Subject: ECOLOG-L Digest - 19 Jun 2003 to 20 Jun 2003 (#2003-157)
There are 6 messages totalling 412 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. URL: The American Naturalist
2. News: GMO Pollution Significant Cause for Concern in the US
3. The Evolving Peppered Moth Gains a Furry Counterpart
4. Intern Sought for Forest Campaign
5. Job Posting - Senior Project/Associate Biologist or Ecologist in SF Bay
Area
6. Field Ecologist Job Announcment (Seattle, Washington)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 21:41:02 -0700
From: Ashwani Vasishth <vasishth@USC.EDU>
Subject: URL: The American Naturalist
The American Naturalist -- Electronic Edition [pdf]
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AN/journal/rapid.html
"The American Naturalist" now offers free access to rapid-release articles
from upcoming issues of the journal. These articles will be made available
until the issue they will appear in is published electronically, after
which a paid subscription is required to view them online. As of June 13,
2003, three articles are available, covering gynodioecy, sexual selection
in dung beetles, and epidemiological traits in a model of host-parasite
interactions. An excellent resource, and now it's free -- kind of.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 20:32:59 -0700
From: Ashwani Vasishth <vasishth@USC.EDU>
Subject: News: GMO Pollution Significant Cause for Concern in the US
http://ens-news.com/ens/jun2003/2003-06-18-06.asp
U.S. Policing of Biotech Crops Denounced
WASHINGTON, DC, June 18, 2003 (ENS) - Federal government agencies are
failing to monitor genetically engineered crops to protect the environment
and public health, according to two separate studies released today.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) says that according
to its review of government data farmers are routinely overplanting corn
that is genetically engineered (GE) to be insect resistant.
The corn growers are failing to comply with a government requirement to
plant 20 percent of their acreage with non-GE corn as a refuge. The refuge
is intended to prevent the breeding of insects resistant to the pesticide
produced by engineered corn that contains a protein from the soil
bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt).
The protein kills Lepidoptera larvae, in particular, the European corn
borer. Growers use Bt corn as an alternative to spraying insecticides for
control of European and southwestern corn borers.
[Photograph omitted]
Entomologists Larry Chandler (left) and Wayne Buhler check a corn ear
for insect damage. (Photo by Ken Hammond courtesy USDA)
The data analyzed by the CSPI was collected by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service. The statistics
show that 19 percent of all Bt corn farms in Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska
- about 10,000 farms - violated the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) refuge requirements in 2002.
Thirteen percent of farmers growing Bt corn in those three states planted
no refuges at all.
"Noncompliance on this scale shows that current regulations aren't up to
the task," said Gregory Jaffe, director of CSPI's biotechnology project.
"Both the EPA and the biotech industry must do more to make sure that
farmers meet these very basic obligations, so that the benefits of this
technology won't be squandered."
Because of its pesticidal properties, Bt corn is regulated by the EPA,
rather than by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) or the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA).
In its report, "Planting Trouble," the Center for Science in the Public
Interest recommends that the EPA determine farmers' compliance with its
refuge requirements using data from the National Agricultural Statistics
Service, rather than what the organization terms "the less reliable data"
from the biotechnology industry's telephone survey of farmers.
In a letter today, the CSPI urged EPA Administrator Christie Whitman to
implement the report's recommendations. The CSPI wants biotech firms to
conduct on farm inspections and to require farmers to document their
compliance with maps and seed purchase records.
Unlike some environmental or consumer groups, the CSPI does not oppose
agricultural biotechnology as long as it is appropriately regulated to
safeguard human health and the environment, but the Center has often
faulted the biotech industry for its disregard of government oversight.
"As biotech applications become even more advanced, and potentially more
dangerous, this kind of noncompliance will be even less tolerable," Jaffe
said.
[Photograph omitted]
Bt corn in the field looks identical to traditional corn. (Photo
credit unknown)
In a separate report, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG)
criticizes the Agriculture Department's oversight of field experiments in
the United States. The report is critical of testing procedures used in
monitoring experimental genetically modified crops in the field.
USPIRG warns that nearly 70 percent of all field tests of genetically
engineered crops conducted in the last year contain secret genes
classified as confidential business information to which the public has no
access.
A field test last fall of a genetically engineered crop designed to
produce a pig vaccine contaminated commercial crops, USPIRG reports. As a
result, 500,000 bushels of soybeans had to be quarantined and were
destroyed.
USPIRG quotes a 2002 National Academy of Sciences report confirming that
the federal government permitted commercial growth of a variety of
genetically engineered corn found toxic to monarch butterflies under field
conditions.
