a human arm covered with
lesions. But he said it was unclear where or when the photo was taken.

Eckhard said the picture was inconclusive on the question of suspected
experimentation on humans.

UN officials, again speaking on anonymity, said they had other evidence
about possible tests on humans, but refused to elaborate.

A UN weapons inspection team led by American Scott Ritter had been
pursuing suspicions that Iraqis tested chemical and biological weapons
on prisoners several years ago, weapons inspections chief Richard Butler
said.

It was the team that Iraq banned Monday, saying it had too many
Americans and Britons.

On Tuesday, however, Iraqi UN Ambassador Nizar Hamdoon wrote the
Security Council that Iraqi officials blocked Ritter's team because
Ritter had claimed that Iraq had sent prisoners to a secret location in
summer 1995 "where tests of chemical and biological agents had been
performed on them."

Hamdoon denied any human experiments and claimed Ritter's team was
simply seeking to discredit the Iraqi government with unsubstantiated
charges.

Ritter's team remains idled by the Iraqi ban, although other UN teams
are continuing their work.

The Security Council ordered the destruction of Iraq's nuclear, chemical
and biological weapons programs as a condition for ending the Gulf War
in 1991. UN officials report progress in eliminating the nuclear and
chemical programs but suspect Iraq is holding back considerable
information on biological weaponry.

During the 1980-1988 war between Iran and Iraq, both sides were reported
to have used chemical agents that inflicted heavy casualties on both
sides.

In March 1988, Saddam ordered the bombing of the Kurdish town of Halabja
with chemical agents after he accused the Kurds of supporting Iranian
troops.

Kurdish and human rights groups say about 10 000 people were killed in
one day when the Iraqi warplanes and artillery blasted the mountain town
with the chemicals.

Saddam again used chemical agents during a campaign to drive Kurdish
guerrillas from their hideouts, killing thousands of Kurds.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 00:40:13 PST
From: "Cari Gehl" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Correction: IRAQ Experiments on Dogs, Humans
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Content-Type: text/plain

Oops, that should have been IRAQ, not Iran - my mistake.  Sorry!

Cari

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 20:24:36 +0800
From: bunny <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Australian Gene Survey Result
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

ALL WELCOME TO 1998.

Dear Friends,

Further to the following action alert of last week, I am pleased to report
that the vote was:

71 NO to 43 YES.

Not an overwhelming rejection of this foolishness, but encouraging at least.

Cheers,

Bob
______________________________________________________________________

ACTION ALERT


THURSDAY JANUARY 15, 1998

GOOD FOR TODAY ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



THE HERALD SUN NEWSPAPER VOTELINE QUESTION TODAY IS:


        "SHOULD SCIENTISTS BE INTERFERING WITH GENES TO STOP AGEING?

        TO VOTE "NO"   CALL  0055 68300    IT COSTS 25CENTS



ONLY GOOD TODAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AFTER THAT YOU'LL VOTE ON SOMETHING ELSE


Bob Phelps
Director
Australian GeneEthics Network
c/- ACF 340 Gore Street, Fitzroy. 3065 Australia
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] {Int Code (613)}
email: [e-mail]
WWW: http://www.peg.apc.org/~acfgenet  (under construction)
========================================================
Rabbit Information Service,
P.O.Box 30,
Riverton,
Western Australia 6148

email>  [e-mail]

http://www.wantree.com.au/~rabbit/rabbit.htm
(Rabbit Information Service website updated frequently)

     /`\   /`\
    (/\ \-/ /\)
       )6 6(
     >{= Y =}<
      /'-^-'\
     (_)   (_)
      |  .  |
      |     |}
 jgs  \_/^\_/

It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
 - Voltaire
















Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 20:46:04 +0800
From: bunny <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: (Aust)Re "Celia" ABC TV Wed Night
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

For Australia Only - ABC TV - Wednesday night (21/1/98) "Celia"

Further about the movie "Celia" which screens on ABS TV on Wednesday night.

Please keep your eye out for a cruel scene where children try and "brand" a
rabbit with a heated branding iron. If I am correct and this is the movie
that I
once saw a clip from on a movie-making documentary (late 1997), I wrote and
complained to the ABC. If Celia shows implied torture of animals by children
or adults please complain to ABC TV Australia.

Any help on this much appreciated.

Kind regards,

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

email>  [e-mail]

http://www.wantree.com.au/~rabbit/rabbit.htm
(Rabbit Information Service website updated frequently)

     /`\   /`\
    (/\ \-/ /\)
       )6 6(
     >{= Y =}<
      /'-^-'\
     (_)   (_)
      |  .  |
      |     |}
 jgs  \_/^\_/

It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
 - Voltaire
















Date: Tue, 20 Jan 98 08:43:11 UTC
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: A Smart Cracker
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

(From the magazine "Birds and Blooms") - The highlight of our vacation
to Arches National Park in Utah was an entertaining and smart raven.

It was feeding on bits of bread, picking each one up and flying off.
We got into the act by leaving a soda cracker. The raven returned, picked
up the cracker and flew off to its cache.

Then we left two more crackers, then three, then four - each time it
returned, the raven stacked them and carried them away in its bill.

At five crackers, we thought the raven had met its challenge. The growing
crowd watched the bird place them in a perfect stack of five. It tried to
pick them up from several angles but couldn't get them all in its bill.

After a moment's hesitation, the raven ate one, picked up the remaining
four and flew off!  We all cheered. - (Written by Martha Hill, Oregon)

-- Sherrill
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 11:23:40 -0500
From: Wyandotte Animal Group <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: CNN:  Oprah goes to court
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

> OPRAH GOES TO COURT TO SETTLE BEEF WITH TEXAS CATTLEMEN

Jury selection is scheduled to begin in Amarillo, Texas, on Tuesday in a
lawsuit against TV talk show host Oprah Winfrey, who is accused by Texas
ranchers of defaming their beef. Winfrey and vegetarian activist Howard Lyman
are being sued in federal court over comments they made about beef safety on
her April 16, 1996, show. Beef prices plunged after the show was aired. Cattle
feeder Paul Engler says he lost about $6.7 million. He and others are seeking
to recoup losses of $12 million plus damages.

-->Oprah moves show to Amarillo
..... http://cnn.com/US/9801/19/briefs.pm/oprah.beef.ap/index.html






Jason Alley
Wyandotte Animal Group
[e-mail]

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 13:16:49 +0000 (GMT)
From: Pat Fish <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: CNN show on Oprah/Lyman witchhunt
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Today (Monday) at 12:30PM (EST US) CNN's "Burden of Proof" will again talk
about the beef lawsuit.  The last show seemed to presume that Mr. Lyman was
wrong, as they focused on every issue but the central one: accuracy.


Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 01:37:27 +0800
From: bunny <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Fwd: Transcript of Oprah "Mad Cow" Show
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Date: Sunday, January 18, 1998 3:45 PM
 Subject: Fwd: Transcript of Oprah "Mad Cow" Show


 With the Oprah, Lyman vs Texas Beef trial in the week (Jan 20), a review of
 it's basis might be of interest in this moment.

 My concern is that our First Amendment rights to free expression are also on
 trial here, as well as our rights to expect truth and integrity from that
 same
 agency established to guard us and our rights to healthy agricultural
 products.
 TLR/LSI:

 Transcript of Oprah "Mad Cow" Show.

