AGNET SETEMBER 4, 2000 Greenpeace lord accused of GM crops damage Good news on butterflies! Food fight FOE slams Krebs over organic food Pests and pesticides: the organic foodies attack Stossel US EPA says not rushing rules, industry wants answers Monarch butterfly caught up in franken-corn battle Thomas Edison and the "Frankenfood" debate Experts take on big biodiversity issues Sunflower industry survival may hinge on biotechnology Pathologist shares experiences, offers photos Publications Pest management and the ecosystem Most say spare point pleasant from axe‹poll Non-ag pesticides market growing Agnet is produced by the Centre for Safe Food at the University of Guelph and is sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Plants Program at the University of Guelph, with additional support provided by the U.S. National Pork Producers Council, the U.S. National Food Processors Association, Ag-West Biotech, Novartis Seeds, AGCare (Agricultural Groups Concerned About Resources and the Environment), Monsanto Canada, Pioneer Hi-Bred Limited (Canada), Ontario Egg Producers, U.S. National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Ontario Agri-Food Technologies, Novartis Crop Protection Canada, Halton Regional Health Department, the Rutgers Food Risk Analysis Initiative, the Crop Protection Institute, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ontario Corn Producers Association, Capital Health, Plant Protection Branch Dept of Agriculture Fisheries Forestry Australia, Performance Plants, Cargill AgHorizons, the Ontario Soybean Growers Marketing Board, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, AdCulture, Food Industry Environmental Network, Dow AgroSciences, W.G. Thompson & Sons, Crop and Food Research New Zealand, and the Agricultural Adaptation Council (CanAdapt Program). archived at: http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood/archives/agnet-archives.htm GREENPEACE LORD ACCUSED OF GM CROPS DAMAGE September 4, 2000 PA News Brian Farmer Prosecuter John Farmer was cited as telling a jury at Norwich Crown Court today that Lord Melchett, executive director of Greenpeace, and 27 other supporters of the environmental campaign group were guilty of causing criminal damage when they attacked a field of genetically modified crops and that their aim, in the attack on the farm-scale trial of GM maize at Walnut Tree Farm at Lyng, near Dereham, Norfolk, in July 1999, was to "advance the cause." Farmer added that the reason for the attack was to gain publicity‹not because all 28 were concerned about the effect the crop could have on nearby land, and that the defendants, who all deny criminal damage, wore white suits with the word Greenpeace written across the back to make it clear who they were representing. Greenpeace also arranged for the attack to be videoed and the defendants knew they would not be able to remove all of the crop before they were interrupted by police. Mr Farmer was quoted as saying, "What is really behind this is not a concern for any individual property but it is to advance the cause‹to advance it by means of publicity. The growing of the crop ... was a perfectly lawful activity. The prosecution say to destroy it was unlawful. It is unlawful to destroy other people¹s property." He said the 28 defendants accepted that they destroyed the crop but argued that they were acting out of necessity to prevent neighbouring property‹organic crops and gardens‹being damaged by GM pollen from the maize, which was about to flower. Mr Farmer said the defendants did not have to prove that such a belief was right‹merely that it was honestly held. And Farmer was cited as telling jurors that it was not their job to decide the rights and wrongs of the debate about genetically modified crops but to decide whether the defendants were guilty of causing criminal damage, adding, "This is a case in which it will not be necessary to get absorbed in the science and scientific opinions. You will all be aware that there are strong arguments on both GOOD NEWS ON BUTTERFLIES! Sept. 2000 Research Nebraska From: Jamie Bishop Excerpt from Research Nebraska (Sept. 2000) University of Nebraska-Lincoln Headline: Bt pollen limited threat to monarchs Most Bt corn pollen falls in or near cornfields and before most monarch butterfly caterpillars emerge. That's the word from University of Nebraska Entomologist John Foster and graduate student Pete Clark, whose research supports pollen distance studies elsewhere. This summer and last, they tracked corn pollen shed and monarch activity surrounding five Bt cornfields in eastern Nebraska. They measured corn pollen on milkweed at different distances from fields. Genetically modified Bt corn produces toxins fatal to European corn borers and other caterpillars. First-year results showed most pollen fell within 5.5 yards