[Gen-Streitfall] Presseschau 24.12.03 bis 4.1.04

[Sabine]

Hi, anbei die News der letzten andertalb Wochen. Schröders Sprecher Steg
hat gleich zu Beginn dieses Jahres sehr deutlich gesagt, wie Schröder
zur Gentechnik steht: "Es geht darum, die Spitzenposition Deutschlands
zu halten. Dazu sind Anstrengungen in der Bio- und Gentechnologie
notwendig." Save our seeds bedankt sich bei allen, die die Petition
unterschrieben haben und ist sehr optimistisch bzgl. des Statements des
Europäischen Parlaments. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1900
Percy Schmeißer hat das Verfahren gegen Monsanto vorerst verloren, will
aber in Berufung gehen. Die Begründung des Gerichtes ist krass: egal wie
die Samen auf sein Feld gelangt sind, er hätte wissen müssen, dass die
Ernte Monsanto Erbgut enthält und deshalb keinen Teil der Ernte für die
nächste Aussaat aufheben dürfen. Metro scheint seine Pro-GM-Kampagne nun
doch nicht zu starten, was ein Umdenken in der Bayer-Metro-Kampagne
erfordert. Das nächste Treffen der GenFood- Kampagne ist übrigens am
17.Jan. (http://www.dosto.de/gengruppe/bameka/aktion/term17_01_04.html)
und Ende Jan bietet die BUND-Attac-Genstreitfallgruppe
Bildungswochenenden zum Thema Streitfall in Stuttgart und Verden an.
http://www.oekologieglobal.de/seminare.php Gruß, Sabine

Einspruch - Hände weg von unserer Nahrung
http://www.genug-wto.de/einspruch.html

____________________________________________
taz Nr. 7248 vom 3.1.2004, Seite 18, 8 Zeilen (TAZ-Bericht), 
"Die Gen-Jäger" (1) So 19.10 Uhr, 3Sat
In drei Teilen beschäftigt sich die Dokumentation mit den medizinischen
Möglichkeiten und ethischen Grenzen der Genforschung. Mit dem Kampf
gegen Erbkrankheiten beginnt die wöchentliche Serie.

____________________________________
WEEKLY WATCH NUMBER 53, Fr 02.01.04 13:01
GM Food and hunger - a new book from Devinder Sharma
ON HOW POLITICS AND COMMERCE TRUMP HUMANITARIAN CONCERN
"At the height of the 1974 famine in the newly born Bangladesh, the US
withheld 2.2 million tonnes of food aid to 'ensure that it abandoned
plans to try Pakistani war criminals'. And a year later, when Bangladesh
was faced with severe monsoons and imminent floods, the then US
Ambassador to Bangladesh made it abundantly clear that the US probably
could not commit food aid because of Bangladesh's policy of exporting
jute to Cuba. And by the time Bangladesh succumbed to the American
pressure, and stopped jute exports to Cuba, the food aid in transit was
'too late for famine victims'."
- Devinder Sharma in the preface to his new book, GM Food and Hunger: A
View from the South. To obtain a copy, please contact the author:
dsharma at del6.vsnl.net.in http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1911


1. EU 

Save our Seeds news roundup (23/12/2003)
European Parliament votes for gmo free seeds, eu wide coexistence and
liability and calls for moratorium on GMO approvals

The EP today adopted with a large majority (327:52) a report on the
co-existence of GM and non-GM agriculture, which inter alia calls for
labelling of GM contamination in seeds at the detection level, eu wide
coexistence and liability rules and demands that no approvals for GMO
cultivation should be approved until such legislation is in place.

Report as adopted, in all languages
http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?PUBREF=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A5-200
3-0465+0+NOT+XML+V0//EN&LEVEL=2&NAV=S

eurActiv: Parliament wants strict EU-wide rules for co-existence
http://www.euractiv.com/cgi-bin/cgint.exe?204&OIDN=1506888&-tt=en 

________________________________________________________________________
The Nuffield Councel in Bioethics - London, 28 December 2003
GM debate must not neglect developing countries
Launch of Discussion Paper: the use of genetically modified crops in
developing countries

There is an ethical obligation to explore the benefits that genetically
modified (GM) crops could offer people in developing countries,
according to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. "The possible costs,
benefits and risks associated with particular GM crops must be assessed
on a case by case basis," said Dr Sandy Thomas, Director of the Nuffield
Council. 

