Air Date: September 8, 1995
Bovine Growth Hormone: To Use or Not to Use, That is the Question/ Eric Westervelt
Banned in Europe and Canada, Bovine Growth Hormone (or BGH) can increase dairy cow milk production by 20%. Eric Westervelt of member station WEVO in Concord, New Hampshire reports on the opposing viewpoints on the BGH controversy. Some farmers feel the hormone helps with cost effectiveness; others feel it will cause a glut in production that will put family farmers out of business. (09:15)
Testing of BGH/ Kelly Griffin
The National Farmers Union wants to aid farmers in deciding to use BGH or not. They are funding research to develop a standardized test separate from the manufacturers own test conclusions. Kelly Griffin reports from Denver, Colorado. (03:54)
Host Steve Curwood interviews conservative political fundraiser turned environmental activist and author Gordon Durnil. Durnil believes there is a consensus that scientists, businessmen and politicians agree upon behind closed doors: our environment is in trouble. Durnil is now using his influence among conservatives to try to help improve environmental problems. (08:25)
Copyright c 1995 by World Media Foundation. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold, or transmitted without the written authority of World Media Foundation.
HOST: Steve Curwood
NEWSCASTER: Jan Nunley
REPORTERS: Alex Kirby, Stephanie Hemphill, Eric Westervelt, Kelly Griffin
GUEST: Gordon Durnil
(Theme music intro)
CURWOOD: From National Public Radio, this is Living on Earth.
(Music up and under)
CURWOOD: I'm Steve Curwood.
The controversial Bovine Growth Hormone stimulates cows to make more milk, and despite health and economic worries that have it banned for now in Canada and the European Community, many US farmers have used it for more than a year and like it.
KNOX: I personally have absolutely not one shred of doubt about the safety to consumers of milk, and I have no doubt about the safety to the cow when it's used by good managers.
CURWOOD: But other farmers still say no way to the hormone.
JUDD: You know, if I owned a factory I wouldn't require the workers at the factory to take amphetamines so that they can work faster, and I'm not going to require my cows to take hormones so that they can make more milk.
CURWOOD: Also, the making of a conservative environmentalist, this week on Living on Earth, right after this news.
NUNLEY: From Living on Earth, I'm Jan Nunley. House Republican leaders have unveiled their plan to overhaul the Endangered Species Act. They've introduced a bill that would make preserving the habitat of endangered species optional for landowners. It also requires compensating private landowners if species protections reduce their property values. The Clinton Administration has condemned the proposal as a GOP effort to undo decades of environmental programs, and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt says it would effectively repeal the 22-year-old law safeguarding rare plants, animals, birds, and fish. But Republicans maintain the act must be reformed to relieve landowners of regulatory burdens. The bill would also overturn a recent Supreme Court decision upholding the government's authority to require species protection on private land.
Greenpeace is currently at the forefront of international protests over French nuclear testing at a South Pacific atoll. But the group's credibility suffered recently when it was forced to retract claims that Shell Oil's Brent Sparr rig, slated for dumping in the North Atlantic, was laden with thousands of tons of oil. Shell abandoned its plans after a high profile Greenpeace campaign. Alex Kirby of the BBC reports.
KIRBY: In June, as the Greenpeace protest against Shell neared its victorious climax, the campaign's director, Peter Melchard, told the company that Greenpeace judged there were 5,500 tons of oil on board the Brent Sparr. They calculated this on the basis of samples which the activists who'd occupied the Sparr thought they'd taken from a main storage tank. But Melchard has now written to Shell saying that Greenpeace realized a few days ago that the sampling device had been placed not in the storage tank itself, but in a pipe leading to it. The campaign says the original estimate, which Shell rejected at the time, was probably wrong, and it has no idea how much oil is on the Sparr. It's apologized to Shell for the mistake. The company says it respects Greenpeace for admitting the error. The Sparr is now anchored in a fjord in Norway, while Shell decides its fate. And independent Norwegian assessors are preparing a report on its contents. This is Alex Kirby in London for Living on Earth.
NUNLEY: A Federal judge has extended the ban on commercial fishing for Chinook salmon in southeast Alaska. US District Judge Barbara Rothstein granted a request by US and Canadian Indian tribes who argued that the state allowed over-fishing. Rothstein said Alaska failed to make a good faith effort to abide by a 10-year-old Pacific salmon treaty. The decision is also a victory for Washington and Oregon, which complained that salmon catches in their states are diminished because most of the fish never make it beyond Alaskan waters. Alaska Governor Tony Knoll says his state will appeal the decision. Students visiting an environmental learning center in southern Minnesota have discovered an extraordinary number of deformed frogs, and researchers are stumped by the situation. From KUMD in Duluth, Stephanie Hemphill reports.
