“Veterinarians trained in healing modalities like acupuncture, homeopathy, chiropractic, herbology and nutrition make the best choices for those seeking optimum care for pets. These modalities can often be used to turn a pet’s health around when traditional and pharmaceutical methods fail. At home, there are many things that pet caregivers can do to jumpstart the process of treating animals holistically.”

RE: Veterinary Support for H 458/ S786, The Massachusetts Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act. There is ample scientific evidence to support prohibiting restrictive animal crating systems. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) concluded that calves must be able to at least comfortably turn around. And the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, which was funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts and Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, and included the former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, recommended against “all systems that restrict natural movement,” including gestation crates.

The confinement systems prohibited by this legislation are currently legal in Massachusetts. They allow producers to raise a greater number of animals on a smaller amount of land, resulting in a higher concentration of toxic animal waste, significant public health risks, and wide‐scale animal suffering. H 458/S 786 would protect the local agricultural brands and family farms of Massachusetts.  Eight other states have already passed similar laws and 89 percent of Massachusetts voters polled said they would support legislation to prohibit such intensive agricultural confinement systems. The bill is supported by a broad coalition of animal health, welfare and environmental organizations, including the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA), the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), The Humane League, Farm Forward and the Massachusetts Sierra Club.
We strongly encourage your passage of this common‐sense farm animal protection reform.

Thank goodness this type of farming is not used in Massachusetts but by having it not allowed in the state we can continue to improve the care that our farm animals are getting. This is just the start of reform in this area of animal husbandry and as the consumer demands more from markets like Whole Foods and others for compassionate and sustainable care for our farm animals we will become a better society. Large factory farms have animals as commodities and are not appreciating their lives as creatures with feelings. To have our food suffer from unnecessary pain and torture cannot be healthful to anyone. Having animals happy and healthy with less stress in their lives will make for better health for everyone.

RE: Veterinary Support for S 2192, An Act to Update the Municipal Animal Control Laws in Massachusetts support for S 2192,

S 2192 is a bill which would strengthen the dangerous dog law, improve the spay/neuter law for animal shelters, ensure that animal control officers receive professional training, update legal definitions pertaining to kennels, prevent the use of inhumane methods of euthanasia, and help Massachusetts municipalities save money by reducing the numbers of homeless animals under their care.
S 682 It also will address the link between animal abuse and child and domestic violence abuse, so as to protect animals if there is a restraining order against a family member, the animals will be protected as well.
S 2192 and S682 have been put forth by a broad coalition of animal health and welfare organizations, including the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA), the Animal Rescue League of Boston, the Animal Control Officers Association of Massachusetts (ACOAM), the Massachusetts Bureau of Animal Health, and the Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association (MVMA). It is also supported by MassFed.
We strongly encourage your passage of this important animal protection and public safety
legislation.

Wildlife Bills Concerning Trapping H3315 Inhumane Trapping Leghold, conibear body gripping traps that cause unnecessary animal suffering. 
H 3946 Sunday Hunting .. do not allow hunting on Sunday as to let others enjoy the outdoors during hunting season without the fear of guns and injury do to hunting.
H1998 Moose Hunting.. there are less than 1000 moose in the state and starting a hunting season will diminish the herds. Putting signage up warning about moose crossings will reduce moose and car interaction. You can contact your legislators in support of the the bills.

You can vote HERE and give him a 5 Star (“Awesome”) rating on the project!

He had cancer in his eye for 6 years and it had not been an issue causing pain until Jan 15 of ’04 and then he needed to have it out. When he was taken to Tufts they insisted he had cancer everywhere and needed to be euthanized immediately. While there they slandered my care and insisted that he was dying. The veterinary school doctors could not see any other way but euthanasia.

He was taken from there and got his eye surgery elsewhere. He lived 2 ½ years more, remarkably jumping in horse shows and enjoying his rides through the forest.

During that same visit at Tufts another pet caretaker had gotten permission for me to give my opinion on little Moto, a dachshund, about his kidney failure. When I was in there looking at the dog I was pulled out and told by someone,
“We don’t believe in anything that you do and if the dog gets better it is because of what we do and nothing you did.“

Even though many double blind cases were presented in 4 years of Complementary and Alternative courses were taught at the school. Both as former faculty, and as an attendee of these classes I had used many of those modalities on Champ.

Meanwhile, they used the surgery suite for a different horse. He was having exploratory surgery in the surgery suite for colic. When they found no surgical reason for it, they woke him up and dropped him. Breaking his leg, and then he was euthanized. I was pushed into a room and told to shut up after I saw what had occurred.

When I asked if anyone had even offered the owners of this horse any alternative intervention on the colic case, and mentioned the success of another university using acupuncture to treat colic, the answer again was to produce these double blind studies. Even though many cases had been presented at Tufts, I was still treated with disrespect and unprofessionally.

The proof of the better care was the return of Champ to a full life. The surgeon who eventually took Champs eye could not believe they refused to do the surgery and only offered euthanasia.

I wanted a peer review from the Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association. It didn’t happen until over 3 years later, as they managed to side step the issue not wanting to confront Tufts.

Fifteen months after the incident Tufts was having a lecture on “The Hazards of Feeding Raw Food to Your Pets”. The lecture was advertised to the general public as a free lecture open to all. It was not Continuing Education and had no fee. In fact a public lecture did not have a record of who was attending. Nevertheless, at the entrance to the event I was threatened with arrest and handcuffing for just coming to the door of the lecture.

My knowledge that Tufts gets state and federal funding and that their nutrition department is paid by dog food companies must have been something they wanted to keep quiet. The lecture opposed raw diets. They thought that somehow my attendance would be so threatening to them that they violated my civil rights of Freedom of Speech.

When I told the Dean that they were stopping freedom of speech and I was not afraid to sue them. He said “You sue us we will squish you like a bug. We have so much money and such deep pockets we will outspend and hire more attorneys and say terrible things about you“.

I did sue the anyways. The ACLU even wrote a brief in support of the case. On the date which the statute limitations was to run out, since no peer review ever happened, I filed a suit against Tufts.

