1) Introduction
2) Negative Repercussions
3) Rationale and Policy Recommendations
4) Conclusion
5) Reference
Terms used in white paper
Animal as just machines paradigm
Allergenic
Biodiversity
Bovine somatotropins
Dumping
Environmental organization
Genetic modification
Glyphosate
Herbicide resistant crops
Human species
Labeling
Political
Regulation
Recombinant bovine growth hormone
Super weeds
What is GMO? GMO stands for genetic modification of organisms. A gene is an instruction in our cells and each of our cells contains tens of thousands of these instructions. Genetic modification involves the exchanging of genes between unrelated species that cannot naturally exchange genes with each other. Sometimes the result of exchanging these genes are unpredictable, for example a farmer might have saved a seed from a favorite plant, hoping to get another plant that looks exactly the same rather this farmer might get a plant that does not look similar in any way with what he had in mind. The result of this exchanging of genes might be that this farmer might get a plant that looks different in terms of color, smell, height or shape.
The impacts of genetically modified organisms (GMO) on the human race are issues that need to be addressed, particularly when one takes into consideration that GMO deals with one of our basic inheritances, which is the environment. The environment provides one of our indispensable needs, which is food, without food human beings would die from starvation. The genes within nature have already been defined by nature but with the coming of technology, man has been manipulating these genes in order to get products, which they feel are beneficial to them (for example putting more vitamin A in rice) or that are more aesthetically pleasing (for example green ketchup).
The ability to do this comes with several risks. Nathan Battalion, the assistant professor at Hartwick College, introduces these risks when he explains
“that we are confronted with what is undoubtedly the single most potent technology the world has ever know- more powerful even than atomic energy. Yet it is being released throughout our environment and deployed with superficial or no risk assessments- as if no needs to worry about its unparalleled powers to harm life as we know it- and for all future generation”(Rifkin 2001).
Battalion argues that society has not evaluated the impacts of the introduction of GMO on the environment, people, and the ecosystem. It is imperative that environmental organization be involved in any decision-making policies on how or if GMO should be introduced into society.
The questions that environmental organizations ask are what would be the effect of GMO on the environment and the ecosystem? The ecosystem as we know, is the relationship between humans, animals, birds and the physical environment. It is important to understand that changing one part of the ecosystem would ultimately have an effect on other parts of the ecosystem. The goal of any environmental organization is to ensure that the environment is preserved for future generations. This is an issue that is very important, when one considers how many creatures are now extinct as a result of human intervention (e.g. Poachers) or environmental intervention (e.g. change of weather on dinosaurs). It becomes scary when one considers that the introduction of GMO might have the unpleasant effect of depleting the environment of its remaining wildlife. This issue will be discussed further in this paper.
The first issue that will be discussed is the effect of GMO on the ecological environment; again, this ecological environment includes humans. The topics to be addressed when looking at the ecological effect of GMO are those issues of herbicide resistant crops, biodiversity, and super weeds. The main question that should be asked when one looks at the ecological risk of implementing GMO is what would be the result of tampering with nature by mixing genes among species? Jeremy Rifkin, an environmental scientist, addresses this question by saying in his interview on genetically modified foods that
“when you introduce a genetically modified organism into the environment, it is not like introducing a chemical product, or even a nuclear product. Remember, genetically modified products are alive. So, at the get- go, they’re inherently more unpredictable in terms of what they’ll do once they’re out in the environment. Secondly, GMO’s reproduce. Chemical products don’t do that. Third, they can mature. Fourth, they can migrate and proliferate over wide regions. And fifth, you cannot easily recall them to the laboratory or clean them up”. (Rifkin 2001)
What does this unpredictability mean to us? Since species sometimes exchange DNA, the altered gene could link with another species and mutate, resulting in a new disease which humanity is not prepared to defend itself against.
The issue of genetic modification renders financial burdens on farmers.
“ Worldwide sales of GM food rocketed from an estimated $75m in 1995 to $2.3 billion in 1999. (Tyson 2001) This growth has caused a reduction of market share for all natural food producers, hence their revenues and profit. Not only is there less farmland available for farmers to grow all natural crops but corporations are also monopolizing on related products. This is evidence in the case of Monsanto’s “roundup ready” soybeans that are tolerant to their namesake herbicide, cutting in other forms of herbicide to be used on these crops. Along similar lines most biotechnology research are sponsored and funded by large corporation, which are traditionally and by most account interested in increasing their profits and share price, this leads to a biased research.
