Against The Grain

A new book by Marc Lappe and Britt Bailey, AGAINST THE GRAIN, makes it clear that genetic engineering is revolutionizing U.S.agriculture almost overnight.[1]

In 1997, 15% of the U.S. soybean crop was grown from genetically engineered seed. By next year, if Monsanto Corporation's timetable unfolds on schedule, 100% of the U.S. soybean crop (60 million acres) will be genetically engineered.[1,pg.5] The same
revolution is occurring, at the same pace, in cotton. Corn, potatoes, tomatoes and other food crops are lagging slightly behind but, compared to traditional rates of change in farming, they are being deployed into the global ecosystem at blinding
speed.

The mass media have largely maintained silence about the genetic engineering revolution in agriculture, and government regulators have imposed no labeling requirements, so the public has little or no knowledge that genetically altered foods are already being sold in grocery stores everywhere, and that soon few traditional
forms of food may remain on the shelves.

Genetic engineering is the process whereby genes of one species
are implanted in another species, to give new traits to the
recipient. Traditionally the movement of genes has only been
possible between closely-related species. Under the natural
order established by the Creator, there was no way dog genes
could get into cats. Now, however, genetic engineering allows
scientists to play God, removing genes from a trout or a
mosquito and implanting them in a tomato, for better or for
worse.

Three federal agencies regulate genetically-engineered crops and
foods -- the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The heads of all three agencies are on
record with speeches that make them sound remarkably like
cheerleaders for genetic engineering, rather than impartial
judges of a novel and powerful new technology, and all three
agencies have set policies that:

No public records need be kept of which farms
are using genetically- engineered seeds;

Companies that buy from farmers and sell to food manufacturers and grocery chains do not need to keep enetically-engineered crops separate from traditional crops, so purchasers have no way to avoid purchasing
genetically engineered foods;

No one needs to label any crops, or any food products, with information about their genetically engineered origins, so  consumers have no way to exercise informed choice in the grocery sstore. In the U.S., every food carries a label listing its important ingredients, with the remarkable exception of
genetically engineered foods.

These policies have two main effects:

(1) they have kept the public in the dark about the rapid spread
of genetically engineered foods onto the family dinner table,
and

(2) they will prevent epidemiologists from being able to trace
health effects, should any appear, because no one will know who
has been exposed to novel gene products and who has not.

Today Pillsbury food products are made from
genetically-engineered crops. Other foods that are now
genetically engineered include Crisco; Kraft salad dressings;
Nestle's chocolate; Green Giant harvest burgers; Parkay
margarine; Isomil and ProSobee infant formulas; and Wesson
vegetable oils. Fritos, Doritos, Tostitos and Ruffles Chips --
and french fried potatoes sold by McDonald's -- are genetically
engineered.[1,pg.92]

By next year, if Monsanto's plans develop on schedule -- and
there is no reason to think they won't -- 100% of the U.S.
soybean crop will be genetically engineered. (...story continued below)

A Simple Plan For Enlightenment

His name is Gustav Barnard and he sells pigeon medicine in South Africa. He is also author of a new book with the above name, subtitled A Down-to-Earth Road Map To Heaven which has become The Celestine Prophecy of this Afrikaan country. The 96 page book is actually two books in one, each about 48 pages. On each left side page is a direct transmission of an aphorism, and on the right side is Gustav's (or whomever's) rap. What is interesting is that the guy himself is not really new age, and does not believe in channeling. However, he does claim "it" comes through him. So what to say?? Info: Sigma Press, PO Box 27608, Sunnyside 01312, Pretoria, Republick of South Africa. Voice/Fax 012-332-1497 E-mail gbarnard@sprynet.com Take the New Age Trivia Quiz and win a FREE copy!

HEINEKEN BOYCOTT
For those new agers out there who still like to drink a brew from time to time, better think before you down a Heineken. The Wetland Rainforest Action Group has come out boycotting Heineken and Amstel beer. They claim the business is in partnership with military dictatorship in Burma (the SLORC). This dictatorship, according to literature being distributed by Wetlands, has systematically raped, tortured, and executed political and ethnic groups for years, while destroying the environment.

