Agnet Dec. 2/03 -- IV
Canadian
organic regulation needed to further international trade
Japan
beverage maker Suntory to acquire Australian biotechnology venture
Urban cowboy
Got
comments? Pacific Northwest states consolidate comments to USDA/EPA using new
program
how to subscribe
Canadian
organic regulation needed to further international trade
December 2, 2003
From a press release
GREENFIELD, Mass. -- On behalf of its members in Canada, the Organic Trade
Association is urging Canadian consumers, environmentalists and organic industry
players to actively support efforts to develop a Canadian regulation that would
require organic products and ingredients, whether domestically produced or
imported, to meet standards set by the Canadian government.
"Such a regulation will make it possible for Canada to negotiate with other
trading partners, particularly the European Union, on possible equivalency or
recognition agreements and further promote international trade of organic
products. In addition, it will give consumers assurance that any products sold
as organic in Canada have complied with mandatory standards," said
Katherine DiMatteo, executive director of the Organic Trade Association (OTA),
which represents all aspects of the organic industry in North America.
Before adopting a regulation, Canadian officials must first consult with the
Canadian public and organic industry for comments and guidance. The first of
these consultative sessions has been scheduled for Jan. 23, 2004, in Guelph in
conjunction with the 2004 Organic Conference at the University of Guelph.
Additional consultations in other parts of the country are tentatively planned
for February and March.
Since 1999, the Canadian industry has had a voluntary Canada Organic Standard.
In January 2003, industry members met with representatives of Agriculture &
Agri-Foods Canada and agreed on the need for a mandatory regulation to help
expedite trade relations with such major trading partners as the United States,
European Union, and Japan. Subsequent meetings throughout the year have
determined the structure of the proposed regulation.
"The Organic Trade Association has been one of the players at the table in
this effort to shape a regulation and ensure standards that meet the needs of
the Canadian public. This has truly been a cooperative effort on the part of key
individuals in the Canadian government and organic industry, and we are
optimistic that soon Canada can adopt a regulation. However, before that can
happen, consumers and other Canadian constituents must actively show their
support," DiMatteo said.
The Organic Trade Association is a membership-based business association
representing all aspects of the organic industry in North America. Its members
include 76 companies from Canada. More information about OTA is available on
OTA's web site (www.ota.com) and its consumer web site (www.theorganicreport.org).
Japan
beverage maker Suntory to acquire Australian biotechnology venture
December 2, 2003
Knight-Ridder Tribune
OSAKA, Japan--Beverage maker Suntory Ltd. Was cited as saying Tuesday it will
acquire Australian biotechnology venture Florigene Ltd. from the venture's
parent firm Nufarm Ltd., an Australian chemical maker.
The move is intended to promote Suntory's research and development activity in
the field of plant life with the use of biotechnology, the Japanese firm said.
Suntory is to acquire a 98 percent stake in Florigene by the end of this month
but will not disclose financial details at the moment, company officials said.
Florigene specializes in the development of new flowers and plants and is known
for its expertise in adjusting their colors.
Suntory and Florigene have been cooperating since 1990 in the development of
blue roses and carnations by using gene recombination technologies.
Urban
cowboy
December 1/03
Guelph Mercury
Owen Roberts
Ontario’s highly integrated food and agriculture research and education system
is the envy of North America. Instead of the various segments of the industry
being disjointed, they work together in ways that lead to all kinds of
efficiencies and opportunities. The latest example of this cooperation is the
Ontario Agricultural College’s bio-resource management degree - the first of
its kind in Canada - which, pending the Ministry of Training, Colleges and
Universities’ approval, starts accepting applications in January, for the
program’s debut next fall.
The degree was created to fill a societal and industry gap. Beneath its
unassuming name, it’s actually a four-year horticultural management major,
designed for students who have an interest in what’s now called living
resources - shrubs, flowers, trees, plants -- and a desire to pursue
degree-level training in all aspects of horticulture. With gardening having
become Canada?s leading leisure activity, the horticultural industry is booming.
The industry worked with the university to create the program, because graduates
were needed with an advanced level of understanding, particularly on the
business side. The existing program was doing fine producing graduates who knew
the technical end of the industry, but in a two-year program, there wasn’t
time to introduce the likes of management skills.