It has gone all the way to the Supreme Court Of Massachusetts where it failed due to the veterinary bill being an issue. That was never why I was treated so unprofessionally and the freedom of speech was not addressed. So we are appealing. The case has more specifics and details in previous blogs.

Many of you have mentioned how upset you are from hearing about Dr. Margo Roman’s legal case. When accounting the failure of the court to take up the free speech aspect in Dr. Margo’s case against Tufts, it demonstrates how far apart the veterinary school is philosophically from todays pet consumer.

As we all sit here in Massachusetts, we rest upon the laurels of the work that was done before us. We are supposedly the most liberal, progressive, and forward thinking people there are. We have hospitals, clinics and universities that compete with the best in the world.

We are also spiritually descended from civil libertarians, and before that people who engaged in civil disobedience. How is it that we have ended up just following instructions being shepherded along by allopathic veterinarians who because of their limited exposure to other caring options and cannot offer the full range of treatments available?  For example, you would think that euthanasia is a last resort after all options have been explored, but all too often it isn’t.

Animals can’t speak for themselves, but we can infer from the ones who survive hurricanes and tornados and then walk home with broken legs, that if given a choice, the animals would choose to survive. Humans do not get euthanized when they loose an eye, and yet Haiti the Hawk was, and Champ Dr. Margo’s horse almost was. Those doctors were so self assured in their arrogance that they were the ones who were blinded? Humans are not electively euthanized because they have cancer, if they can have good care, and live with it, each day of life is valued and respected.

The answers for most of the horror stories we hear are often something simple. Many caretakers know how to make wholesome meals and home remedies to raise his or her family, and those same healthful things are most often true for the needs of our pets. But allopathic vets rely on the information they get from the corporate pet food industry and they don’t want you to know that. They want you to swallow their prepackaged solutions, and ignore dangerous side effects from some prescription drugs and inferior quality pet foods. Holistic care is logical and makes sense. Giving the body a chance to repair itself with support from quality nutrition, herbs, homeopathy, acupuncture and an array of other positive caring modalities, has been used for hundreds to thousands of years. Integrated healthcare should be accessible to everyone and their pets.

Why do we have to drive an hour or two from many points in Massachusetts to find a holistic veterinarian? Because what we have is veterinarians whose training is paid for in part by pharmaceutical companies. Universities like Tufts appear to be hand in hand with corporations whose main interest is the latest promotion, which brings them profit, and is not always the best for the health of animals.

Instead, in many cases pet parents know more about holistic remedies and alternatives than some otherwise well intentioned vets who have been indoctrinated since medical school that these drugs and those methods are the one and only way. The cycle continues as graduated vets get continuing education which is subsidized, free products and other perks from big pharmaceutical and pet food companies. They get perks from them, and so sell those products, never knowing that there are better alternatives.

We, the public now know better. We are beginning to demand more from our pet food companies, and our vets. We are tired of cats with urinary tracts that are damaged from commercial cat food. We are heartbroken over dogs who have dog food allergies and skin problems then get reactions to the foods. We have put up with enough of our animals having upset stomaches from bad foods, indiscriminate dosing with pesticides, and inoculations that are unnecessary that may cause illness and cancer. These few issues alone have become as well known as internet Memes due to the public, not vets, having these discussions.

For many years Dr. Margo has been trying to open the minds of Veterinary Teaching Universities such as Tufts. Her expectations are high, she believes that veterinary education should be on the cutting edge. It should be the highest level of openness and collaboration to find the best solutions. Veterinary Schools like Western University, Atlantic Veterinary School in PEI and Colorado State have integrative medicine classes and also allows students to get credits to take these integrative course outside the college? Tufts is behind the curve, anxiously holding on to their Big Pharma patrons, like an allopathic mafia where no one leaves The Firm.

Integrated medicine saves animals from pain, accelerates healing, and takes the best from both aspects of medicine. No vet should be denying those alternatives. Acupuncture, herbs, homeopathy, nutrition and ozone are part of a total medical care and healing experience. Leaving them out as options can ignore the needs of clients and their animals.

Would you like to help or share your story? Dr. Margo is looking for volunteers to help out. Do you have an allopathic vet story that shows lack of openness for total care? We need more people to help with many pet activism projects. Let us know please send email mashvet@verizon.net

We are starting a legal defense fund to help Dr. Margo keep working to make this freedom for quality healthcare a reality. (So support her efforts and donate. ~MASH Geek)

There was a lot of interest in the Calendar and the hope was to get creative ads for the upcoming 2013 project. A lot of gluten free goods which are good for pets were represented. Enterprising companies have seen the demands of consumers for more products using coconut, chia and organic berries and juices.

Natural cleaning products were on my list to add to the new Dr.ShowMore 2013 highlighting sustainable green medicine. When it comes to cleaning products the chemicals that are in the products will get absorbed through the skin and lungs of both you and your pet. Dogs and cats will lick their paws and bodies and if they are lying on floors and carpets that were cleaned with un-natural solvents or toxic chemicals those will be absorbed into the pets. BPA is another chemical found in the lining of pet food cans and we need to be looking for companies that do not have BPA in their products. It is hard to see that since it is not on their radar and it needs to be.

I was able to attend the lecture of Kathleen Merrigan who is the Agriculture Deputy Secretary of the USDA who presented the new governmental website: Know Your Farmer Know Your Food which will be covering sustainability of local farms. There is a whole department that addresses organic production and regulations. I gave Secretary Merrigan a copy of both the 2011 Dr ShowMore Calendar and the Dr.DoMore Film preview in hopes that she will read and watch these an see the need for Integrative holistic care for animals. This would reduce the antibiotic overuse and keep animals healthier and treatment more sustainable and humane.

