Certain things which lie within the class of what is frightening


Michalis Pichler



‘There was something called democracy.

As though men were more than physico-chemically equal.’

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World


The question of postmortal dignity is directly related to that of prenatal dignity.


This becomes increasingly important as the objectification of our bodies progresses and traditional philosophical and epistemological notions of self and identity are challenged.


In the project kuh I mounted the preserved skin, claws and horns of a cow, which had been slaughtered for meat consumption, onto a frame scaffold which had been carved out of styrofoam, thereby producing an image of an individual dead cow using the mortal remains of a real dead cow- in other words, a semi-real corpse/artifact.

t. [space]

Later on experiments in public space were carried out.

MyMain concernsso were questions of dealing with mortal remains and the visual representation of death.


Human resources and other operating consumables


According to Nietzsche it is much better to have good enemies than to have bad friends.

In that spirit I t I may introduce my frame of reference, which is, on the one hand, the image- and reality-production of Natural History Museums in general and of ‘Von Hagens Plastination Ltd in particular and, on the other hand, the reality- (and also image-) production of a meat-consuming society.


Before going on we should clarify the term ‘representation’; I do not agree with the notion that representation represents a reality existing independently from the representation. There is always a gap between reality and its representation; images are set up as reality ,so they can convey and produce reality; representation as such is not in contradiction with construction, it goes hand in hand, it is construction as such — or destruction, which is a negative kind of construction. Being engaged in image production I join the ‘politics of representation’


In Berlin in 2000-01 there took place a show that displayed preserved human corpses. Human These mortal remains had been subjected to a chemical process called plastination that would stop natural rot. The skin was removed to erase any individual reference; meanwhile the de-personalisation was also a strategic measure. Juridically these preserved corpses were declared objects, not to be considered corpses anymore, and would never be buried.[1]


Some of the preserved corpses were presented in poses which carried art-historical references. The conserved body of a pregnant mother was presented like a reclining odalisque by Manet. Her belly was cut open to expose the baby inside — a foetus in the 8th month. Another ‘figure’ resembled a Hellenistic Hercules, with his own skin instead of a lions’ skin over his shoulder. At the same time it was pretended these poses were pretended to be ‘close to life’.

n some way this exhibition stands in the tradition of the image-production of Natural History Museums, applying it now to the human as its object.


“Just like the idler, and more than thatonly more so, the dying person is amoral; the former is a subject that doesn’t work; the latter is an object that isn’t even available for treatment. (…) One needed nazism, logical within its technocratic totalitarianism, to treat the dead and with the help of rentability-considerations measurements to overcome the border barrier, which was put up throughresented by the inert corpse.”[2]

If we replace totalitarianism with neoliberalism, this statement could refer to very recent tendencies. I would locate Dr. Hagens within a discourse of Menschenmaterial[3] (human material) and with certain parallels to Third Reich medicine the German tradition of Dr. Mengele and other Nazi Doctors.[4] Even though To be clear: to my knowledge Von Hagens Plastination Ltd does not neither carries out experiments with living persons, nor does it participates in any sort of killing. Nevertheless one can draw a trace regarding the attempt to utilize human corpses materially and economically in a very materialistic and also economic way from a medical perspective.


The industrialized treatment of human corpses takes them literally as material for a product, which is explicitly de-individualized and subject to economical considerations. What’s new here since 1939, is that these human resources participate in the production-cycle postmortally .


And Dr. Hagens does it bigtime. His so-called Bodyworlds show has travelled globally since 1995 and is listed in the current Guiness Book of Records as the most visited exhibition ever. It took place in lots of different cities around the world: now it is in Singapore, before it was in Japan and London, and, with an average entrance fee of US$12 and subsequent sales, it is big business.