Dr Thomas was launching a Discussion Paper, The use of genetically
modified crops in developing countries, which argues that GM crops could
significantly improve agriculture in developing countries but warns
against considering GM technology in isolation. "We recommend asking how
the use of a GM crop compares to alternatives," continued Dr Thomas. It
is essential to focus on the specific situation in a particular country,
and to compare all possible options. This comparison should include not
only other approaches in agricultural research and practice, but also
the potential cost of doing nothing. 

The Council held a consultation during summer 2003, and the responses
received highlighted the complexity of the debate. While many
respondents described the benefits they had experienced from GM crops,
others argued that economic, political or social change was more
important than new technologies. "We recognise that we are discussing
only part of a much larger picture. We do not claim that GM crops will
feed the world but we do believe that, in specific cases, they could
make a useful contribution to improving the livelihood of poor farmers
in developing countries," commented Dr Thomas. 

GM crops could be used to address agricultural problems, such as drought
and salty soils, where other methods of plant breeding or conventional
agriculture have been less successful. GM crops could also address some
health problems. For example, Golden Rice, modified to produce
ß-carotene, could help to prevent vitamin A deficiency. However, in
other situations, the use of a GM crop may be less appropriate. GM
herbicide resistant crops may lead to reduced demand for labour, which
could hinder the reduction of poverty in developing countries. 

Currently, much GM research serves the interests of large-scale farmers
in developed countries. The Council recommends that research into GM
crops must be directed towards the needs of small-scale farmers in
developing countries. The UK Department for International Development,
the European Commission and other national governments should commit
additional resources to expanding relevant research.

The paper also emphasises the impact of European regulations on GM
crops, concluding that the freedom of choice of farmers in developing
countries is being severely challenged by EU agricultural policy. Many
developing countries do not have the necessary infrastructure to meet
strict EU requirements for labelling and traceability of GM crops.
Additionally, there is concern that even planting GM crops only for
domestic use might jeopardise export markets for non-GM crops. 
http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/press/pr_0000000741.asp

____________________________________________________
WEEKLY WATCH NUMBER 53, Fr 02.01.04 13:01
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics
[It] says it is an independent body which examines the ethical issues
raised by developments in medicine and biology. Established in 1991, it
is funded by The Nuffield Foundation, the Medical  Research Council and
The Wellcome Trust. In 1999 no less than four ...reports on GM were
published in the UK in the space of just two days. All asserted the
safety of GM foods and crops, and all strongly criticised the research
of Dr Arpad Pusztai which had raised considerable doubts about the
safety of GM foods. ...One of these reports was the Nuffield Council on
Bioethics' report, Genetically modified crops: the social and ethical
issues , published in May 1999. The attack on Dr Pusztai was contained
in an appendix to the report which Pusztai characterised as 'misleading
and full of inaccuracies... unscientific and most unfair.'   

The Nuffield report declared that all GM foods currently on the market
were 'safe' and that there was a moral imperative to make GM crops
available to developing countries. Though the panel that drew up the
report was presented as 'a group of independent scientists'…

Among those on the panel were: 

*	Mike Gale <http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=48>  FRS:
biotechnologist at the John Innes Centre (JIC)
<http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=67> , which at that time was
negotiating a deal with biotech giants Zeneca and DuPont promising some
£60-70m in investment….
Derek Burke: former vice chancellor of the University of East Anglia
(UEA), and former chair of the governing council of the JIC
<http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=67>  (see above), both of
which have benefited from biotech industry funding. Burke
<http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=26>  was chairman for nearly a
decade (1988-97) of the Advisory Committee for Novel Foods and Processes
(ACNFP), the regulatory body which approved the UK's first GM foods. 
Brian Heap FRS: then Vice President of the Royal Society
<http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=113> . Like Burke
<http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=26>  and Gale
<http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=48> , Heap
<http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=55>  helped produce the Royal
Society's report 'Genetically Modified Plants for Food Use' which was
used at an earlier stage to reassure government ministers that there
were no significant problems with GM. He was also on the Royal Society
group that organised a partial 'peer review' of Pusztai's work while it
was still unpublished ...
*	Michael Lipton: development economist at the Poverty Research
Unit, University of Sussex. Lipton is a strong supporter of GM and of
genetically modified 'golden rice'. He warns that it is threatened by 'a
great anti-scientific wave' and says NGOs which oppose it should have
their charitable status brought into question. He does not appear to
consider the large amount of money being invested in 'golden rice' could
better be spent on the cheap and effective approaches already available,
nor that those likely to be most directly affected by this technology
should be centrally involved in decision making about it. 

