[Gen-Streitfall] Presseschau 29.9. - 5.10.03

[Sabine]

GMOs are not immoral, says the Vatican

Hallo, anbei die Wochenschau, in Brasilien und Neuseeland sind sie
gerade dabei, 
den Anbau von GM-Food zu erlauben. Die so erzeugten Lebensmittel können
dann ja 
bald auch nach Europa eingeführt werden, wo sie gerade über Fragen der
Koexistenz 
Uns Haftung diskutieren und die Gen-Maissorte NK 603 von Monsanto durch
das 
Zulassungsverfahren schleusen. 18 weitere Marken wurden bereits vor 1998
zugelassen 
und benötigen nur noch die "Sortenzulassung" (Was auch immer das ist)
und 22 
weitere Marken warten schon in der Schlange. Der Lebensmittelhändler
Metro hat 
sich bereits bereit erklärt, bei der Vermarktung der GM-Lebensmittel
eine Vorreiterrolle 
Zu übernehmen.

Es ist fast als führten die GM-Konzerne ihre letzte entscheidende
Schlacht. Vielleicht 
weil es ihnen wirtschaftlich schlecht geht. Vielleicht weil sei einfach
noch mehr Profit
machen wollen. Letzendlich können uns die Gründe egal sein. Langfristig
wird die Folge
sein, dass es die von den Grünen so hoch gepriesene Wahlfreiheit für
Verbraucher bald 
nicht mehr gibt. Bereits kurzfristig werden die Preise für Non-GM-Food
steigen. (Selbst 
schuld, wer selbst entscheiden will, was er isst).

Aber das ist noch nicht das Ende, denn genmanipulierte Tiere warten nur
darauf, in Kürze
die Marktreife zu erlangen. 

Save our seeds bittet darum, wegen der Saatgutreinheit Postkarten mit
folgendem Text an 
Schröder zu schreiben: "...Bitte sorgen Sie dafür, dass herkömmliches
Saatgut auch in 
Zukunft frei von Gentechnik bleibt. Die Europäische Kommission will
gentechnische 
Verunreinigungen zwischen 0,3% und 0,7% im konventionellen und
Bio-Saatgut ohne 
Kennzeichnung zulassen. Da Saatgut sich vermehrt, macht "das Bisschen
Gentechnik" 
einen großen Unterschied. Wir wollen ein eindeutiges Reinheitsgebot
(technisch: 0,1%). 
Die deutsche Stimme entscheidet bei der Abstimmung in der EU.
...Schützen Sie uns 
und die Umwelt vor möglichen Gefahren…."
Postkarten-Motiv unter:
http://zs-l.de/saveourseeds/Download_Centre/plakat_A4_300dpi.jpg
Alles weitere unter www.saveourseeds.org

Lest doch den Artikel vom 3.Okt. aus der Aberdeen American News, dann
wisst Ihr, warum
Genfood alle unsere Probleme löst. Gruß, Sabine


__________________________________________________________________
The Associated Press.
October 4, 2003
Food companies want to move with caution dealing with 
transgenic animals
By EMILY GERSEMA, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON

The food industry has waited a long time for biotech products aimed at
giving consumers better health and a cleaner environment. Genetically
engineered animals, however, are not what the industry has in mind.

So far, the biotech products in the marketplace resist pests and
tolerate
chemicals, clearly offering benefits to farmers, not consumers.

Still, consumers have come to accept food from genetically engineered
plants. They buy tacos, nacho chips and tofu without thinking twice that
many of them are produced with genetically modified corn and soybeans.
Farmers now devote three-fourths of the nation's soybean acreage and 40
percent of their corn plantings to biotech varieties.

But gene-altered animals? Well, that's a different animal….
"Animals are a different issue," said Stephanie Childs, a spokeswoman
for
the Grocery Manufacturers of America. "Consumers want to know what the
benefits are."

Polls show that the public is much more skittish about tinkering with
the
genes of livestock than crops.

Nonetheless, transgenic salmon could hit the market within five years.
The
fish, developed by Aqua Bounty Technologies Inc. of Waltham, Mass., are
designed to grow bigger and faster, and produce less waste than their
wild
cousins….Aqua Bounty's fish is spliced with a Chinook salmon growth gene

and an antifreeze gene from an ocean pout.

Environmental groups argue that transgenic animals and fish are
ecologically risky because the animals could escape into the wild and
take
over food supplies and habitats of their conventional counterparts. The
groups also fear the animals would breed with conventional ones, passing
on
their mutant genes, which would phase out whole species.

In February, the FDA discovered that some pigs that were supposed to
have
been destroyed after a biotech study may have entered the food supply 
After being sold to a livestock dealer. The pigs, developed at the
University of
Illinois, were offspring of genetically engineered pigs. 

Hoban...cited some biotech experiments that involved transplanting genes
from humans into pigs. If those animals were to get into the food
supply,
it would be difficult for the food industry to recover, he said.