 Howard Lyman (HSUS), Gary Weber (NCBA), Dr Hueston (USDA) on
 Oprah Winfrey Show
 April 15th, 1996


 Show transcript

 Mad Cow Disease, it's a medical mystery spreading panic across the
 Atlantic. In England, 20 puzzling deaths of young people in recent years
 may be linked to a rare and fatal brain disorder in cattle. British
 scientists believe the victims may have eaten diseased beef, as many as
 10 years ago. The afflicted cattle shake and contort like mad dogs
 before what must be an excruciating and inevitable death.

 In human beings, dementia and paralysis precede death. Scientists
 speculate that cattle contract the disease by feeding on sheep parts
 that are infected with another disease. A practice officially banned in
 England in 1989. The disease can take years to develop. McDonald's and
 Burger King in England have stopped selling British beef. Europe has
 refused to import it and now Britain will destroy 4.7 million older cows
 that may have fed sheep parts. The scare is turning a nation of beef
 eaters away from their favorite food. Could it happen here? American
 officials say no, but so did the British government until last month.
 Though the link between cattle and humans has not been definitively
 proven, and there's no test for Mad Cow Disease, the fear it has
 generated may destroy an industry and dramaticall alter the way we eat.

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

 Participants:

 Oprah Winfrey - host
 Howard Lyman - Executive director of Humane Society's Eating With
 Conscience - Humane Society of the United States
 Gary Weber - National Cattlemen's Beef Association Representative
 Dr. Will Hueston - United States Department of Agriculture
 representative

 Oprah:
 Dr. Gary Weber is with the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. He
 says our government regulations has seen to it that our beef supply is
 safe. My next guest disagrees, he believes the United States will face a
 similar crisis within the next ten years, have mercy. Howard Lyman is a
 former cattle rancher, turned vegetarian. You hear me? Former cattle
 rancher turned vegetarian, we wanna know why, and executive director of
 the Humane Society's Eating With Conscience Campaign. You said this
 disease cold make aids look like the common cold?

 Howard: Absolutely.

 Oprah: That's an extreme statement you know?

 Howard: Absolutely, and what we're looking at right now is we're
 following exactly the same path that they followed in England. Ten years
 of dealing with it as public relations rather than doing something
 substantial about it. 100,000 cows per year in the United States are
 fine at night, dead in the morning. The majority of those cows are
 rounded up, ground up, fed back to other cows. If only one of them has
 Mad Cow Disease, has the potential to effect thousands. Remember today,
 the United States, 14% of all cows by volume are ground up, turned into
 feed, and fed back to other animals.

 Oprah: But cows are herbivores, they shouldn't be eating other cows.

 Howard: That's exactly right, and what we should be doing is exactly
 what nature says, we should have them eating grass not other cows. We've
 not only turned them into carnivores, we've turned them into cannibals.

 Oprah: Now see, wait a minute, wait a minute. Let me just ask you this
 right now Howard. How do you know the cows are ground up and fed back to
 the other cows?

 Howard: Oh, I've seen it. These are U.S.D.A. statistics, they're not
 something we're making up.

 Oprah: Now doesn't that concern you all a little bit, right here,
 hearing that?

 Audience: Yeah!

 Oprah: It has just stopped me cold from eating another burger!

 Audience: (Claps loudly and shouts) yeah!

 Oprah: Dr. Gary Weber says we do not have a reason to be concerned, but
 that in itself is disturbing to me, cows should not be eating other
 cows!

 Dr. Gary Weber: Well, let me clarify that. There is a reason to be
 concerned. We've learned from the tragedy in Great Britain and made a
 decision here both government...

 Oprah: Well we learned in the past two weeks...

 Dr. Gary Weber: No, no, we started taking initiatives ten years ago to
 make sure this never happened here. Let me go back and correct a couple
 of things. Number one, we do not have BSE in this country and we have a
 ten year history of surveillance to document that based on science, we
 do not have it. Also, we have not imported any beef in this country
 since 1985 from Great Britain.

 Oprah: Are we feeding cattle to the cattle?

 Dr. Gary Weber: There is a limited amount of that done in the United
 States...

 Audience: (groans)

 Dr. Gary Weber: Hang on just a second now... the food and drug
 administration...

 Oprah: Cause I have to just tell you that is alarming to me, that is
 alarming to me.

 Dr. Gary Weber: Yeah, now keep in mind that before you view the ruminant
 animal, the cow is simply vegetarian, remember that they drink milk.

 Oprah: So you're saying that this could never happen here?

 Dr. Gary Weber: No, we're doing everything we need to do.

 Oprah: I know, but Dr. Weber are you saying that we've been watching
 this for ten years, are you saying that every cow that's ever died,
 they've examined the reason why that cow died, before they ground that
 cow up and fed him to another cow?

 Dr. Gary Weber: No that's not what I'm saying, I'm saying we do not have
 the disease here, we've got ten years of data, the best scientists in
 the world who are looking for this. Over 250 trained technicians and
 veterinarians around the country. Everyone's watching for this, everyone
 would like to in a way, want to find this if it is there because they
 want to protect our industry and of course the public.

 Oprah: OK, lets meet this man, Dr. Will Hueston is with the United
 States Department of Agriculture. Dr. Hueston, you think Mad Cow is a
 threat to U.S. cattle?

 Dr. Will Hueston: I think it's an issue we need to be on top of at all
 times but there's no evidence at all that we have the Bovine Spongiform
 Encephalopathy in the United States.

 Oprah: What dya' just say?

 Audience: (laughs)

 Dr. Will Hueston: What I, yes, I've given you a mouthful, but I think
 it's important Oprah, and especially, and I appreciate you having this
 show to help clarify some of these issues...

 Oprah: Yeah, me too!

 Dr. Will Hueston: That the term Mad Cow stimulates a whole lot of
 feelings and concerns in people, and remember cows can get mad for a lot
 of reasons. This is a disease, a specific disease in Great Britain, a
 tragic disease of cattle called Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and we
 use they initials B.S.E.

 Oprah: OK, I wanna know why Howard, who used to be a cattle rancher, it
 was a cattle rancher you were?

 Howard: Yes.

 Oprah: Why are you now a vegetarian? What made you turn?

 Howard: Well, what I know about what is happening out there with cattle,
 like feeding cows to cows, I look at it and say that's a risk that I am
 unwilling to take. The same things that we've heard here today, is
 exactly what was heard for ten years in England, "Not to worry, we're on
 top of this." You know, we've had a ban in the United States of feeding
 sheep to cows for a long time, but when they went out and looked, 25% of
 the renderers admitted that they were paying no attention to it.
 Voluntary bans do not work and if we continue to do what we're doing,
 feeding animals to animals, I believe we are going to be in exactly the
 same place because I've heard all of these things before in England,
 we're on top of this, it's safe, we would not put the public at risk, th
 ey have put the public at risk.

 Oprah: Yeah, of course they said that, yeah. Even Dr. Weber, you know
 that of course they said that, because what else are they going to say?
 What else are they going to say? They going to say public you are at
 risk, some of you may die and the cows are going to go crazy, they
 couldn't say that.

 Howard: Ask yourself the question. Today we could do exactly what the
 English did and cease feeding cows to cows. Why in the world are we not
 doing that? Why are we skating around this and continuing to do it when
 everybody sitting here knows that, that would be the safest thing to do,
 why is it, why is it? Because we have the greedy that are getting the
 ear of government instead of the needy and that's exactly why we're
 doing it.

 Audience: (applause)

 Oprah: We have a lot of questions about this Mad Cow Disease that we'd
 like to try to get resolved, because we don't want to just alarm you
 all, but I have to tell you, I'm thinking about the cattle being fed to
 the cattle and that's pretty upsetting to me, Yes mam?