In drawing up its report, the Nuffield panel consulted, among others,
the biotech corporations Monsanto and Zeneca. The Scottish Herald (30
May 99) reported that an early draft of the report had warned of
possible environmental problems  with GM crops and suggested leaving
large GM-free tracts of the UK as an 'insurance policy'. This suggestion
did not survive consultation with the industry and was edited out before
publication. 

Although the report made such strong recommendations on the use of GM
crops in the developing world, curiously there was no consultation with
anyone from the developing world, nor was a single well-known scientific
critic of GM consulted. …A group representing Indian farmers even turned
up uninvited at the Nuffield offices in London to express their
unhappiness with the report
<http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1042>  and  frustration at
their point of view not being heard. The Nuffield's director eventually
agreed to speak to them, though not before calling the police.

Four years on, in 2003, a group within the Nuffield Council on
Bioethics' produced a follow up report to coincide with the UK's
national GM Public Debate. The use of genetically modified crops in
developing countries
<http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/gmcrops/latestnews.asp>  again
strongly supported GM crops. The BBC's Pallab Ghosh reported, 'GM crops
can contribute substantially to improving agriculture in developing
countries, an independent scientific think-tank has concluded.' 

...Dr Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher, the head of Ethiopia's
Environmental Protection Authority, responded
<http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1905>  , 'The Nuffield report
suggests that there is a moral imperative for investment into GM crop
research in developing countries. But the moral imperative is in fact
the opposite. The policy of drawing funds away from low-cost sustainable
agriculture research, towards hi-tech, exclusive, expensive and unsafe
technology is itself ethically questionable. There is a strong moral
argument that the funding of GM technology in agriculture is harming the
long-term sustainability of agriculture in the developing world.'

New-Delhi based trade and policy analyst, Devinder Sharma, sees the
Nuffield Council's plea for massive funding for GM research as more
about job security for their fellow scientists than food security for
the hungry. The panel, Sharma suggests
<http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1906> , is guilty of
exploiting hunger in the poor world for the sake of employment
opportunities for the rich. 

The Nuffield report's vision is also notably at odds with the 2003
report on GM crops in Africa
<http://twnafrica.org/news_detail.asp?twnID=374>  by Aaron deGrassi of
the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, where
Michael Lipton is based.  DeGrassi assesses empirically the major GM
showcase projects in Africa and finds they have little if anything to
offer in terms of serious poverty alleviation. The report concludes,
'genetic modification may constitute a novel tool but it is a relatively
ineffective and expensive one in Africa.' The report supports the
judgement of a South African commentator, 'There are better ways to feed
Africa than GM crops.' 
 http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=98


2. Deutschland 

Freitag 2. Januar 2004, 15:54 Uhr
Schröder will Innovation zu einem Schwerpunktthema 2004 machen

(AFP) Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schröder (SPD) will Bildung, Forschung,
Innovation, Familie und Kinderbetreuung zu Schwerpunkt-Themen seiner
Politik in diesem Jahr machen. Vize-Regierungssprecher Thomas Steg sagte
am Freitag in Berlin weiter, diese Themen sollten bereits in der
nächsten Woche bei den Klausurtagungen der SPD und der SPD-Fraktion in
Weimar und Leipzig eine Rolle spielen. Ziel beim Thema Innovation sei
es, die Spitzenpositionen Deutschlands zu erhalten oder auszubauen.
Zusätzliche Anstrengungen seien etwa bei der Bio-, Gen- und
Nannotechnologie notwendig. Der Kanzler halte eine
"Innovationsoffensive" für notwendig im Zusammenspiel mit Wirtschaft und
Wissenschaft. Der Sprecher betonte, dass "Innovationskultur" eine
Aufgabe der gesamten Gesellschaft und nicht nur der Politik sei.
http://de.news.yahoo.com/040102/286/3tn0z.html

