|
Animals liberated from University of
Iowa and worldwide
By Najwa Lynch
Nov. 22 (AGR) — Members of the Animal Liberation Front
(ALF) claimed responsibility for the release of 401 animals from Spence
Lab and Seashore Hall, which house the psychology department at the
University of Iowa (UI) in Des Moines on Nov. 14. While mainstream media
outlets and university officials have been calling this an act of senseless
vandalism, a letter from those involved in the action insist that this
was not the case, but that this was “a methodical effort to cripple
the UI psychology department’s animal research.”
The ALF members targeted offices and labs of what they considered to
be the department’s seven primary animal researchers: Professors
Poremba, Freeman, Blumburg, Johnson, Robinson, Rodefer and Wasserman.
According to university officials, more than 30 computers were destroyed.
The letter from the ALF members claims that all of the computers, the
lab equipment (such as “shock boxes”), and computer disks
that were destroyed were being used in the animal experiments.
The group also removed several documents from these offices. Among the
materials taken from the offices was documentation showing Rodefer’s
work confining drug addicted primates in small glass boxes.
A type of paper-dissolving acid was poured on documents that were left
behind in the raid. Because university police are unaware of what particular
acid was used, the labs were evacuated and sealed off. Seashore Hall
was reopened on Nov. 21 after the FBI concluded its investigation and
a private company finished cleaning up. Spence Labs was expected to
remain closed until after the Thanksgiving break.
In addition to hard drives, computer disks, photos, and documents, 401
animals – 88 mice and 313 rats – were taken from the labs.
The ALF members said that all of the animals were taken to a sympathetic
veterinarian and put in loving homes. The letter also conveyed regret
for not being able to liberate all the animals. Animals that were left
behind include hundreds of mice and rats, pigeons, guinea pigs, and
eight primates.
The FBI has stated that they have found no direct links between this
action and other recent actions involving animal liberation in the Midwestern
United States. The University President, David Skorton, and one of the
professors from the psychology department are calling this an act of
terrorism. The letter from the ALF members claims that this was an act
of “justice for the victims of vivisection.”
Throughout the world, animal liberation activists targeted fur breeders,
farms, and university labs this month. On Nov. 12, ALF activists released
2,500 of 8,000 mink from a fur breeder in Villa del Conte, Italy. The
activists were chased away after the farmer was alarmed by dogs barking.
Four activists were stopped by police near the village and found with
cutting tools. They were taken into custody and released the next day.
The Russian Animal Liberation Front broke into the Biology Department
at Moscow State University and liberated a rabbit that was being kept
in the lab alone. The rabbit’s head had a large open wound where
electrodes were implanted into his brain. The activists broke through
a metal door that was installed after the lab had been broken into the
previous spring and a hundred rats and five rabbits were liberated.
Forty-five hens were liberated from a large farm in the United Kingdom.
A letter from the activists involved said they would have wished to
have liberated more of the hens, “but with the resources available
to us, and the homes we had found, this was the best we could do.”
Another 21 hens were liberated from a farm in South Aukland, New Zealand
and 23 from a farm in the Netherlands. Activists claim that all the
hens have been given medical care and caring homes.
The Finnish ALF also claimed responsibility for the dying of the furs
of 2,000 foxes at a fur breeder’s farm. The foxes were dyed with
henna, a natural hair dye, in order to devalue their fur, said the ALF
members. The activists also stole the breeding cards in order to make
the process of breeding more difficult. They stated that there purpose
for doing this was to make the farm unprofitable for the breeders and
fur industry. The activists expressed regret at not being able to free
the foxes from the farm.
Crop testing rules menace food supply
-- critics
By Stephen Leahy
Brooklin, Canada, Nov. 25 (IPS) — Proposed rules for experimental
genetically engineered (GE) crops will allow contamination of the US
food supply, critics said this week, as a new poll reported US citizens
want stricter regulation of GE foods.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a “draft guidance
document” Nov. 24 that acknowledges experimental GE crops (also
known as genetically modified or GM crops) that have not been approved
for human consumption could cross-pollinate or mingle with food crops.
Under the proposed guidelines companies are “encouraged” to
submit to the FDA their safety evaluation of a new protein “prior
to the time you have concerns that [it] could enter the food supply,”
which critics interpret to mean that by advising beforehand, firms will
escape legal liability for any contamination.