 Audience Member:I just had one question, I'm confused about why cattle
 are being fed lamb and why are they being fed beef?

 Howard: Well, what it comes down to is about half of the slaughter of
 animals is non-sellable to humans. They either have to pay to put it
 into the dump or they sell it for feed, they grind it up turn it into
 something that looks like brown sugar, add to it all of the animals that
 died unexpectantly, all of the road kills and the euthinized animals,.
 add it to em', grind it up and feed it back to other animals. It's about
 as simple as you can be. We are doing something to an animal that was
 never intended to be done.

 Oprah: OK, so the point I wanted to ask Dr. Weber, and I think I asked
 this earlier, but let's get this clear, Oh that's your point isn't it?,
 during the commercial break, oh the lady in black, what was your
 question? You can ask it.

 Audience Member: My question was, are the animals tested before they're
 ground? Are all of the animals that are ground into feed that are fed to
 the cows?

 Dr. Gary Weber: There is no test other than analyzing the brains, and
 sinc we don't have animals with these symptoms, not every brain is going
 to be evaluated.

 Oprah: OK, so the answer to your question is no.

 Dr. Gary Weber: Its no, that's correct. No animal can enter the plant
 that has any of these symptoms, by law. And there's veterinarians and
 inspections and it doesn't happen Howard and you know it. It doesn't
 happen.

 Howard: Oh come on, let's get real! Any animal that is not staggering
 around goes in there, you know as well as I do, we have 100,000 cows per
 year that die. They take 2,700 brains out, of those less than a hundred
 of them, they look for preons, they were looking for Spongiform. We
 ended up feeding downed cows to mink, the mink come with the disease,
 transferred it to animals, the animals came down with it, and your
 sitting here telling everybody that it's safe, not true.

 Dr. Gary Weber: Howard, Howard, I understand...

 Audience: (applause)

 End of Segment





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

email>  [e-mail]

http://www.wantree.com.au/~rabbit/rabbit.htm
(Rabbit Information Service website updated frequently)

     /`\   /`\
    (/\ \-/ /\)
       )6 6(
     >{= Y =}<
      /'-^-'\
     (_)   (_)
      |  .  |
      |     |}
 jgs  \_/^\_/

It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
 - Voltaire
















Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 01:46:38 +0800
From: bunny <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: (Queensland-Australia)Illegal/pets animals
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

(This list forgets to note that the greatest carrier
in Queensland of a rabies-like virus (Lyssavirus)
seems to be the fruit bat or flying fox - not introduced but native
and prolific through Queensland)

*********************************************************************

Illegal pets/animals - Queensland- Australia

PA24 November 1995⌐ The state of Queensland
Why control pets?
Many animals introduced into Australia have
become serious pests. Examples include the
cane toad, fox, cat and (European) rabbit and
many other less common animals.
These animals cost Queensland a great deal of
money and may have contributed to the extinction
of several native animals. Introduced animals can
spread infectious diseases including exotic
diseases such as rabies.
If there were no controls over the keeping and
importation of potential pest animals:
 some animals would inevitably escape due to
either poor cage construction or accidental
release or
 irresponsible owners may dump unwanted pets
intothe wild. Released animals could then breed
feral populations.
The importation and keeping of such animals as
pets is restricted by legislation.
Prohibited pets
Produced by Land Protection Sub Program
Author:
Agdex
ISSN 1327-5402

The basic philosophy behind the law is: ôprevention
is much cheaper than cureö. Legislation protects
QueenslandÆs environment and economy from
further damage by new species of introduced
animals.
DonÆt risk a fine
It is illegal to keep most declared mammal species
as pets in Queensland.
The Department of Natural Resources, in
conjunction with local governments, control the
keeping of declared animals as pets. The list of
declared animals presently contains mammals and
reptiles only. The maximum fine for keeping
declared mammals or reptiles is $3 000.
The keeping of most native wildlife and certain
introduced birds is regulated by the Department of
Environment and Heritage. The keeping of certain
exotic fish is regulated by the Department of
Primary Industries. A $60 000 fine applies for the
keeping or release of noxious fish species from
aquariums.
Pets that are prohibited in
queensland
Prohibited Mammals
All introduced mammal species are prohibited as
pets unless listed as exceptions.
Prohibited mammals include:
Alpacas/Llamas Foxes
Feral buffalo Hares
Bali cattle Monkeys/marmosets
Squirrels Deer
Gerbils Feral camels
Ferrets/polecats Raccoons
Stoats Rabbits
Weasels Hamsters
Dingoes/hybrids Bears
Exceptions
Introduced mammals may be kept as pets legally in
Queensland (subject to local government by-laws):
Dogs Cats
Horses Goats (domestic)
Donkeys Guinea pigs
Blackrats Brown rats
House mice Domestic pigs
The keeping of native mammals is controlled by the
Department of Environment and Heritage, phone
[phone].
Prohibited reptiles and
birds
All reptile species introduced to Queensland are
prohibited. Reptiles include snakes, lizards and
turtles. Certain exotic birds are also prohibited.
Some native reptiles may be kept under a permit
and some native birds may require a permit issued
by the Department of Environment and Heritage,
phone [phone].
Prohibited Fish
Certain introduced and native fish are prohibited,
including:
Tilapia Walking catfish
Koi carp Piranha
The list of prohibited fish is subject to change.
For more information contact the Queensland
Department of Primary Industries Fisheries Service
on [phone].
Reporting prohibited pets
Please report any illegal activities such as the
importation, sale and keeping of prohibited animals.
Your action will protect QueenslandÆs agriculture
and environment from further degradation by
introduced pest animals.
Further information
Is available from Land Protection Officers,
Department of Natural Resources 008 803 788
(local call) can provide the telephone number for
your nearest office.
Brochure party funded by Rural Protection Fund.
2

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

email>  [e-mail]

http://www.wantree.com.au/~rabbit/rabbit.htm
(Rabbit Information Service website updated frequently)

     /`\   /`\
    (/\ \-/ /\)
       )6 6(
     >{= Y =}<
      /'-^-'\
     (_)   (_)
      |  .  |
      |     |}
 jgs  \_/^\_/

It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
 - Voltaire
















Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 14:40:01 EST
From: NOVENA ANN <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: NFI Denounces Animal Rights Activist Campaign Against Seafood
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

National Fisheries Institute Denounces Animal Rights Activist Campaign Against
Seafood Consumers

ARLINGTON, Va., Jan. 20 /PRNewswire/ -- The National Fisheries Institute (NFI)
announced its opposition to a new campaign by animal rights activists and
others that encourages restaurants to stop offering swordfish caught in North
Atlantic waters.  The "Give Swordfish a Break" campaign, sponsored by the
"SeaWeb" campaign, the Natural Resource Defense Council and a Washington, D.C.
restaurant, advocates that other restaurants boycott swordfish during 1998.
Campaigners argue that such action is necessary to ensure the conservation of
wild swordfish populations.

According to Richard E. Gutting, Jr., Executive Vice-President of NFI, "In our
view, the expert scientists and officials who are responsible for conserving
these swordfish stocks, and who have authorized their harvest, are better
qualified to judge what is needed for conservation than the self- appointed
advocates of this boycott campaign."

Federal fishery officials limit the total amount of swordfish that can be
harvested each year.  These officials also allocate this total catch among
various groups of fishermen.  Federal law requires that these allocations
ensure that swordfish stocks remain productive, and that the allocation among
fishermen is fair and equitable.  These U.S. catch limits and allocations must
also be consistent with the strict measures adopted by international fishery
commissions made up of many nations.

