Dear subscribers,

this newsletter will be longer. ( I had vaccation).

You first can read the new URLs and the subject-lines. When you are interested you can read the whole article at part B.

When you want to unsubscribe this newsletter please send me an email.

I wish all good and healthy days

Ingrid Scherrmann , www.safer-world.org    info@safer-world.org

SAFER WORLD is a private independent international internet-network for a safer environment.

=====================================================

Part A)

=====================================================

From P A N U P S, Pesticide Action Network Updates Service, Action Alert: Stop Re-registration of Endosulfan November 8, 2001

=====================================================

From CBG/Coalition against BAYER-dangers, Postfach 15 04 18, 40081 Duesseldorf, Germany

KEYCODE BAYER #50, WAR PROFITEERING. Anthrax, Drug Transnationals and TRIPs

=====================================================

From P A N U P S, Pesticide Action Network Updates Service, Companies Slow to Clean Up Obsolete Pesticide Stocks, November 2, 2001

Greenpeace has called upon pesticide manufacturers to remove and ensure the safe disposal of over 70 tons of obsolete pesticides that the companies have exported to and abandoned in Nepal over the past 20 years. ......

=====================================================

US: CAMPAIGN TO END ANTIBIOTIC OVERUSE

Open Letter to Bayer Corporation

Washington, DC - A national public health initiative is being launched today to fight one of America’s most pressing medical threats: antibiotic resistance. A coalition of concerned health, consumer, agricultural, environmental and other advocacy groups announced the initiative, "Keep Antibiotics Working: The Campaign to End Antibiotic Overuse," (www.KeepAntibioticsWorking.com) at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. .....

=====================================================

From CBG/Coalition against BAYER-dangers:: Legal Action Filed Against Bayer in the Pesticide Poisoning Deaths of 24 Children in the Peruvian Andes

Lima, Peru -- On Monday October 22, 2001, two years to the day after 24 children in the remote Andean village of Tauccamarca were killed and 18 more severely poisoned when they drank a powdered milk substitute that had been contaminated with the pesticide methyl parathion, their families brought suit against the product’s principle importer and manufacturer, the agrochemical company Bayer....

=====================================================

Update on Cornell's Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors Program (BCERF)

=====================================================

MYSTERY IN THE SKIN. Screen dermatitis, the effect of computer work on human skin.

An interview with associate professor Olle Johansson at the Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.

You can read the interview at http://www.feb.se/ARTICLES/OlleJ.html  

=====================================================

From P A N U P S, Pesticide Action Network Updates Service U.S. EPA Approves Bt Corn Despite Lack of Testing, October 22, 2001

On October 15, 2001, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced approval of genetically engineered Bt corn for an additional seven years, despite serious questions about the dangers crops pose to human health or the environment. Genetically Engineered Food Alert ....

=====================================================

From P A N U P S, Pesticide Action Network Updates Service, Resource Pointer #267, October 25, 2001 *Risks, Rights and Regulation: Communicating about Risks and Infant Feeding, 2001* Penny Van Esterik. World Alliance for Breastfeeding ...

======================================================

From P A N U P S, Pesticide Action Network Updates Service, Plan Colombia -- Pesticide Experiments on Farmers October 12, 2001

In October 2001, over 95 scientists and health professionals signed a letter to the U.S. Senate calling for an immediate moratorium on anti-drug fumigations in Colombia..........

=======================================================

Part B) (the whole sites)

=======================================================

From P A N U P S, Pesticide Action Network Updates Service Action Alert: Stop Re-registration of Endosulfan November 8, 2001

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently considering comments on their risk assessment and re-registration of the pesticide endosulfan. The agency is accepting comments until Tuesday, November 13, 2001. PAN North America urges you to send a letter to EPA expressing your concerns about the re-registration of this hazardous chemical. The neurotoxin endosulfan is rated by EPA as a Category I pesticide with Extremely High Acute Toxicity. Health effects of accidental exposure include central nervous system disorders such as dizziness, convulsions and loss of consciousness. Endosulfan exposure has been linked to dozens of deaths in the U.S. and around the world, and there is strong evidence that it is an endocrine disrupting chemical.

Classified as an organochlorine (the same family of pesticides as DDT and dieldrin), endosulfan and its breakdown products are persistent in the environment, with an estimated half-life of nine months to six years. It is known to bioaccumulate in humans and other animals, collecting particularly in the liver, kidneys and fatty tissue.

According to EPA, endosulfan is currently registered to control insects and mites on 60 U.S. crops, including many fruits and vegetables as well as alfalfa, barley and Christmas trees. Three crops account for more than 50% of endosulfan use in the United States: pecans, honeydew melons and strawberries.

According to EPA's risk assessment, U.S. farmworkers face significant health risks from endosulfan exposure. Twelve of the 21 worker exposure scenarios examined found exposure levels "of concern" to the agency. The actual risk to workers is likely to be even higher than EPA estimates. The agency's analysis underestimates worker exposure by considering potential exposure routes (skin and breathing) separately, rather than calculating the more accurate cumulative exposure.

An analysis of endosulfan's impact as an endocrine disruptor is entirely omitted from the risk assessment. While the agency recognizes that "available scientific literature suggests that endosulfan may act as a potential endocrine disruptor," it postpones consideration of this risk until the agency's new Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program is in place. EPA documents state that the Screening Program is scheduled to be in place "in 2001," but there are no indications that the program will be implemented before the end of the year.

Also postponed is the cumulative risk assessment required under the U.S. Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). FQPA requires that EPA consider the cumulative effects of chemicals that have "similar mechanisms of toxicity." The agency does not include this cumulative assessment because it has "not yet initiated a review to determine if there are any other chemical substances that have a mechanism of toxicity common with that of endosulfan."

Despite these weaknesses and omissions, EPA's risk assessment provides ample evidence that the re-registration of endosulfan represents an unacceptable risk to public health. In addition to the significant occupational exposure risks, endosulfan and its breakdown products are found in water samples in 38 states and in both imported and domestic foods. Dozens of poisoning incidents document the risks of endosulfan exposure both in the U.S. and abroad.

