[Gen-Info] Fwd: EU-Papier: Neue Gentechnik-Flut droht
klausjschramm at t-online.de
klausjschramm at t-online.de
Mo Mär 8 08:06:05 CET 2010
-----Original Message-----
From: Klaus Faißner [mailto:klaus.faissner at chello.at]
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 12:32 PM
To: 'Klaus Faißner'
Subject: EU-Papier: Neue Gentechnik-Flut droht - EU-Kommission will
Gentechnik-Zulassungsprozess weiter beschleunigen!
Liebe Leute,
hier ein hochbrisanter Text. Bitte weit verbreiten. Wenn die EU das
von Wissenschaftern entdeckte Papier durchbringt, hätten wir wohl die
Zwangsbeglückung mit Gentechnikprodukten. Die Zeit scheint knapp zu
sein. Da auf EU-Ebene einheitlich für die Gentechnik gearbeitet wird,
helfen nur nationale Gentechnikverbote für Anbau UND Import von
Futter- und Lebensmitteln - siehe auch Unterschriftenliste. Dies gilt
es jetzt bei jeder Gelegenheit strikt einzufordern.
Herzliche Grüße,
Klaus Faißner
P.S.: Genau vor dieser Entwicklung warne ich in meinem neuen Buch
"Wirbelsturm und Flächenbrand. Das Ende der Gentechnik" (EUR 14,
versandkostenfrei ab 2 Stk.). Die Zeit der Entscheidung scheint
gekommen
zu sein.
--
Mag. Klaus Faißner
Freier Journalist, Wien
Gründer der Initiative Gentechnikverbot
Tel.+Fax: 01/9907738
klaus.faissner at chello.at
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
EU-Papier: Flut an Gentechnikprodukten droht!
* Nach Gen-Kartoffel: EU will Gentechnik-Zulassungsprozess
beschleunigen * Versteckter Gesetzesentwurf liegt bei der WTO -
Genehmigung bereits in wenigen Tagen möglich * Wissenschafter warnen:
Sicherheit für Tier, Mensch und Umwelt in Gefahr * Strikte nationale
Gentechnikverbote (Anbau und Import) als einziger Schutz
Die EU-Kommission hat am 2. März mit der Gen-Industrie-Kartoffel
Amflora von BASF erstmals seit 1998 eine genmanipulierte Pflanze für
den Anbau zugelassen. Obwohl die Stärkehersteller - also die
eigentlichen Kunden dieser Kartoffel - sie ablehnen, soll sie auch
auf unseren Tellern landen, indem das genmanipulierte
Industrieprodukt (!) auch Tieren verfüttert werden darf. Dass
zusätzlich gleich drei neue Genmaissorten für den Import - also als
Lebens- und Futtermittel zugelassen wurden, macht den Skandal noch
größer.
Doch das soll erst der Anfang gewesen sein. Offiziell verspricht EU-
Kommission den Mitgliedsstaaten eine Wahlfreiheit beim Anbau
genmanipulierter Pflanzen - was ihr rundum Beifall einbringt. In
Wirklichkeit will sie gleichzeitig mit einer geheim gehaltenen
Maßnahme die Zulassung für gentechnisch veränderte Organismen
beschleunigen. So soll ganz Europa mit genmanipulierten Futtermitteln
überschwemmt werden und der großflächige Anbau in den liberaleren EU-
Ländern ermöglicht werden.
"Weiteres Abrücken von unabhängiger Wissenschaft"
Vor wenigen Tagen schlugen deshalb weltweit unabhängige
Wissenschafter Alarm (englisches Original siehe Anhang): Das an die
WTO zur Notifizierung geschickte Dokument - es scheint auf keiner
offiziellen Seite der EU auf - würde den Zulassungsprozess
beschleunigen und einen weiteren Schritt in Richtung Zulassungs-
Gleichklang mit den "Gentechnikländern" USA/Kanada bringen. Bereits
am 9. März könnte es durchgewunken werden (an diesem Tag trifft sich
die Kommission das nächste Mal; die Begutachtungsfrist der WTO läuft
bis 13.3.) und im Juni Gesetzeskraft erlangen. Eine derartige EU-
Verordnung würde den multinationalen Konzernen Vorteile bringen, aber
"der Sicherheit für Tier und Mensch sowie dem Schutz der Umwelt kaum
Beachtung schenken", erklären die Wissenschafter. "Was wir in diesem
Dokument sehen, ist ein weiteres Abrücken von einer soliden,
unabhängigen Wissenschaft (und auf wissenschaftlichen Beweisen
basierenden Politik) und ein Ruck in Richtung formeller Anerkennung
einer herrschenden Hypothese - nämlich, dass gentechnisch veränderte
Pflanzen und Lebensmittel sicher sind."