The democratically elected president, Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi, was under house arrest for over 5 years until freed a few months ago. She and her democratically elected government-in-exile have called for the international community to stop doing business with these murders. The wetlands activist group is distributing flyers to be placed in bars and restaurants. They urge you to write Michael Foley, President, Heineken, USA, 50 Main Street, White Plains, NY 10606 FAX 914/681-1900. Or directly to their home office Mr. Karel Vuursteen, President, Heineken, N.V., Tweede Weteringplantsoen 21, 1017 ZD, Amsterdam, Netherlands, FAX 011-31-20-626-3503. If you are a restaurant or bar owner you may get flyers, or more information on Burma or Heineken, by calling Wetlands in New York City at (212) 966-5244.

MSG A KILLER
In Excitogens: The Taste that Kills, Dr. Russel Blaylock disclosed the negative health effects of the taste bud irritant, monosodium glutamate also known as MSG, hydrolyzed vegetable protein, autolyzed yeast, and other names). The latest report on this food additive comes from the respected Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, which has come up with a disease, MSG Symptoms Complex, and has determined causality related to MSG. To date most prior research has been done by industry laboratories such as at Campbell's Soup (a major user of MSG). Source: Healthy & Natural Journal, Vol.2, #5

NEWS Names Asheville, NC
America's NEW New Age Mecca
With as many massage practitioners (hundreds) as major American cities, Asheville, North Carolina is drawing new age healers from around the world. Located in the southern Blue Ridge Moutains (highest elevation on East Coast) near the Great Smokies, Asheville fits no pattern of any city its size anywhere. Paranormal, pagans, shamans, mystics, astrologers, metaphysicians, tantrikas, Wiccans, herbalists, psychics, holistic doctors, Unity folk, vegetarians and futurists.

FOX Network also mentioned the area in their Sightings Program, and this past August CBS News spent a week in the area videoing a segment for Eye On Ameica presented by Dan Rather on CBS.

A glance at Asheville Magazine will give you a hint of what's happening.
Also see  Asheville Holistic Alternatives.

SLEEPING ETs AMONG US?
In a new book entitled From Elsewhere: Being E.T. In America, Scott Mandelker, Ph.D. suggests that 100 million people on this planet are extraterrestrial. A trained psychologist and spiritual teacher, Dr. Mandelker, has interviews 25 individuals who he calls "wanders," and "walk-ins."

He says many of these individuals went from confusion to clarity, including social adjustment, intimacy when they became aware of their "foreign" other-planet origins. INFO: Universal Vision, 2130 Fillmore St., #201, San Francisco, CA 94115

FOOL'S GOLD
Gabriel Cousens, MD, Medical Editor for New Frontier Magazine, has stated that the recent rash of people investing money in a project that is supposed to use the ancient art of alchemy, may not be getting less than they expected. Dr. Cousens says that the individual (he preferred not to mention the man by name for legal reasons, but New Frontier sources learned the name) is making claims which are exaggerated and historically inaccurate.

Dr. Cousens, a leading holistic medical doctor and noted author, says that what is being produced is simple monatomic rhodium and and iridium, and not gold. Those attending these lectures are led to believe they will be part of a billion dollar venture, and that all they need do is invest $500.

Many have, including a goodly number of Ramtha followers in the Seattle area. Over a million dollars has been raised by this evangelical man, who makes absolutely no promise to perform. New Frontier Magazine attempted to interview the man in question, when he stopped by Asheville, North Carolina, but he personally declined an interview.

Other staff members of New Frontier saw this man in Asheville and listened to his pitch, and were left with humungous doubts. Remember, all that glitters is not gold.

Spiritual Unfoldment …at the Word Bank?
Prayer and meditation at the World Bank? Yes. An organization called WorldServe founded by Richard Barrett, who has worked at the World Bank since 1986, conducts seminars on integrating spiritual values into the workplace. An executive of the Bank, which lends over 20 billion dollars to countries each year, Barrett says he had a vision which directed to him to start this work with the Bank. He gathered together 12 kindred souls and formed the World Bank Spiritual Unfoldment Society.

Barrett recently published a book entitled A Guide to Liberating Your Soul, and produced a major conference for the Bank called Ethical and Spiritual Values which was attended by some 350 people, including foreign ministers of several countries. The Washington Post has even done a story on Barrett's work at the World Bank. The Society has a Internet World Wide Web site: http://users.aol.com/soulspirit/ or you can write them at 1200 Huntley Pl., Alexandria, VA 22307, 703/768-9558.