The media has done a good job of selling GM foods to the public by hyping up its positive effects (which were determined from the biased research) and downplaying the negative effects of GM foods. As much, as we would like to believe that adverse effect of GM foods is non-existent, it has been proven otherwise from its effect on the ecosystem, to the health risks it introduces.
It is best to begin with the centuries old battle between the farmers and their weeds. Generally, farmers do not want to accept that weeds are part of the ecosystem and because of this belief they have been trying so hard to get rid of all weeds. The reasons that farmers hate weeds so much are because weeds compete with their crops for nutrients, light and moisture in the soil. This would mean a loss to the farmers if the weeds win. Also, weeds bring a lot of diseases to the crops which reduces the crops purity, it is not surprising that some farmers were at first happy about the introduction of herbicide resistant crops.
Herbicide resistant crops are genetically engineered to be immune to poisonous weed control chemical. Ironically, the use of herbicide resistant crops might actually increase the amount of herbicide that is used in the farm for several reasons. One of the reasons is psychological. Farmers believe that they can spray as much herbicide to kill all the weeds in their farms because their crops are herbicide resistant. Unfortunately, these farmers do not realize that the use of too much herbicide is bad for the environment because it affects the waterways, ground waters and affects organisms living in those areas. It could also affect these farmers in terms of health risks since most farmers (at least in developing countries) depend on the environment for their living, for example, a farmer could eat a fish that has been affected by this herbicide and it would be detrimental to his/her health. The topic of health risks would be discussed further in this paper.
Another problem that individuals who are very excited about GMO have not considered is the issue of super weeds. Super weeds are created when a genetically modified plant pollinates and the pollen from this plant fertilizes other plants. The formation of these super weeds would be a disadvantage to farmers because these weeds would mean paying more money to get herbicides to kill them. This leads to a damaging economic situation for developing nations that depend solely on agriculture. For example, a farmer in a developing nation accepting this herbicides thinking that it would be getting rid of all the weeds in his/her farm might be introducing super weeds into his/her farm, which would mean that he/, she would have to depend on other nations for money. Therefore, increasingly putting him/her in debt to the banks, since the banks borrow money from developed nations, this would further increase the dependence that developing countries have on developed countries.
Apart from the effect of herbicides and herbicide resistant crops on the farmer, herbicides also affect soil by making the soil lose its fertility. For example, glyphosate, which is a kind of herbicide, inhibits the growth of fungi in the soil. This inhibition is not good for the crop because fungi helps plant roots absorb plant minerals from the soil.
Another effect of the use of herbicides is that it does not aid in biodiversity. Biodiversity is having different forms of organisms within specified geographical areas. Farmers wiping out all the weeds would affect biodiversity. Clearing up the weeds would mean clearing up the insects since insects make a very essential part of the food chain, other organisms within the environment would suffer since they depend on these insects for food. For example, when one takes into consideration that weeds are home to insects that are food to the bird. Then clearing up all weeds might mean no insects, thus, leading to no birds within a region. This brings up the issue of species preservation.
To reiterate, our aim as an environmental organization, is to ensure that we preserve the environment for future generations. We are trying to ensure that, the species that have been entrusted into our hands by past generations would be available for the education and enjoyment of the general public in future generations. The introduction of genetically modified organism might have the unpleasant effect of depleting the environment of our remaining wildlife species.
This effect can be seen in the experiment performed with the Monarch butterfly (a large American butterfly (Danaus plexippus) having light orange-brown wings with black veins and white-spotted black borders, noted for its long-distance migrations and its brightly striped caterpillars that feed on the milkweed plant. On April 1999, a researcher from Cornell University conducted a laboratory study on the effect of Bt on the monarch butterfly. This researcher proved that monarch butterflies were vulnerable and could even die when they were given milkweed leaves dusted with pollen from genetically engineered Bt corn (BT is an organically safe pesticide). If these butterflies died from ingesting genetically modified corn on milkweed leaves, the question becomes how many other rare and not so rare species of organisms are we willing to lose in our bid to use genetically modified foods? Also, when one looks at the fact that the wind carries a lot of materials in the environment to different regions of the earth, it becomes scary to consider the fact that the wind could carry these genetically modified products into new areas which could diminish the population of organisms in those areas.