Anschließend fügen die unabhängigen Experten 16 wissenschaftliche
Bedenken gegen die Gentechnik an. Bereits am 9. März könnte die EU-
Kommission diesen Schritt beschließen und im Mai umsetzen. Vorbei an
allen demokratischen Einrichtungen einer ohnehin undemokratischen EU.
Lösung: sofortige nationale Verbote
Was wäre die Lösung? Da sich die wichtigen EU-Institutionen mitsamt
EU-Recht als Steigbügelhalter der Gentechnik erwiesen haben, sind
sofort nationale Gentechnikverbote zu erlassen - egal, ob dies EU-
und WTO-(Un-)Recht widerspricht oder nicht. Die Sicherung der
Lebensgrundlagen muss Vorrang haben.
Somit sind z.B. in Österreich die drei Forderungen des
Gentechnik-Volksbegehrens von 1997, das mehr als 1,2 Mio. Menschen
unterschrieben haben, sofort umzusetzen:
1. Kein Essen aus dem Genlabor in Österreich!
2. Keine Freisetzungen genetisch veränderter Organismen (GVO) in
Österreich!
3. Kein Patent auf Leben!
Die Schweiz gilt als Vorbild: Hier hat das Volk, der Souverän, in
einer Abstimmung ein generelles, kommerzielles Gentechnikverbot
erwirkt. Auch genmanipulierte Futtermittel werden - im Gegensatz zum
restlichen Europa - so gut wie keine verfüttert. Strikte nationale
Verbote schränken somit auch den Gentechnik-Anbau in anderen Ländern
ein (da nichts mehr importiert wird) und haben Vorbildwirkung. Sie
setzen die Saat für die Ausbreitung der Gentechnikfreiheit. Jean
Ziegler, ehemaliger UNO-Botschafter für das Recht auf Nahrung,
drückte es klar aus: "Der Zerfall des Nationalstaates bringt den
Zerfall des Gesellschaftsvertrages und die Atomisierung des Bürgers
mit sich. (...) Wenn die Regierung keine Macht mehr hat, dann bleibt
auch der Bürger ohnmächtig dem Raubtierkapitalismus ausgeliefert."
Anmerkung: und damit natürlich auch der Gentechnik, denn sie ist die
Ausgeburt des Raubtierkapitalismus.
Es geht um die Sicherung der Lebensgrundlagen. Jeder ist betroffen,
denn jeder isst jeden Tag.
[1] Original-Presseaussendung von GM free Cymru (Wales) am 23.
Februar
2010:
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/news/Press_Notice23Feb2010.htm
[2])
http://members.wto.org/crnattachments/2010/tbt/eec/10_0030_00_e.pdf
Text: Klaus Faißner
Freier Journalist,
Autor des Buches "Wirbelsturm und Flächenbrand. Das Ende der
Gentechnik"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
OPEN LETTER 23rd February 2010
Formal Protest from Scientists:
Commission Regulation on Implementing Rules for GM applications and
assessments
For the personal attention of President Jerzy Buzek, European
Parliament, Brussels Email: Head of Cabinet
maciej.popowski at europarl.europa.eu 22nd February 2010
Dear Professor Buzek,
We write to you as a group of concerned European scientists. Purely
by chance, we have found a new Draft EC Regulation (1) on the WTO web
site, and we respectfully ask you (a) to take this as a formal
protest relating to the content of that regulation, and (b) to bring
this protest to the attention of the full Parliament at the earliest
opportunity.
We gather that this Regulation has been drafted by the Commission
with great secrecy , submitted to the WTO under its conformity
assessment procedure, and is due to be brought into law in May of
this year without any consultation with the public, NGOs or consumer
groups, and even without discussion among the "competent authorities"
who are responsible for GMO risk management in the various countries
of the EU. That causes us very great concern, even though the
Commission might have followed the correct procedures for bringing in
an "Implementing Regulation".