of the field, with highest pollen counts within the first yard, Foster said. None was found on milkweed more than 44 yards from fields. Beyond 5.5 yards, researchers found no pollen counts above 3.2 grains per square inch on milkweed leaves. Studies elsewhere using certain Bt corn hybrids showed pollen densities less than 24 grains per square inch on milkweed didn't affect monarch caterpillars. That's about seven times higher than the pollen levels the IANR researchers measured. Milkweed often grows near Nebraska cornfields, Foster said. However, the study found little threat to monarchs because 95 percent of the corn pollen shed occurs before monarch caterpillars develop. Researchers found no dead monarch caterpillars on any milkweed. ... FOOD FIGHT Sept. 3/00 British Times The FSA is, according to this editorial, poorly placed to pronounce on organic products. The editorial says that Sir John Krebs, chairman of the Government's Food Standards Agency (FSA) suggested that those who think that organic foods are safer or more nutritious than conventionally grown comestibles may be wasting their money. Sir John, by the nature of his position, must tread a precarious line. At the time the FSA was created, the public recognised a need for some independent monitor, immune to producer pressures. The decision to remove the policing of food safety from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was widely applauded. And yet the FSA, far from being independent of the food production industry, is intimately linked with it. A major proportion of its costs are met by levies exacted from the industry which his agency is expected to police. Whatever the evidence, it would be awkward if Sir John strongly supported organic over other means of production. Of course, the editorial says, his wariness of the hype that surrounds the organic industry does have some grounding. Ever since ancient times when people tried to balance the humours in their body by eating the right sort of food, an often ill-founded faddishness has surrounded man's eating habits. Coffee has come in and out of fashion. Margarine or butter are the subject of vacillating debate. At one moment fibre is the preferred foodstuff, the next, everyone elegant is opting for the high protein diet. In a modern world that appears to believe the body to be a temple, a good dose of the semi-mystic often swills down our food. And belief in the life-cleansing qualities of the organic in part echo that. Image, as Sir John hints, can override fact - especially when a high percentage of organic produce is imported from Europe where standards are far less rigorous than Britain's own. It can take as little as two months for a French farmer to be entitled to declare his produce organic, while for an English grower the same process can take more than two years. Consumers prepared to pay a premium for what they consider to be superior produce should be aware that what they are buying might not actually meet the high standards they expect. Sir John rightly recognises that many people prefer organic because they approve of environment-friendly methods of production. If this is the reason they pay more, he has no gripe with that. But his implication - on the ground that there is no evidence to the contrary - that organic food is no healthier for consumers than any other appears premature. The research does not seem to exist to support this supposition. Recent tests on a range of supermarket carrots may not have detected any pesticide residues on any of them (and may hence disprove the government advice of two years ago that such root stocks should be peeled). But surely an absence of evidence provides a weak starting point for any scientific argument. Authoritative statements rest on proven facts. And Sir John's dismissal of the organic "image" risks sounding suspiciously like an attempt to cosy up to the powerful food production industry. The public should not change their opinions on the strength of this one call. They should demand more research. FOE SLAMS KREBS OVER ORGANIC FOOD 01 Sep 2000 2000 Press Release Archive Friends of the Earth today hit out at Sir John Krebs, chairman of the Government¹s Food Standards Agency, for telling the public that they were wasting their money if they think that the organic food that they buy is safer or more nutritious [1] than conventionally grown food. The comments are due to be broadcast on BBC¹s Countryfile programme this Sunday. According to data published by the Government last year [2] 33% of fresh fruit and vegetables(732 samples) contained pesticide residues. And 70 per cent of conventionally grown carrots were found to contain pesticide residues including organophosphates which are currently being reviewed following concerns about their potential health effects [3]. Sandra Bell, Real Food campaigner