While in San Diego prior to the expo I had a chance to see Tamara Hebblers practice in San Diego, called Healing Hope. She is now doing ozone therapy along with homeopathy, gemmatherapy, nutrition, acupuncture and herbs, I had a chance to visit with Jan Rasmusen author of Scared Poopless. A wonderful book about integrative care for dogs. It is cleverly written by her dogs Jiggy and Chicklet two adorable maltese. Since Chicklet’s recent passing Jan has rescued Rascal another adorable maltese in which she cares and feeds in a totally wholistic way.

I was also able to stop at the Joan Woodward Animal Shelter in Ranch Sante Fe and see this outstanding Rescue and placement center. They have both horses and dogs and cats and have just built a state of the art veterinary center. This is the most plush and organized shelter I have ever seen. It has been around for over 35 years and because of generous gifts from animal caring folks it has been a model for others. My son and his girlfriend even adopted their wonderful dog Lola from Woodward. The shelter was given a copy of Dr.DoMore and Dr.ShowMore 2011 to hopefully inspire the powers that be who look at the medical needs of these animals. With hopes that they too may be inclusive of Integrative therapies, which will help them save lives and save more funds so they can save more lives.

Champ nine months after Tufts wanted to euthanize him.

If asked, “After all, Tufts Veterinary School has done negative to me why should (I sic.) even care?”

They did accuse me of cruelty and worse, by not euthanizing my horse since they said he was dying of cancer. But he lived another 2 and 1/2 years.

They stated that if an animal in their care got better, and I was called in to help it was only what they did that would ever help that animal.

They dis-regarded my letters and email updates on Champ’s care with all his herbs and O3 therapy and refused acknowledge that he was thriving and doing well for 2 and 1/2 years.

They threatened to arrest me for going to a public lecture a the “Hazards of Feeding Raw Food” that was not CE and I was given permission to go to.

They do not allow students of the public to get information that is contrary to where they get corporate funds. The Big Pharma and Dog food companies own them.

The Dean said something to the effect of, if I tried to challenge to their freedom of speech at University they would squish me like a bug and that they had deep pockets and could out hire attorneys and say terrible things about me.

I spent $60,000 of my own funds to stand up to their bully behavior and ask for freedom of speech all the way to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

So Why do I still keep on striving for progress?

I was in the first faculty of Tufts Veterinary School from 1979-1987 where I taught anatomy.

I was chosen by the students to be the AVMA faculty liaison to the students and won accolades from the students as an outstanding teacher.

I lost some of my health as I developed asthma and almost lost my pregnancy from the formaldehyde from the anatomy lab. In 1981 started hemorrhaging and had to stay in bed for 3 months so not to loose the pregnancy.

I helped get many important donation of surgical lamps, tables, anesthesia machines and all types of equipment for the surgical hospital in Grafton.

I taught an acupuncture and applied anatomy classes to students after regular class, and students to this day still thank me for the exposure.

Each year for 10 more years I returned to Tufts anatomy and volunteered giving applied anatomy, acupuncture and Chiropractic anatomy.

I sent over $300,000 a year of referrals to their Foster Small Animal Hospital from my clinic MASH.

I helped teach two of the Acupuncture Courses offered in 2000 and 2001.

So I gave many of my years in support of the University as It needed to be the best.

And they treated me like this?

I still want them to be the best and I see where they can be better but they are too “All Knowing” to stop and see if there are other ways for them to help animals.

They are so caught up in keeping the corporations happy and only waiting to treat animals with “Evidence based double placebo blind studies” that they are denying care to cases that have shown anecdotal medical improvement. They would rather euthanize than offer any of those opportunities.

They said in 2000 that Complementary and Alternative Veterinary Medicine would be part of the curriculum at the Veterinary School and they have really fallen short on offering any of these topics in the school.

Tufts can do better by their students and the animals that they treat.

That is why I keep working toward the positive… I hope that someday they will stop their arrogance and realize how much we need to work together for the best for our patients. Bottom line we have so much to learn and each time our mind is open to ideas the more opportunity we have to make strides to improve healthcare. People love their pets and want the best and the best includes all ways to help their pets heal.

NOTICE: The slip opinions and orders posted on this Web site are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. This preliminary material will be removed from the Web site once the advance sheets of the Official Reports are published. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

Margo ROMAN vs. TRUSTEES OF TUFTS COLLEGE & others. [FN1]

SJC-10822.

May 3, 2011. – March 21, 2012.

Massachusetts Civil Rights Act. Constitutional Law, Freedom of speech and press. Civil Rights, Availability of remedy. Emotional Distress. Negligence, Standard of care. Veterinarian. Practice, Civil, Civil rights, Summary judgment.

CIVIL ACTION commenced in the Superior Court Department on January 29, 2007.

The case was heard by Mitchell H. Kaplan, J., on a motion for summary judgment.

The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.

John J. Finn (Michael A. Finn with him) for the plaintiff.

Scott P. Lewis (Dickens Mathieu with him) for the defendants.

David Himelfarb & John Reinstein, for American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.

Alan D. Rose & Lisa A. Tenerowicz, for Babson College & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief.

Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.

DUFFLY, J.

The plaintiff, Margo Roman, appeals from a Superior Court judge’s order granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on her complaint alleging violations of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, G.L. c. 12, §§ 11H and 11I(act). [FN2], [FN3] Roman contends that she had a right, secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by art. 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, to attend a lecture that was open to the public, held on the campus of the defendant Tufts, [FN4] and that Tufts and defendant Susan Brogan violated the act when they excluded Roman from the lecture. We conclude that the circumstances of Roman’s exclusion from the lecture did not amount to an interference with any claimed free speech right, and thus that the allowance of summary judgment on this claim was proper. We conclude also that the allowance of summary judgment for the defendants on Roman’s claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence was correct.

Background. We summarize the undisputed facts drawn from the summary judgment record. Roman is a veterinarian with a private practice focused on integrative medicine, a specialty that combines conventional veterinary medicine with alternative treatments such as holistic medicine, homeopathy, and herbal remedies. In 1997, Roman discovered a small lesion on the third eyelid [FN5] of her horse, Champ, that she diagnosed as either a benign sarcoid tumor or a malignant squamous cell carcinoma. She treated the lesion with a variety of alternative therapies. By January, 2004, the lesion had grown, and Champ’s entire eye had become painful and infected. Roman contacted defendant Isabel Jurk, a veterinary ophthalmologist at Tufts, seeking surgical removal of the eye.