Swordfish migrate widely throughout the world's oceans and are harvested by
fishermen from many nations.  In the U.S., swordfish are harvested in the
Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. These fish are highly valued by both big game
fishermen and those fishermen who make their livelihood supplying restaurants
and supermarkets.  The competition for swordfish between these two fishing
groups is fierce.

Past swordfish harvests in the Atlantic were too high and depressed the size
of their stock.  Following the most scientific assessment of these fish in
1996, the world's most expert swordfish scientists advised the international
commission that because of the resilient nature of swordfish, lower harvests
would improve the condition of the stock.  These limits were quickly approved
by the international commission and were then implemented by U.S. officials.
U.S. fishery officials concluded that these reductions would "stop the decline
of the swordfish stock."  These strict new limits, which cut harvests in half,
are now being enforced.

"Some big game fishermen apparently are angry that fishery officials did not
give them the exclusive right to harvest swordfish when the new harvest limits
were imposed," says Gutting. "If they now could convince everyone to stop
buying swordfish, only big game fishermen would be harvesting them. These
sport fishermen appear to have joined forces with animal rights activists who
believe for moral or philosophical reasons that humans should not eat other
animals."

Despite the progress made towards conserving Atlantic swordfish, NFI remains
concerned about the stock.  It is vital that all fishing nations adhere to the
strict international harvest limits, otherwise the sacrifices of U.S.
fishermen will be for naught.  Fortunately, most nations are complying,
however, some may not be enforcing these limits.

According to Nelson Beideman of the Blue Water Fishermen's Association, an
organization representing commercial fishermen, "American fishermen have
abided by all national and international regulations governing swordfish.  In
fact, we have sacrificed over 50 percent of our catch since 1989 to promote
the conservation of these fish.  Any boycott would unjustly harm both American
fishing families and seafood consumers without providing any tangible
conservation benefits."

Under federal law, U.S. fishery officials must evaluate the performance of
other nations.  If they find that any nation is failing to adhere to
international standards, these officials are directed to ban the importation
and sale of the products concerned.  This government-to-government strategy
aimed at violators offers the best way to ensure compliance, and NFI is
working closely with U.S. officials to ensure that international harvest
quotas are enforced strictly.

According to Gutting, "Broad-based boycotts, even when well intentioned, often
hurt innocent people.  We fail to see how a boycott would be justified in this
circumstance when it would punish American fishermen and others complying with
conservation requirements, and there is a better way to obtain compliance."

Neighboring Washington, D.C., restaurateurs, too, are opposed to the
campaign's approach.  According to Bob Kinkead, owner and executive chef of
Kinkead's, "While we all want to conserve our wild fish population for future
generations, this campaign is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath
water.  If restaurateurs are concerned about the profusion of small fish, then
they should demand only large fish from their suppliers.  The solution is that
simple."

As 1998 is the "Year of the Ocean," annual rights activists, sport fishermen
and other groups with marine-related campaigns are attempting to position
their efforts in terms of fishery "conservation."  Please bear in mind that
big game and commercial fishermen compete for the fish, and that some people
believe passionately that humans should not eat animals.  In reality, this
debate really has more to do with who should get the fish, or whether fish
should be harvested at all, than it has to do with the biological condition of
the stocks.

The National Fisheries Institute is a non-profit trade association
representing more than 1,000 companies involved in all aspects of the fish and
seafood industry.  The Institute acts to ensure an ample, sustainable and safe
seafood supply for consumers.

The commercial seafood industry directly employs more than 250,000 people and
contributes more than $41 billion to the economy which includes $27.8 billion
in expenditures at foodservice establishments and $13.2 billion at the retail
level.

SOURCE  National Fisheries Institute

CO:  National Fisheries Institute; Natural Resource Defense Council; Blue
Water Fishermen's Association; Kinkead's
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 14:41:39 EST
From: NOVENA ANN <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Cloned Cows Could Produce Drugs
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Cloned Cows Could Produce Drugs
.c The Associated Press

By ALISON FITZGERALD

BOSTON (AP) - Researchers announced today that they have successfully cloned
two identical, genetically engineered calves, a step that could lead to the
mass production of drugs for humans in cows' milk.

Named George and Charlie, the male calves born last week were created through
a combination of cloning and genetic engineering by Dr. James Robl at the
University of Massachusetts and Dr. Steven Stice of Advanced Cell Technology
Inc.

``The applications for this in pharmaceutical production are enormous,'' Stice
told the International Embryo Transfer Society as the researchers presented
their findings.

The calves aren't the first animal clones with altered genes - lambs Molly and
Polly have a human gene expected to make them produce a protein helpful in
blood clotting. But even Dr. Ian Wilmut, the Scottish researcher who
genetically engineered the lambs and the now-famous Dolly, acknowledged that
drug-making cows could be more valuable because cows produce much more milk
than sheep.

Researchers said the calves mark the most viable step so far toward
``pharming'' - developing pharmaceuticals using farm animals.

``It's a big deal,'' said Mark Westhusin, a researcher at Texas A&M
University. ``This technology has the potential to be a lot more efficient
than the technology that we have now.''

The calves were born at a ranch in Texas.

George and Charlie contain two genetic alterations - a ``marker'' gene and one
that made cells resistant to an antibiotic. Those markers have shown up
everywhere, from the blood to the spleen to the bones.

The UMass researchers haven't produced a cow that can produce a drug, but that
next step could be coming soon. The researchers said they have pregnant cows
carrying female fetuses that have been altered to produce milk with the human
serum albumin, a protein essential to the blood that is widely used by
hospitals.

Advanced Cell Technology, the company founded by the researchers, already has
a deal with Genzyme Transgenics Corp. of Framingham to produce albumin.

``We've taken a significant step toward making this commercially viable,''
Robl said.

Robl said the technique his team used to clone the calves was a variation on
the nuclear transfer process Wilmut used last year to clone Dolly the sheep,
the first mammal cloned from an adult cell.

But Stice said unlike the method used with sheep, cloning the calves did not
require surgery and was relatively quick.

In nuclear transfer, scientists remove the nucleus from an egg and replace it
with the nucleus from another cell. The egg is then placed into the uterus of
a surrogate mother that gives birth to an offspring that has only the genes of
the original cell.

But the process can require at least two surgeries. The UMass researchers said
the genetically altered eggs they used were grown in a laboratory, then
inserted into the uterus without surgery.

Another researcher on the team, Jose Bernardo Cibelli, said the team's
technique takes cells that have already differentiated to produce a specific
type of tissue - muscle, for example - and brings them back to the state where
they can divide and form every type of cell in the body.

Robl and Stice say that process could lead to the ability to produce cells
that can be transferred into humans to treat such diseases at Parkinson's and
Alzheimer's.

``The cells that we use are very easy to program, very easy to genetically
alter,'' Robl said.

The lambs Molly and Polly, born in July, differ from Dolly in that they were
cloned from the cell of a sheep fetus, not an adult animal. The sheep will be
tested this spring to see if their milk produces useful quantities of factor
IX, a protein that helps blood clot.

It is hoped that the factor IX could be extracted from the milk and used to
treat patients with hemophilia, an inherited bleeding disorder in which the
blood lacks the ability to clot.

``Obviously, I'm delighted that the nuclear transfer technology is very
robust,'' Wilmut said upon learning of the cloned calves.

Neither the lambs nor the calves are absolute pioneers.

Other techniques have been used to reap drugs for the treatment of cystic
fibrosis and heart attacks from the milk of genetically engineered sheep or
goats. These animals, however, were produced by injecting genes into a
fertilized egg and then implanting the egg in a surrogate mother, a technique
less efficient than cloning.