for Friends of the Earth said: “We are appalled that Sir John Krebs has launched this attack on organic food. Organic food avoids synthetic pesticides, the routine use of antibiotics and genetically modified ingredients. No-one knows what long term impact these may have on human health. If there is no problem with pesticides in conventionally grown food why does the Government advise people to wash and peel vegetables before giving them to children? The truth is that organic food is better for people and the environment. The Food Standards Agency should be promoting it, not rubbishing it. Sir John is however right when he says that much of the organic food we eat is imported. Around 70 per cent of the organic produce bought in the UK is imported from abroad, despite the fact that lots of farmers want to convert to organic production. This is why FOE is backing the Organic Food and Farming Targets Bill which supports a significant rise in UK organic farming. Sandra Bell continued: “Sir John should be doing more to ensure that more organic food is produced in this country. Why doesn¹t he ask the Government why they aren¹t doing more to help British farmers to become part of the organic success story and produce organic food that is affordable for everyone.” 1. New European studies suggest that organic food is healthier, including research in Switzerland which found organic apples to have more cancer fighting antioxidants. . 2. MAFF Annual Report of the Working Party on Pesticide Residues 3. Countryfile tested 3 carrots for pesticide residues. Only one was conventionally grown. This is far too small a sample to draw conclusions about carrots in general. All the carrots were pesticide-free. 4. In a NOP poll (2162 respondents) for Friends of the Earth, 86% of people said they do not want pesticide residues in their food. Buying organic is currently the best way to avoid pesticide residues. Website: www.foe.co.uk --- Organic beanz Heinz tomato ketchup, baked beans and spaghetti are going organic, the manufacturers announced yesterday. The organic varieties will be found standing alongside their original Heinz variants on store shelves from early next month. PESTS AND PESTICIDES: THE ORGANIC FOODIES ATTACK STOSSEL September 11, 2000 National Review By Dennis T. Avery Last February, John Stossel gave us a powerful expose of the organic-food myth on ABC's 20/20. Now the organic industry (and the environmental movement that sponsors it) are trying to punish Stossel, warn other journalists away, and erase the 20/20 tapes forever. Newspapers all over the country recently published an organic-industry charge that Stossel had deceived the American public in his broadcast. The organic fans say Stossel should be fired. Katherine DiMatteo of the Organic Trade Association says her group is considering a class-action lawsuit because of Stossel's "damage to the organic industry." (Amusingly, the group's press releases were distributed by Fenton Communications, which-just a few years ago-gave us the Alar hoax that had mothers snatching healthful apples out of their children's lunchboxes.) What was Stossel's awful mistake? He said ABC had tested organic and mainstream vegetables, and found no pesticide residues on either kind-when in fact, ABC hadn't tested any vegetables for pesticides. But then, his program wasn't about pesticides, it was about bacterial contamination. Stossel apologized to his viewers on the August 11 20/20 broadcast for the error in what was essentially a footnote of the segment. But he also reiterated his central point: ABC News tested mainstream and organic foods for bacteria. They wanted to see if organic consumers were at greater health risk because organic farmers typically use pathogen-laden animal manure to fertilize their food crops. (Mainstream farmers rarely use manure on food crops; mostly they use chemical nitrogen taken from the air.) The answer to that question was a loud yes: ABC News found the levels of dangerous bacteria on the organic spring greens and sprouts more than ten times higher than in their mainstream counterparts. Stossel told his viewers the exact truth about finding much more E. coli bacterial contamination on the organic vegetables. The organic faction counters that ordinary E. coli is only a little dangerous, and that people shouldn't worry unless they find the more virulent O157 strain-which can kill healthy people. But while it's true that ordinary E. coli kills only the weak, millions of other people get severe stomach pains from it, and a few hundred thousand per year must visit the hospital. Dr. Lester Crawford, former head of food-safety inspection for the Food and Drug Administration, said on the 20/20 broadcast that health authorities consider any E. coli in food a health hazard and an indication of filth and contamination. As for "damage to the organic industry," the most damaging statements were made by its own spokeswoman. When Stossel asked DiMatteo if organic food was more nutritious than regular food, she said, "It's as nutritious as any other product." (She said it twice.) That's a radical scaledown, coming from an industry that has claimed for decades that its products are vastly more nutritious, more "natural," and more vigorously healthful. They've trashed mainstream farmers unceasingly, claiming they produce pallid food, bereft of the rich nutrition our forefathers enjoyed. We have to assume DiMatteo finally told the truth on 20/20 because Crawford was on the program, and would have exposed the usual organic lies about extra nutrients. He knows that many comparative tests of organic and regular food have been done over the decades, and have found no consistent differences. Tufts University even held a conference in 1997 comparing the nutritive quality of organic and mainstream crops from 19 countries. It turned out that the varieties of carrots and spinach the growers planted made a bigger difference than the growing system. The British organic industry was asked the same nutrition question last year, at an official government hearing. They claimed they hadn't had time or funding to do the complex tests. But they've been making their claims of superior nutrition for more than 50 years. Their poster boy is Prince Charles, who not only has a fortune estimated at $475 million, but is the patron of the Royal Agricultural College. Surely, the Prince could have gotten some testing done? Stossel also asked DiMatteo if organic food was safer. Again, she felt forced to tell the truth. "Organic agriculture," she admitted, "is not particularly a food-safety claim." In fact, the organic label means only that the farmer used organic fertilizer instead of chemical fertilizer, and used "natural" pesticides such as copper sulfate (broadly toxic) and sulfur (a soil contaminant). DiMatteo was forced to admit the truth on national television. Now she's demanding that ABC never show the program again. No wonder. Even Stossel's mistake-saying "our tests surprisingly found no pesticide residue on the conventional samples or the organic"-was not an error about the underlying scientific truth, merely an error of attribution. He would have been correct if he had simply referred to published government data. The FDA finds no pesticide residues on about 70 percent of the unwashed vegetables it tests-and it mostly tests where it expects to find pesticides. The FDA's market-basket survey annually finds we're being exposed to less than 1 percent of the "allowable" amount of pesticide residue (which has 1,000-fold safety factors built in). Meanwhile, Dr. Bruce Ames, to whom President Clinton gave the National Science Medal just last year, says 99.9 percent of the pesticides we ingest are natural; thousands of these natural pesticides are produced in the plants to fend off pests. So much for organic food being pesticide-free. Despite the fact that these are carcinogens, our non-smokers' cancer risks have been declining significantly throughout the pesticide era. (Stomach cancer, for example, is down by three-fourths.) The dose makes the poison, and we ingest only tiny doses of pesticides, be they natural or synthetic. Why, then, the uproar over Stossel's mistake? It's being driven by the same politically correct agenda that has led Marian Burros, the food editor of the New York Times, to write more than 100 columns and articles over the last two years praising organic food. (That's not news, but a campaign.) Organic food is now the icon on which the environmental movement is based. Without the lie that organic farming gives us more nutritious foods, the average consumer might have more respect for the abundance provided by high-yield farming. Without the lie that organic food is safer for people, parents might worry about their children's food being fertilized with pathogen-laden animal manure. Without the lie that pesticides endanger wildlife, city folks might realize that without high-yield farming, we would already have plowed down every square mile of forest on the planet to feed ourselves. The organic and environmental movements can't let the facts get out. They need to have Stossel punished so harshly that no other reporter will dare expose the organic myth. US EPA SAYS NOT RUSHING RULES, INDUSTRY WANTS ANSWERS August 29, 2000 Reuters By Patrick Connole WASHINGTON - With the end of the Clinton administration less than five months away, U.S. manufacturers and farm groups claim the Environmental Protection Agency is rushing to finish scores of new clean air and water regulations in case the Republicans gain control of the White House. EPA officials said the agency is simply following the law and trying to meet regulatory