Now the time’s available, as are the facilities. Thanks to what’s likely to
become a template for other programs - that is, facility- and expertise-sharing
between the University and its regional campuses in Ridgetown, Alfred and
Kemptville - students will study for the first two years at Ridgetown College,
then the final two years at the Guelph main campus. This way, they get to take
advantage of the applied skill sets distinguished by the regional campuses, and
the business and management expertise at the University.
This program and others like it are intended for those who plan to enter the
workforce after their four-year program, rather than good on to graduate school.
There are programs at Guelph specifically for those who want a post-graduate
program. This isn’t it.
But it is it if students are looking at occupations such as greenhouse operation
manager, fruit and vegetable production agronomist, nursery or garden centre
manager, landscape contractor and designer, golf course grounds manager and
parks maintenance manager. That?s a broad brush, and it will have a wide appeal
(even though it’s a limited-enrolment program, with plans to accept just 25-30
students, to avoid flooding the market). The Ontario Agricultural College is
excited about the bio-resource program because it represents so much of what the
college is trying to do. It wants to make the affiliated colleges a vibrant part
of the academic curriculum, in a creative way that utilizes the talents and
facilities of both. It wants to offer students new options, to draw them to the
ever-expanding, non-traditional world of agriculture. It wants to be applicable
to industry, so its graduates get jobs. And it wants to be relevant to society,
by responding to its needs.
By listening to industry, the college has heard the kind of graduates society
wants. Credentials include a combination of field and classroom experience,
business savvy and particularly, environmental awareness. That’s where a part
of the bio moniker comes from. Besides being good greenhouse managers or parks
operators, graduates will come equipped with an unusually high degree of
environmental education. They’ll have classes in such topics as stewardship,
soil and water conservation, environmental issues and management, and
communications. They’ll be highly sensitized to current issues.
We’re looking for non-traditional learners who learn by doing, like getting
their hands dirty and are independently minded, says OAC associate dean Mary
Buhr. Students are ready for this kind of program. Buhr expects this to be the
first in a line of hybrid college-university degree programs aimed at the
bio-resource economy. That’s good news -- industry and society are ready for
graduates from these kinds of programs. It?s time to bring them on.
Got
comments? Pacific Northwest states consolidate comments to USDA/EPA using new
program
November 2003
Agrichemical and Environmental News, Issue No. 211
Dr. Catherine H. Daniels, WSU Pesticide Coordinator, and Jane M. Thomas, Western
Region Regulatory Information Coordinator
http://www.aenews.wsu.edu/Nov03AENews/Nov03AENews.htm#CommentCoordinator
One of the most common complaints from Western growers about the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is that "those folks use models, they
don't use real data." This complaint refers to EPA’s chemical
reregistration work mandated in the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The
reason that models don’t sit well with growers is that models, by their very
nature, must take “worst case situations” into account. In other words,
instead of calculating the actual use rate of a pesticide on the actual number
of acres upon which it is used, a model will plug in the maximum allowable
pesticide use per acre for 100% of the registered uses on all the potential
acres on which it could be used. That can affect whether all uses fit in a
chemical's “risk cup.” If the uses don’t fit, crops get deleted from
labels. Real use data provides more, well…realistic estimates of exposure.
Growers believe that with real numbers there is at least a better chance that
all of a chemical's uses may still fit in the risk cup.
The good news is that when EPA scientists are able to access real data regarding
field usage of pesticides, they do use it. The problem is finding that data.
So, where can EPA find data? The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS),
the largest pesticide use tracking agency, compiles data on many, but not all
crops. Notably, data on many of the minor crops so important to Washington’s
agricultural economy are absent. The California Pesticide Use Reporting System
has application records for all pesticides applied in that state. Pest
Management Strategic Plans (PMSPs) and Crop Profiles, both of which contain
pesticide use information, are heavily used by EPA staff (see Washington
State’s PMSPs and Crop Profiles at http://wsprs.wsu.edu/CropProfiles.html).
Another way EPA obtains real data is by publishing notices in the Federal
Register (http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/) to solicit public comment. While this
last method is important in allowing public process, it usually happens nearer
the end of the decision-making process and, because of that timing, comments
submitted may have less impact on the actions taken.
