Of Mice, Men and In-Between
Starmail - 21. Nov, 16:22
Genmanipulation
21
Nov
2004
18
Nov
2004
GE Trees
Genetically modified madness
Forum: GM trees
http://elonmerkki.net/dyn/forum/thread/?id=286
Informant: Harlan Girard
GE Trees in Christian Science Monitor
http://tinyurl.com/5ndzr
Forum: GM trees
http://elonmerkki.net/dyn/forum/thread/?id=286
Informant: Harlan Girard
GE Trees in Christian Science Monitor
http://tinyurl.com/5ndzr
Starmail - 18. Nov, 14:58
15
Nov
2004
Bayer verzichtet in Indien auf Gen-Pflanzen
Presseerklärung vom 15.11.2004
Bayer verzichtet in Indien auf Gen-Pflanzen
Bayer gibt die Forschung an genmanipulierten Pflanzen in Indien auf. Das teilte das Leverkusener Unternehmen dem Greenpeace Büro in Indien vergangene Woche in einem Schreiben mit. Danach "will Bayer Crop Science in den nächsten Jahren seinen Schwerpunkt auf die normale Pflanzenzüchtung verlegen". Alle bisherigen Projekte wurden gestoppt. Zu den Pflanzenarten, an denen Bayer in Indien geforscht hat, gehören Kohl, Raps, Blumenkohl, Tomaten und Senf. Bereits im März 2004 gab der Konzern seinen Rückzug in England bekannt, im Juni wurde der Versuch aufgegeben, Gen-Raps in Australien zu verkaufen.
"Bayer sollte auch in Europa klare Zeichen setzen und jetzt seine Zulassungsanträge zu Gen-Reis, Gen-Raps und Gen-Mais zurückziehen", fordert Christoph Then, Gentechnikexperte von Greenpeace Deutschland. "Weder wollen die Verbraucher Gen-Food essen, noch lassen sich diese Pflanzen in Europa anbauen, ohne die gentechnikfreie Landwirtschaft durch Pollenflug massiv zu belasten. So fliegt der Pollen beim Gen-Raps mehr als 20 Kilometer weit." Ein Bayer-Sprecher bestätigte am Freitag den Ausstieg und sagte, man wolle sich auf bestimmte Teilbereiche konzentrieren und beobachte die konstante Verbraucherablehnung in Europa mit Sorge. An einen generellen Rückzug werde hier allerdings nicht gedacht.
"Wir brauchen keine Gen-Pflanzen in Indien", sagt Divya Raghunandan, Gentechnikexpertin von Greenpeace Indien. "Global gesehen haben sich die Versprechungen der Gen-Industrie nicht erfüllt, ob es sich nun um höhere Erträge oder um eine Verringerung der Spritzmittel handelt. Bayer hat die Zeichen der Zeit erkannt und sich aus wirtschaftlichen Gründen aus dem Geschäft mit den Gen-Pflanzen zurückgezogen. Der Konzern weiß genau, dass die Verbraucher in Indien das Gen-Gemüse nicht akzeptieren werden."
Das nach Bevölkerung zweitgrößte Land der Welt, in dem 80 Prozent der Menschen ihr Auskommen in der Landwirtschaft finden, bietet einen gewaltigen Markt für Agrochemie und Saatgutunternehmen. Der Rückzug von Bayer aus dem Geschäft mit Gen-Pflanzen dürfte auch ein alarmierendes Zeichen für andere Konzerne sein. Mit seiner Entscheidung, sich aus dem Geschäft mit Gen-Pflanzen zumindest in Teilbereichen zurückzuziehen, steht Bayer nicht alleine. Auch die Firma Monsanto, die weltweit das meiste Saatgut für Gen-Pflanzen verkauft, hat in diesem Jahr die Forschung an Gen-Weizen gestoppt, ebenso die Forschung an Gen-Raps in Australien. (Quelle: Greenpeace)
weitere Infos: Protest gegen Gen-Reis in Indien, Blockade Bayer India
weitergeleitet durch: Coordination gegen BAYER-Gefahren e.V.