Having undertaken a quick analysis of the Draft Regulation (which is
long enough at 66 pages to require protracted examination!), we see a
number of significant and worrying trends. It appears to us, at the
outset, that this document is designed to speed up the regulatory /
approvals process, in response to pressure from the US administration
and the WTO. It also appears to represent a step along the way
towards "harmonisation" or "synchronisation" of the approvals process
on both sides of the Atlantic, by building in a whole range of
measures which will ease the way for "simpler" and cheaper
applications to come forward. This is to the considerable benefit of
the multinational corporations, especially with respect to their
plans for a new generation of "stacked" GM varieties, but we fear
that it pays scant regard to the safety of animals and human beings,
or to the protection of the environment.
What we see in this Draft Reg document is a further move away from
sound, independent science (and evidence-based policy) and a lurch
towards a formal acceptance of a ruling hypothesis -- namely that GM
crops and foods are harmless. There are few signs of checks and
balances in the system as it is outlined, and hardly any options for
the replication of scientific experiments. Since non-replicable
science MUST be considered unreliable and even fraudulent, this is a
move towards connivance in fraud. And that, in our view, is a very
serious matter.
We have a whole range of detailed comments on the text of the Draft
Regulation, which we are happy to submit to you. We summarize them in
Annex 1 below.
It is our firm belief that in this Draft Regulation the Commission
far exceeds its implementing powers, as indicated in our Annex, for
the most part through subtle changes of wording, and sometimes
through omissions and explanations which are distorted. There are a
number of new assumptions about GM safety which are NOT
scientifically justified. There are also many policy changes which
should have no place in an Implementing Regulation. The Draft
Regulation fails to take account of the extensive recent literature
relating to the harmful effects of GM, and it must therefore be
redrafted.
We gather that this Draft Regulation will shortly come before
Parliament and Council for approval. We urge you, in view of the very
great importance of this matter, to refuse approval and to insist
upon an extended period of consultation, during which due
consideration can be given (a) to any detailed comments you have
received relating to the full text of the document, and (b) to the 16
vital scientific issues which we have raised in this letter.
We look forward to your confirmation that the draft text of this
Regulation will be rejected, and then reconsidered and amended to
take account of these valid concerns. We do not accept that this
cannot be done at this late stage in the process, since the process
is entirely under your control.
We hope to hear from you in the near future. We are also sending this
protest to your colleague Mr Herman Van Rompuy, President of the
European Council.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Brian John
Dr Jose Ramon Olarieta
Prof Brian Wynne
Dr Mae-wan Ho
Prof Jose L. Domingo
Prof Bob Orskov
Prof. Enric Tello
Dr Eva Novotny
Dr Irina Ermakova
Dr Naheeda Portocarero
Dr Arpad Pusztai
Prof Marcello Buiatti
Dr Susan Bardocz
Affiliations and qualifications available on request.
=============================================================
Reference
(1) Draft COMMISSION REGULATION on implementing rules concerning
applications for authorisation of genetically modified food and feed
in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European
Parliament and of the Council and amending Regulations No (EC)
641/2004 and (EC) No 1981/2006 (Text with EEA relevance)
http://members.wto.org/crnattachments/2010/tbt/eec/10_0030_00_e.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
APPENDIX: SIGNIFICANT SCIENTIFIC AND SAFETY CONCERNS
1. REDUCED VIGILANCE
There is a noticeable lessening of vigilance on GM safety issues.
With respect to feeding studies, we see an increasing emphasis on the
nutritional equivalence of GM food/feed and a pretence that this can
give guidance on health and safety. We know already that the majority
of feeding studies submitted in application dossiers are not safety
studies at all, but are concerned primarily with nutrition and
productivity. In several places the Draft Reg text suggests that for
nearly all GM food and feed varieties, "sufficient experience is
available" for assumptions to be made about safety and to suggest
that further studies are unnecessary. We dispute that contention.
Elsewhere there is the comment that experimental testing "may be
necessary" involving laboratory animals. That allows applicants to
avoid lab tests if they can claim that a new variety coming forward
is "substantially equivalent" to something already tested in the
past. That is complacent, and it is bad science.
