OPEN LETTER TO ALL CANDIDATES OF THE 2008 ELECTION

I could only send this to Hillary Clinton:

Begin forwarded message:

OPEN LETTER TO ALL CANDIDATES OF THE 2008 ELECTION

Dear Candidate,

The following letters reflect my concern for not only the health and safety of the Citizens of the United States, but the world as a whole, with respect to the "sciences". I am sending you excerpts of a few of the letters I have written (and this is only within a period over the last few months) that reflect my concerns. I can assure you, I have written numerous letters to MANY federal and state agencies over a period of years, to no avail.

The issues I am adressing is the biotechnology arena of the "sciences". Specifically, but not limited to microbial pesticides, insecticides, , mycocides, fungicides etc.

I believe my 10-9-2007 letter to Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey sum's up what has happened to my son as a result of working as an assistant researcher at a biotechnology research and development laboratory. Nineteen (19) microorganisms, both bacteria and fungi that are "known" have been identified in my son in cultures, blood as well as IgG levels showing positive to HIGH POSITIVE, indicating levels of exposure. There are definite connections with the company my son worked for and the microorganisms that have been identified in him as they relate to the company's patents and/or patents that have been issued to other companies with the company's scientists shown as the "inventors" on these patents as well as the company's products. There have been numerous prescriptions that have been issued to my son as a result of working at [the company] and acquiring injury, illness and disease. There were 43 prescriptions for antibiotics and 25 prescription for antifungals to name just a few. Surely, if my son did not need these medications then all of the Physicians who issued them should be held on malpractice charges as well as the 4 sinus surgeries he had and the 30 IV Immunoglobulin Infusions he received.

I believe, with everything that is in me that what has happened to my son is only a small percentage of what is happening in the biotechnology arena. Because of the dangers of GMO's (genetically modified organisms) and LMO's (live modified organisms) I am extremely concerned for our nation, or should I say our world. What is being put on our crops also ends up in our soils which is going to affect generations to come. Also, how many of our agricultural workers have been affected or will be affected in the years to come?

We now have diseases returning that were once thought to have been eradicated. We are having more and more problems with our food supply as well as livestock and pet food supply. Our bees are dying, bats are dying and there is word of more and more water contamination which in turn affects all water creatures.

I believe the 6-9-2007 letter to Henry Waxman is pretty clear in my concerns as to why ANY product would be given a "conditional time-limited registration" by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), and still be allowed to be used, when the EPA itself found faults.

I am also extremely concerned as to why, when a product which has received prior approval by Federal and state agencies, it is allowed to be altered "at will" without proper clearance from those governing agencies? Is the only ingredient that is to "remain unchanged" the active ingredient and the inert ingredients can be changed at any time? This is being done in the biotechnology area.

Scientists who have tried to expose what is happening in the biotechnology field are either shunned told they are crazy, and/or ridiculed, and/or lose their jobs and/or "shut up". Those that know what is happening and never say anything merely turn their backs for fear of losing their jobs and being black-balled in the business.

My son has said "how many biologist have to die". My question is "how MANY have to die" because of greed and fame?

I believe you could and should be instrumental in undoing a very hugh wrong that has befallen us. I would like your response as to how you would change the path we have been led down and what changes you would make concerning the issues I have addressed in this letter.

Sincerely,


[Following is the 10-9-07 letter to Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey]


October 9, 2007

VIA US MAIL VIA E-MAIL
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey lynn.dondis@mail.house.gov
c/o Lynn Dondis, Congressional Policy Adviser
US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Education and Workforce Committee
Committee on Science
2263 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515

Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey
US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Education and Workforce Committee
Committee on Science
1101 College Avenue
Suite 200
Santa Rosa, CA 95404

RE: Follow-up to Steve Zeltzer’s Telephone Conversation of 10/9/2007 to Lynn Dondis Regarding:
Non Compliance of Biotechnology Laboratory Safety Standards & Oversight of Federal
and State Agencies,
Flawed United States Workers Compensation System

