Posted on another group - Anna

Onion experiment shines light on GM food
By Roger Highfield
(Filed: 27/12/2005)

An onion has been genetically altered with jellyfish genes to make it glow green and help children understand GM food.

Tom Ogden, Tashi Chadwick and Jack Ogden with one of the genetically altered onions

The experiment, a part of the Royal Institution Christmas lectures that started on Channel 5 yesterday, will be seen on Friday and is aimed at informing youngsters that GM crops could help feed the world. Prof Sir John Krebs, who has locked horns with ministers, farmers, green activists, major companies and environmentalists, will be shown conducting experiments that should prove politically explosive.

Sir John, the former Food Standards Agency chairman, said: "Whether we use GM food or not isn't up to the scientists, but up to the children. We have a huge mountain to climb to keep up with population growth and we should not throw any tools out of the toolbox."

See Photo:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/27/ngm27.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/12/27/ixhome.html

Also posted on another group....Anna

Sir John Krebs

Sir John Krebs, the head of the UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA), is the son of Hans Krebs, the German biochemist who described the uptake and release of energy in cells (the Krebs cycle).

Sir John is a leading Fellow of the Royal Society and since 1988 has held a Royal Society Research Professorship in the Department of Zoology, Oxford University. His specialty is bird behaviour.

Between 1994 and 1999, Sir John was Chief Executive of the Natural Environment Research Council. He became the first Chairman of the UK Food Standards Agency in January 2000.

Sir John is also a co-founder and non-executive Chairman of Oxford Risk Research and Analysis Ltd (ORRA). ORRA's work includes research and advice on risk and decision making for the oil and pharmaceutical industries, as well as a wide range of other businesses. According to Krebs, 'History is littered with examples of companies that were too risk averse or saw risk as a threat rather than an opportunity.'

Before Sir John's appointment as head of the FSA, he had no direct involvement with food safety or farming issues. However, he had, at the request of the Ministry of Agriculture Food and Fisheries (MAFF), designed the so-called 'Krebs experiments' to investigate whether badgers are responsible for the increasing incidence of TB in cattle. Krebs' approach - one which ignored the important role of cattle husbandry in the disease - was one already favoured by the vets within MAFF, leading some to see the experiments as symptomatic of Krebs' willingness to toe the MAFF line. The experiments are alleged to have lead to the slaughter of 20,000 badgers. In November 2003 the government decided to end a badger cull after it was found that cases of bovine TB in the trial area had actually increased by 27 per cent against a control area where badgers were not slaughtered.

If the experiments had made Krebs controversial even prior to his appointment, things have got worse since. On the day it was announced that he was becoming the first head of the FSA, Krebs publicly endorsed GM food in a radio interview, saying all GM products approved for sale in the UK 'were as safe as their non-GM counterparts'.

But while Krebs was not prepared to reconsider the issue of approved GM foods, despite the high level of public concern, he quickly showed a willingness to tackle the issue of organic food which enjoyed a considerable degree of public confidence. Appearing on BBC TV in August 2000, Krebs announced that consumers who were buying organic food were 'not getting value for money, in my opinion and in the opinion of the FSA, if they think they are buying extra nutritional quality or extra nutritional safety, because we don't have the evidence.'

The Times reported his comments as dismissing organic food as 'an image-led fad' (The Times, September 2, 2000, 'Organic produce attacked by food agency'). A month later Dr Patrick Wall, the chief executive of the Irish counterpart agency, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, dismissed Kreb's views as extreme and reminded people to buy organic food because it was more 'environmentally friendly, more wholesome, and better produced'.

In March 2002, Krebs was again criticized on the organic issue. This time by John Paterson, a biochemist at Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary, for having attacked organic agriculture 'on the basis of very little information'. That autumn it was revealed that Krebs had been refusing to back the government's drive to promote organic food and farming, prompting the Environment Secretary to write to him to clarify his views. Sir John also admitted that comments he made that manure caused more air and water pollution than chemical fertilisers had been designed to undermine claims that organic farming is more environmentally friendly than conventional agriculture.

While Krebs brought a strongly sceptical, not to say combative, tone to the FSA's treatment of organic food, his attitude to GM contrasted markedly. Even prior to his appointment, he was on record as saying that criticisms of GM food were 'shrill, often ill-informed and dogma-driven'. Some speculate that this historic support for GM may have been a factor in his being offered the top job at the FSA.