...Against The Grain continued

Eighty percent of all the vegetable oils in American foods are derived from soy
beans, so most foods that contain vegetable oils will contain genetically engineered components by next year or the year after.[1,pg.52]

It is safe to say that never before in the history of the world has such a rapid and large-scale revolution occurred in anation's food supply. And not just the U.S. is targeted for change.

The genetic engineering companies (all of whom are multinational
chemical companies) -- Dow, DuPont, Novartis, and preeminently,
Monsanto -- are aggressively promoting their genetically
engineered seeds in Europe, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, India,
China and elsewhere. Huge opposition has developed to Monsanto's
technology everywhere it has been introduced outside the United
States. Only in the U.S. has the "agbiotech" revolution been
greeted with a dazed silence.

Monsanto -- the clear leader in genetically engineered crops --
argues that genetic engineering is necessary (nay, ESSENTIAL) if
the world's food supply is to keep up with human population
growth. Without genetic engineering, billions will starve,
Monsanto says. However, neither Monsanto nor any of the other
genetic engineering companies appears to be developing
genetically engineered crops that might solve global food
shortages. Quite the opposite.

If genetically engineered crops were aimed at feeding the
hungry, then Monsanto and the others would be developing seeds
with certain predictable characteristics: (a) ability to grow on
substandard or marginal soils; (b) plants able to produce more
high-quality protein, with increased per-acre yield, without
increasing the need for expensive machinery, chemicals,
fertilizers, or water; (c) they would aim to favor small farms
over larger farms; (d) the seeds would be cheap and freely
available without restrictive licensing; and (e) they would be
for crops that feed people, not meat animals.

None of the genetically engineered crops now available, or in
development (to the extent that these have been announced) has
any of these desirable characteristics. Quite the opposite. The
new genetically engineered seeds require high-quality soils,
enormous investment in machinery, and increased use of
chemicals. There is evidence that their per-acre yields are
about 10% lower than traditional varieties (at least in the case
of soybeans),[1,pg.84] and they produce crops largely intended
as feed for meat animals, not to provide protein for people. The
genetic engineering revolution has nothing to do with feeding
the world's hungry.

The plain fact is that fully two-thirds of the genetically
engineered crops now available, or in development, are designed
specifically to increase the sale of pesticides produced by the
companies that are selling the genetically engineered
seeds.[1,pg.55]

For example, Monsanto is selling a line of Roundup Ready products that has been genetically engineered to withstand heavy doses of Monsanto's all-time top money-making herbicide, Roundup (glyphosate). A Roundup Ready crop of
soybeans can withstand a torrent of Roundup that kills any weeds competing with the crop. The farmer gains a mere $20 per acre cost-saving (compared to older techniques that relied on lesser  quantities of more expensive chemicals), but the ecosystem receives much more Roundup than formerly.

To make Roundup Ready technology legal, EPA had to accommodate Monsanto by tripling the allowable residues of Roundup that can remain on the crop.[1,pg.75] Monsanto's patent on Roundup runs out in the year 2000, but any farmer who adopts Roundup Ready seeds must agree to buy only Monsanto's brand of Roundup herbicide. Thus Monsanto's patent monopoly on Roundup is effectively extended
into the foreseeable future -- a shrewd business maneuver if  there ever was one. However, this should not be confused with feeding the world's hungry. It is selling more of Monsanto's chemicals and filling the corporate coffers, which is what it was intended to do. "Feeding the hungry" is a sales gimmick, not  reality.

Monsanto's other major line of genetically engineered crops
contains the gene from a natural pesticide called Bt. Bt is a
naturally-occurring soil organism that kills many kinds of
caterpillars that like to eat the leaves of crops. Bt is the
pesticide of choice in low-chemical-use farming, IPM [integrated
pest management] and organic farming. Farmers who try to
minimize their use of synthetic chemical pesticides rely on an
occasional dusting with Bt to prevent a crop from being overrun
with leaf-eating caterpillars. To them, Bt is a God-send, a
miracle of nature.

Monsanto has taken the Bt gene and engineered it into cotton,
corn and potatoes. Every cell of every plant contains the Bt
gene and thus produces the Bt toxin. It is like dusting the crop
heavily with Bt, day after day after day. The result is entirely
predictable, and not in dispute.