Roman brought Champ to Tufts on January 30, 2004. Jurk diagnosed Champ’s lesion as an invasive squamous cell carcinoma that had metastasized. She conferred with defendant Stephen Rowell, the hospital director at Tufts, who agreed with Jurk’s preliminary diagnosis and her medical determination that surgery was not appropriate for Champ at that time. Rowell and Jurk met with Roman to provide their preliminary diagnosis and to seek permission to conduct a biopsy. At this meeting, Rowell and Jurk expressed concern over Champ’s condition, and discussed the possibility of palliative euthanasia. They also expressed concern about the quality of Roman’s care for Champ and whether Roman’s integrative medicine practice and treatments fell below accepted standards of veterinary care. Roman rejected the recommendation of palliative euthanasia and ultimately removed Champ from the hospital. [FN6]

In the months that followed, Roman refused to pay Tufts for the services rendered to Champ. On December 14, 2004, Rowell sent Roman a letter stating, in relevant part:

“Until and unless this debt is resolved, you will be unable to obtain any medical or other services through the School. This will include any treatment for your own animals, continuing education, or any other service that the School might provide to you personally.”

On May 17, 2005, Tufts, through its office of continuing education, presented a publicly advertised lecture on its campus entitled, “Dangers of Feeding Your Pet a Raw Diet.” [FN7] Roman, who is an advocate of raw food diets for animals, sought to attend the lecture; at the time, she still had not paid her bill for services rendered to Champ. When Roman arrived at the lecture hall, Brogan, Tufts’s assistant director of continuing education, recognized her. Brogan had had at least one prior conversation with Rowell in which Rowell informed Brogan that Roman was ineligible for continuing education services at Tufts and could not attend the lecture. [FN8] Standing outside the lecture hall, Brogan told Roman, “you can’t come in here,” and, “[i]f you come in here, we’ll have you arrested.” Roman then approached a Tufts police officer, who stated, “if [Brogan] says that I’m to arrest you, then I will arrest you,” and, “[i]f you don’t leave the building now, I’m going to arrest you.” At that point, no other reason was provided to Roman for her exclusion from the lecture. Roman ultimately left the Tufts campus.

Roman filed a complaint in the Superior Court contending that the May 17, 2005, lecture was open to the public, that she had a constitutional right to attend, and that the actions of the defendants in excluding her from the lecture constituted “threats, intimidation or coercion” in violation of G.L. c. 12, § 11H. In addition, the complaint asserted claims for defamation, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence in the defendants’ treatment of Champ. A Superior Court judge allowed the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all counts. Roman appealed from the allowance of summary judgment on her claims of civil rights violations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. We transferred the case to this court on our own motion.

Discussion. 1. Standard of review. “The standard of review of a grant of summary judgment is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, all material facts have been established and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Kennie v. Natural Resource Dep’t of Dennis, 451 Mass. 754, 759 (2008), quoting Augat, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 410 Mass. 117, 120 (1991). A nonmoving party’s failure to establish an essential element of her claim “renders all other facts immaterial” and mandates summary judgment in favor of the moving party. Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp., 410 Mass. 706, 711 (1991), citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). See Mass. R. Civ. P. 56(c), as amended, 436 Mass. 1404 (2002). Our review is de novo, Matthews v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., 426 Mass. 122, 123 n. 1 (1997), and we may affirm the judgment on any ground supported by the record. See Foster v. Group Health Inc., 444 Mass. 668, 672 (2005).

2. Claims under the act. In order to establish a claim under the act, Roman “must prove that (1)[her] exercise [or] enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution or the laws of either the United States or the Commonwealth, (2) have been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with, and (3) that the interference or attempted interference was by threats, intimidation or coercion.” Kennie v. Natural Resource Dep’t of Dennis, supra, quoting Buster v. George W. Moore, Inc., 438 Mass. 635, 644 (2003).

Roman maintains that the defendants’ actions in excluding her from the lecture on May 17, 2005, interfered with rights secured by the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech”) and art. 16 (“[t]he right of free speech shall not be abridged”), and that this interference was by “threats, intimidation or coercion” and therefore a violation of the act. [FN9] We address first whether Roman’s claim meets the threshold requirement that the asserted free speech rights be “secured by” the Constitution of the United States or the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

We observe that the nature of the asserted free speech right is itself unclear. In her memorandum of law opposing the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Roman focused on a right to attend the lecture and possibly participate in the question-and-answer period that was to follow. During the hearing on that motion, Roman argued that her claim encompassed a right to attend the lecture and receive speech, separate from the potential opportunity to speak during the question-and-answer session; the judge denied Roman’s motion to supplement her memorandum to reflect this argument. In her briefs to this court, Roman limits her asserted right to that of attending the lecture, which she characterizes as an independent right to receive speech. Although the defendants argue that Roman has waived any claim involving a right to receive information, attendance at the lecture is necessary in order to possibly be called upon in a question-and-answer session. Thus, we consider Roman’s claim as encompassing an asserted right to attend a lecture on Tufts’s private property to which the public was invited.

It is well established that the First Amendment protects speech rights only against government infringement. Commonwealth v. Hood, 389 Mass. 581, 584 (1983). Except where a private property owner’s activities rise to the level of State action, the First Amendment does not prohibit speech limitations by an owner of private property, even where that property is open to the public, such as a shopping mall that serves the same purposes as a city business district. See, e.g., Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Bd., 424 U.S. 507, 519 (1976); Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 567 (1972); Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 508-509 (1946). See also PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 81 (1980), quoting Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, supra at 569 (1972) (“property does not ‘lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes’ “). However, it is also well established that State Constitutions may protect individual liberties with rights that are “more expansive than those conferred by the Federal Constitution.” PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, supra.