_________________________________________________________________
Email von Corinna Hölzel, Greenpeace-Einkaufsnetz, 24.12.03
Metro gibt nach
letzte Woche hat uns Metro noch ein Weihnachtsgeschenk beschert: Sie
haben sich gentechnikfrei gemäß den Anforderungen der neuen
Kennzeichnungsregelung erklärt. Die Aussage haben wir vom Juristen
prüfen lassen, es ist eindeutig. Sie gilt für alle Eigenmarken aller
Vertriebslinien (Cash & Carry, Real, Extra und Kaufhof) und für
Deutschland und in soweit für ihre internationalen Märkte, wie es sich
um Produkte handelt, die auch in Deutschland vertrieben werden. Das ist
erstmal ein Sieg, obwohl sie bei den tierischen Rohstoffen (Eier, Milch,
Fleisch, Wurst) noch nicht auf gentechnikfreie Fütterung der Tiere
setzen oder eine Absichtserklärung dafür geben. Wir haben die Greenpeace
Aktivitäten daraufhin sofort eingestellt. Im nächsten Jahr werden wir
überlegen, wie die Strategie zu Futtermitteln aussehen wird, denn da
geht der Großteil der gentechnisch veränderten Pflanzen hin.

Am 14. Januar veröffentlichen wir einen Gentechnik Einkaufsratgeber mit
ca. 400 Firmen und Marken, die nach ihrer Verwendung von Gentechnik
beurteilt sind. Die Broschüre ist im handlichen Taschenformat A6,
farbig, 28 Seiten stark bei Greenpeace kostenlos zu bestellen. Bei
Interesse an größeren Mengen zwecks Weiterverteilung bitte bald  bei mir
melden.

___________________________________________________________
Berliner Zeitung,  Donnerstag, 18. Dezember 2003
Die nächste Erbgutkarte ist in Arbeit
…
Nach der großen Genkarte des Menschen, die das internationale
Humangenomprojekt schon vor einiger Zeit vorgelegt hat, arbeiten
Forscher nun an einer kleineren, aber feineren Genkarte: Forscher aus
Großbritannien, Kanada, China, Japan, Nigeria und den USA suchen nach
den Erbgutbausteinen, die von Mensch zu Mensch verschieden sind. Diese
so genannten SNPs (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms) machen nur etwa ein
Tausendstel des menschlichen Genoms aus. Sie sind für die Forschung so
interessant, weil sie die individuelle Neigung zu bestimmten Krankheiten
beeinflussen. Über die Ziele des Projekts und erste Ergebnisse
berichteten Forscher um David Bentley vom Wellcome Trust Genome Campus
im britischen Hinxton jetzt im Fachjournal Nature.

Mehr als fünfeinhalb Millionen SNPs sind bisher bekannt. Einige davon
liegen nah beieinander und werden auch zusammen vererbt. Solch ein Satz
von mehreren SNPs heißt im Fachjargon Haplotyp. Die Forscher nennen
daher die Karte, an der sie arbeiten, "Hapmap" - Haplotyp-Karte.
Innerhalb der nächsten zwei Jahre soll sie komplett sein. 

Zwar seien zahlreiche Haplotypen in allen Bevölkerungsgruppen zu finden,
schreiben die Wissenschaftler, einige jedoch kämen in bestimmten
Gegenden häufiger vor als andere. Für ihre Genkarte untersuchen die
Forscher DNA-Proben von 270 Menschen aus Nigeria, Japan, China und den
USA.