When insect pests eat any part of these crops, the only insects that will survive are those that are (a) resistant to the Bt toxin, or (b) change their diet to prefer other plants to eat, thus disrupting the local ecosystem and perhaps harming a neighboring farmer's crops.

According to Dow Chemical scientists who are marketing their own
line of Bt-containing crops, within 10 years Bt will have lost
its usefulness because so many insects will have developed
resistance to its toxin.[1,pg.70] Thus Monsanto and Dow are
profiting bountifully in the short term, while destroying the
usefulness of the one natural pesticide that undergirds the
low-pesticide approach of IPM and organic farming. It is another
brilliant -- if utterly ruthless and antisocial -- Monsanto
business plan.

Ultimately, for sustainability and long-term maximum yield,
agricultural ecosystems must become diversified once again. This
is the key idea underlying organic farming. Monoculture cropping
-- growing acre upon acre of the same crop -- is the antithesis
of sustainability because monocultures are fragile and unstable,
subject to insect swarms, drought, and blight. Monocultures can
only be sustained by intensive, expensive inputs of water,
energy, chemicals, and machinery. Slowly over the past two
decades, the movement toward IPM and organic farming has begun
to take hold in this country -- despite opposition from the
federal government, from the chemical companies, from the banks
that make farm loans, and from the corporations that sell
insurance. Now comes the genetic engineering revolution, which
is dragging U.S. agriculture back down the old path toward vast
monocultures, heavy reliance on machinery, energy, water, and
chemicals, all of which favors the huge farm over the small
family operation. It is precisely the wrong direction to be
taking agricultural technology in the late 20th century, if the
goals are long-term maximum yield, food security, and
sustainability.

It is a wrong direction for another reason as well.

When 100% of the soybeans in the U.S. are grown from Roundup
Ready seed -- next year -- then 100% of America's soybean farmers
will be dependent upon a single supplier for all their seed and
the chemicals needed to allow those seeds to thrive. In sum,
Monsanto will have achieved a monopoly on a fundamental food
crop. It is clear that Monsanto's goal is a similar monopoly on
every major food crop here and abroad. If something doesn't
change soon, it is safe to predict that a small number of "life
science" corporations (as they like to call themselves) -- the
majority of them American and the remainder European -- will have
a monopoly on the seed needed to raise all of the world's major
food crops. Then the hungry, like the well-fed, will have to pay
the corporate owners of this new technology for permission to
eat.

The corporations that are introducing genetically modified crops into the global ecosystem want you to think of genetic engineering as a well-understood science similar to laparascopic urgery. Indeed, the phrase "genetic engineering" gives the
impression that moving genes from one organism to another is as straightforward as designing a rocket or a TV set. This is not the case.

Basically, a plant's genome (all of its genes, taken together)
is a black box. Genetic engineering takes a gene from one black
box and forces it into a second black box (the recipient plant),
hoping that the new gene will "take." Most of the time, the
experiment fails.[1] Once in a few thousand tries, the foreign
gene embeds itself in the recipient plant's genome and the
newly-modified plant gains the desired trait. But that is all
the technicians know. They have no idea where in the receiving
plant's genome the new gene has found a home. This fundamental
ignorance, combined with the speed and scale at which modified
organisms are being released into the global ecosystem, raises a
host of questions of safety for the future of agriculture, for
the environment, and for human race.

** To begin with, genes don't necessarily control a single
trait. A gene may control several different traits in a plant.
Without careful study, plants with undesirable characteristics
may be released into the global ecosystem. And biotechnology is
not like a chemical spill that can be mopped up -- once you
release a new gene sequence into nature, your grandchildren are
going to be living with it because there's no taking it back.

** How a gene affects a plant depends upon the environment. The
same gene can have different effects, depending on the
environment in which the new plant is growing.[2] What appears
predictable and safe after a few years of observation of a small
test plot may turn out to have quite different consequences when
introduced into millions of acres of croplands in the U.S. and
elsewhere, where conditions vary widely.

** Does the new gene destabilize the entire plant genome in some
unforeseen way, leading one day to problems in that crop? Only
time will tell.