FDA officials maintain the approval process is stringent enough to
protect
the public. The biotech industry agrees, saying it is taking appropriate
measures to prevent the worst from happening, designing animals that
cannot
reproduce and that would be raised in confinement.


______________________________________________________
The Economist
October 4, 2003
An amber light for agri-business
SaO PAULO

JOSE ALENCAR, Brazil's vice-president, was feeling sorry for himself
last
week. His boss, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, was abroad...That left Mr 
Alencar …with the unpleasant task of signing a decree that for the
first time allows the planting of genetically engineered crops in
Brazil.

The vice-president was caught between two juggernauts. One is an
alliance
of activists and politicians who regard biotechnology as a dangerous
novelty foisted on Brazil by malign multinational companies. Many are
close
to President da Silva's Workers' Party, which dominates the government.
The
other is Brazil's increasingly powerful agri-business lobby, which sees
biotech as a competitive tool. The decree...is a victory for the
planters. It will
reverberate from the floor of Brazil's Congress to the shelves of
European
supermarkets.

In soyabeans, Brazil is a superpower (see chart). Within five years, it
could become the world's biggest producer, reckons the United States'
Department of Agriculture. Soya products already account for about 5% of
Brazil's total exports. …

Europeans, accustomed to eating GM-free food without paying 
much extra for it, may have to choose between their phobias and 
their wallets.

...Foes of GM farming think they have an irresistible argument: the
world does
not want it. So say politicians in Parana state, Brazil's second-largest
soya producer, where the seeds are conventional. The state governor is
pushing a local law that would ban GM soya from the state and close its
port to GM crops.

Inconveniently for the antis, though, "many Parana farmers want to
produce
biotech soya," says Carlos Augusto Albuquerque of the local farmers'
federation. The important thing is to segregate GM from non-GM
varieties,
which will be easier if Monsanto soya is legal. ...

The reason for Mr Albuquerque's stance can be found in European 
kitchens. In Britain, where consumers are especially fussy, supermarkets

sell Pork and chicken raised on non-biotech soya for the same price they
once 
Charged for Monsanto-fed meat. They can do so in part because Brazilian
farmers,
the main source of non-GM soya, are paid little extra for it.

If Brazil shifts largely to biotech soya, non-GM farmers may at last
gain
the leverage to extract something more than the derisory premium they
are
accustomed to. For Europeans, that will come on top of the costs of
complying with new regulations, which are about to mandate labeling of
GM
animal feed (though not of the meat itself) and an expensive paper trail
to
certify the purity of non-GM ingredients. If supermarkets pass such
costs
on, consumers' appetite for GM-free food could wane.

Thanks to Mr Alencar's one-year decree, the premium for non-GM soya in
Brazil is rising already. ...

______________________________________________
Aberdeen American News (South Dakota)
October 3, 2003 Friday
Balancing debate concerning GM products
By LARRY GABRIEL Sec. of the; Department of Agriculture

Will "Franken foods" become "green foods?" ...

Some people fear the changes without knowing why. Others oppose them
merely
because large corporations own the patents. Still others think GM crops
are
the only way we can possibly feed the predicted 40% increase in the
world
population during the next fifty years.

… The environmental community and some farmers have joined forces in
opposing
GM crops. That could change.

I recently read an article in the Atlantic Monthly predicting that
within
ten years the environmental community will reverse its current position
on
genetically modified foods, because of environmental benefits from GM
farming.

The theory is that the "greens" will give up their emotion-based fears 
And eventually support GM farming, when they realize the environmental
benefits. The claims are that no-till farming combined with new
biotechnology can: 
*	feed the hungry of the world; 
*	reduce demand for more
*	arable land; 
*	restore salty irrigated lands; 
*	reduce grassland and forest
*	conversions; sequester carbon; 
*	enrich soil biodiversity (because insects and worms will till
the soil); 
*	reduce fertilizer and fossil fuel consumption; 
*	reduce herbicide use, 
*	and nearly eliminate farm run-off problems which pollute our
waters.

I don't know if GM farming can deliver on all these promises. ...
It is difficult to know whether long term economic benefits will
outweigh
the short-term loss of world market share for a product like GM wheat.
All
those economic predictions are based on past market prices, which are
less
than the current market price of wheat.

Emotions may prevail over logic and economics in our ultimate decision,
but
fear should not be the controlling factor. For those who make
emotion-based
decisions, I suggest they consider this: six million children under the
age
of five die every year from hunger or disease related to malnutrition.

Can genetically modified crops change that? I don't know. But, I don't
need
to know the answer to "feel" that we must do all we can to feed the
starving.

The only way to guarantee failure is to not try.