Dear Congresswoman Woolsey and Lynn Dondis,

It is with much frustration and sadness that I write this letter. First, I would like to tell you that I am a Mother of a young man who at 32 years of age was attending Sacramento [California] State University and at that time was only 4 units away from receiving his Bachelor of Science with a major in biology and a minor in chemistry. To obtain experience in the field he accepted a position as an Assistant Researcher with a research and development biotechnology company in Davis California, this was in August of 1998. Five months and 9 days after his first day of employment he sought emergency medical treatment which led to the first of four sinus surgeries 16 days later. With 8 years in passing my son’s entire body and organs are still reacting to microorganisms [known are fungus and bacteria] that were in the lab. He stopped producing B-cells and every 28 days he was hooked up to an IV pump and received IV Immunoglobulin infusions for approximately 7 hours, this was at a cost ranging from $7,000 to $15,000 for each infusion [30 infusions total and approximately 210 hours or 26.25 work days at 8 hours per day].

To add insult to injury, not only has my son’s life change forever and most probably been shortened, but he has had the misfortune of not receiving benefits for a workplace injury/illness/disease as required by law because of a flawed worker’s compensation system. Within the attached you will see a
portion of the plight of the injured worker. It is criminal what the injured worker has to endure in what is thought to be the greatest nation in the world.

It has been questioned as to exactly how many incidents such as what has happened to my son have gone unreported. The answer to this question is quite simple, an injured worker is bound by the workers compensation rule in that they have to go through the process of the workers compensation system. This system is a long hard road to travel for someone who has been hurt or injured on the job.

Depleted of not only earning capacity but health as well the injured worker is faced with a murad of obstacles and corruption within the system itself. The only one who actually benefit are the attorney’s for the employers workers compensation carrier. These attorney's are ruthless in their tactics to “win”
for their clients. The worker compensation attorney is bound to charge only a fraction of a lien on the amount granted, if at all, whereas the attorney for the insurance company is not limited in his fee. This I believe is why so many workers compensation attorneys are reluctant to take on a complicated
cases and fight for the rights of the injured worker. their survival comes in the number of cases they have.

The workers compensation system within the United States does not protect an injured workers rights but merely hides an employers misdeeds under an umbrella of protection wherein the public as well as past, current and future employees are never made aware of the harm they have done.

I am extremely happy that Congress is finally paying attention to biosafety, although this is long overdue. There is and has been way too much oversight on Federal and State agency levels. Through the years I have contacted many Federal and State agencies and have been ignored or placated. When I contacted the National Institute of Safety and Health I received a reply letter in which I was informed "NIOSH can only respond only to requests from current employees, their [current] collective bargaining representatives or the employer" I find this absurd.

I would like to share with you something my granddaughter said to her Mother, “what was Daddy like before he got sick?”

Respectfully,




[Following is the 6-9-07 letter to Congressman Henry Waxman]

June 9, 2007

Henry A. Waxman, Chairman Henry A. Waxman, Chairman
Congress of the United States Congress of the United States
House of Representatives House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
2204 Raybum House Office Building 8436 West Third Street, Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20515 Los Angeles, CA 90048

Dear Chairman Waxman,

In the November 30, 2006 letter to The Honorable Stephen Johnson Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency from the House of Representatives in which you signed, it is stated within:

“It now appears that EPA officials are dismantling what is likely one of our country's most comprehensive and accessible collections of environmental materials.”

It was by pure accident that I recently obtained a copy of the EPA -NOTICE OF PESTICIDE (CONDITIONAL TIME-LIMITED Registration of QST 713 Technical. I am and have been unable to locate other records such as this. I believe this to be of willful suppression of records by the EPA for purposes that do not allow the public to know or seek the truth.
It is my belief serious questions should be raised as to the EPA registration and conditional registrations in the biotechnology arena; specifically [but not limited to] pesticides, insecticides, fungicides, mycocides and fertilizers.

With the mounting problems we are now having with our food sources for both human and animal consumption, of which most are occurring in the state of California, and having some knowledge of the risks of injury/illness and diseases caused as a result of working in the industry, the ongoing contamination of our produce, animal and human illnesses that have
even led to death, not to mention the problems with bees dying, I wonder why a blind eye has been turned toward the biotechnology field as a possible contributor to these issues and whether there may a “conflict of interest” within the EPA.
I would also like to know why biopesticides are allowed to be “manufactured” out of the country (Mexico) and brought into the United States and used on our crops.
Although I suspect other biotechnology agencies have been allowed to overstep their bounds, I can only submit to you one company referring to is [ COMPANY ], Inc of Davis California.