Endosulfan is banned in many countries, including Colombia, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Belize, Netherlands, Singapore and the Indian state Kerala. There are strong restrictions in many other countries, including Canada, Finland and Kuwait.

ACTION: Submit your comments to EPA on their risk assessment and re-registration decision for endosulfan on or before Tuesday, November 13, 2001. EPA's endosulfan re-registration and risk assessment documents are available on line at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/endosulfan/.

Send emails to opp-docket@epa.gov  , with OPP-34242 in the subject line, or send a letter referencing Docket No. OPP-34242 to: Ms. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator, Public Information and Records Integrity Branch Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs . Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460 USA.

KEY POINTS:

1) EPA underestimates occupational exposure by considering dermal and inhalation routes of exposure separately, rather than cumulatively. Despite this underestimation, occupational exposures are unacceptably high.

2) Given the significant evidence available that endosulfan has endocrine disrupting affects, EPA's risk assessment will not be adequate until these affects are considered.

3) FQPA requires that EPA consider the cumulative effects of chemicals with similar mechanisms of toxicity. By neglecting this cumulative assessment, EPA is not fulfilling its obligations under the law.

4) Many countries have banned endosulfan out of concern for its health and environmental effects, and have found and implemented safer alternatives.

5) Given the clear and substantial evidence of risk to public health, EPA should not re-register endosulfan for use in the United States.

Sources: EPA risk assessment and re-registration documents for endosulfan, available at

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/endosulfan/ ; PAN-UK News

Release "Endosulfan concerns are global: New ban in Colombia," November 4, 2001; PAN's Pesticide Database, http://www.pesticideinfo.org .

PANUPS is a weekly email news service providing resource guides and reporting on pesticide issues that don't always get coverage by themainstream media. It's produced by Pesticide Action Network North America, a non-profit and non-governmental organization working to advance sustainable alternatives to pesticides worldwide.

To subscribe, send a blank message to: panups-subscribe@igc.topica.com

Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), 49 Powell St., Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94102 USA , Phone: (415) 981-1771, Fax: (415) 981-1991, Email: panna@panna.org , Web: http://www.panna.org

======================================================

From CBG/Coalition against BAYER-dangers, Postfach 15 04 18, 40081 Duesseldorf, Germany

KEYCODE BAYER #50  WAR PROFITEERING Anthrax, Drug Transnationals and TRIPs

Spreading in the aftermath of terrorist attacks in the US on 11th September, the current anthrax crisis has, once again, raised highly controversial issues related to intellectual property rights. Just a few months back, the world witnessed heated debate on the patent controversy when the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association of South Africa (PMASA), a body representing South African subsidiaries of 39 drug transnational corporations (TNCs), took the South African government to court to prevent it from importing cheaper versions of patented drugs for patients suffering from Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). However, under tremendous pressure generated by health activists and concerned groups around the world, the drug TNCs unconditionally dropped the lawsuit against the South African government.

No doubt, it is unfair to compare the AIDS pandemic in South Africa with the current anthrax crisis in the US. As compared to over 4.7 million patients suffering from AIDS and nearly 300 AIDS patients dying every day in South Africa, the anthrax crisis in the US has only affected a dozen people and claimed four lives till now. Yet there are several similarities. Not only both instances relate to public health, but more importantly, the bone of contention revolves around the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Moreover, both these instances confirm the apprehensions of several developing countries as well as health activists that drug TNCs put profits before public health and the WTO regime severely restricts the capacity of national governments to take measures to safeguard public health.

The Anthrax Drug Price: More Scary than the Disease

The current controversy on patented drugs started when the first signs of anthrax attacks appeared in US in the early October 2001. Ciprofloxacin, an antibiotic drug, is prescribed for treating patients suffering from anthrax and other bacteria. German drug TNC, Bayer AG, holds the patent for Cipro (the brand name of ciprofloxacin) in the US till December 9, 2003. Under the present TRIPs agreement of the WTO regime, it implies that no other drug company is allowed to commercially manufacture and sell the generic versions of this drug in the US until the Bayer patent expires, except under extraordinary circumstances which allow compulsory licensing and parallel importing.1 Cipro is not only one of the best selling antibiotic drugs in the world but it is also a mega profit earning drug for Bayer. In US alone, Bayer sold $1.04 billion worth of Cipro in 1999.

As the spectre of anthrax epidemic loomed large on the horizon, people started piling up stocks of Cipro. The sudden increase in the demand for Cipro led to a steep hike in its retail prices. With the wholesale prices of Cipro at $4.67 for a 500 mg pill in the US, the retail prices went up to as much as $7 a pill. For anthrax treatment, it is recommended that patients should take two pills a day for 60 days. Thus, the retail price for two months stock of Cipro was well over $700, much beyond the means of poor Americans. Given the fact that two months stock of a generic version of Cipro costs a fraction of the prevalent price in the US, there was uproar over the monopolistic profits made by Bayer from the public health crisis. In India, for instance, Bayer's Baycip (the brand name of ciprofloxacin in India) is available at drug stores at $0.13 a pill. Thus, the retail price for two months stock of Baycip would be just $17. Whereas two months stock of a generic version of ciprofloxacin is available at a price as low as $8 at drug stores in India (see Table 1).

In spite of higher prices, there were not adequate stocks of Cipro in the drug stores of the US. Bayer expressed its inability to produce sufficient supply of Cipro at a short notice as requested by the US health authorities. At best, Bayer offered to produce 200 million pills within 60 days, much lower than the requirement of 1.2 billion pills. It would have taken several months for Bayer to meet the requirement. Confronted with a scenario where panic was spreading like wild fire all over the US, the Bush administration should have busted Bayer's patent on ciprofloxacin and allowed sale of generic versions of the drug in the country. There are a host of drug companies (including Ranbaxy, Dr Reddy's Lab, and Cipla from India) which have already received quality approval from the US Food and Drug Administration for manufacturing ciprofloxacin. Many of these companies were not only ready to provide ciprofloxacin to the US within 60 days, but more importantly, they offered it at a fraction of price than what Bayer was charging the Americans.