_______________________________________________________________
The Guardian (London)
October 2, 2003
GM crops fail key trials amid environment fear: Two out 
of three strains 'should not be grown': 
BY Paul Brown Environment correspondent

GM oil-seed rape and sugar beet are more damaging than conventional
crops,
scientists will tell ministers next week after three years of
field-scale
tests Photograph: David Levene

Two of the three GM crops grown experimentally in Britain, oil-seed rape
and sugar beet, appear more harmful to the environment than 
Conventional crops and should not be grown in the UK, scientists are 
expected to tell the government next week.

The Guardian has learned that the scientists will conclude that growing
these crops is damaging to plant and insect life.

The judgment will be a serious setback to the GM lobby in the UK and
Europe, reopening the acrimonious debate about GM food.

The third crop, GM maize, allows the survival of more weeds and insects 
And might be recommended for approval, though some scientists still have
reservations.

The results of the three years of field scale trials - the largest
scientific experiment of its type on GM crops undertaken anywhere in the
world - will be published next Friday by the august Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society. The results have been a closely
guarded
secret for months, and will be studied by scientists, farmers, food
companies and governments across the world….

The overwhelming public hostility in the UK to GM crops has not been
shared
by scientists or the government but the results of the field scale
trials
are expected to be a jolt to the enthusiasts. ….

A three-year moratorium on the commercial introduction of crops was
negotiated with the GM companies Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer Bioscience
while the experimental field trials took place. Despite repeated attacks
by
anti-GM protesters that destroyed many of the fields, the scientists
decided they had enough results to be scientifically valid. ..

The numbers of weed species and various types of spiders, ground
beetles,
butterflies, moths and bees in fields of GM crops and the adjacent
conventional crop fields were counted to see if they showed marked
differences. All were treated with herbicides to kill weeds but the GM
crops were modified to survive special types made by Monsanto and Bayer.

The papers accepted for publication by the Royal Society show that in GM
sugar beet and oil-seed rape the weeds and insects were significantly
less
numerous. Spraying with the Monsanto herbicide glyphosate had taken a
heavy
toll in the beet fields and the Bayer product glufosinate ammonium had
wiped out many species in the rape fields.

For maize the reverse appears to be the case. The reason seems to be
that
maize fields are normally sprayed with atrazine, which kills weeds as
they
germinate, and is an even more sav age killer than the Bayer product.
But
the result may be controversial because maize is particularly sensitive
to
competition from weeds and yields may be down. Farmers in America found
glufosinate ammonium was not enough to kill competitive weeds and used a
second herbicide, further damaging biodiversity.

The political fall out from the trial results is potentially enormous.
It
would give the government every excuse to refuse permission outright for
two of the three crops on environmental grounds. One of the two legally
watertight reasons for such a refusal is the environment, the other is
health. Almost all of northern Europe, with similar farming conditions,
would be expected to follow any British ban.

GM maize, grown in the UK as a fodder crop, may be given the green light
under strict guidelines…

The government has other minefields to negotiate before GM crops can be
introduced. The Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission is
still wrestling with the vexed question of distances required between GM
and conventional crops to avoid cross contamination and compensation
schemes for injured farmers if all goes wrong.

If contamination above 0.9% occurs in conventional crops it will have to
be
declared and will be virtually unsaleable to food companies and all UK
supermarkets. For organic farmers the threshold is even lower at 0.1%.

The majority of the commission members believe that the biotech industry
should set up a fund with a levy on farmers growing GM crops to
compensate
any conventional farmers whose crops lose value because of
cross-contamination. The biotech industry is wholly opposed to this.

The commission is also set to recommend a second statutory fund paid for
by
the government to compensate farmers who lose organic status for the
same
reason.

New legislation would be required to set up the schemes and enforce the
separation distances between crops. The legally enforceable separation
distances could be made larger or smaller in the future in the light of
experience.

The commission meets again in December by which time a draft of
proposals
will be circulated.

________________________________________________________________
Associated Press Worldstream
October 2, 2003
Protest grows as end nears to ban on biotech plants and animals
BY RAY LILLEY; Associated Press Writer
WELLINGTON, New Zealand

As the end of a two-year ban on planting genetically engineered crops in
New Zealand looms, this nation that prides itself on its pristine
environment is turning into a hothouse of opposition to manipulated
plants
and animals.

>From eco-warriors threatening to tear up crops to concerned mothers
stripping to their bras in Parliament, people across this nation of 4
million are boldly seeking new ways to articulate their opposition.

A group calling itself Mothers Against Genetic Engineering, or Madge,
this
week posted billboards around major cities portraying a naked
"genetically
engineered" woman with four breasts attached to a milking machine.

It was the same group who disrupted Parliament three weeks ago when
members
stripped off their tops to reveal pink bras in an anti-GE protest.

Environment activist group, the "Wild Greens," has already torn up
fields
and wrecked hothouses of laboratory-modified potatoes and are
threatening
more of the same if GE crops are allowed in fields.

A recent nationwide opinion poll revealed that 68 percent of people want
the moratorium, due to end Oct. 29, extended for five years and 38
percent
said they want biotech plants and organisms permanently banned.