Von Hagens Plastination Ltd buys the raw material, preferably in China (about $250 for the corpse of an adult there) or Kirgisia (among them people whothat died in prison camps and psychiatric institutions or who were otherwise executed). It creates surplus value by means of about 170 Chinese anatomists working in the headquarters of the corporation in Dalian — and then markets them profitably through exhibitions and sales (a plastinated ‘full body’ goes for about $ 75,000). The profit is processed through a discrete financial holding in the tax-paradise of Gibraltar and a little stock company in Basel, Switzerland.[5]


In the meantime Von Hagens Plastination Ltd has considerable means to promote its activities, and von Hagens is publishing, hand in hand with theorists and scientists, to advertise their product. It is a very one-sided discourse,  consisting of affirmative polls carried out among those visitors to his shows willing to be interviewed, and statistical evaluations executed by scientists and authors paid, edited and published by von Hagens.


Most people who disagree have tried to ignore him. Recently many negative articles have been published in the corporate media, some of them with investigative value. But negative media attention is always a two-sided sword. I am caught in the dilemma of deeply disagreeing on the one hand, and on the other hand, of not wanting to promote it, not even negatively.


Taxidermy and slaughterhouse


At some point I decided to produce another conception of death. The main difference is that I did use a cow. The other main differences in this alternative conception are, that the mortal remains remain individually identifiable and that the representation does not pretend to be lifelike.


To do this I used the means which were accessible to me, Taxidermy turned out to be an accesible means. This technique has a long tradition in “those didactic institutions mandated to collect, define and represent the ‘natural’ world: The Museums of Natural History.”[6] We find stuffed animals there, usually within a habitat group or diorama, which are presented as being lifelike, while nothing is so absent as life. “These Museums are one of the most essential sites for any investigation into how a dominant cultural group constructs and demonstrates its truth about nature. It is here we find the official story.”[7] And of course, we don’t find cows in the Natural History Museums. They are neither exotic enough nor part of ‘natural’ wildlife. Cows do not fit into an “idealized vision of nature, a world without human taints or influence.” [8]  

Today taxidermy is also applied in the private realm, mostly for the preparation of pets (starting from birds, cats, dogs, up to horses) or to produce trophies of hunted animals (either domesticnative, such as foxes, deer, hogs etc., or, again, exotic animals such as sharks, leopards, tigers, or even buffalo and rhinoceroses).


There are over one billion cattle alive today, grazing on approximately 24 percent of the landmass of the planet.[9] In Australia, the number of cattle exceeds the number of people by 40 percent.[10] On the other hand, cattle are the most slaughtered animals throughout human history. In the US there are 100,000 cows slaughtered every day. Followed at a short distance by the Australian peoples,, thean average North American, during the course of his/her life, e eats, the meat of seven cows [11].


As a mediated reality we are presented with either images of lucky cows provided by advertising (LaVacheQueRie, milka, Müllermilch, emzett and so on) or we have something which is totally deprived of the visual identity of a cow: clean-plastic-packed meat, or just leather, which is also parts of a dead cow.

Despite our general perception of death, which as either a religious thing, or a personal thing which also has religious connotations, we are accustomed to deal with animals and their bodies as products and commodities. “At this level of detachment,” says James Serpell, “the animal becomes a mere cipher, a unit of production, abstracted out of existence in the pursuit of higher yields.”[12]


During the process of realizing this work I visited a slaughterhouse, made photographs, sketches and measurements there.



picture 1: heads


“Usually the cows enter the slaughterhouse single-file. Immediately upon entry they are stunned by a pneumatic gun. As each animal sinks to its knees, a worker quickly hooks a chain onto a rear hoof, and the animal is mechanically hoisted from the platform and hung upside down over the slaughterhouse floor.”[13] While some slaughterhouses still kill with knives, usually a cow gets killed by a shot in the head or in the neck.