As an environmental organization, we are also concerned about the effect of genetically modified organisms on the human species. So far, the effects that we have seen have not made genetically modified organisms recommendable. There are huge health risks involved in using genetically modified organisms. One of these health risks is allergy.
The introduction of GM foods might mean that food normally not considered to be allergenic might in fact become allergenic. An example of this can be seen in what happened with the Brazil nut. One biotechnological experiment was to exchange protein genes into soybeans in order to improve the plants protein quality but when this new good was marketed it was found out that food allergen from the Brazil nut had been transferred. This led to allergic reactions from people who used this product.
The idea that GM foods might lead to allergic reactions can be seen in another experiment that was conducted in which animals were fed GM foods. Since many of these GM foods have foreign RNA and DNA (that these animals would not have been exposed to under normal circumstances, centuries ago) when a scan of these animals was checked, the brain scan showed adverse immune system reactions including autoimmune disorders. This is scary when one considers the implications of eating this food for humans. Are we willing to accept the possibly deadly implications of accepting this food into society? Even if these foods do not cause death, they could probably cause new diseases that might be impossible to cure.
Many genetically modified crops have been changed in such a way that they can produce their own levels of pesticides. The problem is that when these plants produce their pesticides, they produce at least 1000 times more BT toxin per acre than does a heavy application of Bt directly on the plants. When ingested, it has been proven to cause problems particularly when it is used in the long term (for example, non – organic corn and corn-based pesticides). Another problem of genetic modified food is that it has been shown to cause birth defects. Scientific research has shown that the use of herbicides on some of these non-organic, genetically–manipulated plants (e.g. soy, canola, corn) apart from increasing the amount of allergic reactions (it has been found that soy allergies has increased by 50%) can cause birth defects.
The fact that consumers are not aware of the effect of GMO foods is very troubling. It seems logical to assume that since most GMO are being produced for human consumption that more research would be done to ensure that humans are not eating food that would be detrimental to their health. But this is not the case. There is an unawareness of the risks of GMO for several reasons, these reasons are the labeling, regulation (this will be discussed later in the paper) and political issues.
Today GE foods are available in all markets throughout the country. In 1999, alone 1/4 of American crops were genetically engineered, including 35 percent of all corn, 55 percent of all soybeans and nearly half of all cotton. According to the National Research Council “Two-thirds of the processed foods on U.S. grocery shelves in 1999 contained genetically altered ingredients” (Amy Martinez). Recent studies shows that GE foods are beginning to even affect the organic farming industry. “The collision of the two is inevitable," says Katherine DiMatteo, head of the Organic Trade Association (NAS Committee). "We will probably as an industry begin lobbying for more regulations because this problem is developing so rapidly". This problem being that it is impossible to avoid seed and pollen pollution from genetically engineered crops since the wind carries seeds, and bees can carry contaminated pollen to fields three miles away.
Current regulations require only minimal safety testing for some foods, and none at all for others. There is no case in which there is a requirement for the evaluation of long-term impacts on health and the environment. At present, the United States is leading the world in biotechnological development and production of genetically modified organisms. Under present U.S regulations GE products are already being introduced without informing the consumers while in Europe, the European Union (EU), requires that all GMOs‘ be labeled and this has severely limited the importation of foods that are genetically modified. The United States, however, claims that there is no scientific basis to presuppose that genetically modified food products are more risky or substantially different from other products and as such GMO’s are not being labeled in the United States.
Under a policy developed in 1986, three federal agencies -- the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have the responsibility of implementing the nation's biotechnology regulatory framework and overseeing the bio-tech industry. One of the main problems associated with GM foods is that we are unaware of their long-term consequences on our environment and health. The EPA claims that many pesticides produced by Bio- tech corporations are safe for human beings without adequate field-testing. The FDA, which is responsible for food labeling, also claims that GMO is safe without adequate testing. Since, many countries, for example, Australia, New Zealand and the European Union already require labels on all GM products. We see no reason for the refusal of the FDA to label GM foods. It is quite interesting to note that even when products are labeled, there is a discretionary policy in the amount of information that is given. This can be seen in the fact that the labels on Monsanto's pesticide potatoes detail all the nutrients and micronutrients (even the amount of copper) in the potatoes, but fail to reveal that the potatoes are genetically engineered or that they contain pesticides. The FDA, in turn, says that it requires labels for GE foods only if a GE product “differs significantly from its conventional counterpart” (Labeling Genetically Modified Food).