CBGnetwork@aol.com
http://www.CBGnetwork.de
Tel: 0211-333 911
Fax 040 – 3603 741835
Beirat
Dr. Sigrid Müller, Pharmakologin, Bremen
Dr. Erika Abczynski, Kinderärztin, Dormagen
Eva Bulling-Schröter, ehem. MdB, Berlin
Prof. Dr. Jürgen Rochlitz, Chemiker, ehem. MdB, Burgwald
Dr. Janis Schmelzer, Historiker, Berlin
Wolfram Esche, Rechtsanwalt, Köln
Dorothee Sölle,Theologin, Hamburg (U 2003)
Prof. Dr. Anton Schneider, Baubiologe, Neubeuern
Prof. Jürgen Junginger, Designer, Krefeld
Bayer verzichtet in Indien auf Gen-Pflanzen
Bayer gibt die Forschung an genmanipulierten Pflanzen in Indien auf. Das teilte das Leverkusener Unternehmen dem Greenpeace Büro in Indien vergangene Woche in einem Schreiben mit. Danach "will Bayer Crop Science in den nächsten Jahren seinen Schwerpunkt auf die normale Pflanzenzüchtung verlegen". Alle bisherigen Projekte wurden gestoppt. Zu den Pflanzenarten, an denen Bayer in Indien geforscht hat, gehören Kohl, Raps, Blumenkohl, Tomaten und Senf. Bereits im März 2004 gab der Konzern seinen Rückzug in England bekannt, im Juni wurde der Versuch aufgegeben, Gen-Raps in Australien zu verkaufen.
"Bayer sollte auch in Europa klare Zeichen setzen und jetzt seine Zulassungsanträge zu Gen-Reis, Gen-Raps und Gen-Mais zurückziehen", fordert Christoph Then, Gentechnikexperte von Greenpeace Deutschland. "Weder wollen die Verbraucher Gen-Food essen, noch lassen sich diese Pflanzen in Europa anbauen, ohne die gentechnikfreie Landwirtschaft durch Pollenflug massiv zu belasten. So fliegt der Pollen beim Gen-Raps mehr als 20 Kilometer weit." Ein Bayer-Sprecher bestätigte am Freitag den Ausstieg und sagte, man wolle sich auf bestimmte Teilbereiche konzentrieren und beobachte die konstante Verbraucherablehnung in Europa mit Sorge. An einen generellen Rückzug werde hier allerdings nicht gedacht.
"Wir brauchen keine Gen-Pflanzen in Indien", sagt Divya Raghunandan, Gentechnikexpertin von Greenpeace Indien. "Global gesehen haben sich die Versprechungen der Gen-Industrie nicht erfüllt, ob es sich nun um höhere Erträge oder um eine Verringerung der Spritzmittel handelt. Bayer hat die Zeichen der Zeit erkannt und sich aus wirtschaftlichen Gründen aus dem Geschäft mit den Gen-Pflanzen zurückgezogen. Der Konzern weiß genau, dass die Verbraucher in Indien das Gen-Gemüse nicht akzeptieren werden."
Das nach Bevölkerung zweitgrößte Land der Welt, in dem 80 Prozent der Menschen ihr Auskommen in der Landwirtschaft finden, bietet einen gewaltigen Markt für Agrochemie und Saatgutunternehmen. Der Rückzug von Bayer aus dem Geschäft mit Gen-Pflanzen dürfte auch ein alarmierendes Zeichen für andere Konzerne sein. Mit seiner Entscheidung, sich aus dem Geschäft mit Gen-Pflanzen zumindest in Teilbereichen zurückzuziehen, steht Bayer nicht alleine. Auch die Firma Monsanto, die weltweit das meiste Saatgut für Gen-Pflanzen verkauft, hat in diesem Jahr die Forschung an Gen-Weizen gestoppt, ebenso die Forschung an Gen-Raps in Australien. (Quelle: Greenpeace)
weitere Infos: Protest gegen Gen-Reis in Indien, Blockade Bayer India
weitergeleitet durch: Coordination gegen BAYER-Gefahren e.V.
CBGnetwork@aol.com
http://www.CBGnetwork.de
Tel: 0211-333 911
Fax 040 – 3603 741835
Beirat
Dr. Sigrid Müller, Pharmakologin, Bremen
Dr. Erika Abczynski, Kinderärztin, Dormagen
Eva Bulling-Schröter, ehem. MdB, Berlin
Prof. Dr. Jürgen Rochlitz, Chemiker, ehem. MdB, Burgwald
Dr. Janis Schmelzer, Historiker, Berlin
Wolfram Esche, Rechtsanwalt, Köln
Dorothee Sölle,Theologin, Hamburg (U 2003)
Prof. Dr. Anton Schneider, Baubiologe, Neubeuern
Prof. Jürgen Junginger, Designer, Krefeld
Starmail - 15. Nov, 19:28
14
Nov
2004
Designer Babies?
Coming Soon: Designer Babies?
Embryo screening for genes that cause disease is already happening. How far will it go?