Only about 2 percent of such eggs grow to live animals and only a small
percentage of the survivors actually contain the target genes.

Scientists at the conference, many of whom are researching animal cloning,
said the arrival of George and Charlie has been much anticipated.

``It's not Dolly, but it's a substantial contribution,'' said Dr. Caird
Rexroad, the society president. ``We've all been awaiting more information on
what you can do with cattle. A cow can make a tremendous amount of protein.''

AP-NY-01-20-98 1326EST
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 14:51:26 -0400
From: "Adele Faiks-Olsgard"<[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Addresses for Companies that Test on Animals
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII


Do any of you have addresses for animal-testing companies that I could
write to?  Particularly, I am looking for the address of Proctor & Gamble.
I want to let them know why I have avoided buying their products for years.
Please let me know if this is not the appropriate forum to ask.

Adele


Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 16:12:15 -0800
From: Mesia Quartano <[e-mail]>
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (US) Consumer Reports Tests Pet Food
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>From Business Wire; 01/20/98

(Consumer Reports February issue cover story) Consumer Reports Tests Pet
Food; Does Your Dog or Cat Need The Most Expensive Food to Be Healthy?

Pet Food Labels May Not Give Consumers All the Information They Need

YONKERS, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 20, 1998--America's 70 million cats
and 60 million dogs -- not to mention those of us who feed them -- may
be surprised at the findings about pet food reported in the February
issue of Consumer Reports.  Less expensive brands don't necessarily
cheat your pet on nutrition.  More costly "superpremium" brands may not
provide a significantly healthier diet.  And foods marked "light" are
not always lower in calories and
fat to help the overweight pet slim down.

Consumer Reports found good news regarding price.  If you're now buying
one of the expensive foods, you can save hundreds of dollars a year by
buying regular national brands whose nutrition is often just as good.
And because even nutritious food won't do any good if a pet won't eat
it, Consumer Reports enlisted staffers' dogs and cats in a small,
informal taste test.  Our cat and dog panelists showed no preference for
"superpremium" foods when they were pitted against a few less expensive
ones.

When it came to nutrition and labeling, there were some disturbing
discoveries.  To learn whether pet foods deliver the nutrients they
should, and whether the expensive types are worth their extra cost,
Consumer Reports analyzed key nutrients in 97 products and consulted
with veterinary nutrition experts.

-- More than half the cat foods and more than one-fourth of the dog
foods -- including some "superpremium" types -- fell significantly short
in at least one of the nutrients in guidelines set by the Association of
American Feed Control Officials.  Low potassium and calcium levels were
among the chief concerns.

-- If you follow the recommended serving size on some dry dog foods,
you'll feed too much, spend too much, and could end up with a fat dog.

-- Pet foods marketed as "lean" or "light" aren't necessarily the lowest
in fat or calories

-- You don't have to buy food labeled "puppy" or "kitten" for a young
animal. Any food marked "For All Life Stages" is required to have the
extra protein and calories young animals need to grow.

 -- An older animal needn't be fed "senior"  food and in fact, there are
no regulations governing the use of the term.

Americans spent an estimated $10 billion on pet food last year. With
products ranging from inexpensive supermarket brands to pricey
"superpremiums," dog owners can spend anywhere from $80 to $1200 a year
to fill Fido's bowl.  Cat food expenses can range from $50 to $900
annually.

Your pet's food ought to have all the protein, fat, fiber, vitamins, and

minerals he or she needs to thrive without gaining too much weight.
Gleaning this information from the label may be difficult however
because labels either contain a nutritional analysis or a statement that
the food's nutritional adequacy was confirmed by a feeding trial, but
not both.  Feeding trials are preferable because they prove that an
animal will eat the food, digest it and thrive. Consumer Reports
recommends buying a food that fell within established nutritional
guidelines in our tests and one that is labeled as having been tested on
animals.  Once you've narrowed your choices, you can pick the least
expensive food your pet will eat.  Foods that delivered good nutrition
at a low price included:

 -- Among Dry Dog Foods: We suggest four store brands appropriate for
dogs of all ages: Ol' Roy Original (Wal-Mart), Pet Pride Chunk Style
(Kroger), American Fare Adult (Kmart), and Safeway Tasty Nuggets.  A
good nationally-available alternative is Purina Dog Chow.

 -- Among Canned Dog Foods: Ken-L Ration Premium Hearty Chunks in Gravy,
Friskies Alpo Chunky, Cycle Puppy (for puppies), or Pedigree.

 -- Among Dry Cat Foods: Purina Cat Chow Original and Friskies Ocean
Fish for cats of any age.  Purina and Friskies "kitten" foods and
"special care/special diet" foods are also recommended.

 -- Among Canned Cat Foods: Friskies, Alpo, and Friskies Senior stood
out.

If you now use one of the foods we're concerned about, the best strategy
is to monitor your animal.  If he's active and healthy, with a shiny
coat and no skin problem, you needn't switch foods unless you want to
try another that is nutritionally sound but costs less.  If you see
something wrong, however, you may want to switch brands and have your
pet checked by a veterinarian, who may find a non-nutritional reason for
the problem.

In addition, information and articles from Consumer Reports can be
accessed online at www.ConsumerReports.org.

Consumer Reports is published by Consumers Union, an independent,
nonprofit testing and information-gathering organization, serving only
the consumer.  We are a comprehensive source of unbiased advice about
products and services, personal finance, health, nutrition, and other
consumer concerns.  Since 1936, our mission has been to test products,
inform the public, and protect consumers.

CONTACT:  Amy Wolfcale, 914/378-2437'

******************
end of article
******************

Consumers Union of United States, Inc.
101 Truman Ave.
Yonkers, NY 10703
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
http://www.consumerreports.org


Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 17:46:11 -0800
From: Mesia Quartano <[e-mail]>
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (US) Out-of-Court Settlement for Killing of Six Trumpeter Swans
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>From GreenLines:

Say you're sorry --

The Kansas City Star reported Wednesday two Topeka men accused of
illegally shooting six trumpeter swans will be required to issue a
public apology as part of an out-of-court settlement arranged with U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Attorney's Office. The two men
will be fined $1,500 each and will forfeit the rifles used to kill the
rare migratory birds. News of the shooting outraged local people. "I had
never seen a case produce this kind of emotion," said Jim Dunn of the
Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks.

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 19:16:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Jill Howe <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: MSNBC on Lyman Oprah. Calls needed
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Hello all On MS-NBC tonight they will continue to debate the
Lyman-Oprah-Engler lawsuit.

The schedule is (Eastern Std. Time)
7:00PM Internight  (ON NOW- accepting calls)
8:00PM Big Show w/Ken Oberman (may or may not be worth it)
9:00PM News w/ Brian Williams (this one is least important)

MSNBC accepts callers for some of their programs so please try to get on.
The no. is 1-888-MSNBC-US
Their voting line is 1-888-977-VOTE

You can also use their chat room during the show. Be warned that the MS in
MSNBC means you may not be able to get on unless you like being forced to
use MSIE.  If that is a problem, use the IRC command to go to
chat.msnbc.com  and join room #msnbc



The media seems to be assuming Howard was wrong.
Tell [e-mail] that they are missing the point.



Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 19:35:03 -0500
From: jeanlee <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Report on pet food
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

To anyone interested in the truth about what's in pet food, please go to
Animal Protection Institute's website for their in-depth report.  This
post is in response to the post from Mesia Quartano about the Consumers
Reports article.  Find out what "animal by-products" in these big name
brands translates into.

http://www.api4animals.org/ShoppingGuide.htm
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 19:45:52 EST
From: Dtbartlett <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Zoo association supports cheetah killing. Letters needed.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In a response to a petition from Safari Club International, the USFWS
opened a comment period in March 1996 on the reclassification of the
Namibian population of the cheetah from endangered to threatened under
the Endangered Species Act.  If this occurred, hunters would be allowed
to kill cheetahs in Namibia and import the "trophies" into the United
States.   What follows is a letter from the American Zoo and Aquarium
Association (AZA), in which they state that they support the
reclassification, and support increased trophy hunting of the
endangered cheetah.

According to AZA's Directory, "AZA represents virtually every
professionally operated zoological park, aquarium, wildlife park, and
oceanarium in North America."  How do you suppose the American public
would feel if they knew that their favorite zoo supported trophy
hunting of endangered species?

The Service reopened the comment period (Federal Register, Vol. 62,
page 64800, 9 December 1997), and will accept comments from the public
until 1 FEBRUARY 1998.  Please write to the Fish & Wildlife Service and
tell them that reclassifying the cheetah is unacceptable.  You can
contact them by email at:  [e-mail]

To view the Federal Register Notice on the Web go to:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr
Search the Federal Register in 1997 using the keyword "CHEETAH."  It
should be the first listing.

To contact AZA regarding their support of trophy hunting, write to:
[e-mail] (to the attention of Kristin Vehrs)

(I retyped the following letter)

17 July 1996

Dr. Charles Dane
Office of Scientific Authority
Mail Stop: Room 725, Arlington Square
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Washington, DC 20240

Dear Charlie:

The American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) submits these comments
in response to the 19 March Federal Register notice concerning the
petition to change the classification of the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatu)
[sic] in Namibia from endangered to threatened status.

The cheetah populations in Namibia have been stable at 2500 animals for
a number of years.  Utilizing various education programs, the Namibian
Government has made tremendous strides in protecting the wild
populations.  In addition, increased trophy hunting would result in
increased funding for ongoing conservation programs.

Therefore, AZA supports this petition, but with one condition.  We
request the Namibian Ministry of Environment and Tourism, in
consultation with the Office of Scientific Authority (OSA), FWS,
develop a program with enforcement provisions ensuring that some of the
monies raised from the increased trophy hunting be used for
conservation programs, including the funding of an annual cheetah
monitoring program.  Should the monitoring program find that the wild
populations have fallen below 2000 animals, a moratorium must be placed
on hunting for two breeding cycles (2 years).  At the end of this
period, another census of the population would be taken to ensure the
population is viable and increasing prior to the resumption of hunting.

AZA is committed to the long-term survival of the cheetah in nature
through global management programs.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments.

Sincerely,

Kristin L. Vehrs, Deputy Director

Robert G. Howarth
Legislative Affairs Specialist

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 17:45:14 -0800
From: Alison Green <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Addresses for Companies that Test on Animals
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Adele Faiks-Olsgard wrote:
>
> Do any of you have addresses for animal-testing companies that I could
> write to?  Particularly, I am looking for the address of Proctor & Gamble.
> I want to let them know why I have avoided buying their products for years.
> Please let me know if this is not the appropriate forum to ask.
>
> Adele


PETA's web site provides lists of companies that do and don't test on
animals, along with contact information.  Go to
http://www.peta-online.org/shopguid/shopguid.htm
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 19:57:38 -0600
From: Steve Barney <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Addresses for Companies that Test on Animals
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Proctor & Gamble's home page is at:

     http://www.pg.com/

and you can write to them from their web page at:

     http://www.pg.com/aboutpg/english/feedback.html

Adele Faiks-Olsgard wrote:
>
> Do any of you have addresses for animal-testing companies that I could
> write to?  Particularly, I am looking for the address of Proctor & Gamble.
> I want to let them know why I have avoided buying their products for years.
> Please let me know if this is not the appropriate forum to ask.
>
> Adele

--
Steve Barney, Representative
Animal Liberation Action Group
Campus Connection, Reeve Memorial Union
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
748 Algoma Blvd.
Oshkosh, WI 54901-3512
UNITED STATES
 Phone:[phone] (office)
     920-235-4887 (home)
Fax: [phone] (address to: Animal Liberation Action Group, Campus
Connection, Reeve Union)
E-mail: [e-mail]
Web: http://www.uwosh.edu/organizations/alag/
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 12:13:07 +0800 (SST)
From: Vadivu Govind <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: (HK) Fishermen sailing into more dangerous waters: biologist
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"



>Hong Kong Standard
21 Jan 98
Fishermen sailing into more dangerous waters: biologist

By Cindy Sui
MEETING the demands of the lucrative live reef fish market has local
fishermen sailing farther and farther afield into waters where ciguatoxic
fish are prevalent _ raising the risk of more people being poisoned, a
marine biologist warned on Tuesday.

``They're going further into the Western Pacific to places like Kiribati and
the Marshall Islands _ areas known to have ciguatoxin in their fish,''
Yvonne Sadovy of Hong Kong University's Institute of Marine Biology said.

``I don't know if the fishermen know or if they care. The resources around
here are depleting but the demand is rising.''

Her comments came as authorities on Tuesday discovered six new cases of
ciguatoxin poisoning affecting 14 people.

Altogether 108 people became ill in 19 cases in the past three weeks.
The victims' symptoms including vomiting, diarrhoea, hot and cold flushes
and muscle pains after eating tiger garoupa, flowery cod and possibly other
types of reef fish.

All have been treated and released from hospitals.

Dr Sadovy said the government should begin monitoring fish imports to track
whether catches come from high risk areas.

The incidence of ciguatoxin poisoning increased in the 1990s at about the
same time that boats from Hong Kong began journeying farther from the waters
around Hong Kong and mainland coastal waters, she said.

But an Agriculture and Fisheries Department official on Tuesday said
fish-testing may not be necessary as the number of ciguatoxic fish is a tiny
portion of total reef fish imports.

Out of an estimated 175 tonnes of reef fish imported this month, only about
19 fish caused ciguatoxin poisoning, Leung Siu-fai, senior fisheries
management officer, said.

``Just because fish from one area has problems doesn't mean all fish from
that area has problems,'' Mr Leung said.

Dr Sadovy agreed but argued a monitoring system would help the government
track the source.

``There is no need to panic, not at all. But I would say the situation has
changed. We don't understand this trade and we really should,'' she said.

Authorities said the spate of cases in such a short period of time was
unusual and suspect the fish may come from one catch.

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 12:13:36 +0800 (SST)
From: Vadivu Govind <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: (HK) Call for import ban after fish toxin alert
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


>Hong Kong Standard
21 Jan 98
Call for import ban after fish toxin alert
By Simon Ng

THE fisheries industry on Tuesday called for a ban on live imports of fish
until the source of toxic coral reef fish is pinpointed.

About 50 fishermen and fish farming organisations representing 90 per cent
of the industry's 40,000 workers have formed a committee to urge the
government to devise an inspection system for imported fish and a
registration system for companies engaged in the business.

They slammed the government for being ``irresponsible'' in merely asking
people not to consume fish, without effective inspection.

``The government should take up the responsibility of finding the problem as
soon as possible, we don't want a repeat of the ordeal of the chicken
industry,'' said committee spokesman Wong Yung-kan.

According to the industry imported fish, especially those delivered by air,
were most likely to be problematic.