Each of the data sources currently used by EPA is important, but sometimes
there’s no substitute for a conversation with a human being. When the level of
detail exceeds that provided by databases or documents, or those questions
require an answer from the grower community, EPA often calls the USDA Office of
Pest Management Policy (OPMP, http://www.ars.usda.gov/opmp/). In turn, OPMP
staff members often call the regional Pest Management Center directors. For our
area, that is the Western Region Integrated Pest Management Center (WRIPMC). One
of the many roles of the WRIPMC is to facilitate and coordinate information
exchange regarding pest management issues between federal agencies,
universities, commodity groups, growers, and industry. The regional directors
then pass the request along to appropriate contacts in states where the
pesticide use pattern is thought to exist. (Contacts in Montana, for example,
would not be sought for questions about pesticide use on oranges.) Each state
then handles the requests in a manner that works best for them. The information
collected goes back to EPA. This process was developed so that actual pesticide
use practices and patterns could be given to EPA at the time they are making
review decisions about specific agrichemicals.
Sounds good, doesn't it? Finally, we are able to get EPA the kind of real life
data and back-and-forth-discussions needed to help make decisions. This is a
point we have wanted to reach for quite awhile. Now, of course, the ball is in
our court to deliver the information they are seeking within a timeframe in
which they can use it.
A fair number of chemicals are under review at any one time, and many of them
are registered on a large number of crops. Sometimes, even with real data, crops
will have to be removed from the label in order to fit the chemical into its
risk cup. The question then becomes: which ones? An example of a detailed
question EPA might ask the OPMP staff in this situation is "which of the
following 25 crops are absolutely critical to leave on the label and which ones
can use other products?" The timeframe in which EPA needs this information
is usually less than a month, sometimes even shorter, so you can see that state
contacts can be kept very busy answering these questions in addition to
performing their other numerous duties. Did I mention that while a simple “no,
it isn't important on this crop in our state” is a sufficient answer; a simple
“yes, this tool is critical on this crop” must be bolstered with data? The
EPA needs to know things like the number of acres grown, a justification of why
other products cannot substitute, and a general description of what will happen
to the industry if the chemical can't be used on that crop anymore. Now that the
states in the Pacific Northwest had the opportunity to submit real-life data we
found we needed additional staff to collect it. Thus was born the idea of a
regulatory information coordinator, someone to take the questions, find the
people who could answer them and then put together a formal reply packet
commenting on those chemical uses. Using a form of verbal shorthand, we call
this position the “Comment Coordinator.”
The Making of a Comment Coordinator
State contacts from Alaska, Idaho, Washington, Montana, Oregon, and Utah have
worked together for many years on pest management issues because our cropping
systems and pest management needs are very similar. In 2002, contacts from
several of these states, including Washington, began discussing ways to
streamline this feedback process. Rather than have each state individually reply
to information requests from EPA, it made more sense to have a single Comment
Coordinator who would gather information from all states and send in a single
comment packet. We tested our theory during 2002. An individual was selected to
act as Comment Coordinator, a project was chosen, a contact list was built, and
the first comment packet was generated. The project proved successful and
funding was sought to make this position more permanent.
In September 2002, Washington State University (WSU) received specific funding
from the Western Region Integrated Pest Management Center for a Comment
Coordinator to provide USDA and EPA with information from this six-state region.
Initially, the Comment Coordinator, with help from the respective state
contacts, identified comment opportunities where input was likely to influence
pesticide use pattern decisions relevant to the region. The intent was to be as
proactive as possible in looking for opportunities to comment early in EPA's
decision-making process.
Jane M. Thomas, previously known only as WSU's Pesticide Notification Network
(http://www.pnn.wsu.edu) Coordinator and occasionally as the Queen Bee of
Labels, assumed the responsibilities of the Comment Coordinator on September 15,
2002.
Setting Up an Infrastructure
The first task was to devise a database to hold the information that was
received while making inquiries. A lot of information would be exchanged among
the states, and a mechanism would be needed to store and sort it. The resulting
database provides easy access to a list of all the individuals who have provided
information pursuant to the requests received so far. It also serves as a
storage bin for the individual bits and bobs of information collected in the
process of preparing comments on a specific issue. The Comment Coordinator can
query the information by crop, contact, and/or state. Not only does the database
make starting on a new project a little easier but it also stores the
information gathered for a project so that when it is time to prepare the final
comment package, all the relevant information can be accessed and sorted in
whatever manner is most convenient and appropriate to the question.