Although in many circumstances we have interpreted the rights guaranteed by art. 16 as being coextensive with the First Amendment, see, e.g., Opinion of the Justices, 430 Mass. 1205, 1209 n. 3 (2000), citing Walker v. Georgetown Hous. Auth., 424 Mass. 671, 674 (1997), and Colo v. Treasurer & Receiver Gen., 378 Mass. 550, 558 (1979), we have rejected the assertion that art. 16 can “extend no further than the comparable provisions of the First Amendment.” Batchelder v. Allied Stores Int’l, Inc., 388 Mass. 83, 89 n. 8 (1983), S. C., 393 Mass. 319 (1985), quoting Commonwealth v. Noffke, 376 Mass. 127, 134 (1978). Moreover, we have cited with approval cases in other jurisdictions where courts have concluded that their State Constitutions protect the exercise of free speech rights on private university property against private actors. Batchelder v. Allied Stores Int’l, Inc., supra at 90-91 (discussing State v. Schmid, 84 N.J. 535 [1980], appeal dismissed sub nom. Princeton Univ. v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100 [1982], and Commonwealth v. Tate, 495 Pa. 158, 173 [1981] ). Nonetheless, we have left open the question– and expressed caution in addressing–whether art. 16 itself extends to speech on private property, id. at 88-89, 91-92, as such an interpretation necessarily limits to some degree the property or free speech rights of the property owner.

We need not resolve the question in this case. Even if we were to conclude that protections of art. 16 extend to actions of private individuals, any restriction on a private actor’s ability to limit a person’s free speech rights would necessarily be no more extensive than the restrictions imposed on government actors. Because we conclude that a government actor could not be said to have “interfered with” Roman’s purported free speech right in these circumstances, it follows that the conduct of Tufts, a private actor, likewise did not interfere with any such right.

To address the exercise of First Amendment speech rights on government property, the United States Supreme Court has developed the public forum doctrine. “[T]he extent to which the Government may limit access [to those seeking to exercise protected speech in a particular forum on government property] depends on whether the forum is public or nonpublic.” Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 797 (1985). In a nonpublic forum, restrictions need only be “reasonable and … not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker’s view.” Id. at 800, quoting Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 46 (1983). Where the forum is public, the extent to which the government may permissibly limit speech depends on the nature of the property and the extent to which the public has been given access to the forum. See Christian Legal Soc’y Chapter of the Univ. of Cal., Hastings College of the Law v. Martinez, 130 S.Ct. 2971, 2984 n. 11 (2010) (Christian Legal Society ).

Under First Amendment jurisprudence, there are three categories of public forums: traditional public forums, such as public streets and parks; designated public forums, which the government has opened for use by the public as a place to assemble or debate; and limited public forums, which are “limited to use by certain groups or dedicated solely to the discussion of certain subjects.” Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 470 (2009). In traditional or designated public forums, the government may impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the exercise of free speech rights, but any such restriction must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. Id. at 469. In a limited public forum, however, regulations need only be “reasonable and viewpoint neutral.” [FN10] Id. at 470.

Had the lecture at issue here occurred on public property, Roman’s claim of access could have been no greater than to that of a limited public forum. Although Tufts advertised the lecture on its Web site, in newspapers, and in fliers placed in local stores as being open to the public and free of charge, the scope of the invitation was quite plainly “dedicated solely to the discussion of certain subjects.” Id.

In a limited public forum, “a less restrictive level of scrutiny [is applied than in a traditional public forum]“; restrictions on speech need only be reasonable and neutral as to content and viewpoint. Christian Legal Society, supra at 2984 n. 11, 2985, 2993-2994. A policy or regulation that limits expression is deemed viewpoint neutral if it “serves purposes unrelated to the content of expression …, even if it has an incidental effect on some speakers or messages but not others.” Id. at 2994, quoting Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989). Moreover, restrictions on access to a limited public forum “need not be the most reasonable or the only reasonable limitation.” Id. at 2992, quoting Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and Educ. Fund, Inc., supra at 808. Indeed, a “defining characteristic” of a limited public forum is that the forum may be reserved “for certain groups.” See id. at 2985, quoting Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995). The reasonableness of a given limitation may be gauged in part by the alternatives that remain available for exercising free speech. See Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, supra at 53- 54.

Under this analysis, Roman has not established on the summary judgment record that Tufts excluded her from the May 17 lecture based on a policy that was not reasonable and that was not content- and viewpoint-neutral. It is undisputed that, after Roman obtained veterinarian services at Tufts for her horse, she did not pay her bill, and that Tufts sent her a letter, which she received, advising her that “[u]ntil and unless” her debt to Tufts was resolved, she would be “unable to obtain any medical or other services through [Tufts],” including “continuing education, or any other service.” The policy expressed in this letter was clear and reasonable: Tufts conditioned the continued utilization of services and access to its facilities, including participation in continuing education offerings and attendance at lectures, on the payment in full of Roman’s outstanding obligations for services rendered by Tufts. [FN11] The policy was also content- and viewpoint-neutral. “It [did] not reflect a judgment by school officials about the substance of any [person's] speech. Nor [did] it exclude any [people] on the basis of their convictions.” See Christian Legal Society, supra at 2996 (Stevens, J., concurring). The restriction imposed by Tufts served its interest in fiscal integrity and was unrelated to the content of Roman’s speech. See id. at 2994, citing Ward v. Rock Against Racism, supra at 791.