Joseph Mendelson, a legal director at the Center for Food Safety (CFS) gives a counter argument by saying that the “FDA is not doing its duties to protect the public health by not requiring labels or ensuring the safety of GM foods on the market” (Chemical Week, January, 2000). Ironically labels are used when foods are exported because of the Cartagena Protocol, which demands that exporters of GM products used for food, feed, are required to label shipments with a declaration that the product "may contain GMO” and that the products are not intended for release into the environment (Food Biotechnology in the United States: Science, Regulation, and Issues). This is quite ironic because it shows the double standards that exist in the labeling issue. This double standard lies in the fact that people from other countries get the right to be informed about what they eat while the people living in the United States ( the main producers of these products) are not being informed, therefore their rights are implicitly being taken away from them. We believe that all these agencies( FDA,USDA,EPA) have failed to protect the consumers and are motivated in promoting the biotech industry that disregarded the warnings of its own scientists and environmental groups. The reason for their promotion of GMO is political.
The political issue lies in the fact that the companies that produce these genetically altered foods provide funding for political parties resulting in the government regulatory bodies putting an “okay” on GM foods or as in correct terms, acknowledging that GM foods are “substantially equivalent” to non-GM foods resulting in minimal testing. Although tests have been carried out, the results are not given. A test carried out by Dr. Arpad Pusztai concluded that GM potatoes caused severe harm to rats. The government dismissed this UK scientist’s result and his research institute silenced him.
Furthermore, the American Food and Drug Administration is currently being prosecuted for covering up research that suggested possible risks from GM foods. The tests concluded that rats who had been fed GM tomatoes developed erosions on their intestinal walls (conventional tomatoes did not have the same effect). GM products in order for them to be safe for human consumption, needs to have certain regulations carried out before putting them on the market. The National Farmers Union holds three guidelines for these types of foods meant for consumption and our stance aligns with their policies. The policies are as follows.
1) Food--Genetically modified and non-modified alike--must be adequately tested, regulated, and inspected. These critical tasks must be performed by a sufficient number of adequately funded, independent, publicly paid inspectors.
2) Independent scientists at publicly funded and operated labs under the jurisdiction of the Federal Minister of Health must conduct exhaustive long-term human health testing on GM foods. The assumption that GM foods are "substantially equivalent" to their non-GM analogs is unproven.
3) The Precautionary Principle must be the basis for assessing the human health effects of GM food. Where human health and safety are concerned, mere "risk assessment" is not acceptable (NFU 2000).
In the meantime, knowing the results or the lack of results of testing on GM foods, how comfortable will you be picking up genetically enhanced milk for your child?
The last issue concerns animals that have been given altered genes or stimulated through injections. This makes us wonder at how ethical is the “animal as just machines” paradigm and what kind of harm comes to the animal in this type of increased production? The prime example of this is the use of bovine somatotropins and recombinant bovine growth hormone. These hormones, injected into cows, are widely used today to stimulate milk production. Dairy cows that have been treated with bovine growth hormones have not only been associated with an increased incidence of disease, especially mastitis/inflammation of the utter, but they also show various knee and foot disorders, reproduction problems and disorders of the ovaries. Another example is the yet to be seen results of the salmon that have been genetically altered into “super-size fish”. “Salmon and other fish are treated with growth hormones or insect genes to make the fish grow faster, larger and more resistant to disease” (Genetically Engineered foods, paragraph 5). These fish, treated as lab animals raises several ethical questions in animal rights. Namely, are animals just here for our scientific discoveries? Are these tests actually necessary? Our stance on this is that animals do have rights and are not simply here for our experimentation. Tests may be, and are, carried out in labs for medical advancements. However, tests that do not serve a particular purpose should not be carried out.