“The animal moves along the main disassembly line. (...) the hide is cut open at the midline of the stomach and a skinning machine strips the animal of its hide, leaving the skin in one piece. The carcass is decapitated, the tongue is split and removed (...) After the viscera are removed, the body is hurried along to the next station, where the carcass is cut down the center of the backbone with motorized saws and the tail is pulled off the animal”.[14] In some slaughterhouses the skin is removed first, in others the head, the feet and the tail get chopped off first. In just one respecpoint they are all the same: the carcass doesn’t get to touch the ground, not before it is sliced into small pieces and packed into plastic.


Should one take as a starting point a situation which one considers ethically unjustifiable? Can you criticize objectification in general and cow-slaughter in particular while using the mortal remains of a slaughtered cow?


Yes and No.  


If this cow had not been slaughtered for meat consumption, the project would not have been possible — and it would not have been necessary, either.


The cow veterinary hospital of the Freie Universitaet Berlin provided the opportunity to make a study on a dead cow lying down on the ground; this is very unusual for a cow that is slaughtered in the usual manner, since a dead cow ‘normally’ doesn’t get to touch the ground, unless it belongs to that very small minority that diees through sickness or old age.


I proceeded to carve the model out of Styrofoam using anatomical proportion plans[15], and self-made wooden and plastic skeletons and s, sstarting with a clay model in scale 1:10.

picture 2: kuh, studio situation, 2001

The skin, which was sewn over the core, was conserved by a taxidermist.

The cow was a milk cow that got slaughtered close to Berlin for meat consumption because it had a bad leg — athis decision was taken by the farmer and based on economic considerations.


We are accustomed to experiencing cowskin as raw material for shoes or jackets or furniture; sometimes it is conserved and utilized as a carpet on the floor or on the wall.

There is always a gap between reality and its representation; images are set up as reality — tthey convey and produce reality; representation as such is not in contradiction with construction, it goes hand in hand, it is construction/destruction of reality .

Being engaged in image production one can join the ‘politics of representation’[16].

With sculptural and taxidermic methods the visual identity of a cow — a dead cow — was reinstated, and displaced and detached reality-perceptions reconnected. Subsequently the semi-real corpse/artifact was placed in public space.


Max Ernst wouldn’t have wanted this


Rather then being a statement or a theatrical performance kuh is an experiment. Or, if it is to be seen as theatrical, it could regarded as an application of Brechtian Verfremdung (estrangement), or, reciprocally, of the Freudian Unheimlich (the uncanny): “The uncanny is that class of the frightening which leads back to what is known of the old and long familiar.”[17]


The first experiment took place on January 15, 2002, at Berlin Alexanderstrasse. Since there was no permission given, it didn’t take long (about 90 minutes) for the police to come and confiscate the ‘cow’, which had been outlined with chalk and fixed to the ground with metal chains, while no author or evildoer was identifiable . After ten minutes of investigations (touching, footkicks and soundcheck by fingertips) )the police ripped it off, and, considering it ‘special garbage’, wanted to discard it. That is when I intervenfered to make them give it back to me, making it possible to execute an experiment in another district next day.


At the same time in Berlin the Internationale Gruene Woche took place, just as it does every year in January. The Gruene Woche is an international trade show for the food, agricultural and horticultural industries; it is an image opportunity, organized and visited by food industry representatives and targeting a mass audience of “consumers from Germany and neighbouring countries”, wholesalers, retailers and “4000 trade and popular media journalists from 70 countries”.[18] When I was a child growing up in West Berlin, this was one of my favourite events. I loved to go there and see all those happy animals.


picture 3: kuh, experiment in public space #3, January 17 2002, Breitscheidplatz Berlin

On January 16th kuh was placed in front of the main entrance to the Internationale Gruene Woche at Masurenallee Berlin — it was able to stay about 20 minutes there, the biggest interest undoubtedly being expressed by the police.

The third experiment took place on the Breitscheidplatz, a central square in Berlin West on January 17th. Being located once more in another district, ,this time a permission to temporarily exhibit a sculpture for two hours was issued.

Two weeks later a competition for the the Max-Ernst-Preis was announced in Bruehl, a small town south of Cologne, and there was an open call for entries. All the artwork had to be submitted to the local town hall, so the kuh was entitled to stay one week there.