Certainly, under Sir John's leadership the FSA, which claims representation of the interests of the consumer as one of its key roles, has backed the position of the US government and the biotechnology industry in opposing strict EU labelling and traceability rules on GM foods and animal feed. Its position has been condemned by the Consumers' Association who 'remain bitterly disappointed at the anti-consumer stance' taken by the FSA.

In March 2000 Sir John's chairing of the OECD conference on the Scientific and Health Aspects of Genetically Modified Foods also proved controversial. The event was described by Dr Arpad Pusztai, the only critical food scientist invited, as not so much a conference more 'a propaganda forum for airing the views and promoting the interests of the biotech industry.'

Shortly after joining the FSA, Krebs also aligned himself with the Oxford-based SIRC, Social Issues Research Centre, which has set itself up as an arbiter of what is good and bad in the media's reporting of health and science stories. Krebs, the SIRC, the Royal Institution, the Royal Society and others developed a set of 'Guidelines on Science and Health Communication'. Krebs' involvement was particularly controversial as the SIRC, as well as maintaining a pro-GM position, gets part of its funding from large food companies (eg Bestfoods, the giant ($8b) US food group later taken over by Unilever) as well as front organizations for the drinks and pharmaceutical industries. 'How seriously', asked the British Medical Journal of the SIRC's intiative, 'should journalists take an attack from an organization that is so closely linked to the drinks industry?' SIRC is also supported by its 'sister organisation, MCM Research Ltd' which is a commercial venture catering for a similar range of corporate clients.

When the science correspondent for Channel 4 News contacted Sir John to query the appropriacy of his involvement with an organisation with such links, Sir John denied any knowledge of the SIRC's links but refused to make any comment to camera. The SIRC's director stated that Sir John was aware of the organisation's funding background.

Sir John is also on the Science Advisory Panel of the Science Media Centre (SMC), an 'independent organisation', whose funders include BP Conoco, DuPont, Tesco, and Astra Zeneca, amongst others. The scientists whose views are promoted by the SMC are almost invariably pro-GM. It has also been accused of 'orchestrating a secret campaign aimed at discrediting' a TV drama highlighting the dangers of GM.

During the UK's Public Debate on GM in 2003, Sir John's role again proved controversial. 'Attack on food safety chief for GM crop "bias" ' ran a headline in The Daily Telgraph, reporting that the chairman of the Food Standards Agency had been accused of 'manipulating the Government's public debate on genetically modified foods and failing to be objective in his role as independent scientific adviser on GM crops.' Nine organisations, including the National Federation of Women's Institutes and Unison, the UK's biggest trade union, had written to Sir John, accusing him of bias and of misrepresenting the views of the public. In the letter they said, 'There is a strong consensus amongst consumer and environment organisations that the published views and statements of the FSA and its Chair are indistinguishable from those of the pro-GM lobby and do not properly represent public health and consumer interests.'

In a letter to The Guardian the Policy Director of the Soil Association, Peter Melchett, wrote, 'Sir John's anti-organic prejudice is matched by his love of GMOs. The FSA's own consumer committee has described the FSA's GM literature as "biased" in favour of GM, and the FSA has been caught out deliberately suppressing a verdict of its own "citizens' jury" opposing commercial growing of GM crops in the UK. Sir John says the FSA only represents consumers' interests - in which case it seems a little careless to have lost the confidence of both the Consumers' Association and the National Consumers' Council over his pro-GM campaigns.'

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=73

http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/peas122705.cfm


Informant: binstock

http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/openletter122105.cfm


Informant: Teresa Binstock

Die Regierungskoalition lässt umstrittenen Gentech-Mais zu und will auch sonst den Anbau gentechnisch veränderter Pflanzen fördern.

http://www.telepolis.de/tp/r4/artikel/21/21629/1.html

Ban Terminator News, December 2005

New Calls from Peasants and Small Scale Farmers to Ban Terminator

Take action in your community to endorse the campaign and add your statements against Terminator to these new resolutions from farmers and seed savers in Europe, Canada and South Africa:

1) European Seeds Seminar Calls for a Ban on Terminator, November 26

2) Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario (Canada) Resolution to Endorse Global Campaign to Ban Terminator Technology, November 26

3) German Family Farmers Association, Living seeds instead of dead harvest - Stop Terminator Seeds, November 27

4) KwaNgwanase Farmers Organisation and Phadima Farmers Association, South Africa, Objections and Comments on Terminator Technology Gene, December 2

1) European Seeds Seminar Calls for a Ban on Terminator "Let's Liberate Diversity" Poitiers, France, 25th and 26th November 2005

Resolution to Call for a Ban on Terminator Technology because of its European and Global Impacts on Farmers, Food Sovereignty and the Environment

Participants at the European Seeds Seminar, who came from 15 European countries and 21 countries in other continents (1), meeting in Poitiers, France on 26th November 2005 supported the international campaign to Ban Terminator technology – its development, testing and commercialisation (2).