If field experiments are not properly monitored, PIRG says the resulting
genetic pollution can put farmers' livelihoods and the environment at
risk.
"Our environment is being used as a laboratory for widespread
experimentation on genetically engineered crops with profound risks that,
once released, can never be recalled," said USPIRG environmental advocate
Richard Caplan. "Until proper safeguards are in place, this unchecked
experiment should stop."
Federal food law requires premarket approval for food additives, whether
or not they are the products of biotechnology, molecular techniques that
are used to insert genes from one type of organism into another - in this
case the insertion of a Bt gene into a corn plant.
The federal agency responsible for regulating foods, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), treats substances added to food products through
biotechnology as food additives only if they are significantly different
in structure, function or amount than substances currently found in food.
If a new food product developed through biotechnology does not contain
substances that are significantly different from those already in the
diet, it does not require premarket approval.
Currently, genetically modified foods in the United States do not require
special labeling to notify consumers that a food or ingredient is a
bioengineered product.
Testifying Tuesday before a House of Representatives subcommittee, FDA
deputy commissioner Lester Crawford said the agency has found no evidence
that the more than 50 bioengineered foods on the market today are unsafe
to eat.
[Photograph omitted]
Lester Crawford is deputy commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (Photo courtesy FDA)
"The evidence shows that these foods are as safe as their conventional
counterparts," Crawford told the lawmakers.
"Bioengineered foods and food ingredients must adhere to the same
standards of safety under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act that
apply to their conventionally bred counterparts," he said.
Crawford told the subcommittee that scientists have been changing the
genetic makeup of plants since the late 1800s. Hybrid corn, nectarines,
and tangelos, a hybrid of a tangerine and grapefruit, are examples of such
cross breeding, he said.
Genetic engineering, by contrast, is the manipulation of an organism's
genetic structure by introducing or eliminating specific genes through
modern molecular biology techniques. A broad definition of genetic
engineering also includes selective breeding and other means of artifical
selection.
Crawford did address one concern of biotechnology critics, the possibility
of allergic reactions to genetically engineered foods. "As to potential
allergens," he said, "foods normally contain many thousands of different
proteins. While the majority of proteins do not cause allergic reactions,
virtually all known human allergens are proteins. Since genetic
engineering can introduce a new protein into a food plant, it is possible
that this technique could introduce a previously unknown allergen into the
food supply or could introduce a known allergen into a new food."
Food and Drug Administration guidelines and a consultative process help
food product developers meet U.S. requirements for the bioengineered foods
they intend to market, Crawford said.
The FDA wants to assure that compounds in the engineered foods are safe
for consumption, that no new allergens or higher levels of natural
toxicants have been introduced and that there is no reduction of nutrients
in foods being developed for market, Crawford said.
One risk to farmers of improperly monitored field tests is loss of export
markets for their crops. Wheat, which has been authorized for more than
330 field tests of genetically engineered varieties, is of particular
concern, the PIRG report says. Many international trading partners have
told wheat exporters that they will stop buying U.S. wheat if any genetic
contamination is detected.
Biotechnology is expected to be a major theme when world agricultural
ministers meet next week at the Ministerial Conference and Expo on
Agricultural Science and Technology in Sacramento, California.
* * *
Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2003. All Rights Reserved.
*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes
only. ***
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
envecolnews-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
envecolnews-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Or, for more options, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/envecolnews/
For questions or suggestions, contact:
vasishth@usc.edu
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:21:50 -0400
From: Karen Claxon <kclaxon@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: The Evolving Peppered Moth Gains a Furry Counterpart
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/17/science/17MOUS.html
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers report
identifying the gene responsible for the evolution of dark coat
coloration in these mice, pinpointing the DNA sequence changes that
underlie this classic story of evolutionary change, the cute and furry
counterpart to the famous case of the peppered moth.
Researchers say the study is the first documentation of the genetic
changes underlying an adaptive change where the evolutionary forces were
natural. Scientists point out that other well-known cases involve
evolution caused by humans; some have suggested that those changes may
be atypical of natural evolutionary change, since they have typically
involved intense, directed pressures destroying most of a population,
like the spraying of pesticides or the application of antibiotics.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:21:11 -0700
From: Steve Erickson <wean@WHIDBEY.NET>
Subject: Intern Sought for Forest Campaign
Whidbey Environmental Action Network (WEAN) is seeking an intern for
about one month starting immediately. The intern will do research
helping with a campaign to prevent development adjacent and within a
never logged coastal forest on Whidbey Island in Puget Sound. The
forest is considered one of only about 50 unlogged and undeveloped
examples of its particular plant community in Washington State.