deadlines already established for a range of issues including truck diesel fuel emissions and pesticide risk assessments. Questions about regulatory zeal arose after a report in the Washington Post last week, which said the administration had listed 67 regulatory decisions for action before President Bill Clinton's second term expires in January. The newspaper said the chances that Republican George W. Bush might occupy the White House had led "environmentalists and other liberal leaning groups" inside the administration to push ahead a number of rules, ranging from curbs on truck pollution to food labeling and pesticides. Industry and business groups opposed to costly new regulations are demanding details about the rules, and accusing the EPA of skirting public discussion to get more rules on the books in case the Democrats leave power. MONARCH BUTTERFLY CAUGHT UP IN FRANKEN-CORN BATTLE September 4, 2000 The Vancouver Province MINNEAPOLIS‹Jolene Lushine, a biology student at the University of Minnesota, has, according to this story, spent her summer counting green-and-black caterpillars in cornfields for $7.97 US an hour. She¹s one of a small band of students helping University of Minnesota entomologist Karen Oberhauser find the answer to a simple question: Do monarch caterpillars live in cornfields? Despite everything that¹s known about the monarch, no one has looked much for the critter in cornfields. Monarchs have, the story says, become the poster insect in the heated debate about the potential dangers of genetically modified corn. The story says that two studies have shown that in the laboratory, monarch caterpillars die when they eat pollen from corn engineered to poison their cousin, the corn borer. The first of those studies, published in 1999, launched a passionate public and scientific debate on genetically modified food and a spurt of research that will eventually tell us a lot we didn¹t know about monarchs, including whether there are enough of them in cornfields to worry about. As the first suspected victim of bioengineering, the monarchs¹ response may set a precedent for how science, industry, and the public will wrestle with the questions posed by biotechnology. The corn in question is called Bt corn. It was modified with a gene from a bacterium that makes a protein known to kill corn borers, the nemesis of farmers across the U.S., and particularly in the southern portion of the Midwest. Corn borers cause an estimated $1 billion in damage each year. Bt corn, first introduced in 1996, now comprises about a third of the corn planted in the U.S. and its yields can be up to 30 per cent higher than traditional corn. The quality is often higher because with less insect damage there is less mold. Bt corn contains the poisonous protein in each cell, including the pollen so if the corn borers eat the corn, they die. For monarchs, and perhaps some of the other thousands of moths and butterflies in the genus lepidoptera, it¹s a far more complicated question. Monarch butterflies lay their eggs on milkweed. There the monarch caterpillars grow, subsisting on the plant as their only source of food. Then they spin their irridescent cocoons and hang from a milkweed leaf, emerging later as the instantly recognizable and beloved orange-and-black butterfly. Monarchs are at risk from Bt corn only if corn pollen happens to fall on the milkweed leaf they are eating, which is, according to the story, what the first study showed. Cornell University entomologists John Losey and Linda Rayor fed monarch butterflies milkweed leaves coated with high concentrations of pollen from Bt corn, and found that many of them died. Suddenly, in the minds of the public, the risks of biotechnology went from abstract, futuristic fears to the potential loss of a cherished butterfly here and now. THOMAS EDISON AND THE "FRANKENFOOD" DEBATE September 2000 Agbiotech Bulletin Volume 8, Issue 8 Published by Ag-West Biotech Inc. Within the last two years, the debate over the value of GM foods has turned into a war of sentiment, where the scientific perspective is often lost in an overload of calculatedly shocking imagery. These tactics, though, are not particularly novel. In the 1880s, Nikola Tesla first developed alternating current (AC), a safer and more economical means of delivering electricity than direct current (DC). Thomas Edison, who had invested heavily in the development of DC, began a campaign to demonstrate the "hazards" of AC use. He electrocuted small animals using AC in public demonstrations and later designed the first electric chair, which also used AC. Eventually, Tesla was driven out of business, and Edison became a key player in the commercialization of AC. Edison was well aware that DC could just as easily be used to electrocute a person. In fact, he knew that AC was safer than DC. However, his