Terminator, a technology requiring multiple genetic modifications, will stop farmers from being able to save and reuse seed. It is designed to prevent farm-saved seed from germinating so that farmers have to buy new seeds each season. It has been developed to increase corporate control over seeds by the biotech companies. Terminator directly infringes Farmers’ Rights, undermines food sovereignty and presents a threat to farmers’ livelihoods and agricultural biodiversity.

The participants at the seminar:

- Opposed the use of Terminator or any other GURTs (Genetic Use Restriction Technologies) that would prevent farmers from saving and re-using seeds;

- Called on the European Patent Office to revoke the patent on Terminator technology granted to Delta & Pine Land and United States Department of Agriculture on 5th October 2005 (3);

- Rejected the false claim that Terminator technology could permit co- existence of conventional and GM crops – it cannot be a biosafety tool;

- Criticised the investment in research on Terminator technology which diverts funds and effort from agriculturally useful investigation;

- Called on peasants and rural peoples to actively expose and oppose Terminator technology and GM crops and intensify the struggle against imperialist globalisation and the agrochemical transnational corporations; and

- Called on their governments to: Ban Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs) and Terminator, and Defend the existing de facto moratorium on the development, testing and commercialisation of Terminator technology, in upcoming meetings of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in March 2006.

(1) At the seminar there were about 140 participants from national and international farmers’ organisations, NGOs, agricultural research organisations and national, regional and international civil society networks concerned with seeds, agricultural biodiversity, food and farming.

(2) See http://www.banterminator.org

(3) The Terminator patent, EP 0 775 212 B1, was granted by the European Patent Office on 5th October 2005 to US-based Delta & Pine Land (D&PL Technology Holding Company LLC ) and the United States of America, represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. According to further data bank research the patent was already granted in similar versions in the USA, further applications were filed in Australia, Brazil, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Turkey and South Africa. A patent was also granted in Canada on October 11 2005.

Adopted at 16:15 on 26th November 2005, by unanimous vote in the final Plenary.

2) Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario (EFA0)

Resolution to Endorse Global Campaign to Ban Terminator Technology. Passed November 26, 2005, Dixon’s Corners.

Whereas ecological farmers attempt to work with nature by using practices like encouraging biodiversity and,

Whereas ecological farmers often rely on on-farm resources like farm saved seed and,

Whereas past technologies offered to farmers like technology use agreements for GMOs, pesticides and chemical fertilizers perpetuate an agricultural model far removed from nature and damaging to the environment and,

Whereas Terminator technology or GURTs (Genetic Use Restriction Technologies) refers to plants that have been genetically modified to render sterile seeds at harvest and,

Whereas Terminator technology goes against the practice of farming with nature and gives seed multinationals increased control over farmers and,

Whereas the EFAO GMO policy includes a request to "Ban agreements and technology (e.g. Terminator type genes), which restrict farmers’ right to save, trade and reuse seeds."

Therefore be it resolved that the Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario endorse the global campaign to ask all national governments, including Canada, and international bodies to ban terminator in order to ensure that the technology is never field tested or commercialized,

Be it further resolved that EFAO make its position known to the Canadian government and the general public.

Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario (EFA0) 5420 Hwy 6 N. R.R. 5 Guelph ON N1H 6J2 (519) 822-8606

Accompanying Press Release December 8, 2005 Ecological Farmers Ask Canadian Government to Ban ‘Suicide Seeds’

At its recent Annual General Meeting the membership of the Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario (EFAO), passed a motion endorsing the global campaign asking all governments, including Canada, to ban terminator technology to ensure the technology is never field tested or commercialized. Terminator technology refers to plants that have been genetically modified to render sterile seeds at harvest.

Oxford county farmer and EFAO President, Ann Slater says, "By genetically modifying plants that cannot reproduce themselves, the biotechnology and seed corporations, with co-operation from governments, have completely disconnected the growing of food from the rhythm and cycles of nature. In addition, it threatens our seed, and ultimately, our food security by forcing farmers to purchase seed each year."