2. DEROGATIONS AND DEALS
By watering down the regulatory requirements for animal testing,
toxicology studies etc, there is a distinct possibility that EFSA can
in future make convenient "deals" with applicants to bypass almost
all of the studies that should be done. For example: "By way of
derogation from paragraph 1, an application may be accepted even if
it does not satisfy all the requirements set out in that paragraph,
provided that the applicant submits verifiable justification for each
element not complying with those requirements." Again: "........when
studies have been already submitted for the purposes of an
application to the European Food Safety Authority, a reference to
such studies and the results of the evaluation may, with the
agreement of the Authority, be made in the framework of another
application...." Under "Toxicology" there is a paragraph which allows
the applicant to "state reasons" why he does not need to submit
required or recommended studies in order for a sound ruling to be
made on safety and risk. We can take it as read that EFSA will be
very accommodating........
3. STACKED EVENTS
We have particular concerns about the method proposed for dealing
with "stacked event" applications. "Second generation" GM crops,
including those with supposedly enhanced nutritional value, are
likely to be non-uniform and unstable because they have complex
introduced traits. If two or more GM lines are hybridized to
introduce "stacked" GM traits, the potential dangers become even
greater because of synergistic effects. And yet it seems to us from a
reading of the Draft Reg that applications for these complex
varieties can be pushed through along a "fast track" process with
simplified requirements, as indicated above. Applicants can simply
provide a "scientific rationale justifying that there is no need for
experimental data" for the relevant "sub-combinations." On the
contrary, "stacked event" varieties should NEVER be approved for
cultivation or use unless thy have been through a MORE onerous safety
testing regime than the "single trait" varieties from which they are
bred. There is a further, quite deliberate, muddying of the water. If
it can be claimed that the stacking was done by conventional breeding
(even if the lines used are GM lines) all that is needed is an
"assessment" of nutritional or compositional changes, and "no further
studies shall be recommended." (1.6)
4. RESEARCH STANDARDS AND PROTOCOLS
There is a distinct lack of clarity about the precise safety testing
regime that should be employed with respect to new GM varieties. For
example, applicants are simply urged to take into account relevant
international standards, such as the guidelines of the Codex
Alimentarius and the OECD for the conduct of food safety assessments
on GM plants. Again, the text indicates that studies presented in
applications "should" be carried out in accordance with "this
Regulation", internationally agreed protocols and the test methods
described by the OECD when available. What we have here are vague
recommendations, with frequent use of the word "should" and hardly
any use of the word "must." We know from past experience that EFSA
does not actually insist on the highest Codex Alimentarius standards
anyway, for example by accepting evidence based on the use of
surrogate proteins, and not insisting on tests on cooked or uncooked
whole GM foods.
5. CHOICE OF COMPARATORS
It is fully accepted in the Codex Alimentarius and OECD Guidance
documents that all tests of GM materials MUST involve comparisons
with non-GM counterparts or isolines. otherwise the results will be
meaningless with respect to GM effects. We are greatly concerned that
under "Comparative analysis" in the Draft Reg there now appears to be
leeway in the choice of "the conventional counterpart" and additional
comparators. Our reading is that a GM counterpart or "original event"
can now be used -- rather than the isoline or variety from which the
GM plant was bred. This would be in clear breach of international
protocols.
6. SURROGATE PROTEINS
Under "Toxicology" it is proposed to allow "testing of newly
expressed proteins" without any instruction or requirement that they
have to be isolated or derived from the GM plant itself. Under
"testing of newly expressed proteins" (1.4.1) the new regs say that
the tested protein "shall be equivalent to the newly expressed
protein as it is expressed in the GM plant." The use of "surrogate
proteins" in past research has been a major scandal, and applicants
have been allowed to get away with it over and again. This is bad
science, and scientific fraud is inevitable -- with potentially
dramatic consequences for public health.
7. INSERTIONAL MUTAGENESIS
We can find no mention of this in the Draft Reg, although it is
predicted on theoretical grounds and demonstrated in GM plants
already in cultivation. Under "molecular characterization" there is
no requirement for information on the effect of the GM process on the
genome of the recipient plant (insertional mutagenesis.) There is no
request or instruction for applicants to LOOK FOR insertional
mutagenesis. This is a major defect, again with safety and health
implications.
8. ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE MARKER GENES
In the text, we can see no requirement that ARMs (antibiotic
resistance marker genes) MUST be removed after initial plant
breeding. All the EC appears to insist upon is this: "The risk
assessment may be facilitated if the presence of inserted DNA not
essential to achieve the desired trait is minimised." (See also Annex
II, 2.1) That is hardly a tough statement of policy or intent, and
there are public health implications.
9. MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION
There are a number of major deficiencies in the Draft Reg. Under
"Hazard Identification" there is no requirement for information on
the donor organism, its safety or health effects, allergenicity and
so forth. As indicated above, the effect of the GM process on the
genome of the recipient plant (insertional mutagenesis) MUST be
demonstrated. Relating to DNA, applicants can submit a sequence as it
was "intended to be inserted" -- which may of course turn out to be
quite unlike the sequence actually contained within the
commercialised GM plant. And when it comes to the expression of
inserts, the text says that where tissue- specific promoters have
been used, information "may" be requested on the expression of target
genes in other plant parts relevant for risk assessment. That means
that such information may also NOT be requested.........
10. SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE
Under 1.3.2.1. (Description of the protocols for the experimental
design, (a) Principles of experimental design) there is a fascinating
and protracted discussion on how an applicant is supposed to
demonstrate that a GM variety is substantially different and
substantially equivalent to its "counterpart", all at the same time.
Please forgive us for saying so, but this is like something from a
comedy show, and is a perfect example of science in the mad-house. In
any case, there is now overwhelming evidence that GM varieties are
substantially different from their isolines.
11. SAFETY STUDIES INVOLVING ANIMALS
The Draft Regs appear to accept that 90-day rodent feeding studies
need not be designed "to detect effects on reproduction or
development, other than effects on adult reproductive organ weights
and histopathology." Why not? Reproductive effects are of massive
potential significance, and the effects of reproductional toxicity
should be looked for during and after the first generation.
Applicants are given the option to test the whole food and feed
beyond a 90-day rodent feeding study, "where appropriate." It is
beyond belief that any applicants will ever do this, if they are
given the option not to. Given what we already know about toxic
effects arising from the consumption of GM feed, full lifetime
studies on rats should be mandatory. There is also no requirement
even for short-term livestock feeding studies (1.4.4.4.
Interpretation of relevance of animal studies) -- although the Draft
Regs say they may be considered, on a case-by-case basis and be
hypothesis-driven. Again, there is no chance whatsoever that any such
studies will be done voluntarily. There should be a clear requirement
for lifelong feeding studies on "target animals" -- ie those which
will consume GM materials for the whole of their lives. (1.6.2) Also
there is very little in the document about the indirect effects of
herbicide residues arising from the planting of RR or other herbicide
tolerant GM crops, although by law these effects must be identified
and revealed. This is another major defect. Again, there is no
requirement placed on applicants to look for the synergistic or
combined effects of herbicide treatment and transgenes on either
nutritional value or toxicology. We already know, for example, that
certain transgenic rice varieties have reduced nutritional value in
addition to other defects.
12. DEPENDENCE ON INDUSTRY STUDIES
Under 1.4.5. (Conclusion of the toxicological assessment) there is
mention of various "adverse effects" that might be identified in
feeding and other studies. But it is extraordinary that the EC
proposes that all of the assessment of the safety studies should be
done by the applicant, with no independent involvement or
verification studies. Does the EC really think that an applicant is
going to point out potential adverse effects in his toxicology
studies? The invitation in 1829/2003 for independent reviews of the
raw data, or for peer-reviewed studies to be submitted, has now been
ditched. There are two problems here. The first is that EFSA and the
EC assume the honesty of Monsanto, Syngenta and other corporations
which are renowned for their expertise in scientific fraud. The
second is that the research which the regulators accept as honest is
almost always non-replicable, since the seed and feed owners will not
permit truly independent research teams to use their materials for
repeat or improved experiments. In spite of frequent invitations, the
Commission has consistently refused to address this issue, although
it was invited to do so by the Environment Council on 4th December
2008. In our view all industry-sponsored research on GM safety must
be assumed as designed to produce "convenient" results, until it is
independently verified.