Despite the numbers and the protests, the Labor-led government of Prime
Minister Helen Clark remains on course to lift the ban.

The Green Party, which has nine lawmakers in the 120-seat parliament,
warned that New Zealand has no rules in place to fully protect food and
seed crops from contamination by genetically engineered plants.

This same issue Monday split the European Union as ministers disagreed
over
rules to prevent cross-contamination of organic and conventional crops
by
biotech seeds.

...The country's law to control hazardous substances and new organisms
"does
not deal with cross-contamination of crops at all," Fitzsimons added.

...But Fitzsimons said the strategy allows a 1 percent contamination
level,
which will enrage groups like organic farmers and "anyone who wants to
market their produce as GE-free."

On the Net: www.madge.net.nz

____________________________________________________________________
Seed industry chief rips new Brazilian GM soya policy
Date Posted: 10/2/2003
English IPS News via NewsEdge Corporation : RIO DE JANEIRO, Sep. 30 
(IPS/GIN) -- The Brazilian government's decision to temporarily allow 
farmers to plant genetically modified soya seed that was smuggled into
the 
country "is our death sentence," says Narciso Barisn Neto, head of a
seed 
producers' association in the southern state of Rio Grande do Sul.
...
Cultivation of GM seeds is banned in Brazil according to a 1999 court 
decision, but the area planted with transgenic soya has expanded
steadily 
since 1997, especially in Rio Grande do Sul. There, 70 percent of soya 
planted last year had originated from seed smuggled in from Argentina, 
according to the state's seed producers' association APASSUL.
...
The Brazilian seed industry, which helped the country to double its 
agricultural output since 1990 while cultivated land increased just 15 
percent, is also threatened in other states, he said.
...
by: Mario Osava, Copyright ©2003 Global Information Network

__________________________________________________________
Financial Times (London,England)
September 30, 2003
Fischler urges EU states to lift modified-crops ban
By TOBIAS BUCK, BRUSSELS

Franz Fischler, the European Union farm commissioner, yesterday pleaded
with member states to lift their moratorium on the approval of new
genetically modified organisms, although some countries insisted further
legislation was needed to shield consumers and farmers from potential
hazards linked to the technology.

His call comes as Brussels faces strong international pressure to
restart
...following its five-year de facto ban on new approvals, imposed by a
coalition 
of member states....The European Commission has pushed hard to make sure
the moratorium is lifted before a WTO panel rules on the case, which
could
be next year at the earliest.

However, the Commission's efforts have run into opposition from some
member
states ....The EU this year passed two tough laws dealing with the
labelling and
traceability of GMOs…

However, countries such as Austria and Luxembourg said at a meeting of
farm
ministers in Brussels yesterday they would not back any new GMO
authorisations without EU-wide rules on the "co-existence" of
conventional,
biological and GM farming.

Such rules would include measures aimed at preventing cross-pollination
of
GM and non-GM crops and would establish under what circumstances farmers
would have to pay damages in case of such contamination. The Commission
wants such rules to be established at a national level, to prevent any
further delays.

Mr Fischler told the ministers yesterday: "It is important to note that
the
co-existence debate should not be misused for causes that will further
delay the authorisations of new GMOs."

... EU officials ...said Austria and Luxembourg had failed to win broad 
Support... Josef Proll, Austria's farm minister, said
there were "several countries leaning towards our position". Germany,
for
example, had backed Vienna's call for EU-wide rules...

Despite Mr Proll's remarks, Commission officials said they remained
optimistic that the ban would be lifted in time. "Austria has not caused
a
domino effect," said a spokesman for Mr Fischler.

________________________________________________________________________
________
Der Standard.at, 02. Oktober 2003 14:09 MEZ	  	 
Debatte läuft, Ergebnis keines in Sicht

Brüssel - Agrarkommissar Fischler warnte am Montag anlässlich des
EU-Agrarrates 
in Brüssel eindringlich davor, die Debatte über das Nebeneinander von
Gentechnik, klassischer und 
biologischer Landwirtschaft zu "missbrauchen, um die Genehmigung neuer
gentechnisch veränderter 
Pflanzen weiter hinauszuzögern". Er plädierte dafür, die Koexistenz und
damit verbundene 
Haftungsfragen national zu regeln.

Im Gegensatz zu Fischler fordert [der österreichische] Agrarminister
Josef Pröll eine gesamt-
europäische Lösung, wie es sie für Biobauern sowie für die Kennzeichnung
und die Rückverfolgbarkeit 
gentechnischer Produkte gebe. Pröll sagte am Montag in Brüssel, dass er
aus Deutschland, Frankreich 
und Luxemburg Unterstützung für seine Positionen gespürt habe.

