GMO Food for Thought

The Associated Press
ALBANY, Ga.

A leading industry group has given scientists the go-ahead to build genetically engineered peanuts that could be safer, more nutritious and easier to grow than their conventional version.

The work could lead to peanuts that yield more oil for biofuel production, need less rainfall and grow more efficiently, with built-in herbicide and pest resistance _ traits that have already been engineered into major crops such as cotton, corn, soybeans and canola.

For consumers, the work could lead to peanuts with enhanced flavor, more vitamins and nutrients, and possibly even nuts that are less likely to trigger allergic reactions, a life-threatening problem for a small percentage of the population and a major food-industry concern.

A few researchers have been genetically modifying peanuts for at least a decade, but their discoveries have had little impact because the industry, fearing a consumer backlash, was reluctant to support the work.

However, with the two leading peanut-producing countries, China and India, working aggressively on transgenic peanuts, the American Peanut Council and its research arm, the Peanut Foundation, this month approved a major policy change. The council represents all segments of the industry _ growers, shellers, exporters and manufacturers.

The foundation urged scientists to move ahead with "due diligence" on genetically engineered peanuts.
The work is expected to cost about $9.5 million and will require university, government and industry support.

"It's a significant redirection in their thinking," said Peggy Ozias-Akins, a University of Georgia horticulture professor who has been working with genetically modified peanuts since the late 1990s.
The foundation also called for additional genome studies to learn more about the location and function of the natural peanut genes.

Because peanuts are considered a minor crop, their genetics still have not been studied as extensively as major crops such as soybeans, Ozias-Akins said.

Peanuts are believed to have originated in South America at least 3,500 years ago. Farmers in the Southern U.S. only started cultivating them in the early 1900s when the dreaded boll-weevil made it nearly impossible to grow cotton. Now they're grown in 15 states from Virginia to New Mexico.

Georgia is traditionally the nation's No. 1 producer, providing about 45 percent of the domestic supply. However, famrers seem to be opting for other, more profitable crops because of lower government subsidies under the latest farm bill and record prices for fuel, fertilizer and pesticides.

The U.S. peanut acreage dropped from nearly 1.7 million acres in 2005 to 1.2 million this year, including the loss of 175,000 acres in Georgia, while the acreage for two crops that benefit from genetic modification, cotton and soybeans, increased.

While experts say peanut acreage may drop again next year, scientists believe genetically modified peanuts could help reverse the trend.

A group of 14 university, U.S. Department of Agriculture and food-industry scientists, including Ozias-Akins, prepared a report on the benefits and issues surrounding biotech peanuts and presented it recently to the Peanut Foundation. The scientists concluded the technology could reduce growing costs, improve nutrition and overall quality for consumers and have the potential to reduce the allergy threat in peanuts.

"There is a sense in the industry that genetically modified products are becoming slightly more accepted in most of the world and that by the time we would have the first genetically modified peanut on the market _ five years _ that trend will have accelerated," said Howard Valentine, the Peanut Foundation's executive director.

A small amount of genetically modified sweet corn, squash and about half of Hawaii's papayas are the only U.S. crops currently grown for human consumption, said Gregory Jaffe, biotechnology director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a food and nutrition consumer advocacy group. "Overall, our view is that genetic engineering is a technique that can be used to overcome grower problems, or to enhance consumer value in products," he said. "We support that as long as those products have been determined safe for human consumption."

Posted by AC Baumer at 10:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By Glenn Tong
TheAge.com.au
December 20, 2006

EMILE Zola famously wrote of the Dreyfus case in his open letter J'accuse that "Truth is on the march and there is no stopping it".

The world is increasingly acknowledging the truth that climate change is fact and not fiction. But are we prepared to explore every technological option available to us to respond to this alarming development?

Worsening drought conditions around Australia have brought into sharp focus the need for new technologies to meet the challenge of global warming. The indisputable reality is that we cannot afford the indulgence of ignoring genetically modified (GM) crops amid this worsening crisis. Gene technology allows the production of crops that can be grown much more efficiently in drought areas.