Vierzehn Monate nach dem Startschuss für das Hapmap-Projekt im Oktober
2002 veröffentlichte das Team jetzt große Datenmengen im Internet.
Forscher aus aller Welt können die dort bereit gestellten Informationen
kostenlos nutzen, um nach Genen zu suchen, die bei Volkskrankheiten eine
Rolle spielen. Um den Zugang zu den Daten nicht zu beschränken, haben
sich die am Projekt beteiligten Wissenschaftler verpflichtet, keine
Patente auf entdeckte SNPs anzumelden. Das ist ihnen erst dann
gestattet, wenn sie in einem Nachfolgeprojekt die Funktion eines
bestimmten Erbgutabschnitts nachweisen können. (kat.)

Weitere Infos zum Projekt:
http://www.nhgri.nih.gov/10001688

______________________________________________________________
Sonntag 4. Januar 2004, 10:28 Uhr
Fehlbildungen bei Retortenbabys: Defekte Gene der Eltern schuld

Hamburg (dpa) - Der Versuch ist kräftezehrend und kompliziert, doch für
viele Paare ist eine künstliche Befruchtung die letzte Chance zum
eigenen Kind. Jahrelang gab es keine medizinischen Probleme bei den
«Babys aus der Retorte».

Muss das Spermium im Labor jedoch direkt in die Eizelle injiziert
werden, dann treten häufiger als bei natürlich gezeugten Kindern
Herzfehler, Gaumen-Spalten und andere Missbildungen auf. Dies liegt nach
Ansicht von Reproduktionsmedizinern jedoch weniger an der Technik des so
genannten ICSI-Verfahrens, als am Alter und Erbgut der Eltern.

Im Jahr 1978 wurde Louise Brown geboren - sie ist als erstes Kind
außerhalb des Mutterleibs gezeugt worden. Die Zahl der seither im
Reagenzglas entstandenen Kinder wird auf etwa eine Million weltweit
geschätzt. Der Berliner Verein Wunschkind, ein Zusammenschluss von
Selbsthilfegruppen für ungewollt Kinderlose, weiß von jährlich 200 000
Paaren allein in Deutschland, die sich Rat bei Medizinern oder Zentren
für künstliche Befruchtung holen. 12 000 Kinder pro Jahr - 1,6 Prozent
aller Geburten - verdanken ihr Leben der In-vitro- Fertilisation (IVF),
der Befruchtung außerhalb des Körpers.

Seit zehn Jahren gelingt es Ärzten, auch solchen Paaren zu helfen, bei
denen der Mann wegen einer schlechten Samenzellen-Qualität nahezu
unfruchtbar ist. Bei ICSI, der Intracytoplasmatischen Spermieninjektion,
wird ein einzelnes Spermium per Pipette in die Eizelle eingefügt. Doch
gerade dieses Verfahren macht Medizinern nun Sorgen: «Die
Fehlbildungsrate scheint bei ICSI erhöht zu sein», sagt der Präsident
der Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (DGGG), Klaus Diedrich
und beruft sich auf eine Studie mit insgesamt 11 000 Kindern. ...

Der Präsident der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Reproduktionsmedizin,
Eberhard Nieschlag, glaubt, bei den Betroffenen gebe es oft «eine
Neigung zu genetischen Störungen». Diese können seiner Meinung nach der
Grund für die Zeugungsprobleme sein und auch für Missbildungen bei den
Kindern. «Wir kennen diese Gene aber noch nicht genau», sagt Nieschlag….
Andere Studien bringen Krankheiten wie das Downsyndrom in Verbindung mit
künstlichen Befruchtungen, bei denen die Kinder eine ungewöhnliche Zahl
an Erbgutträgern (Chromosomen) haben. Die Befürchtung, das Verfahren
berge Gefahren wie etwa die Beschädigung des für die Zellteilung
wichtigen Spindelapparats in der Eizelle, teilen die Mediziner nicht.
«Es kann in Ausnahmen zu einer Störung kommen, aber eigentlich ist die
Spindel bei der Behandlung zu sehen», meint Diedrich.