Table 1: Selected International Prices of Ciprofloxacin

(Prices per pill of 500 mg in US dollars, October 2001)

Country Company Price

US Bayer wholesale 4.67

US Bayer federal government 1.83

Canada Bayer government 1.58

Canada Apotex generic/government 0.95

New Zealand Bayer retail 1.29

South Africa Bayer government 2.10

Poland Bayer 1.51

Poland Polfa Grodzisk generic 0.29

India Bayer retail 0.13

India Blue Cross generic/retail 0.10

India FDC generic/retail 0.06

Source: Compiled by the author from several sources including Health Action International, Consumer Project Technology and retail drug stores in Delhi.

In fact, there are legal provisions in the US that allow compulsory licensing. Under the US Federal law (28 USC 1498), the US can purchase products like ciprofloxacin for official use from manufacturers other than the patent holder. In addition, the US government can also promulgate HR 1708 that exempts it from paying any compensation to Bayer for suspending its patent.

Not only the health activists and anti-corporate campaigners in the US, even politicians like Charles Schumer, a Democrat senator from New York, strongly demanded the suspension of Bayer's patent. In a letter addressed to Tommy Thompson, US Secretary of Health and Human Services, Ralph Nader (consumer advocate and former presidential candidate) along with his colleague, James Love, called upon the administration to immediately authorize generic production of ciprofloxacin. In the letter, they pointedly asked the US Health Secretary, "your official responsibility is to protect the public's health, and not to defend large profiteering pharmaceutical companies, which are already making a fortune because of our country's current problems. How do you define the patriotic choice here?"

Abject Surrender

Despite extensive domestic support to suspend Bayer's patent on Cipro, the response of Bush administration was outrageous. Tommy Thompson considered it "illegal" to suspend Bayer's patent on Cipro and he preferred to enter into negotiations with Bayer with the sole intention of lowering the price of Cipro. Facing an unprecedented public embarrassment, Bayer agreed to lower the price of Cipro for government purchase from $1.77 to $0.95.

Dubbed as "historic victory" in the US official circles, it would be absurd to view this agreement as a major accomplishment of the Bush administration. Rather, it was a major victory for Bayer because the agreement is based on the condition that the company would continue to remain the sole supplier of the drug in the US till December 2003. Further, the agreement with Bayer only covers government purchases of Cipro from the company while the drug will be sold at hospitals and drug stores at normal price. Even on discounted price, Bayer is still making profits from huge orders placed by the health authorities. Meanwhile, perturbed over this lopsided agreement with Bayer, consumer activists and concerned groups in several states have filed a lawsuit asking the court to scrap the agreement that gives monopoly rights to Bayer.

Had the Bush administration suspended Bayer's patent and allowed the commercial manufacture and sale of generic versions of Cipro as per the existing national laws and international agreements, the real beneficiaries would have been the American people who would have procured drugs in time and that too at reasonable prices. This episode confirms the allegations of anti-corporate activists that drug TNCs are being rewarded by the Bush administration for their large financial contributions to the Republicans in the election campaigns.

While these developments were taking place, allegations of price manipulations by Bayer have also come to light. It is alleged that the US subsidiary of Bayer AG signed illegal agreements with three of its competitors - Barr Laboratories, Rugby, and Hoechst-Marion Roussel - to prevent them from challenging its patent rights over Cipro. According to anti-corporate activists, Bayer has paid a total sum of $200 million till date to these companies for not manufacturing or marketing a generic version of Cipro, thereby neutralizing competition to protect monopoly profits.

Canada's Flip-flop Posture

Watching these developments in the US from a close quarter, neighboring Canada announced on October 18 that it would suspend Bayer's patent on Cipro and allow generic drug makers to manufacture and sell this drug in the country. The Canadian authorities also approached a domestic generic drug maker, Apotex, to produce one million pills as Bayer was unable to meet the requirement of Cipro. Apotex agreed to sell its generic version at $0.95 per pill to the health authorities, which was significantly lower than $1.59 charged by Bayer. This move by the Canadian health authorities sent shock waves in the entire pharmaceutical industry. The drug industry was taken aback by the sudden change in the Canadian stance because the country had been consistently supporting the US position on the intellectual property rights issue in the past. Bayer in collusion with several lobby organizations used all kinds of pressure tactics, including threat to sue the Canadian government, for reversing this move. Within hours, the Canadian authorities reversed their stand and announced that they would honor Bayer's patent on Cipro and would buy the drug only from the company. This sordid episode demonstrates the shady role played by the drug companies and their lobby organizations to stifle competition from low cost generic drug manufacturers.

The US Administration: Hand in Glove with the Drug TNCs

The Bush administration did not suspend the patent of Bayer largely because it was more concerned with the wider implications of such an action, particularly on the ongoing negotiations at the WTO. Realizing that scrapping Bayer's patent would set a precedent that could give legitimacy to the growing demands of the poor and developing world for more flexibility on patent issues, the US has given a clear message to the world that patents are more important than public health. Such a calculated move was not only meant to serve the corporate interests of drug TNCs, but it also conveyed the message to the developing nations that the US administration would continue its discriminatory policy on the issue of patents.

It is ironical that the US administration abandons its responsibility when it comes to protecting its own citizens from public health calamities while it acts as a supercop when drug industry's patents and profits are at stake. In international economic negotiations, the US administration has been one of the strongest allies of the global drug industry. Acting on the behest of drug TNCs, the US played a key role in initiating the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations where several agreements including TRIPs were pushed forward. The US has challenged various countries at the WTO tribunal and has even threatened trade sanctions against several countries including Thailand, India, South Africa and Brazil for breaching TRIPs. Although TRIPs agreement does allow member countries to take compensatory measures to counter the effective monopolies of companies owning patents, but undue pressure has been put on many developing countries to refrain from exercising their rights of compulsory licensing and parallel import. The dispute settlement case lodged by the US against Brazil in the WTO in relation to its Industrial Property Law and the lawsuit filed by 39 drug TNCs against the South African government are some of the instances of pressure tactics.