HEMPHILL: Nearly half of the frogs at the environmental learning center near Henderson, about 40 mile southwest of Minneapolis/St. Paul, are deformed. Some have only one eye; others have no hind legs or 3 or 4 of them. Area farmers are reporting deformed frogs on their land. And scientists are concerned because frogs are a key indicator of water quality. Judy Helgin is coordinating the detective work at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. She says researchers are having trouble tracking the problem because frogs grow so rapidly.
HELGIN: There's nothing unusual about the farming there; it's what we would call normal farming practice. Herbicides were used. We certainly would be analyzing tissues to see if there's something unusually high that might explain the deformities. But it gets real trickywhen you're looking at an event that occurred in the tadpole phase, when there might have been a concentration of a chemical in the water, and now we're really looking at it, you know, a couple months later.
HEMPHILL: Although most observers so far think chemical pollution is behind the abnormalities, it's also possible that a parasite got into the tadpoles and interfered with normal development. For Living on Earth, this is Stephanie Hemphill in Duluth.
NUNLEY: A Federal judge says the Environmental Protection Agency must release a report on alleged environmental hazards at a top secret Air Force base, or get Presidential permission to keep it classified. US District Judge Philip Proe gave the EPA until October 2nd to act on the report concerning the site near Groom Lake, Nevada. Former workers at the base, also known as Area 51, filed a lawsuit claiming they were poisoned by illegal burning of hazardous waste on the job. Plaintiffs' attorney Jonathan Turley says the ruling means the Federal Government can no longer use national security concerns to shield it from environmental laws. Justice Department lawyers argue that declassifying the report would violate executive orders restricting public access to secret material.
That's this week's Living on Earth news. I'm Jan Nunley.
(Theme music up and under)
CURWOOD: This is Living on Earth. I'm Steve Curwood. A year after it first came onto the market, a fierce debate continues over the use of the synthetic Bovine Growth Hormone to stimulate the production of milk. Injections of BGH can boost a cow's output by as much as 20%. And some say it cuts costs while feeding more people. But others say it's not good for cows or family farmers. And while the US Government says BGH is safe, the Canadians and the European Community have blocked its use, and the issue seems far from settled. From member station WEVO in Concord, New Hampshire, Eric Westervelt has our story.
(Cows mooing amidst birdsong)
WESTERVELT: Forty-four-year-old dairy farmer Paul Knox shows off a new addition to his herd on his 300-acre farm in central New Hampshire.
KNOX: Come on, little calf. You can tell she's " she's probably going to be normal and healthy, because they should always be hungry. She'd suck on your finger in a minute.
WESTERVELT: With another farm in Vermont, 1,300 cows and 20 workers, Knox's family-owned operations are large by New England standards. Knox started using Bovine Sematotropin, commonly known as Bovine Growth Hormone or BGH, one year ago. He couldn't be happier. As promised, it has increased his cow's milk output by nearly 10% while lowering his overall cost for both labor and feed.
KNOX: We think it has been very cost-effective, simply because it has increased our milk output substantially. We're in a position here where we can't add cows very well, and so the only thing we can do to increase cash flow is to make more milk. So the only thing we could do, that I could think of, was to use BGH.
(A motor revs up.)
WESTERVELT: Knox is skeptical of BGH critics who say the synthetic hormone may harm cows, people, or the farm-based economy. Nay-sayers, he says, made similar warnings about other technological advances such as milking machines and artificial insemination.
KNOX: It's another technology that I think will allow us to do more with less. I personally have absolutely not one shred of doubt about the safety to consumers of milk, and I have no doubt about the safety to the cow when it's used by good managers.
WESTERVELT: The giant chemical company Monsanto spent more than $300 million developing BGH, which is sold commercial as Posilac. And the comp any is spending thousands more promoting it.
(Commercial voice-over: "...kit you've received. Remember: every eligible cow not treated with Posilac is a lost income opportunity. We're here to help you increase the profit potential of your dairy management program. And with Posilac, that can happen much sooner than you think." Background music swells and fades.)
BARTON: The sales have really been encouraging over the course of the first year. Over 14-and-a-half million doses of the product were sold to farmers throughout the United States.