Taking wheat as one example, at present 35 to 50 per cent of the world's wheat is grown in drought-affected regions. The annual global wheat crop is valued at more than $23 billion. With drought affecting wheat supplies around the world, commodities traders are predicting record high prices for the staple. New research into drought-tolerant varieties could greatly increase the world's supply of wheat in the face of harsher climatic conditions.

However, we cannot sit on the fence indefinitely and wait for others to take the lead. Investment in GM technology is long term. New plant varieties cannot be produced overnight, like ratcheting up production at a manufacturing plant. Investment now will produce new plant varieties in about 10 years' time.

The Federal Government has rightly provided a very generous assistance package of several hundred million dollars for farmers afflicted by the drought; but handouts are only part of the solution. Most farmers would rather get on with the job than accept government assistance. If we could develop new crop varieties that can grow and prosper in water-starved areas, we could ease the burden in these most difficult times.

Australian researchers have developed some innovative technologies with real potential to help drought-affected farmers; but this research requires investment. Last June the Molecular Plant Breeding Co-operative Research Centre announced an expansion of its joint research and development program with global group BASF Plant Science. The objective of the $28 million project is to develop high-yielding wheat varieties that are drought tolerant and more resistant to fungal diseases. Business needs to invest in more of this type of research to bring the benefits of GM technology to the world.

Apart from the potential to one day produce drought-tolerant wheat varieties, GM technology offers an exciting new world of renewable and clean fuels. Fossil fuels are finite and produce more pollutants than biofuels. There are GM technologies that offer the potential to facilitate efficient conversion of biomass to bioethanol. And other GM technologies have the potential to improve conversion of plant-derived oils into biodiesel.

In the face of reservations about this technology in some quarters, much more needs to be done to communicate the facts about GM crops. For a long time the climate-change debate was plagued by a chorus of minority voices casting doubt on the validity of the science. Only now, after the tireless efforts of many campaigners, is it clear that the scientific community is of a consensus view. Global warming is a reality. In much the same way, Australians need to know that GM crops have been endorsed by the World Health Organisation and our federal regulatory body, Food Standards Australia and New Zealand.

Australians should also be aware that the vast majority of the scientific community is supportive of GM crops. To date, about 25 Nobel laureates have signed a petition endorsing GM crops. Large populations (for example, in the US and Canada) have consumed GM crops over an extended period of time with no demonstrable ill effects.
Australian farmers should also be given the facts about GM crops in global export markets. Canada, one of our major competitors, has been marketing both GM and non-GM canola to several export markets for many years, earning a lot of export income. The more time it takes Australia to adopt GM technologies, the more advantage we give our competitors.

The history of humankind, by and large, has been one of advancement. The conquering of many diseases is testimony to our capacity and preparedness to improve the human condition. GM crops offer a unique opportunity to play a leading role in helping feed a growing world population that will need to produce more food under ever worsening drought conditions.

Dr Glenn Tong is chief executive of Molecular Plant Breeding CRC.

Posted by AC Baumer at 12:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By: Henry I. Miller
Truth About Trade & Technology
The nonprofit asked questions its own research shows the public is unprepared to answer.

There exists a constant tension between the development of innovative, valuable new technologies and activists opposed to them. Following the partial meltdown of the core at the Three Mile Island nuclear power station in 1979, nuclear power in the United States has fared badly. So has the "new biotechnology," or gene-splicing, applied to agriculture and food production in Europe, where activists' proselytizing and government over-regulation have made it virtually nonexistent.

But food biotech in the United States is here to stay. More than 80 percent of processed foods on supermarket shelves – soft drinks, preserves, mayonnaise, salad dressings – contain ingredients from gene-spliced plants, and Americans have safely consumed more than a trillion servings of these foods. But opposition to the genetic improvement of plants using these highly precise and predictable techniques remains, largely because it is fanned continually by the misleading claims of anti-biotechnology activists.

Radicals like Greenpeace flaunt their intention to eliminate gene-splicing entirely from agriculture, while other groups, such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, claim not to oppose gene-splicing but only to want it "properly" regulated.

Reports published by the lavishly funded Pew Initiative, for example, receive extensive media and government attention, largely because Pew touts itself as occupying the thoughtful, disinterested middle ground in the biotechnology debates. But contrary to their claims that they are non-partisan and agnostic about biotechnology, Pew's workshops, conferences, and publications show a pervasive pro-regulation bias, ignore essential context, and promote the impression of genuine controversy where none exists.