Vorgelegt zur Zulassung

Schon im November dürften wieder gentechnisch veränderte Organismen
(GVO) zur Zulassung 
Dem  wissenschaftlichen Ausschuss der EU vorgelegt werden, erwartete
EU-Umweltkommissarin 
Margot Wallström am Donnerstag. "Anfang 2004" werden dann wohl die
ersten Produkte unter dem 
neuen EU-Recht aus dem Jahr 2001 genehmigungsreif sein. Innerhalb des
kommenden halben 
Jahres werde man daher sehen, wie die EU-Staaten wirklich zur Gentechnik
stehen.

Denn es liege nun an den Mitgliedsländern, sich für oder gegen GVO zu
entscheiden, sagte Wallström 
am Donnerstag im Gespräch mit Journalisten. Im wissenschaftlichen
Ausschuss sind Experten der 
EU-Staaten vertreten. Gibt es dort keine Einigung, wird die Zulassung
von den Umweltministern der 
Mitgliedsländer behandelt. Aber aus ihrer Sicht hat die EU mit den
Gesetzen zur Kennzeichnung und 
Rückverfolgbarkeit nun einen Rahmen geschaffen, wie mit GVO umzugehen
sei. Nun müsse die EU "
der Welt zeigen, dass es funktioniert" und nicht nur die Hände in den
Schoß legen und warten, sagte 
Wallström.

Grenzwerte 

Parallel zur Diskussion über die Koexistenz verschiedener Kulturen läuft
auch die Debatte über 
Grenzwerte für die unbeabsichtigte Beimischung gentechnisch veränderter
Samen ins traditionelle Saatgut. 
Hierfür werden derzeit je nach Pflanzenart Grenzwerte zwischen 0,3 und
0,7 Prozent vorgeschlagen.
 Bei einer so hohen Beimischung im Saatgut könnte aber die Ernte den
schon beschlossenen Grenzwert 
von 0,9 Prozent Gentech-Anteil überschreiten, warnt Pröll. Ein Bauer,
der gentechnikfreies Saatgut 
angepflanzt hat, könnte dann eine kennzeichnungspflichtige Ernte
einfahren.

In die Gentechnik-Diskussion fließen auch Überlegungen zur Schaffung
gentechnikfreier Zonen ein. 
Für Pröll ist es "nicht sinnvoll", wenn einige Bundesländer jetzt auf
eigene Faust versuchen, sich zu 
gentechnikfreien Zonen erklären zu lassen. Dafür sei es "zu früh". Man
sollte lieber warten, bis 
gesamteuropäisch die Grundlagen beschlossen seien und dann gemeinsam
vorgehen. (APA)

_______________________________________________________________
Mittwoch 1. Oktober 2003, 15:54 Uhr
ots-Originaltext: Greenpeace e.V.
Metro bestätigt Kampagne für Gentechnik im Essen / Greenpeace 
weist Vorwürfe des Handelskonzerns zurück

(ots) - Hamburg/Düsseldorf, 1. 10. 2003 – Greenpeace weist den Vorwurf
der Verbraucher-
täuschung zurück, den Metro heute hinsichtlich des Konflikts über
Gentechnik in Nahrungsmitteln 
verbreitet hat. Die Behauptung von Metro entspricht nicht der Wahrheit.

So unterstellt Metro, dass bereits jetzt 60 bis 70 Prozent der
Nahrungsmittel mit Gentechnik 
verunreinigt wären und beruft sich dabei auf Zahlen aus dem
Bundesministerium für Verbraucherschutz
(BMVEL). 

Richtig ist: Das BMVEL hat nie eigene Schätzungen veröffentlicht. Das
Ministerium nimmt vielmehr an, 
dass Zutaten aus genmanipulierten Pflanzen heute deutlich weniger
verbreitet sind. Große Markenhersteller, 
wie Unilever, Kraft und Coca-Cola, die wie rund 170 weitere
Lebensmittelfirmen Greenpeace schriftlich 
Versichert haben, keine Zutaten aus Gen-Pflanzen zu verwenden, werden
von Metro indirekt der 
Verbrauchertäuschung bezichtigt.

Seit heute morgen protestieren Greenpeace-Aktivisten vor einem
Real-Markt in Düsseldorf gegen die 
Allianz des Metro-Konzerns mit der internationalen Genfood-Branche.
Diese geplante Zusammenarbeit mit
der Gentechnik-Industrie hat die Metro-Gruppe inzwischen bestätigt.
Danach will Metro eine Informations-
kampagne für Gentechnik starten, die von der Industrie bezahlt wird.

„Metro lässt sich von der Gen-Industrie als Türöffner für Genfood
bezahlen und behauptet gleichzeitig, 
die Verbraucher ‚wahrheitsgemäß‘ zu informieren. Verbraucherwünsche und
Lebensmittelqualität bleiben
auf der Strecke“, sagt Alexander Hissting, Gentechnikexperte von
Greenpeace. Auch durch massive 
Pestzidrückstände ist die angebliche Metro-Qualität ins Zwielicht
geraten. Greenpeace hatte Proben von
Obst und Gemüse der Metro-Verkaufsstätten real, extra und Kaufhof
untersuchen lassen. Rund jede 
fünfte Probe erreichte den zulässigen gesetzlichen Grenzwert für
Pestizide oder lag sogar darüber. Nur vier
von zehn Proben enthielten keine Rückstände.