Particularly in the last couple of years, US has been advocating imposition of stringent measures for protecting patents under the so-called 'TRIPs-Plus' mechanism. Therefore, it is not surprising that the US has been vehemently opposing a document on patents and drug issues prepared by nearly 50 WTO member countries, including the Africa Group, Brazil, and India. Concerned with poor peoples' lack of access to affordable medicines due to high prices of patented drugs and the resultant public health crisis, this document seeks suitable changes in the present TRIPs agreement. The document clearly states that "nothing in the [TRIPs] agreement shall prevent governments from taking measures to protect public health." The document has been prepared for ratification at the Fourth WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha, Qatar during November 9-12, 2001. The chances of this document being ratified at Doha conference are extremely bleak as the developed countries led by US have already expressed their intentions to push for a new round of negotiations in areas such as investment and competition policy to further expand the operations of TNCs.

Wider Ramifications

Several inferences can be drawn from the anthrax crisis in the US. First, by sacrificing the public health concern of its own citizens to protect private interests of drug TNCs, the US has unabashedly acknowledged the supremacy of patents over public health. Second, the present patent regime not only poses a grave danger to public health in the poor and the developing world, but the developed world is also not immune to it. Hence, this episode should serve as a wake up call to the rest of the developed countries who usually follow the footsteps of the US on patent issues. Poor and ordinary people, irrespective of their location, have a basic right to sound health, and therefore, safeguarding public health must take precedence over patents and monopoly profits of the drug TNCs.

Third, apart from universal health programs and other public funded interventions, it is of utmost importance that monopolies in the drug industry be dismantled to ensure that crucial drugs are made accessible to the poor patients at affordable prices. Therefore, strict regulation of drug TNCs must be an integral component of building public health system in the developed as well as the developing world.

Fourth, with critical support from the developed countries not forthcoming, the responsibility for demanding a comprehensive review of TRIPs, including reduction in the duration and scope of patent protection for drugs that are essential for public health rests with the poor and developing countries. This calls for greater unity and solidarity among the poor and the developed world on issues of common interest at the WTO and other international economic negotiations.

This episode also carries an important lesson for the Indian authorities who are recklessly pursuing amendments in the domestic legislations to conform with the WTO regime. Instead of rushing ahead with Patents (Second Amendment) Bill 1999, the Indian government should reconsider its commitment in the light of these developments.

It is high time that the primacy of national health policy over international agreements, including the WTO, be restored. The TRIPs agreement in its present incarnation needs to be thwarted at Doha Conference and new round of negotiations should be put on hold till contentious issues related to the implementation of Uruguay round of negotiations are resolved.

Kavaljit Singh (kaval@nde.vsnl.net.in )

CBG/Coalition against BAYER-dangers collects information about BAYER and coordinates activities against violations of human and environmental rights caused by this company. Anyone who has information on possibly illicit activities of BAYER or who wants to receive our newsletter regularly - please let us know. Anyone who needs photos or information concerning BAYER is invited to contact us:

CBG/Coalition against BAYER-dangers, Postfach 15 04 18, 40081 Duesseldorf, Germany E-mail: CBGnetwork@aol.com  website: www.CBGnetwork.org  Fax: (+49) 211 333 940 Tel: (+49) 211 333 911

=======================================================

From P A N U P S, Pesticide Action Network Updates Service:  Companies Slow to Clean Up Obsolete Pesticide Stocks, November 2, 2001

Greenpeace has called upon pesticide manufacturers to remove and ensure the safe disposal of over 70 tons of obsolete pesticides that the companies have exported to and abandoned in Nepal over the past 20 years. Companies such as Bayer, Sumitomo, Sandoz, Shell, Rhone Poulenc, DuPont, Union Carbide and Monsanto abandoned the pesticides in Nepal after the chemicals reached their expiry date or were banned. The companies originally exported most of the pesticides to Nepal as donations or as part of international "aid" packages.

Earlier this month, a dozen activists from India, Germany and the U.K. spent two weeks alongside Nepalese agricultural technicians near Kathmandu, Nepal trying to make an old warehouse safe where pesticides had been stored in their original-now rusting and rotting-containers. Greenpeace says that this attempt to contain the stockpile of obsolete pesticides has been successful. The clean-up crew aimed to contain all the poisons in high density barrels and hundreds of small containers to prepare them for transport back to the original countries of production.

The most dangerous pesticides at the Kathmandu site according to Greenpeace are chlorinated organomercury compounds produced by the German company Bayer and banned in the European Union since 1988. Greenpeace added that Bayer has refused repeated requests from the Nepalese government to help clean up the stocks. According to a report released earlier this year, more than 500,000 tonnes of old and unused pesticides are seriously threatening the health of millions of people and the environment in developing countries and countries in transition. The report, co-authored by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the United Nations Environment Program, stated that the figures are dramatically higher than previous estimates of around 100,000 tonnes.

The report estimates that stocks of obsolete pesticides (those that have been banned or expired) include over 100,000 tonnes in Africa and the Near East, over 200,000 tonnes in Asia and more than 200,000 tonnes in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The FAO is still preparing inventories for Latin America. "There is hardly any developing country that is not affected by the hazards of obsolete pesticides," FAO expert Alemayehu Wodageneh said. Poisons leaking from the stocks threaten human health, contaminate natural resources like soil and water and make fields unfit for crop production. The often abandoned pesticide stocks are situated in rural areas near farm fields and wells and in urban centers near houses, food stores and markets. With rarely any security measures, people prepare food and fetch water, children play and animals graze around toxic waste sites in villages.

Among the highly toxic and persistent pesticides in the waste sites around the world are aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, malathion, and parathion. Pesticide formulations are often unstable under tropical conditions and degrade rapidly. Many pesticides have a shelf-live of only two years, and improper storage under tropical heat and humidity can further reduce this short life span. As pesticides deteriorate, they form by-products that can be more toxic than the original substance.