Roman suggests that, in deciding to exclude her from the lecture, the defendants were motivated impermissibly by personal animus toward her, or because they disagreed with her views on integrative medicine and raw food diets. The personal views of the defendants have no impact on the question whether the policy itself was content- and viewpoint-neutral. To the extent that Roman is claiming that the facially-neutral policy was invoked only to exclude those sharing her views, but not invoked against debtor clients whose views were consistent with those presented at the lecture, she has offered no evidence that anyone else with an outstanding and overdue debt attended or sought to attend the lecture. [FN12]

Moreover, Roman has not established that Tufts’s content-neutral policy created an unreasonable restriction on the free speech rights she asserts. To the extent that Roman sought only to receive the information being disseminated at the lecture, she does not argue that the information was unavailable through alternative means, such as articles in print or available over the Internet, attendance at lectures on other campuses, or direct communication with the speaker. See Christian Legal Society, supra at 2991 (public law school’s policy limiting official recognition to student organizations that did not discriminate was reasonable restriction on access to limited public forum, where other available avenues, including electronic media and social networking Web sites, were available for exercise of First Amendment rights); Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, supra at 53-54 (restrictions on school mail system reasonable where union had other means, such as bulletin boards, to communicate with teachers); Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828, 839 (1976) (Federal military reservation regulations banning partisan political speeches did not impermissibly infringe rights of Armed Forces members, who were free as individuals to attend political rallies out of uniform and off base). Similarly, to the extent Roman sought to participate in the question-and-answer period, had she been called on, she could have posed her questions directly to the speaker, a Tufts professor, outside the forum in which that particular lecture was held. See Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 827-828 (1974) (regulation limiting media access to prison inmates did not unconstitutionally infringe prisoners’ First Amendment rights because alternative means of communication were available by mail and through visitors).

Therefore, even assuming that Roman had a free speech right “secured” under art. 16 and enforceable under the act against Tufts, and that, in advertising and conducting its lecture on raw foods, Tufts did create in its lecture hall a situation akin to a limited public forum, our conclusion that Tufts excluded Roman from the lecture on a permissible basis necessarily forecloses Roman’s claim that any asserted speech right was “interfered with” for purposes of the act. Since Roman cannot establish an essential element of her claim, the judge did not err in allowing summary judgment for the defendants.

3. Intentional infliction of emotional distress. Roman argues that the motion judge erred in concluding that the individual named defendants’ conduct at Tufts on January 30, 2004, and at the lecture on May 17, 2005, was, as a matter of law, not extreme and outrageous. There was no error.

“To sustain a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must show (1) that the defendant intended to cause, or should have known that his conduct would cause, emotional distress; (2) that the defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) that the defendant’s conduct caused the plaintiff’s distress; and (4) that the plaintiff suffered severe distress.” Sena v. Commonwealth, 417 Mass. 250, 263-264 (1994), citing Agis v. Howard Johnson Co., 371 Mass. 140, 144-145 (1976). Liability for “extreme and outrageous” conduct “cannot be predicated upon ‘mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities,’ nor even is it enough ‘that the defendant … has intended to inflict emotional distress, or even that his conduct has been characterized by ‘malice,’ or a degree of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort’; rather, ‘[l]iability [may be] found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.’ ” Foley v. Polaroid Corp., 400 Mass. 82, 99 (1987), quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 comment d (1965).

“In considering whether a plaintiff has made out a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, we have said that the trier of fact ‘would be entitled to put as harsh a face on the [defendant's actions] as the basic facts would reasonably allow.’ ” Id. at 100, quoting Richey v. American Auto. Ass’n, 380 Mass. 835, 839 (1980). Even when considered in this light, however, the record here would not permit a reasonable jury to find that the defendants’ conduct was extreme and outrageous. Roman’s claims as to the defendants’ actions on January 30, 2004, at most involve their accusations of “cruelty” and “malpractice,” cursing, and an order to “shut up,” as well as “eye rolling” and statements that were generally dismissive of Roman’s integrative veterinary practices. Such conduct falls within the realm of “insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities” that fail to “go beyond all possible bounds of decency.” Id. at 99.

Similarly, nothing in the summary judgment record suggests that Brogan did more than tell Roman to vacate the Tufts premises on the night of the May 17, 2005, lecture, and state that if Roman did not comply, she would be arrested. Brogan’s conduct does not approach the type of behavior that could be considered “extreme and outrageous.” See Sena v. Commonwealth, supra at 263-264.

4. Negligence. Roman asserted claims of negligence against defendants Jurk, Rowell, and Tufts [FN13] for their failure to perform surgery on Champ on January 30, 2004. To prove that a veterinarian was negligent in the care provided, a plaintiff must show that such care deviated from the reasonable standard of care within the profession. See Kippenberger v. Board of Reg. in Veterinary Med., 448 Mass. 1035, 1036 (2007); Fitzgerald v. Board of Reg. in Veterinary Med., 399 Mass. 901, 904-905 (1987). Even if Roman could surmount this hurdle, she was required also to show a resulting harm from any such deviation; on this record, she has failed to establish any harm. Roman remained free to, and did, take Champ to another veterinarian to pursue the course of treatment she believed most appropriate.

Judgment affirmed.

FN1. Steven L. Rowell, Isabel R. Jurk, and Susan Brogan.

FN2. We acknowledge the amicus brief of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts in support of the plaintiff, and the brief of amici curiae Babson College, Bentley University, Boston College, Boston University, Brandeis University, Emerson College, Regis College, Simmons College, Stonehill College, Suffolk University, and Williams College in support of the defendants.

FN3. The plaintiff appeals also from the allowance of summary judgment on her claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence.

FN4. For simplicity, we refer to the Trustees of Tufts College, Tufts University, and the Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University in Grafton as Tufts.

FN5. The third eyelid, or nictitating membrane, is a transparent inner eyelid present in some animals that helps protect and moisten the eye. See Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 1526 (1993).

FN6. According to the complaint, Champ’s eye was removed in May, 2004, by another veterinarian; Champ lived until July, 2006.

FN7. The lecture was advertised in fliers containing a telephone number for the office of continuing education. According to her deposition testimony, Roman called the telephone number listed on the flier and spoke to an unidentified woman. In response to Roman’s inquiry, the woman stated that the lecture was open to the general public, and that no continuing education credits would be given for it.

FN8. Both Brogan and Rowell knew that Roman was an advocate of raw food diets and that she might have an interest in attending the lecture.

FN9. General Laws c. 12, § 11H, defines violations as occurring

“[w]henever any person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interfere by threats, intimidation or coercion, or attempt to interfere by threats, intimidation or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any other person or persons of rights secured by the constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights secured by the constitution or laws of the commonwealth….”