WESTERVELT: Monsanto spokesman Gary Barton says after more than a year of use, farmers like Knox around the country are reporting positive results. Although there is already an overabundance of fluid milk in America, Barton believes that with BGH, Monsanto is helping to feed a fast-growing world population, and so is helping the environment.
BARTON: If we're to avoid plowing up the rainforests and planting crops in wetlands, what we're going to have to do is make every acre of land on this planet more productive.
WESTERVELT: And every cow. Barton says more than 13,000 dairy producers in the US are using BGH. That's more than 11% of milk producers nationwide. But certainly, not all farmers are getting on the BGH bandwagon.
JUDD: Why risk it? And why risk alienating a major segment of the consumers, all for what? So that, you know, we can make Monsanto rich? I just don't think it's worth it. We can, and we're fine without it.
WESTERVELT: Inside his automated milk house on his small dairy farm in the sloping hills of western Vermont, Steve Judd says he'll never touch BGH, which he calls inappropriate.
JUDD: You know, if I owned a factory I wouldn't require the workers at the factory to take amphetamines so that they can work faster, and I'm not going to require my cows to take hormones so that they can make more milk. I, you know, that's a management issue for me. I can, if I manage my cows properly they make a lot of milk.
WESTERVELT: Judd has organized a group of 25 Vermont dairy farmers who've pledged never to use hormones to boost milk production: a pledge they're trying to market in the Northeast through a premium line of hormone-free milk. Judd points out that some farmers using BGH have reported increases in mastitis, a painful inflammation of the cow's udder that turns milk sour and unusable. It's a concern shared by others in the US and abroad.
BRUNNER: If the American public believes BST to be safe, then perhaps they need to look at the decisions that have been taken in Canada and Europe.
WESTERVELT: British epidemiologist Eric Brunner of University College of London co-authored a controversial BGH study, printed in the British science journal Nature. Using Monsanto's own data, Dr. Brunner showed that BGH significantly increased the risk of mastitis infections. The work helped convince the European Union to bar BGH for 5 years. Canada also has banned the commercial use of BGH. Brunner says the fact that he got vastly different results from the same Monsanto data raises troubling questions about the drug approval process in the US.
BRUNNER: When a company conducts its own safety trials, because of the amounts of money involved, there may be a very understandable temptation to, shall we say, be economical to the truth.
WESTERVELT: To cure mastitis, farmers must use antibiotics that can then enter the food chain. Some consumer groups warn that this potential increase of chemicals in milk could damage humans' ability to combat disease. The label on Monsanto's drug warns of more than 20 potential side effects, including mastitis. Some dairy farmers in Texas and Wisconsin have stopped using the drug, citing high mastitis rates among their herds. And some consumer groups are pushing for further research into the human health effects of BGH. But Cornell University animal science professor Dale Baumett, who pioneered the development of the hormone for Monsanto and other drug companies, says fear of BGH is alarmist. BGH mimics natural hormones, he says, so milk treated with the drug is the same wholesome drink it's always been. Groups opposed to it, he says, are using strong emotion, not sound science.
BAUMETT: What I hear from farmers is this stuff is amazing. It's been looked at by not only FDA but the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Dietetic Association, National Institute of Health. All the scientific groups. And there are areas where there is controversy in science, but the safety of the milk from BST is not one of those areas.
WESTERVELT: The US Food and Drug Administration agrees that the hormone is safe, and the FDA ruled that in its 12 months on the market, Posilac's mastitis damage to cows is a quote, "manageable risk." While consumer groups warn about health risks, some New England dairy processors are caught in the middle. Gary Hirschberg is President and CEO of Stonyfield Farm, a New Hampshire-based yogurt company.
HIRSCHBERG: Consumers are definitely confused and with good reason. The amount of propaganda around this issue on both sides has really been obscene. Many of the folks on my side of the issue have really been irresponsible in throwing around charges that this will result in health impacts which are, frankly, not known yet at this time.
WESTERVELT: Hirschberg says his company's opposition to BGH is based on his belief that the family farm is vital to preserving a diverse food supply, and that more milk will simply lower prices, driving family farms out of business. Stonyfield was the first dairy producer in the country to pay its suppliers not to use the synthetic hormone.