The official term for Terminator is Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURTs) but the seeds produced through terminator technology are frequently referred to as ‘suicide seeds’ because of their inability to reproduce themselves. This technology was initially developed by seed company, Delta and Pine Land and the US government. The net result of this technology will be that farmers will be unable to replant harvested seed.

"The Canadian Government should be looking at whether this technology benefits farmers and society at large. I fear the motive of the companies is not to feed the world but to fatten their bottom lines." states Director Fran McQuail, from Huron County. " To me, Terminator technology is another genetic modification which might pollute the world's seed stocks the way some of the herbicide resistant genes have, and could potentially cause famine in regions where local food supplies are completely dependant on farm saved seed."

At this point, terminator technology has not been commercialized or field-tested - although trials are currently being conducted in greenhouses in the United States. Since 2000, there has been a de facto moratorium on the release of Terminator seeds under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. However, over the past year there has been a push to lift the moratorium.

Terminator technology will be discussed at meetings of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity in early 2006. Environmental, peasant and citizen groups from across the world, including the EFAO are asking governments to use these meetings as an opportunity to ban Terminator and protect the livelihood of small- scale and family farmers around the world.

For more information contact: EFAO President, Ann Slater (519) 349-2448 EFAO Director, Fran McQuail (519) 528-2493

3) German Family Farmers Association Living seeds instead of dead harvest - Stop Terminator Seeds , Altenkirchen/ Hamm, 27.11.2005

The General Meeting of the German Family Farmers Association decides unanimously:

The Family Farmers Association in Germany supports the actions against Terminator and will contact all Farmers Associations in Germany to form a broad alliance against Terminator. The Family Farmers Association (AbL) condemns the technical assault on the fertileness of seeds and stands up for the right to save seeds. Reasons:

The Terminator-Technology manipulates crops like wheat, soy or canola in a way that the harvest becomes sterile and the fertileness of seed is destroyed. This Technology is complex and error-prone, but is advertised as a biological containment system to avoid cross- pollination and contamination. The introduction of Terminator- Technology, accompanied by sterile harvest, rules out the right and the possibility to save seed. Terminator aggravates the degree of dependence for farmers in the south and in the north and changes the agricultural system in a very important way. Food sovereignty and biodiversity are threatened by Terminator.

Developed ten years ago, Terminator-Technology is driven by Delta & Pine Land and the US-Government. They aimed to stop the possibility to save seeds. Through the concept of biological containment system they are trying to get Terminator-Technology accepted.

In February, the Canadian government tried to overturn the existing moratorium of the UN against Terminator. They are expected to try to open the door to Terminator during the upcoming meetings of the UN Convention of Biological Diversity in Spain and Brazil.

The international Campaign “Ban Terminator” started in Canada and gets now the first supports from German Organisations.

AbL-Bundesgeschäftsstelle, Bahnhofstraße 31, D-59065 Hamm/Westfalen Tel.: +49-2381 9053171, Fax: +49-2381 492221, E-mail: info@abl-ev.de

4) Objections and Comments on Terminator Technology Gene: Comments on above Technology Generated on 02 December 2005 by KwaNgwanase Farmers Organisation and Phadima Farmers Association

1. We disagree with the government proposal to guarantee this permit.

2. This will destroy our ecological system.

3. Our soil will become poor acidic, and will only produce only Gmo crops and our food systems is reduced. Our culture and seeds will be destroyed.

4. This technology is an enemy of nature and ecological system.

5. Farmers rights and cultural rights are not taken care of.

6. Food security systems operations are destroyed consumers will also dependent.

7. South African emerging farmers, commercial not be empowered only outside seed breeders are encouraged to monopolise our farming systems.

8. This technology uses chemical packages which destroys our environments and increase toxic elements in our Health systems.

9. We pledge to S.A Government to stop this technology in our country.

10. This is the way Government want to destroys and complete finishes our local seed varieties and our indigenous knowledge systems.

11. This is not natural and ethical.

12. This will create a nation without culture and poverty is promoted.

13. The KwaNgwanase "Inkosi" Tembe must call the ''imbizo'' for the community to verify and promote Tembe cultural values and activities, (Tembe Reinasance).

14. We must go to public to tell them about this technology and let them have a choice.

ERSTELLT 17.12.05, 07:00h

Die grüne Bundestagsabgeordnete Bärbel Höhn war Umwelt- und Verbraucherschutzministerin in NRW. Sie nimmt an den WTO-Verhandlungen in Hongkong teil. Mit ihr sprach Stefan Sauer.