Is the age of "designer babies" looming closer? In Britain, four couples have won approval for embryo screening for cancer genes. Some consider it a controversial case. All the couples are affected by an inherited form of aggressive colon cancer and are getting in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments to get pregnant. The couples appealed to the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority -- which governs embryo screening in Britain -- to allow them to select an embryo without the cancer gene. They have won that right. Now, their child and future generations are unlikely to have the cancer gene. Could this happen in the U.S.? Are we on a slippery slope leading toward designer babies with "basketball star" genes, green eyes, or curly hair?
To find out, WebMD spoke with a few experts
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/96/103766.htm
From:
Aftermath News
Top Stories - November 14th, 2004
Embryo screening for genes that cause disease is already happening. How far will it go?
Is the age of "designer babies" looming closer? In Britain, four couples have won approval for embryo screening for cancer genes. Some consider it a controversial case. All the couples are affected by an inherited form of aggressive colon cancer and are getting in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments to get pregnant. The couples appealed to the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority -- which governs embryo screening in Britain -- to allow them to select an embryo without the cancer gene. They have won that right. Now, their child and future generations are unlikely to have the cancer gene. Could this happen in the U.S.? Are we on a slippery slope leading toward designer babies with "basketball star" genes, green eyes, or curly hair?
To find out, WebMD spoke with a few experts
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/96/103766.htm
From:
Aftermath News
Top Stories - November 14th, 2004
Starmail - 14. Nov, 18:10
2
Nov
2004
1
Nov
2004
Secret Trials in GM-Free Australia Raise New Fears of Contamination
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho reports
Julie Newman is a conventional grain and canola farmer with 12 000 hectares in Newdegate, Western Australia; she also owns one of the largest seed grading factories in Western Australia, and has been a contract crop-sprayer for 20 years. Julie is just the sort of big farmers that would embrace GM crops, right? Wrong.
Defenders of the biotech industry in Australia have nicknamed her “the laughing assassin” for good reasons. She strikes terror into their very heart, for being both extremely well informed and articulate; and not afraid to challenge the industry's propaganda at every opportunity. But, she does it ever so pleasantly. “ I don't take the debate personally, I enjoy talking to people on both sides of the debate, and what I am asking for is not unreasonable.” She explains.
Julie is a founding member of the Network of Concerned Farmers, a coalition of both conventional and organic farmers opposed to the introduction of GM crops into Australia, a country that has the strictest control over agricultural imports, as I learned on my recent lecture tour, which took me first to Perth, where I met Julie, and then to Melbourne.
Julie's argument is implacable: not only is there no market for GM crops, the slightest contamination with non-GM seeds or pollen, and that's the end of the farmers' export to Europe. “Farmers do not approve of the existing principle of co-existence of GM and non-GM crops; they want principles that will ensure non-GM farmers are not affected, and are protected by legislation and compensated for economic loss”. She says.
The situation is exactly the same in Europe.
“How many farmers know that the principle of coexistence is that non- GM growers are to avoid GM contamination when it is impossible to do so? How many know that it will be the non- GM growers that will be liable for ‘false and misleading advertising' when we cannot deliver the non-GM product we have guaranteed?” Julie asks. And, it could make farmers liable for infringing the patents of companies like Monsanto as well.
So, when she uncovered secret trials of GM canola in Victoria, a state that has an official moratorium on the crop until 2008, she was on the warpath again.
The way she uncovered those secret trials was ingenious. She had aerial photographs taken of suspected sites, which she posted on the Network's website, asking farmers to come forward to identify the fields and to state whether they were GM trials. T wo GM trial plots were identified in Victoria. “We are still looking for another two .” She tells me.
“Just look at the bags around the canola plants!” She exclaimed when showing me the photograph, “They are supposed to prevent cross-pollination, but you can see that some of the plants are in flower and they have not been bagged.”
She raised an aspect of contamination that's new to me. Canola pollen or seed could contaminate wheat and other seeds harvested in adjacent fields. She would know, as she also operates a big seeds business, and there is no seed sorting in Australia, because that's too expensive.
“The key issue is that since the federal government approved GM crops, it is now up to the farmer to sign to guarantee the GM-free status of their produce and to accept liability if we are wrong in our signed declaration. If we experience economic loss, we are gearing up for a class action against Bayer Cropscience and Monsanto (if Monsanto grow future trials).” She says. “We are doing a letter drop to ensure farmers contact Bayer Cropscience to collect their trespassing plants if trials have caused contamination.”
Australia has remained GM-free despite the approval of GM canola by the federal government, because, contrary to the situation in the European Union, it is possible for state governments to establish GM- free zones . So far, all states have either imposed a ban or a moratorium or are considered unsuited for growing GM canola.