demonstrations successfully linked AC with danger in the public perception, because he recognized three basic truths about the public. First, most people do not understand technology and as a result are ambivalent about it. Second, people respond more strongly to symbols and demonstrations than words. Finally, people respond to emotional appeals more readily than reason, particularly when such appeals relate to the safety of their families. In light of these facts, it is unsurprising that children dressed as monarch butterflies being menaced by Bt corn get more press than any scientific argument supporting GM crops. The terminology used in most scientific journals is intimidating to the average consumer, and anti-biotech organizations often use this uncertainty to imply that researchers are hiding their pro-industry agenda behind walls of jargon. The biotech industry appears to have recognized this, going by the recent series of pro-biotech ads aired on television. Monsanto¹s recent decision to provide royalty-free licenses to help improve "golden rice" in developing countries like India might also contribute to a more positive image for GM foods. Condensed from an article by John Bissell of Publicis Dialog http://www. lobsenzstevens.com/pd/ for The Strategist, v. 6, no. 2, pp. 10-14 http://www.prsa.org/prpubs.html EXPERTS TAKE ON BIG BIODIVERSITY ISSUES September 4, 2000 CSIRO --Media Release Ref 2000/226 Media are invited to Key Issues in Australia¹s Biodiversity, a series of seminars that delve into some of the big biodiversity issues facing the nation. The seminars will be held each Wednesday in September at 4pm in the CSIRO Discovery lecture theatre, Black Mountain,as part of National Biodiversity Month activities. The first seminar "GMOs and the Environment" is on September 6. The seminars are designed to bring the public together with experts for rigorous discussion led by a panel with often-opposing views. Other seminars: September 13 ‹ Salinity and Biodiversity September 20 ‹ Biodiversity credits: creating markets for ecosystem services September 27 ‹ Invasive species Time: 4.00pm Date: Wednesday, 6, 13, 20 and 27 September Venue: CSIRO Discovery Lecture Theatre CSIRO Black Mountain Cnr Clunies Ross St and Barry Drive SUNFLOWER INDUSTRY SURVIVAL MAY HINGE ON BIOTECHNOLOGY September 2000 Agbiotech Bulletin Volume 8, Issue 8 Published by Ag-West Biotech Inc. Sunflower is losing acreage to other row crops, including soybeans and canola, many of which are genetically modified to be pesticide-tolerant. GM crops are easier to manage for many producers, with less chemical usage and better crop quality and yields in many cases. Sunflower is one of the few oilseed crops which has not yet been genetically modified. Conventional sunflower hybrids have fewer weed control options and are vulnerable to insect problems and disease, primarily sclerotinia, or white mold. Statistics lend credence to the estimated erosion of US sunflower acreage, which has declined from just over four million acres planted in 1995, before GM crops became widely popular, to a total of 2.8 million acres this year. Pioneer Hi-Bred International is collaborating with Advanta on the development of a sclerotinia-resistance gene, which likely wouldn¹t be available on the market until 2005. They are also working collaboratively with Dow AgroSciences to develop genetic resistance to Argentina Looper, a leaf-feeding sunflower pest in Argentina. These developments may make this oilseed more attractive to farmers. For more information, visit the National Sunflower Association http://www.sunflowernsa.com PATHOLOGIST SHARES EXPERIENCES, OFFERS PHOTOS September 2000 IPMnet NEWS #81 [Reprinted with permission of the sponser, the Consortium for International Crop Protection] Based on his long and productive career, a noted international plant pathologist has established a resource-rich web site with a wealth of information about traditional methods of crop disease man- agement practices, traditional agriculture in general, a database of over 3,000 references on traditional agriculture and plant pathology, and free access to, and use of, more than 2,500 pictures on all the above topics. The website and various sub-directories is located at: . Though retired from Cornell Univ. (U.S.), H.D. Thurston, continues to teach and lead periodic field trips delving into traditional agri- culture and methods of crop disease management. Dr. Thurston observes that, "Most practices for disease management used by traditional farm- ers are cultural practices." Some of these practices include: "alter- ing of plant and crop architecture; biological control; burning; ad- justing crop density, depth, or time of planting; planting diverse crops; fallowing; flooding; mulching; multiple cropping; planting without tillage; using organic