** Genes can travel to nearby, related plants on their own. This
is called gene flow. In 1996 gene flow was discovered to be much
more common that previously thought.[3]

According to SCIENCE magazine, many ecologists say it is only a
matter of time before an engineered gene makes the leap to a
weedy species, this creating a new weed or invigorating an old
one. "It will probably happen in far less than 1% of the
products," warns ecological geneticist Norm Ellstrand of the
University of California at Riverside, "but within 10 years we
will have a moderate-to-large scale ecological or economic
catastrophe, because there will be so many [genetically
modified] products being released,"[3] Ellstrand predicts. It is
worth noting that U.S. farmers already spend $4.3 billion
purchasing 628 million pounds of herbicides (active ingredients
only) to control weeds.[4,pg.32]

The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)
recommended that all genetically modified plants should be
considered non-indigenous exotic species, with the power to
disrupt ecosystems.[4,pg.29] Non-indigenous, introduced species
have provided great benefits to humanity (most of U.S.
agriculture relies on introduced species), but we also should
learn from kudzu, purple loosestrife, the gypsy moth, the fire
ant, and the boll weevil that exotic species can be extremely
disruptive and very expensive to control (if indeed they can be
controlled at all).

** A public health disaster was narrowly averted in 1996 when a
group of researchers tried to improve soybeans by giving them a
gene from the Brazil nut.[5] The goal was to improve the
nutritional value of soybeans by forcing them to produce more
methionine, an essential amino acid. The gene from the Brazil
nut was successfully transferred to soybeans. After this had
been accomplished, but before the soybeans were sold
commercially, independent researchers tested the soybeans to see
if it would cause allergic reactions in people. Many people are
allergic to nuts, particularly Brazil nuts. In some people,
allergic reaction to Brazil nuts is swift and fatal.

A series of laboratory tests on humans confirmed that the
genetically modified soybeans did provoke Brazil-nut allergy in
humans. They could not feed the genetically modified soybeans to
people for fear of killing them, but through scratch tests on
skin, they confirmed unequivocally that people allergic to
Brazil nuts were allergic to the modified soybeans. In
discussing their findings in the NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF
MEDICINE, the researchers pointed out that tests on laboratory
animals will not necessarily discover allergic reactions to
genetically modified organisms. Only tests on humans will
suffice.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) only requires testing
for allergic reactions if a gene is being taken from a source
that is already known to cause allergic reactions in humans.
Many genes are being taken now from bacteria and other
life-forms whose allergenicity is entirely unknown, so federal
regulations require no allergy testing in these cases. This
reduces regulatory costs for the corporations, but leaves the
public unprotected.

** Crops are being genetically modified chiefly as a way to sell
more pesticides. [See REHW #637.] In some cases, the modified
crops change the pesticides themselves, giving them new
toxicity. The herbicide bromoxynil falls into this
category.[1,pg.41] Bromoxynil is already recognized by U.S. EPA
[Environmental Protection Agency] as a possible carcinogen and
as a teratogen (i.e., it causes birth defects). Calgene (now
owned by Monsanto) developed a strain of cotton plants (called
BXN Cotton) that can withstand direct spraying with bromoxynil.
Unfortunately, the bromoxynil-resistant gene in cotton modifies
the bromoxynil, turning it into a chemical byproduct called
DBHA, which is at least as toxic as bromoxynil itself.

Although humans do not eat cotton, traditional silage for cattle
contains up to 50% cotton slash, gin mill leavings, and cotton
debris. Both bromoxynil and DBHA are fat-soluble, so they can
accumulate in the fat of animals. Therefore, it is likely that
DBHA will make its way into the human food chain through meat.
Furthermore, cotton seed oil is widely used as a direct human
food and as a cooking additive. In licensing bromoxynil for use
on Monsanto's genetically modified BXN Cotton, EPA conducted a
risk assessment that assumed bromoxynil and DBHA had no way to
enter the human food chain. Lastly, cotton dust -- the cause of
brown lung disease -- will now carry the added hazard of
bromoxynil and DBHA, another danger that EPA has disregarded.
Thus genetic engineering -- which is being promoted as a
technology that will reduce the perils of pesticides -- will in
some instances increase them.

In rats and in rabbits, bromoxynil causes serious birth defects,
including changes in the bones of the spine and skull, and
hydrocephaly ("water on the brain"). These birth defects appear
in offspring at doses of bromoxynil that are not toxic to the
mother. Despite these findings, and despite a law (the Food
Quality Protection Act of 1996) that explicity gives EPA the
power to reduce exposure standards to protect infants, EPA in
1997 declined to require a special safety factor to protect
children from bromoxynil.

