Aufgespürt: Vier Gen-Produkte in deutschen Supermärkten

26.07.04

Vier Produkte mit Gen-Zutaten sind nach Angaben der Umweltorganisation Greenpeace bis jetzt auf dem Markt: Eine Suppe und ein Getränkepulver der Firma Herbalife, ein asiatisches Tofu- Produkt und auch der Schokoriegel Butterfinger von Nestlé, der wieder vereinzelt angeboten werde. Die Produkte hatten die "Gen-Detektive" mit Hilfe von Verbrauchern herausgefunden. Nach der EU- Verordnung vom 18. April müssen Produkte mit Zutaten aus gentechnisch veränderten Pflanzen gekennzeichnet werden. Die Lücke sind dabei Milch, Eier und Fleisch, die nicht gekennzeichnet werden müssen, wenn die Tiere mit Gen-Pflanzen gefüttert wurden.

Die ganze Nachricht im Internet:

http://www.ngo-online.de/ganze_nachricht.php4?Nr=8994

The Mayor of Begles, Noel Mamere, joined the protest near Toulouse Hundreds of protesters have destroyed a field of genetically modified maize in south-west France.

The demonstrators ripped up the transgenic crop plantation at Menville, near Toulouse.

The activists were led by radical French farmer Jose Bove, who said the protest was being taken in the interests of consumers.

About 15 policemen watched the destruction and took photographs of those involved, but did not intervene.

"We observed the protest, took down the identities of some of the participants and took photos after warning the organisers that it was illegal and that the information would be forwarded to the Haute-Garrone region's prosecutor," an officer told Reuters news agency.

Mr Bove said the protesters were prepared to face the consequences.

"This protest is legitimate and we did it to protect the consumer. We will assume the legal risks."

It was the latest in a series of protests by opponents of GM crops across Europe.

In May, a French court fined three people 600 euros (£396) each for destroying test fields of GM crops in 1997.

There have been about a dozen prosecutions of anti-GM activists in France over the past seven years.

Also in May, the European Commission lifted a six-year moratorium on GM foods, permitting companies to sell maize known as Bt-11, packaged as tinned sweetcorn.

Critics say GM plants and foods have not been properly tested and it is too soon to say if they are safe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3924623.stm


Informant: Earth Lib

Das Fraunhofer-Institut will Medikamente auf dem Acker herstellen. Mittels genmanipulierter Maispflanzen sollen Impfstoffe und Medizin gegen Aids, Tollwut, Diabetes und Tuberkulose hergestellt werden. Eine Verunreinigung von Nahrungsmitteln ist unvermeidbar. Damit drohen neue Lebensmittelskandale wie z.B. mit Tollwut-Impfstoff verunreinigte Corn Flakes.

Lesen Sie weiter unter:
http://www.umweltinstitut.org/frames/allg/press/f-20040716.htm

München (dpa) - Der Streit um das Patent auf die so genannte Krebs-Maus geht vor deutschen Gerichten möglicherweise weiter. Der Evangelische Stadtkirchenverband Köln behält sich nach eigenen Angaben eine entsprechende Klage vor. Das Europäische Patentamt (EPA) in München hatte das Patent am Dienstag mit Einschränkungen bestätigt. Vor einer Entscheidung über eine Klage gegen das Patent werde man zunächst die schriftliche Begründung der EPA-Entscheidung abwarten, sagte Pfarrer Axel Becker vom Kölner Stadtkirchenverband am Freitag der dpa in München. Eine EPA-Beschwerdekammer hatte am Dienstag in zweiter Instanz entschieden, dass sich der Patentschutz künftig nur noch auf Mäuse mit zusätzlichen Krebsgenen bezieht und nicht mehr auf alle derart veränderten Nagetiere. Tierschützer haben nach der abschließenden EPA-Entscheidung nun noch die Möglichkeit, das Patent vor den nationalen Gerichten anzufechten. Die Krebs-Maus wurde zu Forschungszwecken durch die gentechnische Veränderung besonders krebsanfällig gemacht.

© Copyright 1998-2003 NetDoktor.de - All rights reserved

http://www.netdoktor.de/nachrichten/index.asp?y=2004&m=7&d=12&id=113141

Four years ago traces of an illegal, likely allergenic genetically engineered corn (Starlink) began showing up in taco shells and other food products in the U.S. Hundreds of U.S. consumers reported serious allergic reactions food products likely contaminated with StarLink corn.

A billion dollar recall of food products ensued, and farmers whose fields were contaminated by the drifting Starlink pollen incurred massive financial losses. In June of 2004, a class action lawsuit against Aventis, the producer of Starlink corn, came to a close with a settlement of $112 million to affected farmers (amounting to only about $1-2 per contaminated acre). The disaster is a dramatic example of how genetically engineered crops can go awry.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/Corn/starlink.cfm

---------------------------------

STARLINK POLLUTION
"In Iowa, StarLink corn represented 1 percent of the total crop, only 1 percent. It has tainted 50 percent of the harvest."