HIRSCHBERG: Stonyfield's opposition is based on the fact that it's basically just fundamentally stupid economics. The last thing we need in this country is surplus milk at this point, and we and the other 140 to 150 other processors around the country are generally in agreement that we're basically killing our suppliers. And if we get rid of family farms, forget the sort of aesthetic and environmental impact that that will probably result in. The bottom line is that would also be bad business for us, because we're going to wind up buying all of our milk from Kraft and General Mills and huge processors who will control the milk supply out there.
WESTERVELT: The conflict over BGH has moved from the nation's farms and research centers to state legislatures across the country. There, consumer groups, Monsanto and dairy lobbyists are engaged in fierce political battles over labeling of products made with BGH. Currently, 3 states allow some kind of voluntary labeling of products made with the drug. Vermont has the nation's only mandatory labeling law. But under Federal rules, the same products have to add a disclaimer saying milk with BGH is just as good as milk without it. Currently, several labeling bills are before Congress. For Living on Earth, this is Eric Westervelt reporting.
CURWOOD: The Food and Drug Administration approved the use of Bovine Growth Hormone in part because they say they can find no difference between the natural hormone and the one made by Monsanto. As FDA Chief David Kessler put it, quote, "It's not possible, using current scientific techniques, to tell them apart. But others insist that there is a difference, and a farmer's group is developing a test for synthetic BGH which could help consumers make an informed choice at the grocery store. From Denver, Kelly Griffin of Colorado Public Radio has our report.
GRIFFIN: When the FDA declared synthetic BGH undetectable in milk, it didn't make sense to members of the National Farmer's Union, says spokesman Clay Peterson.
PETERSON: It stands to reason that, um, you know, if one product is produced naturally and another product's produced with an artificial hormone or an artificial stimulant of some kind, there ought to be a way chemically to test that.
GRIFFIN: The group turned to Frank Vulkowski, who heads the New Jersey-based Cara Biologicals, which has developed home pregnancy test kits. Vulkowski wouldn't be interviewed on tape, but he says he's discovered the synthetic hormone has an amino acid chain the natural hormone doesn't have. Vulkowski says the test would use treated strips similar to a home pregnancy test. A few drops of milk would turn the strip red if the synthetic hormone is present. Vulkowski estimates the tests would cost less than $1 apiece. If the test works, it could change the politics of the debate over the synthetic hormone. Consumers who don't want to buy milk from treated cows could be certain of what they're buying, and producers who don't use BGH could put teeth in their claims to be synthetic hormone-free. Peterson says the Farmer's Union, made up of small family farmers, doesn't want to scare people away from dairy products with the synthetic hormone. But he says the test could help consumers make an informed choice between a regular dairy product and one that's produced with an artificial hormone.
PETERSON: If there's a test that's easily applicable in milk in a bulk tank or even in a milk carton at the store, then it seems to me the FDA's job is that much easier to differentiate between the two.
GRIFFIN: Right now, the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, has set strict limits on labels, in part because there's been no test to distinguish milk from cows treated with the hormone. Dairies can only say their cows are not given the hormone. They can't claim their milk is free of it. And the FDA says if dairies mention BGH on the label, they must include a disclaimer, saying there's no difference in the milk. These labeling rules suit many in the dairy industry, says Richard Weiss of the Dairy Coalition, a group representing most major milk processors. Weiss says the test could spell trouble for producers who do use the growth hormone if it alters how milk is labeled.
WEISS: If it's used in such a manner as to imply that other milk is dangerous, then I think it is a problem.
GRIFFIN: So far, the Dairy Coalition needn't worry. FDA spokesman Andrew Lazaro says the test doesn't alter the agency's other reason for placing limits on labeling. Lazaro says even if the hormone, also known as RBFT, is detectable in milk, it doesn't mean there's a difference in the product.
LAZARO: We stand behind its safety. Safety for humans, safety for the animals, safety for the environment. That will not change by a test that detects whether the milk I'm drinking, the milk you're drinking, does have RBFT in it.
GRIFFIN: Meanwhile, Monsanto, which makes synthetic BGH, is using the FDA guidelines to put pressure on dairies that don't use the hormone. Monsanto sued 2 dairies over their synthetic hormone-free claims, and the dairies agreed in out of court settlements to change their labels and ads. And the company has sent warning letters to other dairies around the country. Peterson of the Farmer's Union says dairies won't be so easily cowed by Monsanto if the test works. The group is paying for further research to determine whether a test for synthetic BGH can be made commercially viable. Peterson says they hope to have the research ready for FDA scrutiny within a year. For Living on Earth, I'm Kelly Griffin in Denver.