The latest Pew survey of consumer attitudes, just released, is a prime example. It finds that about three in five persons surveyed have not "seen, read or heard recently about [gene-spliced] food that is sold in grocery stores," and it concludes that"public knowledge and understanding of biotechnology remains [sic] relatively low." It also reveals that "just 26% believe that they have eaten [gene-spliced] foods, while 60% believe they have not."

Little do consumers know. . . Almost 100 percent of residents of North Americans consume gene-spliced foods daily, inasmuch as they're contained in practically every product made with corn oil, high-fructose corn syrup or other corn products, soybean oil, or soy protein. And even that fails to take into account that with the exception of wild berries and wild mushrooms, virtually all the grains, fruits and vegetables in our diets have been genetically improved by one technology or another.

After establishing that those polled lacked even the most basic understanding of the science of genetic modification of foods, the surveyors went on to ask detailed questions like, "Do you think there is too much, too little, or the right amount of regulation of genetically modified foods?" And "Do you think genetically modified foods are basically safe or basically unsafe?" That's tantamount to asking average consumers which nuclear reactor design they prefer.

At least they didn't reprise the 2003 survey item, "Companies should be required to submit safety data to the FDA for review, and no genetically modified food product should be allowed on the market until the FDA determines that it is safe," with which 89 percent of those surveyed agreed. Please. That's like asking whether repeat child molesters should be banned from teaching kindergarten.

Because the public's understanding of science is so meager, hoodwinking consumers on surveys isn't difficult. A study by the U.S. National Science Foundation found that fewer than one in four know what a molecule is, and only about half understand that the earth circles the sun once a year.

The Pew surveys take advantage of respondents' ignorance about the status quo. With the exception of wild berries and mushrooms, game, and fish and shellfish, virtually all the organisms?plants, animals, microorganisms?in our food supply have been modified by one genetic technique or another. Because the techniques of the new biotech are more precise and predictable than their predecessors, biotech foods are actually likely to be even more safe than other foods. Food producers are already legally responsible for assuring the safety of their products, and the FDA does not normally perform safety determinations, but primarily conducts surveillance of marketed foods and takes action if any are found to be adulterated or mislabeled. Unwarranted, excessive regulation, including unnecessary labeling requirements, discourages innovation, imposes costs that are passed along to the consumer and are a disproportionate burden on the poor.

Even if the Pew surveys were crafted to elicit more honest responses, they would still suffer from the fact that there is often a huge disparity between the public's responses to hypothetical questions about their buying habits and their actual behavior in the supermarket. According to former European Commission official Mark Cantley, "that's one pragmatic reason for the NGOs' trying so vigorously to keep these products off the market: They might be rather embarrassed by the actual choices made by consumers when the goods were on the shelf."

In both flagrant and subtle ways, Pew and others continue to perpetuate the patently false impression that gene-splicing in agriculture and food production is untested, unproven, unwanted and unregulated. They ignore our vast experience and the scientific consensus that gene-splicing is an extension, or refinement, of less precise, less predictable techniques. They are both scientifically and ethically challenged and if technological innovation is to thrive in the United States, their mischief must be exposed at every opportunity.

Posted by AC Baumer at 8:53 AM | Permalink

A week ago, the Washington Post published an article on Americans' attitude towards genetically modified foods. The article quoted a survey commissioned by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. The survey found that although many Americans expressed doubts about genetically modified foods, their cultivation continued to grow. What a contradiction! To read the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/06/AR2006120601349.html

Posted by AC Baumer at 7:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

University of Florida
December 15, 2006
GAINESVILLE, Fla. — A plant-destroying virus farmers call one of their worst enemies may soon be an ally in the fight against crop pests and mosquitoes, say University of Florida researchers.

Scientists genetically modified tobacco mosaic virus so that it produces a natural, environmentally friendly insecticide, turning the pathogen into a microscopic chemical factory, said Dov Borovsky, an entomologist with UF’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. The modified virus is almost completely harmless to plants and simply produces the insecticide.