Obsolete pesticides are considered hazardous waste, the FAO said. Removal and destruction is expensive -- the cost of disposal is estimated at around US$3 per kilogram or litre. Despite industry commitments to pay US$1 per kilogram/litre for the incineration of obsolete pesticides, the FAO reports that companies have so far contributed little funding to the disposal efforts. Since aid agencies of donor countries cannot cover all the disposal costs, Wodageneh said that support from industry is crucial.

The safest way to dispose of obsolete pesticides is high temperature incineration, the FAO said. Since safe incinerators are rare in developing countries, pesticides are repackaged and shipped to a country with a hazardous waste destruction facility. However, incinerating the contents of the metal drums and other containers of obsolete pesticides does not address the more difficult problem of cleaning up contaminated soil.

The FAO called upon its members to apply environmentally-friendly integrated pest management (IPM) methods and to drastically reduce the use of pesticides.

Sources: FAO Press Release, May 9, 2001; United Nations Environment Programme Press Release, May 25, 1999; Environmental News Network, "Pesticides Sent as Aid to Nepal Now Toxic Waste," October 18, 2001.

PANUPS is a weekly email news service providing resource guides and reporting on pesticide issues that don't always get coverage by the mainstream media. It's produced by Pesticide Action Network North America, a non-profit and non-governmental organization working to advance sustainable alternatives to pesticides worldwide. To comment, send a message to:panna@panna.org  To subscribe, send a blank message to: panups-subscribe@igc.topica.com  

Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA),  49 Powell St., Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94102 USA, Phone: (415) 981-1771, Fax: (415) 981-1991, Email: panna@panna.org ,  Web: http://www.panna.org

=====================================================

US: CAMPAIGN TO END ANTIBIOTIC OVERUSE. Open Letter to Bayer Corporation

Washington, DC - A national public health initiative is being launched today to fight one of America’s most pressing medical threats: antibiotic resistance. A coalition of concerned health, consumer, agricultural, environmental and other advocacy groups announced the initiative, "Keep Antibiotics Working: The Campaign to End Antibiotic Overuse," (www.KeepAntibioticsWorking.com) at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. The campaign is dedicated to eliminating a major cause of antibiotic resistance - the inappropriate use of antibiotics in farm animals.

"Recent concerns about bioterrorism underscore the importance of having powerful, effective antibiotics available to treat human diseases," said David Wallinga, M.D., Senior Scientist with the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. "Unfortunately, overuse of antibiotics in both agriculture and medicine is creating infections that resist treatment with antibiotics."

A number of antibiotics used in agriculture are identical or very similar to antibiotics used in human medical treatment. These include antibiotics routinely fed to healthy animals as well as ones given to entire flocks of poultry even if only a few birds are sick.

An important element of the campaign is to persuade Bayer, the manufacturer of Cipro, to comply with a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed ban on the use of a similar antibiotic, Baytrilâ, in sick poultry. FDA scientists determined that such use contributes to increased antibiotic resistance in bacteria that cause serious food poisoning. The campaign unveiled a website urging Americans to write Bayer Chief Executive Officer Helge Wehmeier and demand that Bayer comply with the FDA’s proposed ban.

"Throughout the country, physicians are reporting difficulty treating potentially life-threatening infections caused by bacteria that have become resistant to antibiotics," said Tamar Barlam, MD, Director, Project on Antibiotic Resistance, Center for Science in the Public Interest, based in Washington, DC. "Everyone is at risk from infections resistant to antibiotics."

Although even the most careful use of antibiotics can result in the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, widespread and inappropriate use of these precious drugs greatly accelerates the process. The more often bacteria are exposed to antibiotics, the more likely they are to develop resistance. A major source of antibiotic overuse is livestock producers unnecessarily feeding antibiotics to healthy farm animals to promote growth and compensate for unsanitary conditions found in industrial animal agriculture.

"An estimated 70% of all antimicrobials in the U.S. are fed to healthy pigs, poultry, and beef cattle," said Margaret Mellon, Ph.D., J.D., Food and Environmental Program Director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

"Conventionally raised animals are often given feed that's laced with antibiotics to promote growth and prevent disease," said Rob Hurlbut, Chief Operating Officer of Niman Ranch, based in Oakland, California, which raises meat without the routine use of antibiotics. "But if you raise livestock naturally and with care, you don’t need to feed them antibiotics that can create resistant strains of bacteria in the animals that are passed on to humans."

"This public health campaign will educate Americans about the importance of keeping antibiotics working for people who need them," said Karen Florini, Senior Attorney for Environmental Defense, based in New York City. "Because of this growing health crisis, the American Medical Association now opposes the use of antibiotics in healthy farm animals. We will work with Congress, the Food and Drug Administration, and companies that produce and sell meat to phase out inappropriate antibiotic use in agriculture."

The Keep Antibiotics Working coalition includes: Physicians for Social Responsibility, Center for Science in the Public Interest, and Humane Society of the United States, based in Washington, DC; Union of Concerned Scientists, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts; Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Global Resource Action Center for the Environment, based in New York City; Sierra Club, based in San Francisco; National Catholic Rural Life Conference, based in Des Moines, Iowa; Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, based in Minneapolis; and Food Animal Concerns Trust, based in Chicago.

DON`T LET BAYER "PLAY CHICKEN" WITH OUR HEALTH

Letter to Helge H. Wehmeier, President and CEO of Bayer Corporation asking him to comply with the proposed FDA ban on Baytril (R)

I am very concerned that Bayer has refused to comply with a proposed Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ban on the use of Bayer's antibiotic, Baytril(R), in treating chickens and turkeys.

Baytril(R) is a fluoroquinolone antibiotic. Fluoroquinolones are considered one of the most valuable classes of antibiotic drugs available to physicians because of their effectiveness against a broad range of disease-causinBg bacteria and relative lack of side effects. They are the antibiotics most often used to treat severe cases of food poisoning caused by bacteria.

The FDA determined that using Baytril(R) in poultry farming contributes to the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria that infect humans. Bayer's decision to put profits over public health is putting us all at risk.