The development is proposed by a private university in the Puget
Sound area. WEAN is waging a multi-faceted campaign to prevent this
development. The campaign consists of both ongoing legal action and
outreach to place pressure on the university to drop its development
plans. The intern will perform research assisting in the outreach
campaign. Some pay is available.
If interested contact WEAN at:
wean@whidbey.net
or (360) 579-4202
Please forward this message to anyone you think appropriate.
Apologies for cross postings.
****************
Whidbey Environmental Action Network is a non-profit membership-based
organization dedicated to the preservation and restoration of the
native biological diversity of Whidbey Island and the Pacific
Northwest. If you are not already a member, please consider joining!
Dues are $35 per year. Members receive our newsletter and periodic
action alerts.
WEAN
P.O. Box 53
Langley, WA 98260
phone (360) 579-4202
fax (360) 579-4080
email: wean@whidbey.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:58:04 -0700
From: Michael Clary <cleirigh@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Job Posting - Senior Project/Associate Biologist or Ecologist in SF
Bay Area
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. is seeking an experienced Ecologist
to lead and conduct watershed management programs, prepare habitat
management plans, design and direct flora, fauna and special-status species
surveys, prepare restoration plans, manage or assist in the preparation of
environmental documents with wildlife emphasis, prepare and manage reports,
proposals, projects and client consultations and perform business
development activities. A complete announcement and application
instructions can be found at MACTEC's website:
http://www.mactec.com/career.asp
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:50:14 -0700
From: Seattle Urban Nature Project <sunp@SEATTLEURBANNATURE.ORG>
Subject: Field Ecologist Job Announcment (Seattle, Washington)
Seattle Urban Nature Project
Position Announcement
Position Title: Field Ecologist
Location: Seattle, WA
Reports To: Executive Director
Application Deadline: Friday July 18, 2003
Position Summary:
The Field Ecologist is a full time position responsible for researching,
developing, and implementing the plan to resurvey plant communities and
habitats on Seattle^Òs public lands. Position will review and refine survey
methodology and timeline, gather field materials, supervise field assistants
(paid interns), and carry out the survey. This position will be in the
field much of the time, year-round. All responsibilities will be carried
out in a manner that provides the highest degree of confidence in the
quality of the data collected.
Responsibilities:
Data Collection and Field Work
· Gather spatial data on plants, plant communities, and habitat types
n
Seattle^Òs public lands
· Maintain quality control during data collection
· Ensure that data integrity is maintained during analysis and mapping
· Supervise field assistants
Survey Plan Development
· Develop a standardized survey methodology that is compatible with ot
er
datasets
· Craft plan to resurvey public lands, including timeline and budget
· Gather all necessary materials, including ortho photos and field equ
pment
· Train field assistants in survey techniques
Technical Project Support
· Provide technical expertise to board and staff, especially during th
development of data analysis
· Provide technical expertise to partnering organizations and citizens
· Seek out opportunities to advance the body of knowledge of natural
resources in Seattle and support ongoing research
Qualifications:
Required:
· Demonstrated Puget Lowland plant identification skills, including we
land
and invasive species
· Knowledge of field survey techniques
· Experience working with GIS, GPS, and vegetation keys
· Experience developing field survey plans and budgets
· Ability and desire to work in wet, cold, steep, and thorny field
conditions
· Experience with ecological restoration projects
· Experience working with the public and/or nonprofits
· Commitment to the conservation of public lands and urban ecology
· Collaborative spirit
· Bachelor^Òs degree in botany, biology, or related field and two year
field
experience
Desirable:
· Knowledge of Seattle-area wildlife, mushrooms, lichens, etc.
· Field experience in an urban setting
· Personnel supervision experience
Environment: Accessible, centrally located Seattle office on bus lines,
equipped with shower. Supportive, fun office environment and a committed
and engaged board.
For more information on Seattle Urban Nature Project, go to
www.seattleurbannature.org
Salary commensurate with experience. Benefits. Seattle Urban Nature
Project is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
To Apply
Send resume, cover letter, and list of applicable field experience by July
18th to:
Helen Ross Pitts, Executive Director
Seattle Urban Nature Project
5218 University Way NE
Seattle, WA 98105
info@seattleurbannature.org
------------------------------
End of ECOLOG-L Digest - 19 Jun 2003 to 20 Jun 2003 (#2003-157)
***************************************************************
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
Thanks to discussion with TVR, I have decided to put a link to back files of the discussion group. This months back files.
The link to complete archives is available elsewhere.
This text was originally an e-mail. It was converted using a program
RUPANTAR- a simple e-mail-to-html converter.
(c)Kolatkar Milind. kmilind@ces.iisc.ernet.in