General Laws c. 12, § 11I, permits the filing of a civil action for compensatory damages, or injunctive or equitable relief by

“[a]ny person whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights secured by the constitution or laws of the commonwealth, has been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with, as described in section 11H….”

FN10. In the context of private property, a public forum analysis would also have to balance the competing constitutional interests involving the property, liberty, and speech interests of the property owner on the one hand, and the free speech and related rights of those seeking access to the property or forum on the other. Cf. State v. Schmid, 84 N.J. 535, 563-564 (1980), appeal dismissed sub nom. Princeton Univ. v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100 (1982) (establishing test under State Constitution, grounded in Federal public forum analysis, which balances factors such as nature of private property, extent of public invitation, and purpose for which expressive activity is undertaken; and deciding that public presence within university is consonant with university’s expressed educational mission); Commonwealth v. Tate, 495 Pa. 158, 173 (1981) (setting forth test under State Constitution, based on Federal public forum framework, that balances private property rights with speech rights “in light of the compatibility of that expression” with given forum).

FN11. Roman suggests that the scope of the exclusionary policy is in fact unclear and that, therefore, a material dispute of fact exists as to the nature of the policy. She bases this assertion in part on evidence that when she placed a telephone call to the office of continuing education, someone there confirmed that the lecture was open to the public free of charge, and that no credits were being offered. Roman’s solicitation of this information did not address the scope of her exclusion from Tufts’s services.

FN12. The closest the record comes to establishing a discriminatory application of the neutral policy is Rowell’s deposition testimony stating that “[Tufts] had not made any specific prohibition to anyone else that they couldn’t receive continuing education or other services.”

FN13. It appears that the claim of negligence against Tufts was brought under a theory of traditional respondeat superior liability. See Dias v. Brigham Med. Assoc., Inc., 438 Mass. 317, 318-322 (2002).

Dr. Roman wrote this comment about the article:

I feel this was an important case to highlight the need for some level of accountability from the universities who, because of financial incentives, are beholden to “Big Pharma” and the large corporate funds from the pet food industry. It is also a case that showed without a doubt that Integrative Veterinary Medicine saved the life of Champ – a 26 year-old beloved Morgan Horse.

It is very disappointing that the Court based its decision on the dispute over the bill Tufts submitted, rather than reach the First Amendment issues that, at some time, must be resolved. I have no doubt that my exclusion from the lecture on raw diet was based on my views on this issue, which are contrary to those that would be offered at the lecture. (The large corporate food companies subsidize the views at Tufts on this issue and their nutrition department). The Court ignored the fact that I specifically asked about the lecture on May 17, 2005. When I called the continuing education office prior to the event I asked specifically if this was a continuing education class or course with credit. The official said “no, this is not CE and it is free and open to everyone. Please come.” When asked if they needed to know who was coming or how many were coming, her reply was “everyone was welcome and there are no restrictions.” The restrictions that I received in the letter cited by the Court was that I would not be able to take any more continuing education classes.

I was in then involved in a dispute with Tufts over the veterinary bill, and it was in the hands of the director of the Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association, waiting for a peer review hearing addressing the unprofessional treatment that I received at the University. As a former Tufts Veterinary Faculty from 1979-86, I called the dean, Dr. Kosch after the threatened arrest. I told him that I was so insulted by an arrest attempt and saw a violation of freedom of speech and I was not afraid to sue them for civil rights violation. His reply: “If you sue us we will crush you like a bug; we have such deep pockets. We can outspend you in lawyers. We will find people to say terrible things about you.” To me that was a real case of bullying. The other universities that signed on with this case have deep pockets too. I only had the ACLU and my counsel.

The only treatment plan that Tufts doctors had recommended for my daughter’s and my horse Champ was euthanasia. We had rescued Champ at the age of 16. He was very sick at the time and they wanted to possibly euthanize him, but with integrative veterinary care his health improved and he soon became my daughter’s show horse. At the age of 20, he was diagnosed with cancer; however, we treated him with integrative veterinary medicine for 6 years – proving that you can live with cancer. The fact that I wanted to have his eye removed was considered by the Tufts doctors to be cruel.

Yet, the fact that that Champ lived another 2 1/2 years after the removal of his eye, with cancer and was back up and jumping in horse shows at 27 years of age attested to the failure of diagnosis by the Tufts doctors; contrary to their diagnosis, he was not dying of metastatic cancer at that point, and was instead still capable of having a wonderful life. For the remainder of Champ’s life, he continued to enjoy a “quality of life”, his health was not compromised and I and others, who loved him, were able to ride him 3-4 times a week.

Animals and humans can live with cancer for years and have quality of life. We should not only choose euthanasia when an animal has cancer.

It is unprecedented to be threatened with arrest for not paying a veterinary bill and/or coming onto campus and attending something sponsored at/by Tufts. There was never any attempt to check if any other attendee at the lecture had not paid their veterinary bill, (and it is common knowledge that there are hundreds of people who have not paid their Tufts bills).

My concern for this civil rights issue remains. If someone does not agree with a view being presented by a university, should they be removed from voicing a different view? This is particularly so where the views expressed by the university are being supported by funds from a private corporation whose financial interests are being advanced. Because there is so much money at stake, the universities cannot afford to allow freedom of information to be expressed. The public lecture, from which I was excluded, concerned the “Hazards of Feeding Raw Foods to your Pets.” Hundreds of my clients feed organic, whole food with fresh vegetables and raw meat to their dogs and cats. They are conscientious and implement a balanced diet plan with huge success. It is probably one of the most positive ways to improve the health of an animal, that is, to get back to natural diets without all the preservatives, dyes, processing and flavor enhancers. However, dog food companies like Hills, Purina and Iams do not promote this type of diet, which would have a negative financial impact on their bottom line – and these large companies fund the nutritional department at Tufts as well as most other veterinary schools.