Das EinkaufsNetz ist die Verbraucherorganisation von Greenpeace. Bislang
beteiligen sich rund 30.000 
Mitmacher an Aktionen gegen Gift und Gentechnik im Essen. Das
EinkaufsNetz fordert Lebensmittel, die
gut für Verbraucher, Landwirte und die Natur sind. Angesichts der
Tatsache, dass Metro ohne Probleme 
auch künftig auf Gentechnik im Essen verzichten könnte, wird das
Greenpeace-EinkaufsNetz die
Verbraucher weiter informieren. Metro hat zugegeben, schon von 6000
Kunden Protest-Postkarten 
erhalten zu haben. Die Kunden wollen wegen Gift und Gentechnik in
Nahrungsmitteln nicht länger in 
Supermärkten der Metro-Handelskette einkaufen.
http://de.news.yahoo.com/031001/27/3o7dz.html,
www.greenpeace.de/einkaufsnetz

________________________________________________________________________
___________
Mittwoch 1. Oktober 2003, 15:09 Uhr
Greenpeace und Metro streiten um gentechnisch veränderte Nahrung

Düsseldorf (AP) Zwischen der Umweltschutzorganisation Greenpeace und dem
Handelsriesen Metro ist es 
zum Streit um den Umgang mit gentechnisch veränderten Nahrungsmitteln
gekommen. Greenpeace warf 
dem Konzern am Mittwoch vor, er wolle «im Gegensatz zu den meisten
deutschen Lebensmittelherstellern 
genmanipulierte Nahrung durchsetzen». Metro-Sprecher Albrecht von
Truchseß hielt dagegen, schon 
heute seien nach Schätzungen des Berliner Verbraucherministeriums
höchstens 40 Prozent der 
Lebensmittel nicht in irgendeiner Weise mit Gentechnik in Berührung
gekommen….
http://de.news.yahoo.com/031001/12/3o6yj.html

________________________________________________________________________
_____________
Mittwoch 1. Oktober 2003, 10:24 Uhr
Greenpeace deckt auf: Metro-Konzern will Genfood für Alle / 
Internes Metro-Papier belegt Kooperation mit Gen-Industrie

(ots) - Hamburg/Düsseldorf, 1. 10. 2003 – Der Metro-Konzern will im
Gegensatz zu den meisten 
deutschen Lebensmittelherstellern genmanipulierte Nahrung durchsetzen.
Das geht aus einem internen
Papier hervor, das dem EinkaufsNetz, der
Greenpeace-Verbraucherorganisation, zugespielt worden ist. 
Nach diesem Protokoll eines Treffens von Metro und den
Gentechnik-Konzernen Monsanto und Bayer 
sollen auch Tengelmann und Aldi in die Pro-Gentechnik Kampagne
einbezogen werden. Bislang
erklärt Metro öffentlich, den Verbraucher über Gentechnik im Essen
"wahrheitsgemäß zu informieren, 
damit er eigenverantwortliche Auswahlentscheidungen treffen kann"….
http://de.news.yahoo.com/031001/27/3o610.html

_______________________________________________
Montag 29. September 2003, 17:31 Uhr
Fischler für raschen Anbau von Gentech-Pflanzen
Brüssel (AFP) 

EU-Agrarkommissar Franz Fischler will die Genehmigung für den Anbau von 
Gentech-Pflanzen vorantreiben. Landwirte, die weiter konventionell oder
ökologisch 
anbauen, dürften zwar nicht behindert werden, sagte Fischler in Brüssel.
Die Debatte 
über die Koexistenz mit der Gentech-Landwirtschaft solle aber nicht dazu
missbraucht 
werden, die Genehmigung weiterer Gentech-Sorten hinauszuzögern.

Landwirtschaftsministerin Renate Künast (Grüne) sah in der Diskussion
mit ihren 
EU-Kollegen keine neuen Bedingungen aufgestellt, um die
Zulassungsverfahren für neue 
Gentech-Sorten wieder aufzunehmen. Der Schutz der Landwirtschaft vor
unbeabsichtigen 
Verunreinigungen sei aber unerläßlich…

Umstritten sind auch die von der EU-Kommission vorgeschlagenen
Schwellenwerte für 
die Verunreinigung von Saatgut, die je nach Pflanze zwischen 0,3 und 0,7
Prozent liegen 
sollen. Unklar ist zudem, inwieweit Mitgliedstaaten den Anbau von
Gentech-Pflanzen in 
bestimmten Regionen ganz verbieten dürfen.