ABC NEWS November 28, 2000

Since its release onto the market in 1994, Monsanto's recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) has been banned in most industrialized nations, other than the U.S., Brazil, and Mexico. While the genetically engineered hormone is regularly being injected into 22% of the dairy herd in the U.S. to force cows to give more milk, scientists warn that it may increase milk drinkers' risks of getting cancer. After a decade of forcing unlabeled and untested rBGH-tainted milk and dairy products on consumers, Monsanto is mysteriously scaling back its production of the controversial drug. In January the company announced a 50% cutback in production. Recently, Monsanto's plants in Austria and Augusta, Georgia, have halted production entirely, supposedly due to minor contamination problems. Rumors within the industry, however, are that Monsanto is in a panic about field reports of major damage to bovine health, including bone cancer, prompting the company to phase out production of the controversial hormone so as to avoid legal liability.

Stay tuned to OCA for more info
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.html

Dr. A Satyanarayana responds to criticisms of SRI as someone responsible for introducing the practice to the Andhra Pradesh state of India.

I read the news feature "Rice cultivation: feast or famine" in Nature (25 March 2004) with great interest as I was responsible for introducing the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh since the kharif (summer) season of 2003.

I found the message conveyed by the article not quite balanced. The experiences of farmers are very different from what is said by sceptical scientists. Instead of trying to understand how a rice plant can respond differently under an SRI environment, they are confused about the potential of SRI, giving information based on rice cultivation under flooded conditions that are definitely not SRI practice.

Having worked as a plant geneticist for over 3 decades on the genetic improvement of leguminous crops under rice-based cropping systems, I have released 34 varieties of various grain legumes that are widely adopted in rice-pulse or rice- rice-pulse cropping systems covering over one million hectares in the state. I have been responsible, from 1995 to 2000, for research in the Krishna and Godavari deltas, which, with 1.5 million ha of rice-growing area, are known as the rice bowl of Andhra Pradesh. At present, I am Director of Extension for the state agricultural university (ANGRAU) and transfer of technology is my job. So, I do know about the rice crop.

In January 2003, I was able to learn about SRI on a study tour to Sri Lanka, and was amazed to see the potential of this system. On returning to Andhra Pradesh, I started educating farmers on the skills involved in SRI and motivated them to take up this system on a small scale in demonstration plots. We planned to organise 50 demonstrations through ANGRAU's extension service and 150 through the State Department of Agriculture. But more than 300 farmers took up SRI during the summer season of 2003.

On average, the size of the demonstration plot was 0.4 ha, with the largest at 1.6ha. As many as 10 different varieties, chosen by the farmers themselves, were tried in all 22 districts of the state, under different soil and irrigation systems. The results achieved were highly satisfactory, giving an average yield advantage of over 2.0 t/ha. About 40 farmers got yields over 10t/ha, and 5 districts had average yields over 10t/ha. The highest recorded was 16.2 t/ha followed by 15.7t/ha.

The average over all the demonstration plots was 8.36t/ha compared to 4.9 t/ha with conventional practice and the state average of 3.89t/ha. These yields are not theoretical. They were properly recorded after thorough drying. On seeing the performance of this system, many farmers volunteered to practice SRI during the current winter season on more than 5 000 acres in the state.

Many farmers used SRI on over 10 acres. One farmer (Mr. N. V. R. K. Raju) practiced SRI on over 100 acres (40ha.), and an average yield of more than 10 t/ha is expected. I request sceptics to visit Andhra Pradesh and see SRI in practice before drawing conclusions.

Under SRI, the rice crop is maturing 10 days earlier than with usual cultivation practices, irrespective of the variety, which is contrary to what was stated in the Nature news feature, that SRI takes two weeks longer to mature. Also, SRI required less water and less chemical inputs. SRI gave higher grain as well as straw yield. Moreover, the SRI rice crop has withstood cyclonic gales and a cold spell.

It is unfortunate to say in the headlines of the news feature that proponents call SRI a "miracle". No one has ever said this because SRI results are quite explainable. Planting young seedlings carefully and at wider spacing gives the plant more time and space for tillering and root growth. Careful water management keeping the field wet and not flooded gives better yield because it supports healthy root growth. This practice should be encouraged everywhere as the whole world is facing water shortages. Weeding rice fields with a rotary weeder helps by churning the soil and incorporating the weed biomass as it aerates the root zone. This encourages the soil microorganisms to proliferate and makes the soil living and healthy. All of these practices are known to agronomists, and there is nothing new or magical.