``Those fish transported by air would be anaesthetised in the process . . .
even if they are infected, the problem may not be discovered,'' Mr Wong
said. The fishermen also say the government has given out misleading
information on coral reef fish. ``Some of the fish mentioned like giant
grouper and mangrove snapper are in fact not coral reef fish,'' Mr Wong said.

Fisherman Chan Chi-kwong said the incident had dealt him an unexpected blow.

Mr Chan, recently returned from a fishing trip with 4,000 catties (about 2.4
tonnes) of his catch from Southeast China, said prices had dropped by over
50 per cent.

``In the past, all my fish were quickly snapped up by market stall owners
and restaurants as the demand before Lunar New Year is so great.''

He said that at the old prices he could get $150,000 for his catch. But
under the current situation, he would be lucky to get $70,000 to 80,000.

Although the industry is the apparent victim of the poisoning scare, they
maintain they are not merely looking after their own interests in advocating
the ban.
``The ban would allow authorities to classify whether the toxic fish come
from imported fish or locally caught and raised fish,'' Mr Wong said. ``We
don't mind having our fish inspected.''


Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 12:14:11 +0800 (SST)
From: Vadivu Govind <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: (HK) Guangdong `to resume export of chicken before New Year'
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


>Hong Kong Standard
21 Jan 98

Guangdong `to resume export of chicken before New Year'
By Antoine So in Shenzhen

HONG Kong people are likely to have chicken meat back on their menu before
the Lunar New Year.

Beijing has instructed Guangdong quarantine officials to complete
preparations this Friday for the resumption of chicken exports to Hong Kong,
it was learned on Tuesday.
Shenzhen Animals and Plants Quarantine Service deputy director Tan Guoying
said Beijing's Ministry of Economics and Trade and Hong Kong's Agriculture
and Fisheries Department (AFD) will soon announce the exact date on which
the trade in chickens is to resume.

Mr Tan said the Central Government had sent directives to his office and his
counterparts elsewhere in the province, pressing for the completion of the
necessary quarantine measures to ensure only healthy chickens will be
shipped to Hong Kong.

``We were told to be fully prepared before the 23rd of this month, but the
actual date has yet to be announced by the Beijing and Hong Kong
governments,'' Mr Tan said.

Before the bird flu crisis, there were more than 100 farms in the province
supplying more than 100,000 chickens to Hong Kong every day. Shenzhen had 21
chicken farms designated for export to Hong Kong, but shares about 60 to 70
per cent of the total supplies.
Shenzhen's chicken traders had suffered huge losses as a result of Hong
Kong's ban on chicken imports, Mr Tan said.

Stringent quarantine measures were in place in all of the province's chicken
farms and at the border, Mr Tan said. These measures included an increased
sampling ratio of 25 to 1,000 chickens.

If the lot size was 5,000 or above, 40 samples per lot would be taken for
examination, Mr Tan said.

According to the AFD, the safe ratio is 13 samples to 1,000 chickens.

Mr Tan said the resumption of chicken export to Hong Kong from Shenzhen
would be conducted in phases, with five to six farms being allowed to export
in the first phase.

After the resumption of chicken exports to Hong Kong, AFD veterinarians
would be sent to selected chicken farms to carry out on-the-spot
inspections, Mr Tan said.

After inspecting Yuanling Chicken Wholesales Market on Tuesday, Dr Daniel
Lavanchy of the World Health Organisation said he was satisfied with the
sanitary conditions and separation of chickens and ducks in Shenzhen's
poultry farms and markets. Hong Kong's proposed measures to
separate the handling of ducks and geese from chickens, could help prevent
cross-infection of the poultry with the deadly H5N1 virus, he said.

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 12:14:38 +0800 (SST)
From: Vadivu Govind <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: (HK) No test for frozen poultry
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"



>Hong Kong Standard
21 Jan 98

No test for frozen poultry
By Sanna So

THE Department of Health on Tuesday admitted it would be impossible to
determine whether frozen poultry is contaminated by the H5N1 virus.

``We cannot rule out the possibility that frozen poultry are contaminated by
the H5N1 virus,'' Assistant Director of Health (Hygiene) Tam Lai-fun told
provisional legislators.
``Right now, there is no test on food to check whether they carry the virus
or not.''

Dr Tam emphasised the need to check on the origin of the frozen poultry,
adding these products were tested before being imported to Hong Kong.

Meanwhile, the Agriculture and Fisheries Department is now working with
mainland authorities to ensure both live and frozen poultry imports were
from non-infected farms.

AFD Veterinary Officer Sit Hon-chung said imports of mainland poultry would
resume after measures to prevent infected chickens from entering were put in
place.

The Cheung Sha Wan Temporary Poultry Market will re-open after the ban on
mainland poultry has been lifted.

Lawmakers were also worried that the ventilation system in markets had
become a breeding ground for the virus, and Sit Wing-hang of the Electrical
and Mechanical Services Department said the system was cleaned every one to
two months.


Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 12:14:58 +0800 (SST)
From: Vadivu Govind <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Indonesia bans chicken imports from HK and mainland
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"



>CNA Daily English News Wire

INDONESIA BANS CHICKEN IMPORTS FROM HONG KONG, MAINLAND
                                   CHINA


Jakarta, Jan. 18 (CNA) Indonesia's Ministry of Agriculture has warned the
public not to import poultry products from Hong Kong and mainland China
within the next six months.

"The ban is aimed at protecting the country from the bird flu virus," Antara
quoted Darman Hasibuan, the ministry's public relations officer, as saying
Saturday.

The ministry, through its quarantine and animal husbandry services, has also
alerted the public of possible contamination from any carrier of the disease.

"People who see symptoms of the avian influenza should immediately report to
the local animal husbandry service," he said.
Hong Kong has killed more than 1 million chickens to stop the spread of the
virus. Generally, the bird flu virus consists of types A, B and C, with the
distinction being based on the antigen internal protein characteristics.

To date, only the type A virus can be isolated, and it is divided into two
subtypes: H (Haemaglutinis) and N (Neuraminidae).

There are 14 kinds of subtype H and nine of subtype N.

The type A virus was previously thought to infect only birds, including
swimming birds. The first discovery of the virus was on a bird in South Africa.

On the bird flu in Hong Kong, the type A virus was first isolated from a
boy, showing that human beings could contract the virus from birds.

An expert on the poultry disease, Prof. Kennedy Shortridge, said the type A
virus could spread within 24 hours and has the characteristics of a pathogen.

However, a member of the Influenza Survey Team of the World Health
Organization, Dr. Daniel Lavandry, said the virus is not known to be
transferable from one human to another.