Jim Scott, Member for South Metropolitan Region of Western Australia, played the key role in getting Australia GM-free, by convincing his parliament to impose the first state-wide ban on GM crops. I met Scott for the first time last year when he was on a fact-finding mission in Britain. He wrote a comprehensive report afterwards that triggered the Western Australian ban on GM crops. He is very proud of that report, and is ready to offer it to anyone who asks ( jscott@mp.wa.gov.au ).
This article can be found on the I-SIS website at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/
Julie Newman is a conventional grain and canola farmer with 12 000 hectares in Newdegate, Western Australia; she also owns one of the largest seed grading factories in Western Australia, and has been a contract crop-sprayer for 20 years. Julie is just the sort of big farmers that would embrace GM crops, right? Wrong.
Defenders of the biotech industry in Australia have nicknamed her “the laughing assassin” for good reasons. She strikes terror into their very heart, for being both extremely well informed and articulate; and not afraid to challenge the industry's propaganda at every opportunity. But, she does it ever so pleasantly. “ I don't take the debate personally, I enjoy talking to people on both sides of the debate, and what I am asking for is not unreasonable.” She explains.
Julie is a founding member of the Network of Concerned Farmers, a coalition of both conventional and organic farmers opposed to the introduction of GM crops into Australia, a country that has the strictest control over agricultural imports, as I learned on my recent lecture tour, which took me first to Perth, where I met Julie, and then to Melbourne.
Julie's argument is implacable: not only is there no market for GM crops, the slightest contamination with non-GM seeds or pollen, and that's the end of the farmers' export to Europe. “Farmers do not approve of the existing principle of co-existence of GM and non-GM crops; they want principles that will ensure non-GM farmers are not affected, and are protected by legislation and compensated for economic loss”. She says.
The situation is exactly the same in Europe.
“How many farmers know that the principle of coexistence is that non- GM growers are to avoid GM contamination when it is impossible to do so? How many know that it will be the non- GM growers that will be liable for ‘false and misleading advertising' when we cannot deliver the non-GM product we have guaranteed?” Julie asks. And, it could make farmers liable for infringing the patents of companies like Monsanto as well.
So, when she uncovered secret trials of GM canola in Victoria, a state that has an official moratorium on the crop until 2008, she was on the warpath again.
The way she uncovered those secret trials was ingenious. She had aerial photographs taken of suspected sites, which she posted on the Network's website, asking farmers to come forward to identify the fields and to state whether they were GM trials. T wo GM trial plots were identified in Victoria. “We are still looking for another two .” She tells me.
“Just look at the bags around the canola plants!” She exclaimed when showing me the photograph, “They are supposed to prevent cross-pollination, but you can see that some of the plants are in flower and they have not been bagged.”
She raised an aspect of contamination that's new to me. Canola pollen or seed could contaminate wheat and other seeds harvested in adjacent fields. She would know, as she also operates a big seeds business, and there is no seed sorting in Australia, because that's too expensive.
“The key issue is that since the federal government approved GM crops, it is now up to the farmer to sign to guarantee the GM-free status of their produce and to accept liability if we are wrong in our signed declaration. If we experience economic loss, we are gearing up for a class action against Bayer Cropscience and Monsanto (if Monsanto grow future trials).” She says. “We are doing a letter drop to ensure farmers contact Bayer Cropscience to collect their trespassing plants if trials have caused contamination.”
Australia has remained GM-free despite the approval of GM canola by the federal government, because, contrary to the situation in the European Union, it is possible for state governments to establish GM- free zones . So far, all states have either imposed a ban or a moratorium or are considered unsuited for growing GM canola.
Jim Scott, Member for South Metropolitan Region of Western Australia, played the key role in getting Australia GM-free, by convincing his parliament to impose the first state-wide ban on GM crops. I met Scott for the first time last year when he was on a fact-finding mission in Britain. He wrote a comprehensive report afterwards that triggered the Western Australian ban on GM crops. He is very proud of that report, and is ready to offer it to anyone who asks ( jscott@mp.wa.gov.au ).
This article can be found on the I-SIS website at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/
Starmail - 1. Nov, 23:12
Strenge Haftungsbedingungen für die Gentechnik
Renate Künast setzt das umstrittene Gentechnikgesetz gegen Kritik aus SPD und Wissenschaft durch...
http://www.telepolis.de/tp/deutsch/special/leb/18700/1.html
http://www.telepolis.de/tp/deutsch/special/leb/18700/1.html
Starmail - 1. Nov, 22:23