Lastly, when EPA added up the cancer-causing potential of
bromoxynil, they found it to be 2.7 per million, and they
promptly declared this to be "well within" the one-in-a-million
regulatory limit.[1,pg.46] Is 2.7 less than one?

By all appearances, EPA is more interested in protecting
Monsanto's investment in this new technology than in protecting
public health.

** Because genetically-engineered soybeans will be doused with
increased quantities of herbicides, such as Roundup
(glyphosate), soybeans and soy products will carry increased
chemical residues. Infants who must be reared on soy milk,
because they cannot tolerate lactose in regular milk, will be at
special hazard.

** Crops that are genetically modified to resist herbicides
detoxify the herbicides by producing proteins, which will be
incorporated into our food with unknown results.[1,pg.143]

** When crops are genetically modified to incorporate the
naturally-occurring Bt toxin into their cells (see REHW #636),
those Bt toxins will be incorporated into foods made from those
crops. What will be the effect of these toxins and gene products
on the bacteria and other organisms (the so-called microflora)
that live in the human digestive tract? Time will tell.

** The "life sciences" companies have big plans for turning
agricultural crops into "factories" for producing
pharmaceuticals and specialty chemicals in open fields. They
plan to manufacture vaccines, drugs, detergents, enzymes and
other chemicals by putting the right genes into the right
plants.

The net effect of all this will be to expose soil insects and
microorganisms, foraging and burrowing animals, seed-eating
birds, and a myriad of other non-target organisms to these
chemicals and to the gene products that make them. The Union of
Concerned Scientists says, "Herbivores will consume the
chemicals as they feed on plants. Soil microbes, insects, and
worms will be exposed as they degrade plant debris. Aquatic
organisms will confront the drugs and chemicals washed into
streams, lakes, and rivers from fields."[4,pg.6]

** Most fundamentally, genetically-engineered crops substitute
human wisdom for the wisdom of nature. As genetically-engineered
crops are planted on tens of millions of acres, the diversity of
our agricultural systems is being further diminished. Do we know
enough to select the "right" combination of genes to assure the
stable, long-term yield of our agricultural systems? Our recent
experiences with PCBs, CFCs, DDT, Agent Orange, and global
warming should give us pause. Genetic engineering is by far the
most powerful technology humans have ever discovered, and it is
being deployed by the same corporations that, historically, have
produced one large-scale calamity after another. Is there any
good reason to think things will be different this time?

==========
[1] Marc Lappe and Britt Bailey, AGAINST THE GRAIN;
BIOTECHNOLOGY AND THE CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF YOUR FOOD [ISBN
1567511503] (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1998).
Available from Common Courage Press, P.O. Box 207, Monroe, ME
04951. Tel. (207) 525-0900 or (800) 497-3207.

[2] Craig Holdrege, GENETICS AND THE MANIPULATION OF LIFE: THE
FORGOTTEN FACTOR OF CONTEXT (Hudson, N.Y.: Lindisfarne Press,
1996). ISBN 0-940262-77-0. Available from Lindisfarne Press, RR4
Box 94 A-1, Hudson, NY 12534.

[3] James Kling, "Could Transgenic Supercrops One Day Breed
Superweeds?" SCIENCE Vol. 274 (October 11, 1996), pgs. 180-181.

[4] Jane Rissler and Margaret Mellon, THE ECOLOGICAL RISKS OF
ENGINEERED CROPS (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1996).

[5] Julie A. Nordlee and others, "Identification of a Brazil-nut
Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans," NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF
MEDICINE Vol. 334, No. 11 (March 14, 1996), pgs. 688-692

.

© 1999 New Frontier Magazine. All rights reserved. If you have news that we should report, send it to New Frontier Magazine, newfrontier@a-o.com or mail it to PO Box 17397, Asheville, NC 28816. Asheville news. Also check out what CBS News calls America's latest "New Age Mecca."

 

Back To Columns & Features
HOME

_{New Age NEWS, ConSCIOUS NEWS, heADlInES, metapHysICAL neS, paranormal news, New Frontier News, peace news, news of the occult, what's new, what's cool}