In Bruehl the conservative party wrote a press release to immediately remove the ‘cow’ from ‘their’ town hall, while on the other hand the politician who was responsible for the art prize backed it up and explicitly refused to execute censorship on any submitted piece. Triggered by this the local newspapers began hyping it up and asked their readers to write their opinions, which led to some dozens of letters to the editors. Alexander Kluge has rightly adjudged the domain of ‘letters to the editors’ as not being an oppositional public sphere[19], since it is placed and framed within, and controlled by, corporate media organs. Still, these letters provided some insight into how people thought about it.


Opinion mostly polarized. There were into dismissive letters that accused kuh of being disgusting, tasteless or degenerate or which thought it should be forbidden. On the other side people addressed societal questions such as that of the double standard and displacement mechanisms in contemporary society. Some saw references to DADA. One question that was repeated by both groups was “Is it Art?”, the first group being entirely sure that it was not, the second group being more divided.

Eduard Trier, a member of the jury, was cited in the Koelner Stadtanzeiger[20] to the effect that “Max Ernst would probably not have liked it” (commenting on a similar “Max Ernst wouldn’t have wanted this”- headline published two days earlierago in the same newspaper). A doctor invited anyone who liked this kind of ‘art’ to buy it and place it in the bedroom instead of an artwork by Max Ernst.


Another reaction was that of an anonymous person, or group of persons, labelling themselves “citizens of Bruehl”, who brought charges against me and accused me of

“arousal of public nuisance; endangering the health of citizens of Bruehl, employees working in the town hall of Bruehl, as well as all persons brought into ‘contact’ — through a bacterially contaminated animal cadaver; alienating and misusing public buildings and institutions; disregarding enforced hygienic statutory orders; violation of ethical principles and injury to the related feelings of the citizens through the placement of a cadaver.”[21]

Of particular interest is that the charges spoke of a ‘cadaver’, thereby demonstrating an unbroken faith in the transparency of the relationship between a realistic representation and the empirical phenomenon to which it refers. “As we have learnt, that feeling [of uncanniness] can not arise unless there is a conflict of judgement as to whether things that have been ‘surmounted’, and are regarded as incredible, may not, after all, be possible.”[22] But as here the referent and the signifier overlap, the confusion was intended. On the one hand, the referent: a real dead cow, and, on the other hand, the signifier: the utilized materials. . — Partly Bbeing partly the mortal remains of a dead cow, kuhit is a hybrid.


One can locate this hybrid on the edge of the objectification of bodies, be they animal or human. If we start from nature and extend it on to artificial life[23] we also progress to artificial death: the concept of partial life [24] implies partial death as its counterpart. If you stuff parts of your body with plastic — usually the penis, the breasts or the lips — these inanimate body-extensions are what I would refer to as areas of partial death.


Our nations spirit


Recently George W. Bush announced that “As we face the challenges and opportunities of this new era, the arts help reaffirm our nations spirit”[25] I’m not sure if he read Herbert Marcuse[26] in infor  saying this, maybe one of his advisors did — however he did explicitly acknowledge the political nature of cultural production. We agree on that, even if I like to think that cultural production is not just aporetic[27] but has also the potential to contribute to the ‘consciousness industry’[28] as a critical and disaffirmative agent.


As an ‘artist’, or as a self-employed politician or as an individual person, I one cannot fix society, that is way beyond my reach. At best I one can function as an observer, working on having as clear as possible a consciousness and awareness of what is going on around me, so as to eventually function as a filter or catalyst, producing tangible objects provokcingative of cultural debate.


Now what about the spectacle — is it OK to stage a media extravaganza? Is it right to utilize sensational methods at all? Is it possible to appropriate ‘spectacle’ as a valid means of social intervention?