In the interest of public health, the Bayer Corporation should immediately withdraw Baytril(R) from the market and drop its appeal of the proposed FDA ban on its use in poultry.

For more information about Keep Antibiotics Working, contact Sean Crowley at 202-478-6128 (w), 202-329-5214 (c) or scrowley@mrss.com or log onto www.KeepAntibioticsWorking.com.

CBG/Coalition against BAYER-dangers collects information about BAYER and coordinates activities against violations of human and environmental rights caused by this company. Anyone who has information on possibly illicit activities of BAYER or who wants to receive our newsletter regularly - please let us know. Anyone who needs photos or information concerning BAYER is invited to contact us:

CBG/Coalition against BAYER-dangers, Postfach 15 04 18, 40081 Duesseldorf, Germany E-mail: CBGnetwork@aol.com , website: www.CBGnetwork.org  Fax: (+49) 211 333 940 Tel: (+49) 211 333 911

=======================================================

From CBG/Coalition against BAYER-dangers:  Legal Action Filed Against Bayer in the Pesticide Poisoning Deaths of 24 Children in the Peruvian Andes

Lima, Peru -- On Monday October 22, 2001, two years to the day after 24 children in the remote Andean village of Tauccamarca were killed and 18 more severely poisoned when they drank a powdered milk substitute that had been contaminated with the pesticide methyl parathion, their families brought suit against the product’s principle importer and manufacturer, the agrochemical company Bayer.

Methyl parathion is classified as Ia, or "extremely hazardous" and acutely toxic product by the World Health Organization, and is responsible for a disproportionately large share of pesticide poisonings in Latin America.

Bayer widely promoted its methyl parathion formulation, known as "Folidol", throughout Peru, without alerting users as to the product’s grave risks to human health and the environment. The pesticide was marketed specifically for use in Andean crops that are cultivated mostly by small farmers, the vast majority of whom are are illiterate Quechua speakers. Nonetheless, Bayer packaged Folidol, a white powder that resembles powdered milk and has no strong chemical odor, in small plastic bags that provide no protection to users and give no indication of the danger of the product within. The bags are labeled in Spanish only, and carry drawings of healthy carrots and potatoes but no pictograms indicating danger or toxicity.

The lawsuit asserts that the agrochemical companies who imported and sold the product in Peru should have taken steps to prevent the foreseeable misuse of this extremely toxic product, given the severe health risks presented by methyl parathion and the well known socio-economic conditions in the Peruvian countryside.

The suit also named the Peruvian Ministry of Agriculture for failure to enforce Peruvian pesticide regulations. Methyl parathion was registered as a "restricted use" pesticide in Peru, which can only be legally sold with a technical prescription issued by an agronomist licensed by the Minister of Agriculture, nonetheless uncontrolled sales of parathion and other pesticides in the countryside is the norm.

The spokesperson for the family members of the deceased children emphasized his hopes that their legal action would send a message to the agrochemical industry, so that they would not continue to sell unreasonably dangerous pesticides in the Peruvian countryside, and that the Peruvian courts would support justice for all the children of Tauccamarca.

For more information: rapalpe@terra.com.pe (Luis Gomero), erosenthal@igc.org (Erika Rosenthal)

Campesinos de Tauccamarca Demandan a la Bayer por la Muerte de los 24 Niños

Lunes 22 de octubre 2001, Lima Dos años después de la muerte de 24 niños por envenenamiento masivo con el plaguicida organofosforado Parathión sucedido en Tauccamarca Cuzco el 22 de octubre de 1999, los deudos presentarán hoy día una demanda civil contra la empresa Bayer en su condición de productor, comercializador y propietario de este insecticida causante de la muerte de los niños.

Paratión, conocido también con Folidol en el mercado nacional, es un insecticida extremadamente tóxicos según la Organización Mundial de la Salud. Es considerado uno de los mayores responsables de las intoxicaciones y muertes a nivel de América Latina, razón por la cuál muchos países han prohibido o restringido severamente su uso.

El comercio de Parathión Metílico fue promovido por la Bayer difundiendo sus bondades sin alertar sobre los graves riesgos en la salud y el ambiente. A pesar de estos riesgos se promovió su uso en los cultivos andinos en donde los productores en su mayoría son quechua-hablantes y analfabetos y no pueden leer las etiquetas. Los envases utilizados por su comercialización eran bolsas de plástico, las cuales no brindaban ninguna seguridad para los usuarios en el proceso de uso, ni indicaba el grado de peligrosidad del producto contenido.

Por los riesgos del producto, ha sido una negligencia por parte de la industria agroquímica vinculado al comercio de parathión comercializar un producto químico peligroso cuando se puede predecir el "mal uso previsible" del producto dado las condiciones socio-económicos bien conocidos de las regiones andinas donde a propósito Bayer comercializó, en envases inadecuados bolsas de plástico que no brinda ningún nivel de protección a los usuarios y no indican ninguna advertencia del peligro especialmente para los usuarios analfabetos.

Para que este caso de muerte de los niños no quede impugne los deudos han decido entablar una demanda judicial a la empresa Bayer por su negligencia en la comercialización del producto responsable de la muerte de los niños.

Para mayor información contactarse con: Red de Acción en Alternativas al Uso de Agroquímicos, Telf. 3375170 / 4257955, e-mail: rapalpe@terra.com.pe , erosenthal@igc.org  (Erika Rosenthal)

CBG/Coalition against BAYER-dangers collects information about BAYER and coordinates activities against violations of human and environmental rights caused by this company. Anyone who has information on possibly illicit activities of BAYER or who wants to receive our newsletter regularly - please let us know. Anyone who needs photos or information concerning BAYER is invited to contact us:

CBG/Coalition against BAYER-dangers, Postfach 15 04 18, 40081 Duesseldorf, Germany E-mail: CBGnetwork@aol.com ,  website : www.CBGnetwork.org  Fax: (+49) 211 333 940 Tel: (+49) 211 333 911

=====================================================

Update on Cornell's Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors Program (BCERF)