(Music up and under)
CURWOOD: Whether it's a question of the safety of our milk supply or the health risks from industrial chemicals, we turn to science for answers. And according to Gordon Durnil, a conservative
Republican party activist, many of the scientific debates in the area of environmental health are not serving us well. Durnil came to that belief when he was chairman of the International Joint Commission of the US and Canada, which oversees water quality issues for the Great Lakes. During his 5-year stint at the IJC, Durnil saw convincing evidence that even tiny amounts of chlorine and the persistent toxic chemicals made from it can damage the hormone systems of the children of people exposed to them. These chemicals include dioxin and pesticides. And they've been linked to such things as lowered sperm counts, weakened immune systems, and impaired intelligence. Durnil became frustrated with attempts by industry to dismiss this evidence. And under his leadership, the IJC ultimately rejected those attempts and called for the complete phase-out of the industrial use of chlorine. Gordon Durnil has recently completed a new book. It's called, The Making of a Conservative Environmentalist. And it documents the startling transformation of a pro-business conservative and the former chair of the Indiana Republican party.
DURNIL: Here in Indiana, I've raised more political funds than anyone in history, a little over $32 million. You know, obviously for the party as party chairman for 8 years, state party chairman. For Senator Dick Lugar, for Dan Quayle, Senator Coates. I've been involved in a lot of presidential campaigns here in Indiana, and a few times in some other states. So.
CURWOOD: Which presidential campaigns?
DURNIL: Well, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush.
CURWOOD: According to your book, you joined the IJC from really a pro-industry background. At what point do you feel that you became more of an environmental activist?
DURNIL: I was sitting in a variety of meetings with scientists who knew that they were there in their personal capacities, that they weren't responsible back to their employers, and that they weren't going to be quoted. In that environment, whether the scientists were from the pulp and paper industry or one of the chemical manufacturers or government or Greenpeace or Sierra Club, they would come to consensus that some of the things we're doing might affect the ability of our grandchildren, born or unborn, to perform as well as they should. And after hearing that, those people from such diverse backgrounds, it's hard not to become convinced that at least there's enough information out there that we should exercise some precautions.
CURWOOD: Big argument here is cost. That cleaning up chlorine can be expensive and disruptive to the economy. But you say that we don't have to disrupt our economy.
DURNIL: That's right. You can do it, as long as you have an orderly process. If we keep going the way we're going, at some point the fact is going to be clear about the dangers of chlorinated substances, and there's going to be some pronouncement or some law or something that chlorine is banned almost immediately. And when that happens there will be great economic and social upheaval. So that's the irresponsible way to go about it. We should get rid of the line in the sand between industry and environmentalist and so forth and start having real, active communication between all the players. And get some real science on the table.
CURWOOD: As things have turned around scientific questions, do you think that we as a society are really misusing the scientific information that we get? Do we have a flawed decision-making process here?
DURNIL: Yes. Yes. The demand for 100% certainty is certainly a flawed decision making process because I don't know of any situation where you can have 100% certainty. And the good science/bad science argument is just one of those dilatory things that people in the environmental world or the scientific world have learned to use, because scientists become very nervous when somebody says they have bad science. And they'll go back and do it all over again. But "
CURWOOD: You're saying that "
DURNIL: A lot of wasted time is spent with the good science/bad science argument. And whenever a new story is run, and the reporter gets all the information they can get from the scientific community, they then call for it or the factory infers that those people have bad science. So an equal balance part of the story is the words "bad science," which means the story has no impact.
CURWOOD: For example, the EPA recently came out with an extensive study on dioxin, which was pretty devastating if you believed it. It was attacked as bad science: oh, we don't have to worry about dioxin.
DURNIL: Of course. That's right. And dioxin's one of the things that I'm most worried about. I'm much more worried about dioxin than I am some of the other things that normally get the media attention.
CURWOOD: And so do you think that the attack on the dioxin report was misuse?
DURNIL: It was a tactical, yes, the people who got themselves placed on some of the review panels was almost totally lobbyist-controlled. So yes, that was very much a lobbyist activity.
CURWOOD: Now, your basic complaint about industry is that they really aren't acting responsibly towards the environment, and it's costing us socially. I mean, we're poisoning our children. But in the free market system, the basic notion is they should be acting for their own profit. How do you reconcile the free market with environmental protection?