Unfortunately, the call for GMO is riding high in the medias particularly when one looks at the fact that many people around the world are either dying from hunger or from malnutrition. We would like to make it clear that our stance is that every country can produce enough food from its soils to take care of its people. The reason for hunger is political because it is an issue of distribution. We know that our rationalizing to the public that the problem of developing countries is one of distribution rather than the inadequacy of citizens of those countries to produce their own crops would not be believed we would like to recommend some policy guidelines as we make our decisions about GMO. Our policy recommendations are as follows:
1) Look into other alternatives before GMO is introduced.
2) Neutral body that governs the regulations for GM products.
3) Policies that look at the broader environmental or health consequences of GMO.
4) More research is needed into effects of GM products.
5) Making adequate Labeling requirements.
6) Laws that put pressure on larger businesses rather than smaller ones.
7) Ensure that environmental organizations are involved at the policy making table.
8) No arbitrary experimentation, there has to be a clearly defined need for that product.
9) No dumping of GMO rejects in third world nations.
1) Looking into other alternatives before implementing GMO
The earth has been around for millions of years, and as such the earth has its way of taking care of itself. The media is screaming that GMO might be the solution to world hunger and eradicating world hunger might invariably lead to world peace. But this is ridiculous, we believe that there are other natural alternatives to GMO. These alternatives should be researched and maybe implemented.
2) Neutral bodies that govern the regulations of GM products.
Environmental organizations are generally indebted to benefactors that put in money for their favorite causes. As such environmental organizations do not have as much financial backing as many of the GM producers do. Because those who are backing the GM producers are generally corporations that want to make money, they have put implicit pressures on GM producers to forget about the side effects of GMO, and hype up the positive aspects of GMO. As such many GM food companies have claimed that they have done research assessing the risks of GMO but these producers are hardly neutral, in fact they are highly biased because of the economic factors. As a result of this, we are recommending a neutral body that is neither biased towards the environmental organization nor the GMO producers to analyze the effects of GMO.
3) Policies that look at the broader environmental or health consequences.
Since GM and non-GM crops are often mixed together during harvest, transportation, processing and storage, it is difficult to determine the GM status of the respective crops/foods. There is a need for a policy that dictates how to segregate GM and non- GM products at various stages of processing. This would make it easier to observe the broader environmental or health consequences of these food.
4) More research needed into the effect of GM products.
Generally, insufficient research is done before a GM product is released into the market. This occurs because of many scientists use the equivalence framework. This framework states that GM products are equivalent or equal to non-GM products or organic products. Since these scientists have this mind frame, they do not monitor the GM products long enough before it is released into the environment. We want a policy that dictates how these researches are conducted. Also, we want a policy that dictates how long these researches should be conducted before it is released into the environment. We demand that GMO be monitored for a period of two years or more.
5) Make adequate labeling requirements:
Every individual in the society has a right to make informed choices. By refusing to label GMO product, they are taking this right away from the consumers. We would like to suggest that GMO products be labeled with the tag stating “ GMO product”. These labels should provide the consumers with accurate information that will be of use to them. This labels should just not state the positive aspects of GM foods, they should also state explicitly the risks inherent within these foods. For example, herbicide producers should state that by using their herbicide, there is the potential risk of producing super weeds, which would be difficult to get rid off. This would leave the option open to the consumer on if he/ she wants this particular brand of herbicide. The consumer would now know if he/s he is willing to take these risks.
6) Laws that put pressure on bigger business rather than small businesses.
Since big businesses tend to have political and economic clout, pressure is generally not placed on them because of fear of analogous repercussions. As a result of this, pressure is put on small businesses that do not have any clout. We would like to have a policy that puts equal or more responsibilities on bigger businesses because they have the economic background to ensure that what is being produced would not have negative consequences.
7) Ensure that environmental organizations are involved in decision making for policy implementation.
Since environmental organizations are more concerned about the environment and the people in it, it is important that a voice for the environment be present at any decision making for policy implementation meeting that might be held. Since we represent the environment, we would be bringing a conscience into the corporate boardroom. We would ensure that the policy is fair to all concerned.
8) No arbitrary experimentation
Scientists are notoriously known for their curiosity; as such they would be willing to perform any experiment just to find out what would happen because of this we believe that there should be a policy written out that ensures that the neutral scientist do not arbitrarily experiment but that they have a well defined reason behind any experimentation that they do.