13. ANALYSES OF RAW DATA
There is no requirement in the Draft Regs for an applicant to release
or reveal his test data for peer group or public review -- he is only
asked to "justify his conclusions" or to "consider" or "evaluate" his
data. That is a nonsensical state of affairs. This is a very
controversial area, given that EFSA connives in the "protection" of
data and experiment information if applicants claim it under the
"commercial in confidence" rules. There is secrecy and censorship on
a scale that is entirely inappropriate, and where there is no threat
whatsoever to intellectual property rights. It is unacceptable that
interested parties have to resort to the courts in order to achieve
public access to experimental data and to facilitate peer review by
independent scientists. Under 3.2.2.2. (Information of variation of
constituents from databases) we find the following: "Based upon the
considerations above, the applicant shall establish whether the
differences and/or lack of equivalence observed are to be considered
relevant for further consideration in the risk assessment process or
if the difference and/or lack of equivalence does not raise safety
concerns". This allows applicants to argue that observed differences
between test animal groups are "not biologically significant" even if
they are statistically significant. We therefore ask for the
following to be added: "Statistically significant differences shall
always raise safety concerns." Furthermore, we condemn the common
practice of EFSA in accepting without question the data analyses
conducted by applicants, while subjecting independent analyses of the
same data to sceptical and even hostile scrutiny. This can only lead
to accusations of complacency, connivance in defective science, and
lack of objectivity in the "facilitation" of GM approvals.
14. POST-MARKET MONITORING
"When necessary, a proposal for post- market monitoring regarding the
use of food for human consumption and/or the use of feed for animal
consumption shall be submitted in accordance with Annex III." The
Annex allows the applicant and EFSA to say "we have monitored past
crops that have now been combined into a stacked event -- so
monitoring of the stacked event in the field and in the food chain is
unnecessary." That is unacceptable to us, for the reasons outlined
above. Annex III also implies that, as long as a Post-Marketing
Proposal is submitted, it is permitted to market a product even if
"it is not possible to address remaining uncertainties", if "the
relevance and intensity of effects and side-effects ... are difficult
to predict", and if "potential side-effects are identified but cannot
be studied in ... the safety assessment". In other words, the company
need not bother to test safety thoroughly, as long as it will
continue to collect some data (unspecified) about the general public
and any animals that are given the GM food / feed, in order to see
whether people or animals are becoming ill in large numbers. This
again is irresponsible, and completely unacceptable.
15. HEALTH IMPLICATIONS
We see signs in the Draft Regs that the Commission and EFSA are
making unjustified assumptions about the safety of GM crops and
foods. For example, on the matter of allergenicity, there is a
watering down of long-established requirements to show that GM plants
are not harmful. Now we see the use of vague terms such as "depending
on the available information"...... with no requirement for studies
to demonstrate safety in use. Also, there seems to be a conflation of
Nutritional assessment and Exposure assessment. The Draft Regs say:
"If possible, the applicant shall identify and consider particular
sections of the population with an expected high exposure and shall
within the risk assessment (stet)." There is a drafting error here --
but in our view there should be a strict requirement for a written
analysis of sections of the population that might be at increased
risk from the consumption of GM food or animal products from GM-fed
animals -- for example, vegetarians or those with coeliac disease
might be subjected to high levels of GM soy intake.
16. RESEARCH BLOCKING
In Annex IV we find these words: Applicants shall provide "samples of
the food and feed and their control samples of a type and amount to
be specified by the CRL for the specific application for
authorisation." Also: "The applicant shall provide information as
regards the place where the reference material can be accessed. This
shall be accompanied by adequate information demonstrating that the
availability of the reference material will be maintained throughout
the period of validity of the authorisation." Generally, CRL only
requires enough reference material for verification of the GM event,
and for confirming the efficacy of test methods etc. There is NO
requirement for applicants to provide adequate quantities (of GM
varieties and their isolines) for independent verification or repeats
of their safety experiments and feeding trials. So effectively the
applicants retain full control of their reference materials and have
to make no commitment to provide extra material either for the EC or
for anybody else. As indicated in (12) above, this means that all of
their experiments are NON- REPLICABLE -- and on that basis alone they
should not even be considered by the regulators as valid "science."
What do the Commission and EFSA propose to do about this blatant and
on-going abuse of scientific ethics?
--
Similar letter to:
Mr Herman Van Rompuy
President of the European Council
Brussels
ec.president at consilium.europa.eu
23rd February 2010
Mehr Informationen über die Mailingliste Gen-Info