The productivity of SRI as a function of input is very high, which is more important now as the Green Revolution technologies are showing fatigue. SRI has the potential to give higher yields at lower costs. Even when the farmers were unable to practice all the aspects the first season, just planting young seedlings carefully at wider spacing with somewhat better water management resulted in over 2.0t/ha extra yield compared to conventional methods using higher inputs. With more experience and mastering of skills, still higher yields are possible, as those obtained by the best farmers clearly suggest.

Rice yields all over the world have leveled out under the present system of flooded cultivation. Genotype x environment interactions are known to affect the plants' phenotype and performance. We need to be looking for alternatives to the present costly practices with an open mind. SRI is still evolving with the innovations of the farmers making implements and practices more labour-saving.

There is more than enough evidence accumulated here and elsewhere for scientists to take SRI seriously. I hope that the scientific community will collaborate in further research. Possibly it can refine the technology and reveal the factors responsible for the higher productivity observed. That would be more constructive and more in the spirit of science than dismissing it with limited or faulty data and preconceptions.

The author is Director of Extension, Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad-500030, Andhra Pradesh, India, and this article is adapted from his response to the Nature news feature mentioned.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/TIRGRSRI.php

Übergabe von Protest-Postkarten an den Bundestag

Pressemitteilung vom 2. Juli 2004

"GenFood-Nein Danke" / Däubler-Gmelin nimmt 11.213 Unterschriften entgegen

Die Coordination gegen BAYER-Gefahren (CBG) übergibt heute mehr als zehntausend Protest-Unterschriften an den Bundestag. Die UnterzeichnerInnen fordern ein vollständiges Verbot gentechnisch veränderter Nahrungsmittel in Deutschland, solange die Langzeitrisiken von GenFood und die Haftungsfragen nicht vollständig geklärt sind. Herta Däubler-Gmelin, Vorsitzende des Bundestags-Ausschuss für Verbraucherschutz, Ernährung und Landwirtschaft, nimmt die Unterschriften entgegen.

Axel Köhler-Schnura, Vorstand der CBG: "Der BAYER-Konzern ist in Europa Marktführer für Gen-Saatgut und drängt mit gentechnisch verändertem Mais, Soja, Reis, Zuckerrüben, Baumwolle und Raps auf den Markt. Ausschließlich aus Profitgründen - mit unabsehbaren Folgen für die Umwelt und gegen den Willen der Bevölkerung."

Die Coordination gegen BAYER-Gefahren weist darauf hin, dass die langfristigen Risiken von GenFood trotz der Versprechungen der Industrie völlig unklar sind. "Die Ankündigungen der Konzerne, mittels Gentechnik das Welthunger-Problem zu lösen oder den Verbrauch von Agrogiften zu verringern, haben sich als bloße Produkteinführungskampagnen erwiesen", so Köhler-Schnura weiter. Die CBG begleitet das Unternehmen BAYER seit 25 Jahren kritisch.

Global betrachtet hätte die Einführung von gentechnisch verändertem Reis, für den BAYER bei der EU eine Importgenehmigung beantragt hat, die dramatischsten Konsequenzen: Reis ist für 2,5 Milliarden Menschen das Hauptnahrungsmittel. Millionen Bauern, die bislang durch Tausch und Eigenzüchtungen ihr Saatgut selbst produzieren, würden in Abhängigkeit von multinationalen Konzernen geraten. Durch den bereits in der "grünen Revolution" beobachteten Konzentrationsprozess würde eine große Zahl asiatischer Landwirte die Existenz verlieren. Lokal angepasste Reissorten würden durch Hochertragssorten verdrängt, was zu erhöhten Schädlingsaufkommen, verstärktem Einsatz von Pestiziden und einer Verringerung der Artenvielfalt führt. Die Coordination gegen BAYER-Gefahren fordert die Bundesregierung auf, bei der EU auf eine Ablehnung der Importzulassung für Gen-Reis zu drängen.

Die Zulassung von gentechnisch verändertem Saatgut läuft schleppender an, als von der Industrie erwartet: Belgien wies die Zulassung von genmanipuliertem Raps von BAYER zurück. In England wurde die Zulassung von Gen-Mais von BAYER ebenfalls abgelehnt.

Sollte gentechnisch verändertes Saatgut jedoch zugelassen werden, so verlieren die VerbraucherInnen innerhalb kürzester Zeit die Entscheidungsfreiheit. Untersuchungen in Nordamerika haben ergeben, dass über 90% der von Öko-Landwirten angebauten Pflanzen mit Fremdgenen belastet sind. Die Coordination gegen BAYER-Gefahren fordert daher eine volle Übernahme der Haftung durch die Gentech-Industrie, falls es zu Schäden von Personen oder der biologischen Vielfalt kommt.

Für Interviews stehen am Bundestag Axel Köhler-Schnura und Hubert Ostendorf vom Vorstand der CBG zu Verfügung: 0175 - 2029626

Weitere Informationen und Fotos von der Aktion senden wir gerne zu: 0211 – 333 911

Coordination gegen BAYER-Gefahren
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