Comment Packages
Over the first year, nine comment packages were submitted as a result of the
efforts of the six state contacts and the Comment Coordinator. The requests for
comment come in a variety of forms but most often are e-mailed from USDA to Rick
Melnicoe, the Director of the Western Region Integrated Pest Management Center,
and are then forwarded to Jane. We have since refined the process so that the
Western Region Integrated Pest Management Center staff identify comment
opportunities to pass along to Jane. But while the mechanism for generating the
request has been fairly consistent, the types of information sought have varied
widely. Basically, any action with the potential to impact agriculture in the
Pacific Northwest is fair game.
The information that goes into each comment package is derived from discussions
with extension and research personnel, growers, fieldmen, chemical distributors,
and anyone else who might have insight on the question at hand. In each comment
package prepared so far, a contact list (sorted by crop and state) has been
included so that if personnel at EPA or OPMP have additional questions about the
information in the response, they can contact individuals directly. If an
industry organization has prepared their own comments on the subject, we make
sure our information is complementary and try to include a copy of their
material in our comment packet.
In the interest of providing a public archive of this work, the requests, any
supporting documents, and the final comment packages are all posted on the
Washington State Pest Management Resource Service Web page. At http://wsprs.wsu.edu/,
in the left navigation bar, click on Pesticides, then select Comment
Coordinator: USDA/EPA Information Requests. Note that the requests and comment
packages are posted first by active ingredient, then by project.
The comment packages are also posted on The WRIPMC Web page along with all the
other comments submitted within the Western Region (http://wripmc.org/). They
are found under the “Replies to Information Requests” button.
Below is a list of the projects that have been completed to date. The projects
and known outcomes are discussed in more detail below.
1. Methyl Parathion: Niche Uses
2. Dimethoate: Critical Uses
3. Methyl Parathion: Onion and Potato Information
4. Vinclozolin: Tolerance Extension
5. Carbaryl: Revised Risk Assessment and Proposed Mitigation Measures
6. Dimethoate: Succulent Beans and Succulent Peas
7. DCPA (Dacthal): Cancellation
8. "List of 54": 2003 Remaining Uses
9. Dimethoate: Succulent Beans and Succulent Peas II
Methyl Parathion. In October of 2002, EPA requested information through USDA on
methyl parathion use on about a dozen crops. The agency stated that they thought
methyl parathion was used on these crops but that the amount was not significant
and they wondered if the uses were critical niche uses that needed to be
retained. In our response we requested that, of the crops cited methyl parathion
use be retained on alfalfa, barley, canola, and onion. In March, as requested by
EPA, Cheminova asked that we supply additional information about the
agricultural practices associated with onion and potato production in the
Pacific Northwest (PNW). In May 2003 EPA issued the interim reregistration
eligibility document (IRED) for methyl parathion. Here EPA stated, "The
following uses are eligible for reregistration: Alfalfa, barley, corn, cotton,
grass forage/fodder/hay, oats, onion, pastures, rangeland, rape seed (canola),
rice, rye, soybeans, sunflower, sweet corn, sweet potatoes, walnuts, wheat,
white potatoes, and yams (emphasis added)."
Dimethoate. In December 2002, EPA asked for input on dimethoate. This second
project was several orders of magnitude more complex because of the large number
of crops and the general nature of the request. Through a massive organizational
effort and scores of telephone calls, e-mails, and faxes, a response was
submitted to EPA at the end of February. In July and again in September 2003,
EPA asked for additional, specific information concerning dimethoate use on
succulent beans and succulent peas. Secondary and tertiary comment packages were
prepared and returned to EPA. As of this writing, the only formal action that
EPA has taken on dimethoate is the use cancellation announced in the September
10 Federal Register. In this notice, EPA announced the following:
The companies that hold the pesticide registrations of products containing
dimethoate have submitted requests to modify their technical labels to remove
uses on certain crops. These crops consist of apples, grapes, cabbage, collards,
spinach, head lettuce, broccoli raab, fennel, tomatillo, lespedeza, and trefoil.
It is necessary to cancel use on apples, grapes, cabbage, collards, spinach, and
head lettuce as part the process of revising the dimethoate human health risk
assessment.