“For Debord, the spectacle is a tool of pacification and depoliticization, it is a ‘permanent opium war’(#44)[29] which stupefies social subjects. (...) Debord’s concept of the spectacle is integrally connected to the concept of separation and passivity, for in submissively consuming spectacles, one is estranged from actively producing one’s life.”[30] After Debord, a DIY spectacle is a contradiction in itself, a logical impossibility. Still, what is considered spectacular in common sense is not necessarily congruent with the theorized notion of spectacle. Maybe it is legitimate to rethink the legitimacy and operative value of apparently spectacular political strategies and to scrutinize their content and motivation. It is problematic anyway. “For an example of the reversal of the spectacle, or at least its contradictions and contestation take McDonald’s.”[31]


The stakes are high in the field of Biotech, be it tissue culture or genetical engineering with its market application of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in the field of food production (the agricultural applications of GMO amount to 85% of the biotech market share today). What makes cautious critical examination particularly necessary is the irreversibility of genetical manipulation, once there is any gene flow from the GM crop to the natural ecosystem — upononce released into the environment, a GMO will reproduce and can never be taken back. To prevent this, a distinct clear zone of a certain distance must be established around broad acre cropping systems with a GM crop.[32] [space]

Being public figures, artists carry a particular responsibility, and the adaptation — either naïve or disingenuous — of ‘no harm’ -claims, paired with a critical posture (a prominent example is the Alba project by Eduardo Kac[33]), are as dangerous as projects that shift the focus by romanticizing the problem or merely aestheticizing the subject matter.


Although at the current historical moment Biotech companies prefer to operate rather discreetly and employ very defensive media strategies, these strategies might change with the political/psychological climate. As has been investigated and demonstrated in the work of Hans Haacke and others: “Many public relations opportunities are available through the sponsorship of programs, special exhibitions and services. These can often provide a creative and cost-effective answer to a specific marketing objective, where international, governmental or consumer relations may be a fundamental concern.”[34]  This I would regard Cultural production as a smokescreen of the first grade.


We have no reason to believe that the role and significance of corporate sponsorship and structural censorship within the field of ‘high culture’ will decrease in coming years — but this is not just about its quantitative occurrence.

One could argue that it has reached a new qualitative level with indirectly celebrative shows like Ars Electronica being a prestigious showcase for high technology (or, in the field of biotech, the show Paradise Now) and directly celebrative shows like Armani and Motorbikes at the Guggenheim.

Moreover, there are new marketing methods and government techniques emerging: beyond being a smokescreen or indirectly or directly celebrative, it is difficult to avoid (is it even possible?) being staged or staging ourselves oneself within pseudocritical debates, able ready to be utilized as a very welcome alibi, smokescreens of the second grade.


There were people who supported this project substantially.

I want to thank my father Gerhard Pichler.

I want to thank Pedro Garcia Nogales. I also want to thank Thomas Bratzke, Jose Martin Garcia de la Torre, Stefan Klaue, Felix Klein, Buero Neulant, Karin Noack, Klaus Staeck, Thomas Stuessi and Gulsah Unal.


This essay is deriven from talks given at the Museum of Contemporary Art Skopje (December 16 2002), the Rensellaer Polytechnic Institute,Troy NY (October 2 2003), the Lion Arts Center, Adelaide (February 27 2004).

It will be published in an exhibition catalogue (working title: “Art, Culture and Biotechnology”) by the Experimental Art Foundation, Adelaide in late 2004.


[1] According to German funeral law “Every corpse has to be buried” (Bestattungsgesetz von Baden-Wuerttemberg, Par 30). E even if it is “supplied to an anatomical institute for scientific purposes” it has to be buried later on (ibid, Par 42). The same law prohibits the public exhibition of human corpses (ibid, Par 14), just as it prohibits the permanent conservation of corpses (ibid, Par 29). But with some legal gymnastics and bureaucratic tricks the corpses were already preserved and de-individualized out of German territory, and - at the moment they were imported - legally not considered corpses anymore.