amendments; planting in raised beds; rotation; sanitation; manipulating shade; and tillage." For centuries farmers developed techniques‹many now forgotten or abandoned‹to restrict and manage plant diseases with few, if any, external inputs, notes Thurston. One example: the use of disease- resistant varieties emphasizes the value of traditional cultivars (landraces) selected over millennia. Landraces are usually genet- ically diverse and are adapted to their environment and endemic pathogens. Although they may not necessarily produce high yields, generally they are both dependable and stable in yielding some har- vest under all but the very worst conditions. There is a great deal of useful and fascinating information on this website¹s pages, and Dr. Thurston welcomes all to make use of the material and photos, of course giving appropriate attribution and credit to the source. |--H.D. Thurston, . PUBLICATIONS September 2000 IPMnet NEWS #81 [Reprinted with permission of the sponser, the Consortium for International Crop Protection] INSECTS¹ LINKS TO LANDSCAPES A new (2000) publication examines the important complex aspects of INTERCHANGES OF INSECTS BETWEEN AGRICULTURAL AND SURROUNDING LAND- SCAPES. Based on the concept that non-crop elements in a landscape can, and often do, exert substantial impact on insect communities‹ such as fitness and survival‹editor B. Ekbom, _et al_ have assembled 13 chapters by a notable international group of experts to examine and expand the overall topic. Papers in this 239-page monograph range over numerous facets of agroecosystems, but ultimately emphasize IPM, bio- control, natural enemies, and the importance of maintaining habitat diversification. |--R. Kennedy, Kluwer Academic Publishers, PO Box 989, 3300 AZ Dordrecht, THE NETHERLANDS. Phone: 31-078-639-2266. E-mail: . -- Two More New Titles from APS Press 1) An outstanding new offering from the American Phytopathological Society (APS) concentrates its thrust on diagnosing plant diseases caused by parasitic nematodes commonly encountered in agronomy, for- estry, and horticulture and uses its 189 pages to present a range of well tested field and laboratory methods. DIAGNOSING PLANT DISEASES CAUSED BY NEMATODES, by M.C. Shurtleff and C.W. Averre III, introduces plant-parasitic nematodes, describes effective collection methods, and provides an extensive section on classifications and descriptions for 31 genera. The 2000, hardcover work includes numerous generous-size illustrations, plus 38 full color photos. -- 2) The latest update of the acclaimed APS plant disease compendia series is the 2000 version of COMPENDIUM OF CITRUS DISEASES, 2nd Ed- ition. Editors L.W. Timmer, _et al_, have expanded the 1988 version and included several significant diseases such as citrus variegated chlorosis, caused by _Xylella fastidiosa_, in Brazil; mancha foliar, caused by _Alternaria limicola_ on Mexican lime in Mexico; and citrus chlorotic dwarf in Turkey, all unknown at the time of publishing the first edition. The new version follows the established softcover for- mat for APS compendia, includes more detailed information for diseases mentioned previously, and brightens its 92 pages with over 200 full color illustrations. The total package stands as a modern and complete reference on citrus diseases. -- |--APS Press, 3340 Pilot Knob Rd., St. Paul, MN 55121-2097, USA. E-mail: . Fax: 1-651-454-0766. Phone; 1-651-454-7250. Web: . <#> PEST MANAGEMENT AND THE ECOSYSTEM September 2000 IPMnet NEWS #81 [Reprinted with permission of the sponser, the Consortium for International Crop Protection] A new 20-page bulletin from the U.S. government sponsored Sus- tainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SARE) uses color photos and case studies to promote the concept of "ecological prin- ciples to achieve more sustainable pest management." Titled A WHOLE- FARM APPROACH TO MANAGING PESTS, the softcover, 2000 publication pre- sents successful instances, mainly in text, of cover crops crowding out weeds, scouting to establish action thresholds, use of beneficial organism-attracting plants and environments to enhance pest insect biocontrol, and an overall strategy intended to either reduce pesti- cide application, reserve it as a last resort, or eliminate it alto- gether. Among other techniques the editors offer to "¹Naturalize¹ Your Farming System," are establishing refugia, devising means to increase stress on pests, and rotating crops to break pest cycles. |--SARE Publications, 322 Symons Hall, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-5565, USA. E-mail: . Fax: 1-301-314-7373. Phone: 1-301-405-3186. Web: . <#> MOST SAY SPARE POINT PLEASANT FROM AXE‹POLL September 3, 2000 The Halifax Daily News page 3 Jo-Anne Macdonald Half of metro residents are, according to this story, against cutting 10,000 trees to