BCERF strives to provide information on environmental risk factors and the risk of breast cancer and other hormonal dependent cancers. We provide information in a variety of forms that allows our readers to make informed decisions for the reduction of breast cancer risk. Popular Fact Sheet on Phytoestrogens revised: The consistently popular fact sheet on Phytoestrogens and the Risk of Breast Cancer is newly revised. The fact sheet and its newest bibliography are posted on the BCERF web site at http://www.cfe.cornell.edu/bcerf/factsheet/diet/fs1.phyto.cfm

eUpdate for October, 2001: : October is Breast Cancer Awareness month!, The newest BCERF resource is now available, The BCERF tip sheets are now posted on the web site. These tip sheets are written for the general public. They offer practical science-based tips and strategies on reducing the risk of breast cancer. BCERF offers five tip sheets covering the topics of What we know about breast cancer, Eating well and staying active, Pesticides in your environment, Using home & garden products safely, Breast cancer resources, The tip sheets are available as pdf documents from the web site. You can download them from http://www.cfe.cornell.edu/bcerf/tips/tips.cfm

New Fact Sheets Available: Autumn has seen an increase in the number of fact sheets available on the BCERF web site. Since our last update we have added new fact sheets covering the risk factors of body type, hormone treatments, as well as a fact sheet on male breast cancer. For a look at these fact sheets go to the main fact sheet index page at http://www.cfe.cornell.edu/bcerf/factsheet/factsheet.cfm

Popular Fact Sheet on Phytoestrogens revised: The consistently popular fact sheet on Phytoestrogens and the Risk of Breast Cancer is newly revised. The fact sheet and its newest bibliography are posted on the BCERF web site at http://www.cfe.cornell.edu/bcerf/factsheet/diet/fs1.phyto.cfm

New Research Commentary Available:  The latest issue of "The Ribbon" offers a Research Commentary titled, "Thoughts on Recent Findings Regarding Organochlorines and Breast Cancer Risk." The article was written by Kirsten Moysich, Ph.D., who is currently an Assistant Professor with the Roswell Park Cancer Institute. To read the article go to page five of the most recent newsletter, online at http://www.cfe.cornell.edu/bcerf/Newsletter/pdf/v6i3.pdf

For more information about the Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors Program (BCERF), see their Website Update http://www.cfe.cornell.edu/bcerf/ To Add: If you know of someone who might like to receive the eUpdate they can add themselves to the list by visiting http://www.cfe.cornell.edu/bcerf/   Click on the button "Response Page". The e-Update sign-up is located at the bottom of the page.

=======================================================

From P A N U P S, Pesticide Action Network Updates Service. U.S. EPA Approves Bt Corn Despite Lack of Testing, October 22, 2001

On October 15, 2001, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced approval of genetically engineered Bt corn for an additional seven years, despite serious questions about the dangers crops pose to human health or the environment. Genetically Engineered Food Alert (GE Food Alert) criticized the EPA for rushing to approve Bt corn without conducting necessary tests on human health effects and failing to investigate new concerns about environmental impacts.

Bt plants produce a type of insecticidal or Bt toxin, one of a family of related molecules produced by a soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). To develop these Bt crops, a company clones the insecticidal gene from the bacterium and inserts it into a crop plant. The plant then produces the toxin in most, if not all, parts of the plant through all or most of a growing season. There five varieties of Bt corn still on the market are made by Monsanto, Pioneer/DuPont, Dow and Syngenta. At least three types of Bt corn were previously taken off the market. Most Bt corn varieties were approved by EPA in 1995 with a federal registration that expired on September 30, 2001.

As we learned with the StarLink debacle, human allergenicity is a key issue related to Bt crops; however, during the re-registration process, EPA failed to take into account several recent studies showing that Bt toxins could act as possible human allergens. In July, EPA's own scientific advisory panel, which included leading U.S. allergists, called for more tests to determine the potential allergenicity of Bt crops, yet the Agency approved the corn for planting before such tests were carried out.

The allergenicity studies that serve as the basis for EPA's approval of Bt corn have several serious flaws. For example, the Agency has not required that biotechnology companies conduct toxicity and allergenicity tests on the pesticidal proteins actually produced in Bt crops and eaten by consumers. Instead, EPA accepts substandard tests conducted on surrogate proteins from bacteria, which can differ substantially from their plant-produced counterparts. (For more information visit the Friends of the Earth Web site at http://www.foe.org/safefood. )

In addition to human health research, studies on potential environmental impacts of Bt corn were inadequate. EPA ignored the concerns of researchers at Cornell University, Iowa State University and the University of Minnesota about impacts of Bt corn on monarch butterflies. Recently released studies leave open the possibility that exposure to Bt corn may have long-term, harmful effects on the butterflies. Biologists from the three schools, all of whom have been involved in related research, urged EPA to delay a decision, or grant a one-year provisional renewal, until more data were available on the risk for monarch caterpillars exposed to Bt corn. (For more information see Ag Biotech Infonet at http://www.biotech-info.net/butterflies_btcorn.html .)

Organic farmers were also disappointed with EPA's decision. Bt sprays are an important pest management tool for many organic and some conventional farmers, but continued use of Bt crops may reduce their effectiveness. Toxins in Bt sprays break down rapidly in the environment as opposed to the Bt in genetically engineered crops, which breaks down very slowly. With widespread use of Bt crops, there is increased insect exposure to the toxin, and insect resistance is much more likely to develop resulting in the loss of Bt sprays as a valuable tool. EPA announced that to ensure that Bt continues to be a safe and effective form of pest management for farmers, the Agency has mandated several provisions "to strengthen insect resistance management, to increase research data on potential environmental effects and to improve grower education and stewardship." Whether these mandates will be successfully implemented is doubtful when one examines implementation of such requirements in the past. A biotechnology industry survey published

in January 2001 showed that nearly 30% of farmers who grew Bt corn in 2000 did not follow the resistance management guidelines. Lack of implementation and enforcement of Bt corn guidelines was also clearly evident during the StarLink corn disaster. In 2000, GE Food Alert found that StarLink corn, a type of Bt corn approved only for animal feed, had contaminated the human food supply. In the resulting investigation, it was found that many farmers had not followed the guidelines for growing StarLink, and had not segregated the corn after harvest. Regulations and guidelines agreed to by Aventis, the corporation that produced the StarLink seed, were not passed on to farmers, and little if any follow up by the corporation or EPA was done to see if the plans were being implemented.