So far, the infection has only passed from bird to man. (By Wu Pin Chiang)

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 23:16:41 -0500
From: Vegetarian Resource Center <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: DAIRY INDUSTRY FALLS VICTIM TO NORTHEAST ICE STORM
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

DAIRY INDUSTRY FALLS VICTIM TO NORTHEAST ICE STORM
ááááá Copyright 1998 The Associated Press
ááááá
áá
áá
áá ALBANY, N.Y. (January 20, 1998 09:55 a.m. EST
<http://www.nando.net/>http://www.nando.net) --
áá Leeward Babbie has watched livestock die before, but he's lost seven
áá cows in two weeks because a protracted power outage made it impossible
áá to milk the animals.
áá
áá "To lose so many in such a short period of time, it's a disaster to
áá the business," Babbie said Monday. "It will be a long time to
áá recover."
áá
áá Babbie is one of 1,800 dairy farmers in upstate New York struggling in
áá the wake of a deadly ice storm that caused millions of dollars in
áá damage across the Northeast and eastern Canada.
áá
áá Utilities in New York said 39,900 customers were still without power
áá Tuesday. In Maine, about 17,600 business and residential customers
áá were without service, less than one-tenth of the total at the outage's
áá worst.
áá
áá Hundreds of thousands of customers lost power during the storm that
áá began Jan. 7, breaking tree limbs and power lines under the weight of
áá an inch-thick coat of ice. About 210,000 homes in Quebec still have no
áá electricity.
áá
áá Because so many people lost electricity, farmers had to wait days
áá before they could find generators. It took Babbie three days -- far
áá too long.
áá
áá If cows aren't milked, they can become sick and can die. Those that
áá recover never quite regain the production level they had before,
áá farmers say.
áá
áá In addition to the cows that died, Babbie has sold three others for
áá beef because they could no longer produce milk.
áá
áá "We lost power for five days, but it was pure hell for five days," he
áá said. "Of course it's still not back to normal."
áá
áá Babbie's plight has been replayed on hundreds of dairy farms in the
áá Northeast since the storm struck New York, New Hampshire, Maine and
áá Vermont. When the storm knocked out power, farmers also were forced to
áá dump milk they could not process.
áá
áá Patrick Hooker of the New York Farm Bureau said that while the number
áá of cow deaths was not huge, the loss of animals and milk will cost
áá dairy farmers millions. Maple syrup producers, apple and Christmas
áá tree growers and poultry farmers all are expected to take a hit.
áá
áá Ann Howard, a third-generation dairy farmer in Harrison, Maine, had to
áá get rid of 7,500 pounds of sour milk because power was out for a week.
áá
áá "It's just one of those things," Howard said. "It's going to hurt us
áá financially and it's going to take some doing to overcome it, but it's
áá an act of God. It's not anyone's negligence."
áá
áá By DONNA LIQUORI, Associated Press Writer

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 23:39:49 -0800
From: Mesia Quartano <[e-mail]>
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (US-FL) Animal-rights activists sometimes step over the line
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
(Sarasota Herald-Tribune; 01/17/98)

Animal-rights activists sometimes step over the line

In response to the last four rapid-fire letters from our animal-rights
friends, once I got past the recent rescue of an anhinga, this movement
isn't so glamorous.

During the festive holidays, I read about or watched animal-rights
activists trespassing on private property and climbing a construction
crane, assaulting Oscar de la Renta, theft at a mink farm (most minks
were later found dead of starvation) and destruction of the private
property of Joan Rivers.

These activists choose to become vegetarians/vegans and promote removing
animals from the food chain for the rest of us. Yes, animal flesh has
fat and cholesterol, yet eaten in moderation it supplies us with protein
and minerals and is perfectly safe. Near and dear to their hearts is the
elimination of whole industries that supply us with animal products. I
object to these activists trying to elevate animals up to the
preciousness of human life and polluting human/civil rights issues  with
so-called animal rights.

We've even been asked to "pray" for animals. Do we pray to the creator,
who made them an integral part of the food chain, or pointlessly pray to
the soulless creation? Some of these activists call incredible
life-saving medical advances "myths" and, in their own smugness, anybody
who objects to their activism or doctrine is quickly labeled misguided
or uneducated. In all their labors, it must pain them to have read two
recent reports in the Herald-Tribune
that reported meat consumption keeps rising and the fur coat industry is
rebounding in sales.

The foundation of any movement is ideas, and this movement is very
scary, but don't take my word for it. Here are their words:

"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are acceptable crimes
when used for the animal cause," said Alex Pacheco of PETA.

"Humanity is the cancer of nature," and "The optimum human population of
Earth is zero": Dave Foreman of Earth First.

We seem to be drowning in special interest groups that are bent on
influencing our lives. The common courtesy I miss most is this country
is minding your own business.

Randal Miller
Venice


Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 23:58:05 -0500
From: Liz Grayson <[e-mail]>
To: ar-news <[e-mail]>
Subject: Oprah -opening arguments tommorow (Wed) at 1 p.m.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

January 20, 1998
 Web posted at: 7:44 p.m. EST (0044 GMT)

 AMARILLO, Texas (CNN) -- A jury of eight men and four women was  chosen
Tuesday to hear the defamation suit brought by the beef industry
against the queen of television talk, Oprah Winfrey.
 U.S. District Judge Mary Lou Robinson told the jury to return Wed at 1
p.m. for opening arguments.

         The panel was fashioned from a pool of 58 potential jurors,
some of whom were dismissed because they were ranchers or former
ranchers and others because they were friends or customers of the
plaintiffs.

    Winfrey is being sued by a group of cattlemen, led by Amarillo
feedlot
The lawsuit arose from an April 15, 1996, Winfrey show in which
cattlerancher-turned-vegetarian activist Howard Lyman said that feeding
animal parts to cattle was a common practice that could spread mad cow
disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, to humans in the United
State s.
  "Now doesn't that concern you all a little bit, right here, learning
that?"Winfrey asked the audience. "It has just stopped me cold from
eating another burger."

 Congress passed a law last year prohibiting the practice of feeding
animal parts to cattle.

        Cattlemen suing for $13 million

According to the cattlemen, Winfrey's
 comment led to a drop in the cash
 cattle market, a loss estimated by
 analysts at about $36 million. Texas
  cattlemen say they lost almost $1
million, and are suing Winfrey to
 recoup their losses.

 The lawsuit could be the biggest test
yet of "veggie libel" laws. The laws,
which are on the books in more than
  a dozen states, are designed to
protect agricultural products
from

false and disparaging
statements.

Opponents contend that the laws violate constitutional rights to
free
 speech and prevent healthy discussion about potential
food
dangers.


"This law should be held unconstitutional because it's vague,  Reggie
James, head of tthe Consumer's Union office in Texas,
 said at a news conference in Washington.
"Not only are these laws ludicrous, they are dangerous."
But supporters say agricultural producers, particularly because their
products have a limited life, must be protected from unsubstantiated
claims that scare away consumers
"Veggie libel" laws were adopted after reports in 1989 about the growth
regulator Alar pushed down apple prices. Legal experts said the lawsuit
against Winfrey could go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

                                 Oprah inspires bumper stickers

 Five of those chosen for the jury have past or current connections with
the  beef industry. At least two potential jurors were dismissed when
they said they like Winfrey and were likely to favor her. And all but
seven of the 58 potential jurors said they had seen the Oprah Winfrey
Show at least once.
 Winfrey was in court, sitting with her attorneys and listening intently
to the proceedings. When Robinson asked if anyone was a regular viewer
of the show, three women stood. When one of them was asked if she liked
the show, she told the judge: "I've enjoyed some and not enjoyed some.
Winfrey feigned a glare at the woman, drawing laughter, including from
the judge. The woman was stricken from the juror list after she told
Robinson she was "probably a little for" Winfrey.

 Winfrey's appearance in Amarillo has created a stir in this city of
150,000 in the Texas panhandle. Some people love her, others hate her,
as reflected in two bumper stickers on sale: "Amarillo loves Oprah" and
"The only Mad Cow in America is Oprah."

  The judge said she anticipated that the trial would include 150 hours
of testimony divided about evenly between the two sides. That would meab
the trial could last at least five weeks.

 Robinson also issued a summary judgment dismissing King World
 Productions as a defendant in the suit. The judge said that King World
was only the distributor of Winfrey's show and had nothing to do with
its planning and production.



</pre>

     <!-- END OF PAGE CONTENT -->



                            <!-- 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>




</BODY>



</HTML>