[2] Certau, Michel de, Kunst des Handelns, Berlin 1988, p. 336 (translation from German into English M. Pichler; for the original text see Michel de Certeau, L’invention du quotidien.1- Arts de faire, Paris 1980)

[3] In 2000 Menschenmaterial (human material) was elected to be the Unword of the 20th century by a jury consisting of reputed linguists and capacities in German philology — y- which elects the unword of the year annually. This term was already coined in the 19th century and is to be found in Karl Marx writings (1867). Nevertheless it was not until the 20th century that it gained a particularly cynical meaning, most prominently in its application to circumscribe the soldiers who lost their lives in World War One and Two. A similar logic underlies word creations describing materialization objectification of human such as embryo harvesting, bio raw material, bodyleasing, human capital, ‘, soft target (in artillery jargon) and collateral damage (the last one was elected to be the Unword of the year 1999; for further information see http://www.unwortdesjahres.org )

[4] In the first phase of “Aktion T4” (between October 1939 and August 1941), the pilot project of industrialized mass murder in the name of ‘euthanasia’ most of the victims were cremated, their ashes sent to their relatives for burial. In later phases, when the strategy was changed to carry out ‘euthanasia’ secretly, besides of the victims personal belongings also their hair and teeth fillings were also removed and economically utilized, while a lot of the corpses were given to anatomical institutes for scientific utilization. as dissection material, others were discarded in anonymous mass-graves; some were used for the production of soap. Johanna Bleker and Norbert Jachertz (Ed.), Medizin im Dritten Reich, Cologne 1989

See also Wolfgang Neugebauer, Herwig Czech, “Die ‘wissenschaftliche’ Verwertung der Opfer der NS-Kindereuthanasie. Die Gehirnpräparatesammlung im Psychiatrischen Krankenhaus der Stadt Wien.”, Untersuchungen zur anatomischen Wissenschaft, 477-506

[5] figures taken from Haendler des Todes, Der Spiegel 4/2004

[6] Mark Dion, The Natural History Box: Preservation, Categorization and Display 1995’ iin Corrin, Kwon, Bryson (Ed.) Mark Dion, London 1997, p.134

[7] ibid.

[8] ibid., p.137

[9] Pimentel and Hall, Food and Natural Resources, San Diego 1989, p.71

[10] Jeremy Rifkin, Beyond Beef – “The Rise and Fall of the cattle culture, New York 1993

[11] Tab. 19-6 in Ensminger, M. E., Animal Science, Danville, Illinois 1991

[12] James Serpell, In the Company of Animals, New York 1988,p. 155

[13] Jeremy Rifkin, Beyond Beef – The Rise and Fall of the cattle culture, New York 1993, p.14

[14] ibid., p.14

[15] Gottfried Bammes, Studien zur Gestalt des Tieres, Stuttgart 1999

[16] This term was coined by British cultural studies and in particular employed by Stuart Hall, who insisted that “representation is the production of meaning through language, discourse and image” (Stuart Hall, Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, London 1997), thereby claiming, that meaning is not found, given or discovered.

[17] Sigmund Freud, “The Uncanny” in Writing on Art and Literature,”, Stanford 1997, p.195

“the word heimlich gives rise to its antonym, unheimlich, (...) one meaning that which is familiar and agreeable, the other suggesting that which is concealed and kept out of sight.” ibid., p.199

[18]- www.gruenewoche.com

[19] Alexander Kluge, “The Public Sphere”, New German Critique 24/25

[20] Koelner Stadtanzeiger, February 2/3 2002 (weekend edition)

[21] charges submitted to the Court of Bruehl as of February 13 2002 and processed by the State Attorney Cologne under “Aktenzeichen 118 Js 70/02”

[22] Sigmund Freud, “The Uncanny” in Writing on Art and Literature, Stanford 1997, p.227

[23] Recently Roy Ascott proclaimed cultural shift, which is extending/dissolving the concept of nature onto artificial life. Roy Ascott, Reframing Consciousness, Perth 2002

