Tokyo Nights
Life In Tokyo - Neil Stalnaker
Thursday, November 22, 2007
明日のライブ(11/23)沢田亜矢子*澤田かおり!!!!


11月23日
Tokyo Main Dining
ディナー18時30分/ショー20時開演
¥16,000(ディナー込)
03-5428-5031

Neil Stalnaker-trumpet
Gustava Anacleto-sax
Shinobu Ito-guitar
Frederick Viennot-keys
Dale James-bass
Tsuda Keita-drums
GM WATCH daily list
http://www.gmwatch.org
---
---
QUOTES: "It makes sense to say this isn't just the big bad chemical companies trying to engineer something to jam down your throats." - Ed Schafer 

"Ed Schafer is the right choice to fill this post." - George W. Bush

Gov. Schafer was co-founder and co-chair of the Governors Biotechnology Partnership. 
---
---
Bush's Ag Secretary Nominee is GMO Shill
News Type: Opinion - Fri Nov 2 2007 [edited]
http://minnieapolis.newsvine.com/_news/2007/11/02/1067645-bushs-ag-secretary-nominee-is-gmo-shill

On Halloween, Pres. Bush nominated Edward Schafer for the post of Agriculture Secretary. Schafer is a two-time North Dakota governor and former co-chairman of the Governors Biotechnology Partnership. While the White House is highlighting Schafer’s experience at directing emergency aid to the 1997 flooding disaster, voters and the Senate would do well to consider his role in shielding the biotech industry from consumer product labeling laws. 

According to an online search, Ed Schafer was the former co-chairman of the Governors Biotechnology Partnership. He was instrumental in getting former Pres. Clinton to back off of requirements that GM modified foods be labeled as such. See the article from The Guardian in May of 2000, titled, "Clinton bows to food producers." 

There was quite a flurry of press about Mr. Schafer in 2000. You might like to look up the Salon article from its archive, "Stalking the wild Frankensalmon," from May 5, 2000. Quote: 

"On Wednesday, 13 governors joined forces with the biotech industry to try to persuade American consumers to become more enthusiastic consumers of engineered food. "It makes sense to say that this isn't just the big, bad chemical companies trying to engineer something to jam down your throats," said North Dakota Gov. Ed Schafer… How political is the coalition? Consider that two of the group's three Democratic governors are from states housing the headquarters of biotech gorillas Monsanto and DuPont."

And an editorial and letter to editor in Gentech, also from May 2000, has even more of his own words about the 'promised land' of GM foods... 

" In 1998, the Governor let his constituents know his innermost feelings about the "new" agriculture. In his State of the State address, he said: "...today different winds blow across our fields of waving wheat. Washington has changed the rules on...agriculture."

His 1999 address included a commercial for Monsanto's pesticide: "Every day I read about a new innovation...Roundup-ready crops..."
This year, the governor made no mistake about his intentions: "Genetic engineering will make farms smaller, more specialized and more profitable." 

This ill-informed politician is the chief executive of an agricultural state, North Dakota, which produces enormous surpluses. Farmers in his state are paid subsidies not to grow corn and soybeans, yet the governor believes that genetically modified foods are the keys to easing world hunger. "
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
GM WATCH daily list
GM WATCH Official Website
---
---
EXTRACT: The biotechnology industry has managed to persuade many normally clear-minded people, sadly including many scientists, that they should support GM crops if they are 'pro-science'.

The important fact that the science has actually emerged against GM crops has gone unnoticed. Perhaps it would help to point out that genetic engineering is not a science, it is only a technique. Rejection of GM does not mean a rejection of science.

NOTE: FOR COPIES OF THE REPORT AND HOW TO *TAKE ACTION* http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8490
---
---
The secret GM invasion
Gundula Azeez
New Statesman, 20 November 2007
http://www.newstatesman.com/200711200004

A Soil Association study has found that many supermarkets are selling products from animals fed on GM crops, despite having 'non-GM' policies

For over a decade, the public has rejected GM foods. Intuitive concerns had been reinforced by the highly publicised findings of the first Government sponsored animal trials, in which strange lesions were found in the guts of GM-fed rats. To their credit, the supermarkets adopted non-GM policies and, by October 2002, they were using no GM (genetically modified) ingredients in their own-brand products.

Yet, for some years the Soil Association and other organisations have been concerned about the use of GM animal feed. Due to a legal loop-hole, although foods or animal feeds that directly contain GM ingredients must be labelled as ‘GM’, there is no such requirement for meat and dairy foods produced from animals fed on GM crops.

Any use of GM animal feed could thus be kept hidden from consumers. Last year, in noticeably evasive replies to letters from our supporters, the supermarkets admitted that their non-GM policies did not cover animal feed. The Soil Association decided to conduct an in-depth investigation.

Our findings – presented in our report, Silent invasion – the hidden use of GM crops in livestock feed – are deeply concerning. By testing animal feeds and reviewing the industry’s sourcing policies, we have found that high levels of GM animal feed are being used. 73% of the feeds we tested contained some GM soya and 75% were labelled as ‘GM’. Based on our findings, around 60% of the maize and 30% of the soya in the dairy and pig sectors are GM.

What this means is that nearly all non-organic milk, dairy products (such as cheese and yoghurt) and pork products sold in UK shops and restaurants are produced from GM-fed animals. So, most consumers are unwittingly eating foods produced from GM crops every day.

We also reviewed progress on the science of the safety of GM crops, since the early days of the debate when there was little to go on. The Food Standards Agency had been assuring consumers that they would not be exposed to GM material by eating foods from GM-fed animals. However, four studies by different scientific teams have now found that small amounts of GM DNA can be detected in milk and tissues from GM-fed animals.

It also turns out that the first animal feeding trials were not flukes. Very many of the animal trials carried out since then have found deeply worrying effects. These include toxic effects in body organs, allergic reactions, unexplained deaths and stunted growth in the offspring. This raises serious questions about how GM-fed animals can be considered suitable for producing human food.

In the view of the Soil Association, there has been a failure of both the market and the scientific advisory process. The biotechnology industry has managed to persuade many normally clear-minded people, sadly including many scientists, that they should support GM crops if they are 'pro-science'.

The important fact that the science has actually emerged against GM crops has gone unnoticed. Perhaps it would help to point out that genetic engineering is not a science, it is only a technique. Rejection of GM does not mean a rejection of science.

Until the scientific community come to terms with the research and supports a responsible – and genuinely science-based - approach, the Soil Association strongly recommends that people try to avoid foods produced from GM-fed animals. Among the supermarkets, Marks-and-Spencer is far ahead of the others, with all of their milk and fresh meat produced from non-GM feed. We urge other supermarkets and catering companies to follow their lead and to meanwhile to label any products from GM-fed animals so that at least people can choose.


I'll be playing with Hammond Organ man, Kankawa and his Band.
Tomorrow's Gig (明日のライブ)Tokyo (東京)FM Hall