Plants inoculated with the virus quickly accumulate enough of the insecticide to kill insect pests that consume their leaves, said Borovsky, who works at the Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory in Vero Beach and is affiliated with UF’s Genetics Institute. Once harvested, the plants can be processed to make mosquito control products.

A study using the modified virus in tobacco plants was published today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. An extract from the plants was used to kill mosquito larvae. The study was conducted by a research team that included personnel from UF, the University of Virginia and the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium.

“This is the first time we know of that anybody put on tobacco mosaic virus something that actually can act as an insecticide and protect the plant,” said Borovsky, lead author of the paper. Tobacco mosaic virus is commonly used in genetic research because genes can be added to it easily.

The chemical, known as trypsin-modulating oostatic factor, or TMOF, stops insects from producing a crucial digestive enzyme called trypsin, he said. Like tobacco mosaic virus, TMOF has no effect on people. But it can cause insects to starve to death, unable to draw nutrients from food.

Tobacco mosaic virus was the first virus ever formally identified by scientists, said Charles Powell, a plant pathologist with UF’s Indian River Research and Education Center in Fort Pierce and a co-author of the study. Formally described in the early 20th century, its effects were well known to farmers long before. Plants infected with the pathogen develop telltale discoloration, lose leaves and often die.

Though notorious for attacking tobacco and other plants in the solanaceae family – including tomatoes, eggplants, bell peppers and potatoes – the virus threatens eight other plant families. The bright side, Powell said, is that the modified virus can protect any of those plants.

“The virus has a very broad host range so it can be used for very many plants,” he said. “You can’t use it for monocotyledonous plants like corns and grasses. But many of the other broad-leafed plants, including many fruits and vegetables, could potentially be used with it.”

Because the virus multiplies, only a small dose is needed in each plant to get the job started. Viruses reproduce by injecting their nucleic acid into the host organism’s cells, then directing the cell machinery to make components needed for new virus particles. Finally, the components assemble themselves and leave, seeking new cells to infect.

The virus reproduces well in plants, but it cannot replicate itself from one generation of plant to another, Powell said. Because crop plants inoculated with the virus will not pass along the TMOF-making properties to their seeds, farmers would need to inoculate their crops each year.

“That is an advantage for companies to market it because they get profit off of it every single year,” he said. “It also has the advantage you don’t have to worry about environmental problems because it’s not carried over in the environment.”

The modified tobacco mosaic virus produces TMOF in the protein coating its exterior. So inoculated plants accumulate more TMOF every time the virus reproduces.

When insects eat the plants, they also consume TMOF; death can occur within 72 hours, if the insect is vulnerable. The exact range of pests susceptible to TMOF appears to be broad. There are two types of enzyme systems insects use to digest food; one includes trypsin, and all species with this system may be harmed by TMOF.

Crop pests proven vulnerable to TMOF include the tobacco budworm and citrus root weevil, Powell said. Mosquitoes and several other blood-feeding insects are also susceptible.

To make mosquito control agents, plants that had accumulated large amounts of TMOF would be processed to extract the chemical and reduce it to a powder, he said. The powder could be used in sprays to kill adult mosquitoes, and mixed into baits that target mosquito larvae, which live in standing water and eat decaying plant material.

UF holds 14 patents on TMOF technologies, some of which have been licensed to private companies, Borovsky said. He discovered TMOF, a hormone produced by female mosquitoes’ ovaries, years ago and has researched the chemical ever since.

Scientists plan to investigate further practical applications of TMOF, he said.

“TMOF works against the diaprepes citrus root weevil, it causes a lot of problems here in Florida,” Borovsky said.

UF researchers have produced genetically modified alfalfa plant that generates TMOF, he said. Because the weevil eats alfalfa, farmers may one day protect citrus trees simply by growing patches of the modified crop nearby. They could also introduce the TMOF-producing gene into citrus roots.

Tobacco mosaic virus might be suitable for delivering other insecticides, Powell said. Similar viruses that naturally occur in other plant species might also be modified for beneficial use.

William Dawson, a UF eminent scholar of plant pathology at the Citrus Research and Education Center in Lake Alfred, developed the method used to put the TMOF-producing gene into tobacco mosaic virus.