Genetically Engineered Food Alert supports the removal of genetically engineered ingredients from grocery store shelves unless they are adequately safety tested and labeled. Genetically Engineered Food Alert founding members include: Pesticide Action Network North America, Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, National Environmental Trust, Organic Consumers Association, and the State Public Interest Research Groups. The campaign is endorsed by more than 200 scientists, religious leaders, doctors, chefs, environmental and health leaders, as well as farm groups. Find out more about the campaign at http://www.gefoodalert.org .

Sources: GE Food Alert press releases, July 24 and October 12, 2001. EPA Pesticide Program Update, October 18, 2001. "Farmers violating biotech corn rules," Associated Press, January 31, 2001.

PANUPS is a weekly email news service providing resource guides and reporting on pesticide issues that don't always get coverage by the mainstream media. It's produced by Pesticide Action Network North America, a non-profit and non-governmental organization working to advance sustainable alternatives to pesticides worldwide. To comment, send a message to:panna@panna.org  To subscribe, send a blank message to: panups-subscribe@igc.topica.com  

Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA),  49 Powell St., Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94102 USA, Phone: (415) 981-1771, Fax: (415) 981-1991, Email: panna@panna.org ,  Web: http://www.panna.org

=====================================================

From P A N U P S, Pesticide Action Network Updates: Service Plan Colombia -- Pesticide Experiments on Farmers, October 12, 2001

In October 2001, over 95 scientists and health professionals signed a letter to the U.S. Senate calling for an immediate moratorium on anti-drug fumigations in Colombia. The fumigation program -- which involves aerial spraying of large quantities of Roundup Ultra, a non-selective herbicide (active ingredient glyphosate), on coca- and heroin-poppy-growing regions of Colombia -- has come under increasing criticism from scientists, environmental organizations, human rights monitors and Colombian government officials. In response to these concerns, the U.S. State Department announced in August that it would conduct a test of the human health effects of the aerial fumigations in Colombia. The letter to the Senate stated that even though the State Department was taking a positive step by agreeing to investigate the sprayings' health effects, the signers "want to emphasize that [they] do not believe [that] continued spraying during the long period of planning and executing the investigation is ethical or justified."

According to initial reports, the State Department study -- which may already be underway -- will use Colombian farmers as experimental subjects. The study was designed with assistance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC). According to the Washington Post, the study "will examine 100 farmers in Putumayo, where eradication efforts of the U.S.-assisted Plan Colombia are concentrated, to assess their health before spraying begins, and reexamine the same 100 people after fumigation . . . occurs nearby."

The State Department study is being undertaken because reports of adverse human health effects from the spraying have now become so widespread that they can no longer be ignored. Although there have been numerous reports of human and animal illness, the farmers will be exposed to the pesticide in order to assess whether it in fact has adverse effects. As Dr. Fernando Lolas, chief of bioethics at the Pan American Health Organization, points out, there is an "ethical double standard" involved in the study. "The bottom line," explains Kimberly Stanton of the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Human Rights in Washington,

"is there's no place in the U.S. where a community would allow this kind of fumigation to happen to them." The Code of Federal Regulations outlines the ethical standards that must be followed for all human testing in the U.S. (Title 45:Public Welfare/Part 6). This 1991 policy governs the EPA and 11 other federal agencies. The central component of the document is its policy of "informed consent." Any researcher seeking to use human subjects must "obtain the legally effective informed consent of the subject." Test subjects must be free to decide whether or not they want to participate, without any "coercion" or "undue influence" by those conducting the test. To date, the State Department has not provided any information about whether they have obtained informed consent from the farmers being tested in the study.

Many times in recent years, Colombian farmers have registered formal complaints with the Colombian government, courts and medical officials that the fumigations have caused enormous damage to their legal crops, their families' health, livestock and the environment. At least 300,000 acres of Colombian farmland have been sprayed since 1999, yet total coca production has steadily increased. The governors of the six southern Colombian provinces on which aerial eradication campaigns have focused have jointly called for an immediate end to fumigations. They propose instead voluntary, manual eradication of illicit crops, aided by international financial support for sustainable development projects

Nongovernmental organizations in Colombia and the U.S. -- including PAN North America, the Institute for Science and Interdisciplinary Studies, PAN-Colombia (RAPALMIRA) and the American Bird Conservancy -- are calling for an independent scientific body to propose and implement a method of testing that does not further endanger human health. In order to begin laboratory tests and the review of existing studies, researchers will require accurate information about the exact formulation of chemicals being sprayed and about the procedures and safeguards governing the spraying -- information which is currently unavailable. In the meantime, these environmental, human rights and foreign policy groups demand a moratorium on further spraying.

Sources:  http://www.washingtonpost.com , "Anti-Drug Herbicide on Trial," August 22, 2001; Epidemiological Section of the Colombian Department of Health, "Efectos de la Fumigación: Valle del Guamuez y San Miguel, Putumayo," February 2001; Elsa Nivia, "Las fumigaciones aéreas sobre cultivos ilicitos si son peligrosos: Algunas aproximaciones," May 2001; St. Petersburg Times, "U.S. to study spraying risks in Colombia," August 12, 2001; Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45:Public Welfare/Part 46, August 1991, .

PANUPS is a weekly email news service providing resource guides and reporting on pesticide issues that don't always get coverage by the mainstream media. It's produced by Pesticide Action Network North America, a non-profit and non-governmental organization working to advance sustainable alternatives to pesticides worldwide. To comment, send a message to:panna@panna.org  To subscribe, send a blank message to: panups-subscribe@igc.topica.com  

Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA),  49 Powell St., Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94102 USA, Phone: (415) 981-1771, Fax: (415) 981-1991, Email: panna@panna.org ,  Web: http://www.panna.org

=============================================================================