....Der vorgesehene Schwellenwert von 0,3 bis 0,7 Prozent
Verunreinigungen, unterhalb 
dessen Saatgut nicht als Gen-Saat gekennzeichnet werden soll, mache es
Landwirten 
und der Lebensmittelindustrie nahezu unmöglich, gentechnikfreie Produkte
anzubieten, 
argumentierte Greenpeace. Verunreinigungen der gesamten Produktionskette
seien 
unvermeidlich. Insbesondere Bio-Landwirte wären davon besonders
betroffen.
http://de.news.yahoo.com/030929/286/3o1ni.html

__________________________________________________________
vwd
EU-Staaten fordern harmonisierte Regeln für GVO-Anbau 
Montag 29. September 2003, 15:58 Uhr 

Brüssel (vwd) - Mehrere EU-Staaten, darunter Deutschland, fordern ein
EU- weites Regelwerk 
für die Koexistenz von Gen-Pflanzen mit traditionellen Anbaukulturen.
"Die Leitlinien der EU-
Kommission dazu sind begrüßenswert, aber das Ziel müssen EU-weite Regeln
sein, um 
auch Wettbewerbsverzerrungen zu verhindern", sagte Bundesagrarministerin
Renate Künast 
nach dem Treffen der EU-Agrarminister am Montag in Brüssel. ...

Die Kommission will ...keine Gemeinschaftsvorschriften vorschlagen.
Fischler überlässt es 
den EU-Regierungen selbst, wie sie die Frage der Koexistenz von
genveränderten Organismen 
(GVO) und konventionellen Pflanzenarten regeln. Problematisch bei der
Koexistenz ist 
laut Künast eine mögliche Kontamination von traditionellen Anbauflächen
mit GVO. 
Geklärt müsse vor allem die Haftungsfrage bei finanziellen Schäden durch
beispielsweise 
GVO-verunreinigte Felder.

Darüber hinaus plädierte die deutsche Agrarministerin für GVO-freie
Zonen in ökologisch 
sensiblen Gebieten. In diesen Naturschutzregionen könnten beispielsweise
spezielle 
Genehmigungen für den GVO-Anbau verlangt werden, führte Künast aus. Auch
die 
italienische EU-Ratspräsidentschaft sprach sich am Montag für eine
Harmonisierung 
der GVO-Anbauregeln aus.

"Die Koexistenzfrage hat nichts mit Risikomanagment oder Zulassung von
GVO zu tun", 
betonte EU-Agrarkommissar Fischler. Die Union könne sich dem Einsatz der
Biotechnologie
 in der Landwirtschaft nicht verschließen. Dabei solle es möglichst
viele Freiheiten geben 
und keine Eingrenzung durch Regeln. "Die Koexistenzdebatte sollte nicht
dazu missbraucht 
werden, die Genehmigung neuer GVO weiter hinauszuzögern", sagte
Fischler.
Ali Ulucay/vwd/29.9.2003/ul/hab
http://de.biz.yahoo.com/030929/11/3o1iw.html

_______________________________________________________________
Montag 29. September 2003, 14:35 Uhr
EU-Staaten suchen Regelungen für Gen-Saatgut

Brüssel (AP) Die EU-Staaten suchen nach einheitlichen Regelungen beim
Anbau von gentechnisch 
verändertem Saatgut. Bei einem Treffen der EU-Agrarminister am Montag in
Brüssel wurde deutlich, 
dass mehrere Mitgliedstaaten, darunter auch Deutschland, von der
EU-Kommission entsprechende 
Vorschläge erwarten. Im Kern geht es darum, konventionelle und
Bio-Landwirtschaft vor einer 
Verunreinigung mit gentechnisch veränderten Organismen zu bewahren.
Zudem muss die 
Haftungsfrage in einem solchen Fall geregelt werden….
http://de.news.yahoo.com/030929/281/3o164.html

________________________________________________________________
Montag 29. September 2003, 11:49 Uhr
Greenpeace: Gentechnikfreies Saatgut schützen

Brüssel (AFP) Die Umweltschutzorganisation Greenpeace hat die
EU-Landwirtschaftsminister 
aufgefordert, strikte Vorschriften zum Schutz von Saatgut vor einer
Verunreinigung durch genetisch 
veränderte Organismen zu verhängen. Da konventionelles Saatgut generell
frei von Gen-Saat sein 
müsse, dürfe auch kein Schwellenwert für eine erlaubte Verunreinigung
eingeführt werden, forderten 
Greenpeace-Vertreter in Brüssel vor einem Treffen der EU-Agrarminister. 