eradicate a deadly beetle in Point Pleasant Park, according to a new poll. But a hefty majority of park lovers, 78 per cent, say fewer trees will not keep them out. Commissioned by The Daily News, the telephone poll asked 502 residents of the Halifax Regional Municipality if they supported a government plan to fell 10,000 trees to stop the spread of the brown spruce longhorn beetle. The beetle kills red spruce and poses a threat to the province¹s $1.4-billion forestry industry. Fifty per cent of those surveyed said they opposed cutting, 38 per cent favoured it, and 12 per cent did not know or had no opinion. Pollster Don Mills was cited as saying it¹s clear the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which advocates cutting, has lost public support, adding, ``I think they¹ve kind of blown it. They haven¹t come up with enough scientific proof that this is exactly what¹s needed. When you get a battle of experts, which is kind of what¹s happened here, people say: `Well, nobody¹s made their case, so we shouldn¹t do anything until the case is absolutely certain.¹¹¹ NON-AG PESTICIDES MARKET GROWING September 2, 2000 P A N U P S Pesticide Action Network Updates Service The global market for non-agricultural pesticides is currently worth about US$7 billion per year and is growing approximately 4% annually. Today, at least 12% of global sales of all pesticides are for uses ranging from over-the-counter sprays bought by homeowners to control flies to selective herbicides applied to golf courses to commodity pesticides used to treat timber. Home & garden pesticides The United States accounts for about 40% of the world market for household pesticides with annual sales exceeding US$1 billion. China is the second largest national market with over US$580 million of household insecticides purchased each year. Industry analysts predict, that with continued growth of the Chinese economy, the market for household insecticides may be one of the most dynamic in the entire pesticide industry during the next ten years. The most widely used active ingredients in home pesticides are synthetic pyrethroids such as deltamethrin, esbiothrin, pyrethrins, s-bioallethrin and bioremethrin. The United States also dominates the world market for garden pesticides with sales of over $1.5 billion per year. The United Kingdom is a distant second with sales of US$155 million. The market for over-the-counter pesticides is very different than that for agrochemicals. During the 1990s, Monsanto, Cyanamid and Aventis all spun off their non-agricultural pesticide products to consumer goods companies such as Scotts, Sara Lee and Reckitt & Colman. In general, the leading agrochemical manufacturers produce only the active ingredients and not the final product. Bayer is the main exception with investments in a joint venture in the U.S. to develop home insecticide brands, a joint venture in China and acquisition of the garden products businesses of Planfer in Sweden and Pbi Home & Garden in the United Kingdom. The U.S. company Scotts is the world's leading supplier of branded consumer garden pesticides with sales of US$1,648 million in 1999. Last year, the company spent US$69 million advertising its brands in North America. Scotts is the sole agent for Roundup (glyphosate) in the U.S., Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Turf pesticides The global market for turf care products is approximately US$850 million per year, about half for golf courses throughout the world and most of the remaining half is used by lawn care operators in the U.S. Each year, U.S. lawn care operators apply about US$440 million worth of pesticides. Over 125 new golf courses were built in Europe in 1999, while about 40 per year are built in Japan. Japanese golf courses now account for one third of commercially-applied non-agricultural pesticides. This information is from the report, World Non-Agricultural Pesticide Markets by Agrow Reports, March 2000. It is available for US$1,670 from PJB publications; phone (44-20) 8332 8965; fax (44-20) 8332 8992. Source: Agrow: World Crop Protection News, June 2, 2000. Contact: PANNA. To subscribe to Agnet, send mail to: listserv@listserv.uoguelph.ca leave subject line blank in the body of the message type: subscribe agnet-L firstname lastname i.e. subscribe agnet-L Doug Powell To unsubscribe to Agnet, send mail to: listserv@listserv.uoguelph.ca leave subject line blank in the body of the message type: signoff agnet-L For more information about the Agnet research program, please contact: Dr. Douglas Powell dept. of plant agriculture University of Guelph Guelph, Ont. N1G 2W1 tel: 519-824-4120 x2506 fax: 519-763-8933 dpowell@uoguelph.ca http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood archived at: http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood/archives/agnet-archives.htm