We need to have something positive come out of this court case. I have been studying both alternative and complementary as well as allopathic veterinary medicine and nutrition for over 35 years. I lecture nationally and internationally. I am always learning and keeping my mind open to new ideas and looking at the older ideas that have proven track records. Veterinarians and veterinary students need to see all the options in healthcare and should be able to decide which of these options may help the animals in their care. If one cannot get the exposure to these options, then they are being denied the information that could provide patients with life saving opportunities.

So let’s call for an openness of minds for the betterment of the health of both humans and animals.

These issues are in the forefront of my mind and many others as well and we want to make positive changes in the veterinary and animal caretaker world. Another concerned individual and myself have spear- headed a nonprofit The Center for Integrative Veterinary Care which does educational outreach concerning these issues. Our project is getting momentum and visibility. For all wanting to track our progress these are the websites, you can see www.drshowmore.org and my clinic site www.mashvet.com where you can see the most current version of Dr.DoMore. (Instead of Dr. Do Little) and contribute to our Blog and Facebook networking. It will hopefully become the instrument for positive change, as we need to Do More in Healthcare.

Cry1Ab biopesticide kills human cells at low doses as does Roundup Herbicide
By Dr Eva Sirinathsinghji

A fully referenced version of this article is posted on ISIS members website and is otherwise available for download here

Please circulate widely and repost, but you must give the URL of the original and preserve all the links back to articles on our website

A new study shows that low doses of Bt biopesticide CryA1b as well as the glyphosate herbicide, Roundup, kill human kidney cells. The Bt biopesticide conferring insect resistance and the glyphosate tolerance trait tied to the use of glyphosate herbicides account for almost all the GM crops grown worldwide. Bt crops already constitute 39 % of globally cultivated genetically modified (GM) crops, yet this is the first study that provides evidence on the toxicity of Bt protein in human cells.

This work comes at a time when the French environment and agricultural ministers are seeking an EU-wide ban of Monsanto’s MON810 Bt corn variety that is already outlawed in Hungary, Austria, Germany, Greece, and Luxembourg. The EU commission approved this crop in 2009, concluding that it “is as safe as its conventional counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health”. In response to their publication the research team raised questions about the safety assessment procedure stating that their findings were a “surprising outcome and this risk was somehow overlooked” in past assessments of such crops. [1].

The research team led by Gilles-Eric Séralini at the University of Caen, France, is already well-known for their investigations on the endocrine disrupting effects of glyphosate herbicides (see [2] Glyphosate Kills Rat Testis Cells, SiS 54). http://www.i-sis.org.uk/glyphosate_kills_rat_testis_cells.php The researchers tested the effects of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac proteins as well as their combined effects with the herbicide Roundup on the human kidney cell line HEK293 [3]. Humans are exposed to hundreds of chemicals in a day, and their combined effects need to be understood. This is particularly important when considering the new generation of ‘stacked’ genetically modified (GM) crops now on the market, which carry multiple resistance genes for Bt toxins and glyphosate tolerance together.

Experiments were performed to assess both cell death and cell membrane integrity, as the pesticidal activity of Bt toxins results from creating pores in the membrane of cells in the insect gut. Cell death was measured using three parameters: 1) mitochondrial succinate dehydrogenase enzyme activity as a general cell death marker, 2) activity of the membrane-bound enzyme adenylate kinase (AK) to assess membrane integrity as a marker of necrotic cell death and 3) caspase 3/7 activity, as a marker of apoptosis (programmed cell death). They found that Cry1Ab caused cell death at concentrations of 100 parts per million (ppm), according to mitochondrial succinate dehydrogenase activity. The membrane-bound enzyme adenylate kinase (AK) goes up in activity when the membrane disintegrates and releases the enzyme into the culture medium. Cry1Ab at 100 ppm induced a 2-fold increase in AK activity. No effects were seen with Cry1Ac.

No increase in caspase 3/7 activity was observed with either Cry1Ab or Cry1Ac, suggesting that necrosis as opposed to apoptosis is the mechanism whereby Cry1Ab kills the cells.

Séralini’s team also assessed the effects of Roundup alone on the human kidney cells. Glyphosate at 57.2ppm (the LC50) that killed half of the cell population – 200 times below agricultural use – caused a 15-fold increase in AK activity and 6.7-fold increase in caspase 3/7 activity.

Interestingly, when Roundup was tested in combination with the Bt toxin, there was only one statistically significant effect: the increase in caspase 3/7 activity induced by 57.2 ppm glyphosate was halved in the presence of 10ppm of both Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac. There was also a non-significant trend of reduced AK leakage. The authors speculated that Bt proteins may affect the bioavailability of Roundup, thus delaying its apoptotic effects. The combined effects were not investigated in terms of glyphosate’s other known interactions with the cellular biochemistry such as endocrine disruptions. Further studies are needed to understand the combined effects of stacked herbicides and pesticides on the human body.

This study indicates that Bt toxins are not inert on human cells, and may indeed be toxic. As Bt toxins are produced by bacterial species existing naturally in the wild, and are used for organic agriculture, inadequate safety assessments were involved in the approval of Bt crops. Bacterial spores used in organic spraying could be washed away, but the Bt proteins are part and parcel of the GM crops. Furthermore, the Bt proteins in GM crops have been modified from those naturally produced, and the effects of these modification have not been addressed. Bt crops have previously been shown to induce hepatorenal abnormalities in rat feeding studies [4] as well as immune responses that may be responsible for allergies observed in farmers and factory workers handling Bt crops, affecting the eyes, skin and the respiratory tract (see [5] (More illnesses linked to Bt crops,SiS30). Reduced fertility in mice fed Bt maize has also been reported(see http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MILTBT.php [6]GM Maize Reduces Fertility & Deregulates Genes in Mice,SiS41). http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GmMaizeReducesMiceFertility.php These studies, along with the observation that Bt protein is present in the blood of pregnant women and their babies makes it an urgent matter for the health impacts of Bt proteins in GM crops to be thoroughly investigated along with the known effects on the environment and non-target species (see [7] Bt Crops Failures & Hazards, SiS 53).