Greenpeace überreichte Bundesverbraucherschutzminister Renate Künast
(Grüne) und einer Reihe 
ihrer Kollegen vor dem Ratsgebäude Proben mit zertifizierter
gentechnikfreier Mais-Saat. 
Insbesondere Fragen nach der Haftung für nicht vorsätzliche
Verunreinigungen mit Gen-Produkten
sind im EU-Recht noch offen….
http://de.news.yahoo.com/030929/286/3o0iw.html

______________________________________________________________
Montag 29. September 2003, 08:12 Uhr
EU-Agrarminister über Anbau von Gentech-Pflanzen
Brüssel (AFP) 

Probleme für die Landwirtschaft durch den Anbau gentechnisch veränderter
Organismen beschäftigen 
heute in Brüssel die EU-Agrarminister. Der italienische Ratsvorsitz will
von den Mitgliedstaaten 
beispielsweise wissen, ob einzelne Anbaugebiete für den Anbau von
Gen-Pflanzen gesperrt werden 
sollen, um deren ungewollte Ausbreitung zu verhindern. Auch sind Fragen
des Haftungsrechts noch 
ungeklärt. ...
http://de.news.yahoo.com/030929/286/3nzlb.html

_______________________________________________________________
Gazeta Mercatil Online (Brasil)
September 29, 2003
Farmers want to plant transgenic cotton

After the polemic with soybeans, Brazilian cotton farmers and exporters
also want to cultivate genetically modified cotton seeds, following the
expamples already set by countries like India, China, Australia, the
United
States and Bolivia. Farmer Jorge Maeda, president of the Brazilian
Cotton
Producers Association (Abrapa), made the request directly to
vice-president
Jose Alencar, during an audience in Brasilia. "We need this tool to be
competitive," he said. According to Maeda, planting transgenic cotton
promises economies of 25% for farmers. He said also that the genetically
modified cotton dispensed the use of most insecticides. (Riomar
Trindade,
Gazeta Mercantil - Translated by James Bruce)
________________________________________________________________________
__________
Agence France Presse
September 29, 2003
Church nod good for genetically modified food in Philippines

Use of genentically modified organisms (GMOs), including seeds will get
a
boost in the Philippines following a Vatican explanation that they are
not
sinful, President Gloria Arroyo said Monday.

Arroyo said this was clarified to her in a talk with Vatican State
Secretary Cardinal Angelo Sodano after her audience with Pope John Paul
II
at the weekend.

In in a statement in Rome which was released in Manila, Arroyo said, "we
have our policies on GMOs and I think what's important now for opposers
is
that the Vatican said that GMOs are not immoral."

She said this explanation would be used in government information 
Campaigns on GMO seeds in this largely-Roman Catholic country.
...
Arroyo said Cardinal Sodano clarified that while the Vatican considers
human cloning as immoral, it does not condemn GM agricultural products.
...

______________________________________________________
Top GM food company abandons British crop trials
Robin McKie, science editor
Sunday September 28, 2003
The Observer

A key GM crop developer, Bayer, has decided to halt UK trials of
genetically
modified plants. .. Bayer was the last company carrying out GM trials in
the 
UK...The company blamed Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett for its 
decision...that the locations of all trial sites be made public …

Until last week, Bayer CropScience, …believed it was close to a deal
that 
would allow GM crop test sites - which are regularly destroyed by
protesters
 - to be kept secret. Instead of having to publish exact map references
for fields, 
companies would only have to name the county in which it was holding a
trial.
...But at the last minute the Department of Environment, Food and Rural 
Affairs (Defra) told Bayer it would not support this change in
regulations.

...'It is disappointing the criminal activities of a small minority of
people have
prevented information on GM crop varieties being generated.' [said the
official] 

Most GM crop trials carried out over the past few years have been 
sabotaged, not only those of Bayer. ...as long as test GM trials are
exposed 
to sabotage... 'This is a back-door moratorium,' said an industry
source.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1051262,00.html

__________________________________________________________
September 10, 2003
Center for Science in the Public Interest, USA
Insects May Become Resistant, Warns CSPI

New government data show that farmers' violation of rules governing the
planting of genetically engineered (GE) pest-resistant corn is more
widespread than previously thought. ...
At issue is whether farmers are planting required amounts of
non-genetically engineered corn alongside plantings of GE corn. Those
"refuges" are planted so that any insects that do develop resistance to
Bt
corn are likely to mate with those insects that haven't--resulting in
offspring that will continue to be susceptible. …
"It is distressing to see that a relatively easy requirement is being
ignored by so many farmers," said CSPI biotechnology project director
Gregory Jaffe. "Clearly farmers, the seed industry, and the government 
Are not doing an adequate job of safeguarding the environmental 
benefits of agricultural biotechnology."
4.2 million acres of Bt corn were planted without the required refuges
of
20 percent non-Bt corn, according to the latest data. ..
80 percent of the noncompliant acres were planted by large farms.
"When huge corn farms don't plant enough of a refuge, it becomes more
likely that insects will breed resistance to Bt corn," Jaffe said.
Bt corn is engineered with a gene from a bacterium, Bacillus 
thuringiensis, which produces a toxin that kills European Corn 
Borer pests...

-------------- nächster Teil --------------
Ein Dateianhang mit HTML-Daten wurde abgetrennt...
URL: <https://listi.jpberlin.de/pipermail/gen-streitfall/attachments/20031005/399d8b66/attachment.htm>