“[ COMPANY ] produces natural, effective and environmentally safe pesticides at a fraction of the time and cost needed to develop conventional pesticides. Our patents and proprietary knowledge brings a natural pest management product to market in approximately three years, for approximately $6-10 million, compared to chemical pesticides, which take at least $180 million and 9-10 years to register for use.”

“Company scientists have traveled the world, from forests in Eastern Europe to fields in South America, searching for tiny microbes that fight against the diseases and pests that cause havoc on crops. Once located, these microorganisms are screened, cultivated, and optimized in [ COMPANY ] liquid form—to growers who apply [ COMPANY ]s product to their crops. The microbes attack diseases and pests, leaving no residue behind.”

Within the enclosed 4 page copy of the document from Janet L Anderson, Ph.D., Director - Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division of the EPA to [ COMPANY ], dated June 20, 2000 concerning the registration application of QST 713 Technical [Bacillus Subtilis] which contains the phrase “Additional data described in the December 12, 1999 review and March 8, 2000 letter required to upgrade submitted process” it is without a doubt there were “problems” with the product as well as issues with quality control and fermentation batches.
Contained within the wording alone in this document should have caused a “red flag” as to why this product should not have been allowed a “conditional registration”.

*Test lab should attempt to determine cause of death and whether pathogenicity involved *Required due to report of disease in terrestrial amphipod crustacean associated with B. subtilis infection

*QST Technical was shown to cause mortality

*Potential pathogenicity was not investigated

*All test concentrations showed treatment related mortality

*due to the short test duration and lack of determination as to whether mortality was due to toxicity on or whether pathogenicity contributed

*Batches that do not meet the criteria

E. coli/Coliform Bacteria
Salmonella
Shigella
Staphytococci
Vibrio
Yeast
Mold

*storage stability for the end-use product has not been submitted

*A formal submission that clearly describes new quality control steps taken to assure the consistent CFU/g values and limit microbial impurities

Based on the above I dont understand why [ COMPANY ] was allowed 1-2 years for submissions of “Product Chemistry Data” and was given conditional registration until July 1, 2002. Additionally, I cannot understand why the biotechnology field gets “temporary exemption from the requirement of tolerance” in their submissions to the EPA for registrations, re-registrations and conditional registrations of biopesticides.

In the Federal Register of July 5, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 129), an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance was established for residues of the microbial pesticide Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 when used in or on all food commodities.

Should “natural occurring substances” be considered safe merely for the fact they are “natural occurring”? Why then do we have illness/disease and death because of “natural occurring” microorganisms?

Also of interest is: Simultaneous production of biopesticide and alkaline proteases by Bacillus thuringiensis
using sewage sludge as a raw material.
* Tyagi RD,
* Sikati Foko V,
* Barnabe S,
* Vidyarthi AS,
* Valero JR,
* Surampalli RY.
INRS-Eau, 2700 rue Einstein, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, Canada G1 V 4C7. tyagi@inrs-
eau.uquebec.ca

The simultaneous production of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) based biopesticide and proteases was studied using synthetic medium and wastewater sludge as a raw material. The studies were conducted in shake flask and computer controlled 15-L capacity fermentors. Measuring viable cell and spore counts, entomotoxicity and protease activity monitored the progress of the biopesticide production process. A higher viable cell count and spore count was observed in
synthetic Soya medium, however, higher entomotoxicity and protease activity were observed in wastewater sludge medium. Thus, the wastewater sludge is a better raw material than commercial Soya medium for the biopesticides and enzyme production. The maximum entomotoxicity and protease activity observed in the fermentor was 9,332 IU/microL and 4.58 IU/mL, respectively.

The proteases produced by Bt were also characterised. Two types of proteases were detected;

neutral proteases with pH optimum 7.0 and alkaline proteases with pH optimum 10-11. Further, two types of alkaline proteases were detected; one having a pH and temperature optimum at 10 and 50 degrees C while the other at 11 and 70 degrees C. The protease thermal stability was found to increase in the presence of CaCl2, indicating the proteases were metalloproteases.
PMID: 12479478 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE

Regulating Biopesticides [EPA web site]

Biopesticides include naturally occurring substances that control pests (biochemical pesticides), microorganisms that control pests (microbial pesticides), and pesticidal substances produced by plants containing added genetic material (plant-incorporated protectants) or PIPs.