DURNIL: Well, the attitude of the free market is, let's put the information out there and let people make their own decision. You know, so it's taken a long time with tobacco, with the warnings and whatever, and we're saying let's let people make their own decision. And as long as it's a voluntary risk, that works. So we're putting the information out on tobacco, we're putting information out on some things. But we're not putting information out on the most onerous of things that can affect our ability to reproduce and so forth.
CURWOOD: And it's not a voluntary situation, either. I mean, you can choose, although it's highly addictive, tobacco, but there's at least nominally some choice to use tobacco. But there's no choice if there, if an industrial firm is poisoning the air or the water. You don't know it's there.
DURNIL: Yeah. And dioxin is the best example of that. If every human in the world has a loading, then we're affecting the entire world.
CURWOOD: So should we allow the free market to create dioxin?
DURNIL: Well, I don't know any businessperson, I was with a group of business leaders last night, large business leaders. And having these discussion, because my book's attracting a lot of attention and a lot of them have read my book. They agree with a great deal of what I'm saying, and they're wondering why they don't know the information. Either I'm way off base, or the people that are advising them, that they're relying on, are giving them bad information. They're curious now; they're getting more curious, the ones that I, you know, have personal contact with, and trying to find out more information. When that happens, the problem will start resolving itself.
CURWOOD: Industry is just going to say okay, we'll sunset the chemical?
DURNIL: You know, I think the answer to that is yes. You have environmentalists who think that everyone in industry is bad and dedicated to harming children. You have people in industry who think all of the people in the environmental movements, organized environmental movements, are just trying to promote their socialist views or something. We need to get through that. I mean, it was easy enough for me to get through that when I met with both sides separately and found out that both sides, in their own bailiwick, are saying the same things. Once you get beyond that and you get the direct communication, I think we're on the say to solving the problem.
CURWOOD: Could you look in your crystal ball and tell me if you see any likely environmental leaders emerging from the Republican party?
DURNIL: Yeah; you're going to be surprised when I say this, but Newt Gingrich is one. His staff has been dealing pretty closely, again, with some of the scientists like Dr. Theo Coburn and so forth. Coming up to speed on what's now known about the endocrine disrupters. Bob Dole has read my book and had a staff member call me and tell me he appreciated having it and he's got his staff doing research on it. Senator Dick Lugar is one, has one of the best environmental records in Congress, and no one knows that. Yeah, there are, there are environmental leaders in the Republican Conservative movement in Congress.
CURWOOD: I want to thank you very much. Gordon Durnil authored the book The Making of a Conservative Environmentalist.
DURNIL: Thank you.
(Music up and under)
CURWOOD: This week we welcome KJZZ-FM in Phoenix into the Living on Earth family. Our program is directed by Deborah Stavro. Our production team includes Peter Thomson, George Homsy, Kim Motylewski, Constantine Von Hoffman, and Jan Nunley. We had help from Julia Madeson, Jessika Bella Mura, David Dunlap, Susan Shepard, and Catherine Gill. Special thanks to Jeff Martini.
Our theme music was composed by Michael Aharon.
Living on Earth is a project of the World Media Foundation, and recorded at WBUR, Boston, and Harvard University. I'm Steve Curwood, executive producer.
ANNOUNCER: Living on Earth is made possible with major support from the Joyce Foundation; the W. Alton Jones Foundation; the National Science Foundation for coverage of science and the environment; and all-natural Stonyfield Farm Yogurt " whether supporting worthwhile causes or producing healthy foods, Stonyfield's goal is to make you feel good inside.
NPR ANNOUNCER: This is NPR, National Public Radio.
The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid transmission and distribution deadlines, it has not yet been proofread against tape.
This Week's Books
Living on Earth wants to hear from you!
P.O. Box 990007
Boston, MA, USA 02199
Donate to Living on Earth!
Living on Earth is an independent media program and relies entirely on contributions from listeners and institutions supporting public service. Please donate now to preserve an independent environmental voice.
Sailors For The Sea: Be the change you want to sea.
Innovating to make the world a better, more sustainable place to live. Listen to the race to 9 billion
The Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment: Committed to protecting and improving the health of the global environment.
Energy Foundation: Serving the public interest by helping to build a strong, clean energy economy.
Contribute to Living on Earth and receive, as our gift to you, an archival print of one of Mark Seth Lender's extraordinary wildlife photographs. Follow the link to see Mark's current collection of photographs.
Buy a signed copy of Mark Seth Lender's book Smeagull the Seagull & support Living on Earth