KÖLNER STADT-ANZEIGER: Frau Höhn, wie beurteilen Sie die Aussagen von Minister Horst Seehofer zum Ökolandbau und der Gentechnik in der Landwirtschaft?

BÄRBEL HÖHN: Herr Seehofer hat nur wenige Wochen gebraucht, um sich den Lobby-Interessen von Gentech-Konzernen und dem Bauernverband zu beugen. Im Fleischskandal hat er noch durchaus positive Signale an die Verbraucher gesandt, allerdings nur mit Worten. Nun lässt er die Katze aus dem Sack: Seehofer macht Politik gegen die Interessen der Menschen, er ist ein Anti-Verbraucherminister.

Er hat auch angekündigt, die Bevorzugung des Ökolandbaus gegen über der konventionellen Landwirtschaft zu beenden. Worin besteht dieses Bevorzugung denn?

HÖHN: Die ist sehr gering. Außer einer etwas größeren Öffentlichkeitsarbeit werden lediglich besonders Grundwasser und Boden schonende Wirtschaftsweisen gefördert. Das sind aber geringe Beträge und auch konventionelle Betriebe können daran teilhaben, wenn sie sich entsprechend verhalten. Der Ökoanbau ist einer der ganz wenigen Bereiche in der Landwirtschaft, der große Wachstumsraten aufzuweisen hat. Die Fläche hat jedes Jahr um rund zehn Prozent zugenommen. Mit seinen Aussagen schmälert Seehofer die Zukunftsperspektiven der Ökobauern und gefährdet damit auch Arbeitsplätze.

Der Minister will dafür vermehrt gentechnisch verändertes Saatgut zulassen. Vielleicht bringt das Jobs?

HÖHN: Mit Sicherheit nicht. Die Gentechnik-Unternehmen sind international agierende Konzerne wie Monsanto mit Sitz in den USA. Im Gegenteil werden Gen-Tech-Pflanzen erst einmal richtig teuer. Landwirtschaft ist ja kein geschlossenes System, so dass es durch Pollenflug und Insekten zu Verunreinigungen konventioneller und ökologischer Anbauflächen kommen wird. Bei gentechnisch verändertem Raps müssen wir noch in zehn Kilometern Entfernung mit Verunreinigungen rechnen. Wer weiterhin gentechnikfreie Pflanzen verkaufen will, muss durch Untersuchungen nachweisen, dass seine Ernte nicht vom Nachbarn verunreinigt wurde. Schließlich wollen die deutschen Verbraucher kein Genfood essen. Der Nachweis kostet Geld, Zeit und Jobs. Es ist sogar schon überlegt worden, „Pollenzäune“ zu errichten, um Insekten abzuhalten. Daran sieht man, wie absurd die ganze Sache ist.

Wenn die Verbraucher kein Genfood wollen, dann fehlt doch die Nachfrage und alles ist in Ordnung.

HÖHN: Nichts ist in Ordnung, weil das ein schleichender Prozess ist. Zunächst wird es wie beschrieben zu Verunreinigungen kommen. In der Folge wird der Grenzwert, der für gentechnikfreie Lebensmittel gilt, langsam erreicht werden. Und dann setzt man die Grenzwerte eben hoch. Die Grünen werden allerdings alles tun, um das zu verhindern. (KStA)

ALLE RECHTE VORBEHALTEN © 2004 KÖLNER STADT-ANZEIGER

http://www.ksta.de/html/artikel/1132657958566.shtml

Genpatente: US-Konzern beansprucht laut Greenpeace Patent auf ganze Schweinerassen (16.12.05)

Greenpeace warnt heute in München vor der Patentierung von Schweinen. Der amerikanische Agrar-Konzern Monsanto hat bei der Weltpatentbehörde in Genf verschiedene Patentanträge angemeldet, in denen ganze Schweinerassen als Erfindung beansprucht werden. Das Europäische Patentamt (EPA) muss die Patentanträge nun prüfen und über eine Erteilung der Patente in Europa entscheiden. Mit einem Korb voll Ferkel forderten Greenpeace und die Bäuerliche Erzeugergemeinschaft Schwäbisch Hall die Mitarbeiter des EPA heute auf, die Patentanträge abzulehnen. Die Ferkel gehören zur traditionellen Rasse der Schwäbisch-Hällischen Landschweine, die ebenfalls von dem Patent betroffen wären.

Die ganze Nachricht im Internet:
http://www.ngo-online.de/ganze_nachricht.php?Nr=12529