“The TMOF is really just a prototype, there’s many other things we may be able to use Bill’s system to introduce into a plant,” Powell said. “This is an example of something that can be done that may have many different applications for many different genes in many different plants.”

The UF study is more evidence that careful application of biotechnology continues to create opportunities for American agriculture, said Mace Thornton, a spokesman for the American Farm Bureau Federation in Washington, D.C.

“While crops enhanced through biotechnology to control pests without pesticide applications is not, in itself, new, having another technology such as this in research and development will help provide more options for feeding the world while protecting the environment,” Thornton said.
Copyright@University of Florida

Posted by AC Baumer at 11:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

By Nancy Reyes
One of the tragedies I saw in Africa were children who became blind from lack of vitamin A.

The Helen Keller l foundation estimates “between 250,000 and 500,000 children go blind from a lack of vitamin A in their diet, which also affects their growth, cognitive development and immune system. 70% of these children die within one year of losing their sight, and a total of 800,000 children every year from a lack of vitamin A. Supplementation with vitamin A capsules is the single most cost-effective health intervention according to the World Bank and other global health experts. It only takes two doses a year to prevent blindness – at a cost of approximately $1.

Yet even that small cost might be prohibitive to some countries, and other countries lack the infrastructure and personnel to give it out properly (too much vitamin A is toxic). And, of course, some children will not go to clinics, or their parents will refuse the medicine.One solution to this is a new genetically engineered rice, called golden rice because of it’s colour. “..Golden Rice is a transgenic variety of rice, which has genes for the synthesis of b-carotene (a vitamin A precursor). These genes are taken from the garden favourite Narcissus pseudonarcissus (daffodil) and inserted into the genome of a temperate strain of rice.” The rice has a golden color from the beta carotene (think carrots), and is being offered free to India where blindness from Vitamin A deficiency is common.

The problem? It’s not politically correct to artificially insert genes into crops. There is a philosophical opposition to any “genetically modified” food, no matter how benign.But what is worse is that activists are scaring certain African countries into not using and not importing GM food and seed, even though people are starving in these countries and the food and seed could remedy their dying of malnutrition.

For example, Greenpeace opposed planting the rice because a child couldn’t get it’s full requirement of vitamin A from rice alone. Presumably, a little is worse than none? But not according to their activists.

A more important question is that if only the genetically modified grain is planted in places like China, the native rice will no longer be grown, and biodiversity will be lost.There are also worries if the implanted genes might adversely affect animals or humans if ingested constantly.

The ironically named “Friends of the Earth” has persuaded some African countries to refuse rice and other staples needed for starving populations out of fear of being poisoned. And President of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, whose economic policies have caused a man made famine , actually was allowed to give a speech at the World Food Summit , and was praised for his opposition to “importing unsafe food” (i.e. food aid that might include genetically modified grain).

Today’s Washington Post shows Americans are also uneasy about biotechnology, and most people are unaware that a large percentage of food ingested in the US has either GM food or comes from animals fed with GM feed. “Today, 89 percent of soybeans, 83 percent of cotton and 61 percent of corn is genetically engineered to resist weed-killing chemicals or to help the plants make their own insecticides…”

You see, in the practical world, the choices are GM food vs pesticide/herbicides and “ordinary” hybrid crops. But poor countries don’t have the choice for expensive “organic” food. The result of their “organic” food production is too often famine and malnutrition.

Yet biodiversity is an important issue, but should not be ignored. Indeed, newer rice variants have been devised by old fashioned methods that have many of the advantages of the GM type crops. Losing seeds long cultivated to thrive in specific climates and ecological niches would be a terrible loss, especially if a new “resistant” disease or insect appeared. The lessons of the potato famine of the 1840’s should remind us of the danger of monoculture crops.

As for us, our family grows organic rice and sell it at a premium. So I eat “organic”, because we eat our own food.

Yet the yield of our fields is lower than our neighbors, and if everyone went “organic”, the poor people would not have enough to eat. And as a doctor who has seen too many children die of malnutrition, I am not one to ignore crops that could be another “green revolution”.