The guidelines, which now face a 60-day public comment period, do not
mention amounts, thresholds or concentration levels.
According to an FDA statement, the potential risk from new proteins
is limited to their being an allergen or toxin. But, “The government
is allowing the contamination of our food supply with experimental material
they haven’t tested,” says Bill Freese, a research analyst
for Friends of the Earth (FoE), US
“What these rules really do is allow companies to dodge any legal
liability for contamination,” Freese told IPS.
Such contamination has happened in the past and cost biotech companies
more than $1 billion.
In 2000, a GE corn variety called StarLink, which had not been approved
for human consumption, contaminated the US food supply and its food
exports. Traces of StarLink continued to be detected in food shipments
to Bolivia, Japan and South Korea as recently as the fall of 2003, Freese
said.
In 2002, an experimental GE corn containing a pharmaceutical (one of
the so-called new “pharma crops” being developed) sprouted
unassisted in a field of soy one year after the trial crop had been
harvested. The company involved, ProdiGene Inc, was forced to pay millions
in damages and a $250,000 fine even though the “pharma” corn
never reached the food supply.
Nearly 70 percent of the world’s GE crops are planted in the United
States, where the biotechnology industry earns nearly $40 billion annually,
according to the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO).
BIO Vice President Michael Phillips said the FDA proposal will increase
regulation on the industry and improve safety, according to a report
in the Omaha (Nebraska) World-Herald. “It’s an extra safety
precaution,” Phillips said.
He also acknowledged the new rules would help companies escape liability
for contamination, according to the newspaper.
Experimental GE crops are currently grown on at least 57,000 acres in
the United States, according to the FOE. Monsanto, Dupont and a few
other multinational companies currently hold 1,017 permits to field
test crops engineered for herbicide or insect resistance, altered nutritional
properties, anti-fungal compounds or sterile pollen or seeds.
“The anti-fungal crops appear to have proteins that are the type
that can cause allergies,” said Freese.
It is difficult to know exactly what experimental crops are being planted
because almost half of them are labeled as confidential, he says.
Following the StarLink incident, the White House issued a directive
through its Office of Science and Technology Policy in August 2002 to
the FDA, the US Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to develop rules where contamination by experimental crops
“could be found acceptable.”
The FDA is the first to propose such rules, in part because it expects
the volume of biotech field tests to grow.
The Europeans are outraged by all this, says Freese.
Europe has led opposition to GE crops and import of genetically modified
foods, putting in place a de facto moratorium in 1999. The administration
of US President George W. Bush has challenged that ban at the World
Trade Organization (WTO).
“Because of the secrecy behind experiments in the United States,
no one — not food companies, not even governments — will be
able to test food products or food imports for contamination because
they won’t know what to test for,” said Adrian Bebb of FoE
Europe, in a statement.
“This will leave consumers worldwide exposed to new risks from
genetically modified foods.”
But the US public does not want to take risks with its food. About 85
percent of consumers questioned in an independent poll released Nov.
24 strongly believe regulators should ensure biotech foods are safe
before they come to market.
About 40 percent also say there is too little regulation of GE foods.
The poll was conducted by the Washington-based Pew Initiative for Food
and Biotechnology, a non-profit group that studies GE food and biotechnology
in agriculture.
According to an expert familiar with the poll, US citizens have tremendous
faith in their regulators, but wrongly believe GE foods have been approved
and tested by the FDA.
“They’re under the false impression there is thorough testing
like there are for drugs,” said the expert, asking to be unnamed.
When people learned that GE foods are not tested, they were very uncomfortable
and indicated they want mandatory, uniform testing and evaluation of
GE foods, noted the expert.
Indeed, 81 percent of those surveyed by Pew believed the FDA should
approve the safety of GE foods before they come to market, even if that
would mean “substantial delays.”
“We need mandatory safety testing for all genetically engineered
crops coming to market and not FDA actions allowing companies to contaminate
our food supply with unknown genetically-engineered test products,”
says Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Food Safety,
a Washington, DC-based non-governmental organization.
“The government is admitting that genetically-engineered field
test sites are polluting our food supply and environment, yet it consistently
exempts these field tests from full environmental review,” he added
in a statement.
“We need the agencies to prevent pollution not find new ways to
make it okay,” said Mendelson.
|