Eine genaue Aufklärung und Chromosomen-Untersuchungen der Paare seien
unerlässlich, meint Nieschlag. «Die Zahl derer, die dann bei einem
bestimmbaren Risiko lieber verzichten, ist nicht unerheblich»….
http://de.news.yahoo.com/040104/3/3todd.html


3. Welt 

3.1 Kanada 
Vancouver Courier [via Agnet Dec. 29/03] December 28, 2003
Readers give Monsanto an earful

...During the trial, it was well established that the greatest
concentration of Monsanto's GM Round Up ready canola was in the gutters
along the roads that ring Schmeiser's farm. A very small amount of GM
Round Up ready canola was found in Schmeiser's fields. The former could
only have come from Monsanto's GM canola seed carelessly spilled from
trucks delivering seed to other canola farmers in the area, while the
field contamination would have to be from seed and pollen wind drift.

As far as the federal court was concerned, all of this was irrelevant to
the fact there was some of Monsanto's GM canola in and around Mr.
Schmeiser's fields….The problem in the Schmeiser/Monsanto case is that
the federal court justices who heard the appeal were too timid to strike
down a flawed patent law passed by a parliament that failed to take into
account such unintended and avoidable consequences suffered by Percy
Schmeiser and other Canadian farmers.

...Despite Trish Jordan's (of Monsanto) insinuations to the contrary,
the courts did not rule on where the seed came from. The finding of the
court was that it didn't matter where the seed came from. The ruling of
the courts was that Mr Schmeiser knew or ought to have known that there
were genetically engineered canola plants in his fields. He was
therefore infringing on Monsanto's patent and should not have saved his
own seed and replanted it the next year. This despite the fact that this
had been his practice in over 50 years of farming.

In a case that has implications for farmers and indeed anyone in the
world concerned about the unconfined release of man-made genes into the
food supply and the environment, Mr. Schmeiser has been given leave to
appeal the lower courts' decisions to the Supreme Court of Canada. The
case will be argued in Ottawa on Jan. 20, 2004. 

3.2 USA

WEEKLY WATCH NUMBER 53, Fr 02.01.04 13:01
Mix-up leaves biotech project at CSUS withering on the vine
By Edie Lau -- Bee Science Writer
Published  2:15 a.m. PST Wednesday, December 31, 2003

A project in genetically engineering crops to produce medicines began
with exuberant hopes at Sacramento State. Now all that remain are two
disheveled plants with one wrinkled red tomato. After five years, the
biologist who led the project, Nicholas Ewing, is giving it up. The
experiments didn't work. Ironically, the very tool he was trying to
employ -- biotechnology -- spoiled the studies. The problem lay in the
seeds. Ewing and his students tried to genetically engineer seeds they
thought were from an ordinary tomato. Trouble was, the seeds were
mislabeled; they arrived with genes already altered.

It was another case of agricultural biotechnology appearing to be out of
control. "This is a significant thing," Ewing said in an interview this
week in his office at California State University, Sacramento, where he
is chairman of the department of biological sciences. "It illustrates
that these (biotech) genes can be difficult to contain unless we have
practices in place to better detect them."

Ewing was one of 34 people around the world who may have received the
misidentified seeds over the past seven years. The seeds came from the
University of California, Davis, C.M. Rick Tomato Genetics Resource
Center -- a repository of seeds from more than 3,600 varieties of wild
and domesticated tomatoes. Like other such seed banks, the Rick Center
is a sort of Library of Congress for crops -- a place where the genetic
diversity of important plants is catalogued and preserved. The Rick
Center doesn't knowingly keep genetically engineered seed in its stock.
When officials recognized the error this fall, the embarrassed center
issued a recall and apology, followed in mid-December by a public
announcement.

The seeds traveled widely: to Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, North
America and South America. Most recipients were scientists, though not
all. ...UC Davis officials emphasized that the mistake in no way
endangered the food supply. The biotech gene, or "transgene," in the
tomato was approved for human consumption by the U.S. government in
1994. The transgene is designed to slow the fruit's decay. It is
essentially the same as that in the Flavr Savr tomato, the world's first
genetically engineered commercial crop, created by the Davis biotech
company Calgene.

Since the consequences of the mistaken distribution so far appear to be
minor -- nothing more serious than botched experiments in assorted labs
-- Ewing looks upon the incident as something of a useful warning. "In a
way, I think it was good it happened at this time in this way. It's
indicative of what can happen, and maybe," he said, pausing, his
normally lively voice growing soft, "even what will happen." 