[24] Oron Catts, “The Art of the Semi-Living”, www.tca.uwa.edu.au

[25] George W. Bush in Art News (letter to the editor), October 2002

[26] The affirmative Character of Culture after Marcuse is its real appearance, which supports the prevailing power relations by offering an imaginary world of substitution and thereby continuously postponing substantial resistance: “Culture should permeate the given in a purifying way – and not put something else ion its place. Thereby it is elevatesing the individuals without liberating themit from its factual oppression”. (Marcuse, 1937) Analogously, after Peter Buerger, the “Avantgarde undisburdens the existing society offrom the pressing forces pressing for factual change”.

[27] after Adorno, “societally the situation of art today is aporetic”; its autonomy gives it the opportunity to critically examine reality but is also a guarantee for it to stay without function and consequenses. Oppositely Against this, Kube Ventura criticised “the failure-figure of the critical theories” and pointed out , that by exaggerating suggested claims, the very content gets discredited and slips out of focus: “the culturally pessimistic disappropriation-thesis is the expression of a moralizing conservatism, that assumes it is possible to have politics without content” Holger Kube Ventura, Politische Kunst Begriffe, Vienna 2002, p. 37-40

[28] the term was coined by Hans Magnus Enzensberger in The Consciousness Industry; On Literature, Politics and the Media, New York (1974) iIt was expanded and in particular applied and extrapolated onto the art world in Hans Haacke, “Museums, Managers of Consciousness” in Brian Wallis (Ed.), Hans Haacke: Unfinished Business, New York and Cambridge, 1986

[29] Guy Debord, Society of Spectacle, published in Paris 1967 and first published in English translation 1970; it is to be found on various web sites today

[30] Douglas Kellner, Media Culture and the Triumph of the Spectacle, 2004

[31] ibid. Triggered by some British Greenpeace activists, a subsequent lawsuit by McDonald’s and a anti-McDonald’s campaign by Greenpeace, McDonald’s became the poster corporation for protest in the anti-corporate globalization movement. McDonalds expansion was haltened, profits were down almost everywhere and bad publicity continues to haunt McDonalds through the present.http://www.mcspotlight.org

[32]To describe how well this system works may be best described by using the Canadian canola growers for example. The appropriate GM regulations were practiced To describe hHow well this system works may be best described illustrated by using the Canadian canola growers as anfor example. The appropriate GM regulations were implementpracticed and the clear zones established between the canola crop and the surrounding natural ecosystem. Unfortunately a tornado swept across the Canadian plains and spread the GM canola pollen into GM free canola cropsUnfortunately a tornado swept across the Canadian plains and spread the GM canola pollen into the natural environment as well as GM free canola crops. Quoting a Canadian canola farmer about this disaster; ‘The Canadian grown GM- free canola is a casualty of war. If you want GM- free canola, it may be best to go elsewhere’.” [I wonder if Gary would mind being credited for this footnote- maybe we could just credit an Australian biotech scientistCass, email corresepondence with Melentie Pandilovski]

[33] In “GFP Bunny”(published in Eduardo Kac,”, Maribor 2000) Kac claims that “In developing the ‘GFP Bunny’ project I have paid close attention and given careful consideration to any potential harm that might be caused. I decided to proceed with the project because it became clear that it was safe [17][17].” and “17 -–17- By this I mean that the process was expected to be (and in fact was) as common as any other rabbit pregnancy and birth.”

For an informed examination of this “industry claim I seriously doubt” see Adam Zaretsky, letter to the Alba Guestbook, July 17, 2001 (http://sprocket.telab.artic.edu/ekac/bunnybook.2000.2003.html) . See also Christopher Dickey, “I love my Glow-Bunny”, magazine Wired, Issue 9/04

[34] from a leaflet distributed by the ‘The Metropolitan Museum of Art’ quoted after Brian Wallis (Ed.), Hans Haacke: Unfinished Business, New York and Cambridge, 1986.