In their original request for information, EPA had already indicated that apple,
grape, and head lettuce uses would be deleted and that succulent beans,
succulent peas, and spinach were in jeopardy. Of the other listed crops, the PNW
had requested that dimethoate use on spinach seed be retained. (At the time of
this writing a note has been sent to EPA's Pat Dobak, dimethoate Chemical Review
Manager, asking for clarification on EPA's position regarding the use of
dimethoate on nonfood/nonfeed seed crops.) It is important to note that they
have not, as yet, taken action to delete the succulent bean and succulent pea
uses. This may indicate that our efforts are having some impact on the
reregistration process for dimethoate.
Vinclozolin. This project was far different from those on the two previously
mentioned chemicals. Dr. Bob McReynolds of Oregon State University, who had been
very helpful with pesticide use information for vegetable crops grown in Oregon
for the previous two comment packages, contacted the Comment Coordinator in
April 2003. He requested that the region prepare a letter of support for a
tolerance extension for vinclozolin on succulent beans in response to a notice
in the March 26 Federal Register. The use of vinclozolin is important to the
Oregon succulent bean industry and this was a pro-active step to write a letter
of support. A comment letter was submitted to the docket and in the September 30
Federal Register, EPA announced that the tolerance had been extended for two
years and will expire 9/30/05. While several other letters of support were
submitted as well, we like to think the PNW comment package favorably impacted
the results.
Carbaryl. As with the initial dimethoate project, an April request regarding
carbaryl was complex and preparing a response proved difficult. The list of
crops involved was extensive and, to further complicate matters, the timeline
was short. In preparation for finalizing the carbaryl IRED, EPA was trying to
ascertain which uses were critical and whether growers could tolerate newly
proposed re-entry intervals (REIs). There was some initial confusion between
groups about what the proposed mitigation measures were, which resulted in Jane
having to cover some ground twice in gathering information.
By the end of May we were able to provide some information regarding uses in our
region that were considered important. In June EPA issued the carbaryl IRED. The
results were a mixed bag, with some crops ending up with lower REIs than
originally proposed (caneberries, cranberries, sugarbeets), some with slightly
higher REIs (beans, peas, root crop brassica, cucurbits, filberts), and some,
like sod, that were complete surprises. (In the IRED, EPA established the REI
for sod farms as 12 hours for all activities except harvesting, where the REI is
now 9 days.)
DCPA. In late July we received a request from USDA to gather information on
sites where the herbicide DCPA was being used. EPA had contacted USDA to ask if
there would be serious hardships created if the registration for this chemical
were cancelled. The agency was contemplating this action because of cancer and
groundwater-contamination concerns. A response was submitted late in August. As
of this writing, EPA has concluded that for some of the currently registered
uses, DCPA is an essential tool. Working with the registrant, EPA is now
attempting to iron out carcinogenicity and toxicity issues.
The "List of 54." This project, as the name implies, covered a large
number of pesticides. This project had the tightest timeline but luckily we were
asked just to respond with information from Washington State. Other contacts
were requested to produce California and Oregon-specific information. The
request was received on Friday, August 29, 2003 from USDA's Burleson Smith and
returned September 5, 2003. In his e-mail he asked that we let him know if there
were any crops now in the ground that would need an application or applications
of any of 54 chemicals listed before the crop was harvested. (The information
request had to do with a lawsuit filed by a consortium of the Washington Toxics
Coalition, Northwest Alternatives to Pesticides, Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermens, and Institute of Fisheries Resources against EPA. The lawsuit
charged that EPA had failed to consult with other agencies under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and that buffers were required on 54 chemicals until
consultation takes place. (See “Salmon-Stimulated Lawsuits: Swimming in
Circles or Shouldered on Sound Science?” AENews Issue No. 202, February 2003).
The judge hearing the case was attempting to determine the impact to existing
crops were he to immediately impose mandatory buffer zones to protect streams
carrying endangered fish species. It may have become clear to the reader by this
point why the project workload required dedicated staff, this isn't a request
for 54 crops, which in itself is not a trivial thing; it is a request for all ag
uses for 54 chemicals. Jane accomplished this information collection by sending
a notification via the Pesticide Notification Network requesting input.
Resulting information was summarized and submitted. To date, the court has not
issued a final ruling.
Having an Impact
After a little over a year, it’s safe to say that the Comment Coordinator
concept has been a success. Growers, registrants, and, most importantly, the
agencies responsible for making pesticide reregistration decisions are finding
the comment packages very useful.