Ewing, who earned a doctorate in plant physiology at UC Davis in 1993,
started exploring making pharmaceuticals in crops in 1998. He was
inspired by a student who became intrigued by the idea of making
inexpensive vaccines out of plants, which could be especially beneficial
in poor countries. But now, not wanting to be party to a more serious
biotech accident, Ewing is putting the project on indefinite hold.
Students in his lab were just beginning to attempt to engineer into
tomatoes the components of an antibody derived from mouse cells, as well
as a bacterial protein that binds to antibodies. In both cases, the
products appear to be safe to eat, Ewing said, but he can't say so
positively."In light of this (seed accident), we thought, 'Let's back up
on this,' " he said. "... I want to look more carefully at safety and
the regulatory process."

...The UC Davis seed mix-up is just the latest in a string of mishaps
involving the escape of genetically engineered genes. In 2000, StarLink,
a variety of transgenic corn approved only for animal feed, was
discovered widely in taco shells, corn chips and other human food,
forcing a massive recall. Traces of the StarLink protein reportedly
remain in some corn products today. In 2001, researchers from UC
Berkeley reported finding biotech genes in native corn from the
mountains of rural Oaxaca, Mexico, where growing genetically engineered
corn is illegal. In 2002, a Texas biotech company, ProdiGene, was found
to have contaminated 500,000 bushels of soybeans with corn engineered to
make pig vaccine. The soybeans had to be destroyed. In all cases, no
obvious harm was done to public health or the environment, though there
were economic repercussions and, perhaps, some erosion in consumers'
confidence.

...At CSUS, Ewing and his students were confounded because the seeds
contained a bacterial gene for antibiotic resistance, which is a tool
genetic engineers use to distinguish transformed plants from
untransformed plants. Usually only a small fraction of plants that are
manipulated actually incorporate the transgenes. Scientists treat all
manipulated plants with antibiotics, and those that survive -- those
that are resistant to antibiotics -- are the ones that have taken up the
transgenes. In Ewing's case, even the tomato plants that didn't take up
his target gene carried the antibiotic resistance gene. Later, when he
and his students checked the plants' DNA, they were perplexed: The gene
they thought they'd introduced wasn't there. Figuring the mistake was
theirs, they ordered a second batch of seeds from UC Davis. "The last
thing you want to do is blame somebody else," Ewing said. When the same
thing happened again, Ewing realized something was wrong with the seed.
Just as he was set to call the seed bank, the seed bank called Ewing.
The mix-up had been detected through a similar experiment failure at a
UC Davis lab….http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1912

________________________________________________
WEEKLY WATCH NUMBER 53, Fr 02.01.04 13:01
Seeds Of Deception - The Wisdom Of Animals
By Jeffrey M. Smith

Mice avoid eating GM foods when they have the chance, as do rats, cows,
pigs, geese, elk, squirrels, and others. What do these animals know that
we don't? At the end of most chapters is a one-page story describing how
farmers, students, and scientists discovered that animals refuse to eat
the same GM foods that we consume everyday.

Excerpt
The Washington Post reported that laboratory mice, usually happy to
munch on tomatoes, turned their noses up at the genetically modified
FlavrSavr tomato. Scientist Roger Salquist said of his tomato, "I gotta
tell you, you can be Chef Boyardee and mice are still not going to like
them." The mice were eventually force fed the tomato through gastric
tubes and stomach washes. Several developed stomach lesions; seven of
forty died within two weeks. The tomato was approved without further
tests.

from ' SEEDS OF DECEPTION: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about
the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating' by Jeffrey
M Smith (ISBN 0-9729665-8-7).
http://www.SeedsofDeception.com/Between-the-Chapters-The-Wisdom-of-Anima
ls.php#Excerpt 



-------------- nächster Teil --------------
Ein Dateianhang mit HTML-Daten wurde abgetrennt...
URL: <https://listi.jpberlin.de/pipermail/gen-streitfall/attachments/20040104/4c9396b0/attachment.htm>