9) No Dumping on developing countries.
We believe that there is a need for a clearly defined policy that states that dumping GMO products on developing countries is illegal, particularly if these GMO products have been rejected in developed countries. As representatives of the environmental organizations, the environment of developing countries is very important to us, particularly when one takes into consideration that third world countries, generally contain many organisms that are not found in any part of the world. Because of this reason, we totally reject dumping of GMO products on third world nations.
It is very important as environmental organizations to evaluate the impacts of GMO on the ecosystem. We are taking a cautionary stance and asking that you, the stakeholders do the same. You should ask yourselves if you are willing to accept the repercussions of the widespread use of GMO particularly when you are unsure of the risks inherent in it. In particular, you the consumers, who are major stakeholders in this issue, should ask yourselves if you are willing to accept the responsibility of the destruction of our environment that could come about through the widespread introduction of GMO. These are questions that you should keep in mind as you take that sip of GMO milk in your cup of GMO coffee.
Battalion, N. 50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods [online] Available: http://www.cqs.com/50harm.htm [2001, November 20].
Fox, Michael. WILL GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS MEAN ADULTERATED AND TOXIC FOOD, BODIES, AND ECOSYSTEMS? . Available: http://www.progress.org/archive/gene10.htm [2001, November 24].
Friends of the earth briefing. (1999). [Online]. Available: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/antibiotic_resistant_genes.html [2001, [2001, November 23].
Genetically-modified Q&A. (1999). [Online]. Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/special_report/1999/02/99/food_under_the_microscope/newsid_280000/280868.stm [2001, November 20].
Jennifer Leou, Leah Lothringer, Allison Mo, Candy Ng, Yina Tang (2000). THE CASE “ AGAINST” GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS. [Online]. Available: http://www.balwynhs.vic.edu.au/home/mendels/againstgm.html November 20].
Health- Hazards of Genetically modified Foods. (1999). Available: http://www.soyinfo.com/haz/gehaz.shtml [2001, November 23].
Labeling Genetically Modified Food – Marketplace Files (1995). [Online]. Available: http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/food/gmfood/fda.html. [2001, December 4].
Martinez, Amy (2001). The biotech food fight: To label or not to label? [Online]. Available: http://www.habitat.rutgers.edu/document.ASP?D=536. [2001, November 29]
Michaels, P. (2001). Genetically Modified Foods. [Online]. Available: http://environment.about.com/library/weekly/blbiotech1.htm [2001, November 20].
Michaels, P. (2001). Genetically Modified Foods. [Online]. Available: http://environment.about.com/library/weekly/blbiotech2.htm [2001, November 20].
National Farmers Union. (2001). NFU Policy on Genetically Modified (GM) Foods. [Online]. http://www.nfu.ca/gmfood-ban.htm. [2001, December 2].
Neil, Franz (2000, January 9). USDA Says GM food Labeling is Unlikely. Chemical Week, vol 162, p 16.
NEW GM FOODS OFFER NO CONSUMER BENEFITS. (1999). [Online]. Available: http://www.genewatch.org/Press%20Releases/pr13.htm [2001, November 20].
Organic Trade Association presents concerns with biotech applications to NAS Committee (1999, May 25). [Online]. Available: http://www.biotech-info.net/ota_concerns.html
Pusztai, Arpad (2001). Genetically modified foods are they are they a risk to human and animal health. [Online]. Available: http://www.biotech-info.net/health_risks.html [2001 November 24].
Rifkin J. (2001). Harvest of Fear. [Online] Available: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/interviews/ [2001, December 3].
Spaide, J. (2001). Genetically Engineered Foods. [Online]. Available: http://www.soulrise.com/common/engfoods.htm [2001, December 4]
Thwaite, J. (1999). GM foods: feeding the corporation. [Online]. Available: http://www.marxist.com/scienceandtech/GMfoods.html [2001, November 20].
Tyson P. (2001). Should We Grow GM Products. [Online]. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/exist/ [2001, December 2].
Vogt Donna, Parish Mickey (2000). Food Biotechnology in the United States: Science, Regulation, and Issues. [Online]. Available: http://www.cnie.org/nle/crsreports/agriculture/#2. [2001, December 3]
« return.