“The information…you have supplied to EPA …is extremely helpful for
pinpointing the critical needs for this chemical. Not only did your comments
inform EPA as to the critical needs of the chemical, but it also was very
informative as to where the chemical is not necessary any more and why.”
(USDA)
“It is a great idea to have one person within a large region, who can be
contacted and trusted to pull together this type of information for the EPA. I
only wish other university systems would follow your lead.” (USDA)
“It's plain to me that [this sort of] work is very necessary if we are to get
critical info to the EPA.” (University)
“…commendable report…provided us with exactly the kind of information we
need for that region… pests, alternatives, timing, application methods, and
post-application activities.” (EPA)
“Thank you so much for this very detailed response. This is exactly the kind
of information, and the detail, that we need for our discussions with EPA.”
(Registrant)
“The Regional Comments Coordinator has greatly enhanced our ability to meet
this [information exchange] objective.” (WRIPMC)
“The information you supplied is very useful, and your timing was great. I was
blown away by the level of detail.” (EPA)
“Keep up the good work you are achieving with this new program at Washington
State University and thank you again.” (USDA)
In September 2003 the Comment Coordinator position officially became a part of
the Western Region Integrated Pest Management Center. Jane continues to work at
WSU Tri-Cities, still manages the PNN, and will continue to provide information
from the six-state area to USDA and EPA in 2004 as the Comment Coordinator. The
program’s success is underscored by the fact that similar programs are being
considered in other parts of the West and in other regions of the United States.
Jane M. Thomas is Comment Coordinator and Pesticide Notification Network
coordinator. Her office is on the Tri-Cities campus of Washington State
University. She can be reached at (509) 372-7493 or jmthomas@tricity.wsu.edu.
Catherine Daniels is Pesticide Coordinator for Washington State University. Her
office is at the Puyallup Research and Extension Center. She can be reached at
(253) 445-4611 or cdaniels@tricity.wsu.edu.
Agnet is produced by the Food Safety Network at
the University of Guelph and is sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture
and Food, Plants Program at the University of Guelph, Agricultural Adaptation
Council (CanAdapt Program), AGCare, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors,
ConAgra Foods, Inc., Pioneer Hi-Bred Limited (Canada), Ag-West Biotech, Inc.,
Monsanto Canada, Meat and Livestock Australia, National Pork Board, Pew
Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Council for
Biotechnology Information, Canadian Animal Health Institute, Croplife Canada,
Syngenta Seeds Canada, Inc., Canadian Food Information Council, Saskatchewan
Agriculture, Food and Rural Revitalization, JIFSAN, National Cattlemen's Beef
Association, National Food Processors Association, Ontario Agri-Food
Technologies, Institute of Environmental Science and Research, Ltd., BC Ministry
of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Feedlot Health Management Services, Syngenta
Crop Protection, Ontario Corn Producers' Association, DuPont Canada, Inc.,
Office of Consumer Affairs, Burger King, Sobeys Ontario, McCain Produce Inc.,
Canadian Institute for Food Inspection and Regulation, Canadian Wheat Board,
National Meat Association, Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Ontario Soybean Growers,
Bunge, Ltd., UC Davis Biotechnology Program, Consumer Federation of America
Foundation, Optibrand, University of Idaho Department of Microbiology, Molecular
Biology and Biochemistry, Tactix Government Consulting, Inc., Plant Bioscience
Ltd., CanAmera Foods, Hospitality Institute of Technology and Management, Inc.,
Hartono and Company, Agri Business Group, Inc., and Global Public Affairs.
To subscribe to the html version of Agnet (subscription is free), 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
(replace agnet-L with agnettext to subscribe to the text version of agnet)
To unsubscribe to the html version of Agnet, send mail to:
listserv@listserv.uoguelph.ca
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type:
signoff agnet-L
(replace agnet-L with agnettext to unsubscribe to the text version of agnet)
For more information about the Agnet research program, please contact:
Dr. Douglas Powell
Associate Professor
dept. of plant agriculture
University of Guelph
Guelph, Ont.
N1G 2W1
tel: 519-824-4120 x54280
cell: 519-835-3015
fax: 519-763-8933
dpowell@uoguelph.ca
http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu
The Food Safety Network's bilingual toll-free line for obtaining food safety
information: 1-866-50-FSNET (1-866-503-7638)
archived at "http://131.104.74.73:96/agnet-archives.htm