Nancy Reyes is a retired physician living in the rural Philippines with her husband, six dogs, three cats, and a large extended family. Her blog is Finest Kind Clinic and Fishmarket. She also posts about African news at MugabeMakaipa Blogspot .

Posted by AC Baumer at 12:20 PM | Permalink

NZ Biotechnology
December 8, 2006

New Zealand biotechnology is in great shape and continues to play a critical part in New Zealand 's economy, contributing $300 million to $400 million each year, according to the New Zealand Biotechnology Industry Growth Report.

The report, being launched today, is a comprehensive analysis of the New Zealand biotechnology industry by respected international research company LEK Consulting, and ultimately will provide a robust baseline to measure the growth of this emerging sector.

It was commissioned by the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology (MoRST), New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE) and NZBio , New Zealand 's national biotechnology industry body.

Key findings show expenditure on biotechnology increased by 20 per cent between 2004 and 2005 to $640 million, with biotechnology export revenue increasing by 30 per cent over the same period.

The biotechnology industry now employs more than 2200 people in New Zealand . While the country's natural strengths in primary industries, forestry and horticulture shine through, New Zealand has a balanced biotechnology portfolio with an increasing focus on medical devices and diagnostics, human health applications and industrial biotechnology.

"The release of the Biotechnology Industry Growth Report is an important opportunity for New Zealand 's biotech sector to highlight its capabilities, strengths and some of the rapid developments taking place," says NZBio Chief Executive Officer Brian Ward.

"It also demonstrates the growing quality, activity, critical mass and increasing internationalisation in partnerships and business development activities."

New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Sector Director Biotechnology, Dr Chris Boalch, says the report confirms biotechnology as a growing industry that promises to contribute positively to New Zealand 's economic development in the future.

"It is interesting to see that more than 75 per cent of New Zealand biotech collaborations involve international organisations. The ease of doing business here, the fact New Zealand is very receptive to investment, and the collaborative and close-knit science community – it's all very attractive from an offshore perspective," says Dr Boalch.

" New Zealand biotechnology has some good runs on the board and the report is extremely positive as we build on these both domestically and on an international level."

MoRST's Director of Emerging Technologies, Dr George Slim, says it is good to see the biotechnology sector growing and having the sort of economic impact hoped for it.

"We are pleased to see the research we funded picked up and brought into the commercial world, and are committed to ensuring this continues to happen," says Dr Slim.

"It's a strong, thorough report, and it's good to have an organisation with that international viewpoint coming up with a positive report on New Zealand 's biotech sector."

A summary brochure and the full New Zealand Biotechnology Industry Growth Report and available online: www.nzbio.org.nz

Posted by AC Baumer at 11:31 AM | Permalink

By JANE NORMAN
DesMoine Register
December 5, 2006

Washington, D.C. – A congressional gold medal, the nation’s highest
civilian honor, would be awarded to Iowa native Norman Borlaug under a bill
approved today by the U.S. House.

Borlaug, 92, a native of Cresco, received the Nobel Prize in 1970 for his work in creating the “green revolution” in food production and increasing crop yields to feed a hungry world.

He now lives in College Station, Texas, but is still working for the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in Mexico and the Sasakawa Global 2000 program in Africa.

The legislation authorizing the medal has been approved by the Senate, so it will be sent to President Bush for his signature. The House gave its approval on a voice vote.

“Dr. Borlaug is responsible for saving a billion lives around the world,” said Rep. Tom Latham, R-Ia., who said he worked to ensure the bill was considered before Congress adjourns from its lame-duck session this week.

Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-Ia., said Borlaug was a leader in fighting world hunger. “With his research, billions of people around the world were fed. All Iowans should feel very proud today,” said Boswell.

Borlaug founded the World Food Prize, headquartered in Des Moines, in 1986. Ambassador Kenneth Quinn, president of the World Food Prize, said the medal will be a tribute to Borlaug’s legacy of feeding the world.

“It is said of Dr. Borlaug that he has saved more lives than any other person who has ever lived,” Quinn said.

The U.S. Mint will design and create a unique medal for Borlaug. He will join famous recipients including President George Washington, President Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Dr. Martin Luther King.

Posted by AC Baumer at 6:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)