Before a pesticide can be marketed and used in the United States, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act FIFRA) requires that EPA evaluate the proposed pesticide to assure that its use will not pose unreasonable risks of harm to human health and the environment. This regulation involves an
extensive review of health and safety information.

According to federal law a registrant who registers and/or reregisters a pesticide (biopesticides included) has the duty to report any “adverse effects” to humans and the environment. CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS; [[62 FR 49388, Sept. 19, 1997; 63 FR 33583, June 19, 1998]] § 159.152 What the law requires of registrants.
§ 159.184 Toxic or adverse effect incident reports.
§ 159.188 Failure of performance information.

[ COMPANY ] had knowledge of “adverse effects” to human health in 1999 and has never reported this to any agency.
“Other provisions of FIFRA allow the Agency to require pesticide registrants to develop and submit information the Agency believes it needs in order to evaluate the risks and benefits of pesticide products. Section 6(a)(2),
however, provides that registrants must also inform the Agency of certain relevant information relating to their products, even though it was not specifically requested by EPA.”
From: Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19se97-22]
[[Page 49370]]

As far back as 1969 there were articles written [known] addressing disease and allergic reactions from exposure to Bacillus subtilis: Flindt, M. H. L., "Pulmonary Disease Due to Inhalation of Derivatives of Bacillus subtilis Containing Proteolytic Enzyme." The Lancet, (1969), pp. 1177-1181. Pepys, J. et al., "Allergic Reactions of the Lungs to Enzymes of Bacillus subtillis." The Lancet, (1969), pp. 1181- 1184. M. Greenberg, M.B., M.R.C.P. “Survey of Workers Exposed to Dusts Containing Derivative of Bacillus Sutbilis”

And last but not least Chairman Waxman, QST 713 (Bacillus Subtilis) is a subtilisn which causes known health problems in humans. [ COMPANY ] did not analyze QST 713 for “presence of subtilisn” until 2002. The outcome of this test is unknown.

I submit to you a portion of the publication; ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection...final.pdf that will validate this:

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
HEALTH & CONSUMER PROTECTION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
Directorate E – Safety of the food chain
Unit E.3 - Chemicals, contaminants, pesticides
Bacillus subtilis
SANCO/10184/2003 - rev. final
14 July 2006

Received on 19 April 2000 an application from [ COMPANY ], hereafter referred to as the applicant, for the inclusion of the active substance Bacillus subtilis in Annex I to the Directive. The German authorities indicated to the
Commission on 28 May 2000 the results of a first examination of the completeness of the dossier, with regard to the data and information requirements provided for in Annex II and, for at least one plant protection product containing the active substance concerned, in Annex III to the Directive. Subsequently, and in accordance with the requirements of Article 6(2), a dossier on Bacillus subtilis was distributed to the Member States and the
Commission

Appendix III BACILLUS SUBTILIS
List of studies which were submitted during the evaluation process and were not cited in the draft assessment
report:
[ FOUNDING SCIENTIST ][ COMPANY ]
2002
Analysis of Serenade for Presence of Subtilisin
Not GLP, unpublished
BWS2002-6
CHE2005-1583

I thank you for your time in reading this Chairman Waxman and can only hope and pray that you will initiate an investigation concerning all the issues that I have addressed.

Respectfully,


cc: file
enclosure: EPA -NOTICE OF PESTICIDE (CONDITIONAL TIME-LIMITED Registration of QST 713 Technical (4 pages

by sa tr (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 3:14:08 AM
 

reply

You could most certainly send this to both the senate offices and the campaign offices of the other candidates as I have recently sent this very article to them.

Also, you might make your name a bit more conspicuous, as that would add to the already strong credibility.

Sincerely,

Stephen Fox

by Stephen Fox (64 articles, 2 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 250 comments) on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 10:22:55 AM
 

REPLY

You could most certainly send this to both the senate offices and the campaign offices of the other candidates as I have recently sent this very article to them.

Also, you might make your name a bit more conspicuous, as that would add to the already strong credibility.

Sincerely,

Stephen Fox

by Stephen Fox (64 articles, 2 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 250 comments) on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 9:39:06 AM