<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.0.4630.0">
<TITLE>Presseschau 22. - 28.9.03</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<P><U><B><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="Arial">GM Crops - No thanks!</FONT></B></U><B></B>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Hi, anbei die Wochenschau. Außerdem (ich kanns nicht lassen) eine neue Auflistung von </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">negativen Auswirkungen der GMOs. Gentransfer von GMOs wurde nicht nur bei Wildkräutern, nativem<BR>
mexikanischem Mais, Mikroorgnismen und Insekten beobachtet, sondern über den Umweg über Bakterien<BR>
offenbar auch in Säugetierzellen! Na dann, guten Appetit! Gruß, Sabine</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Sabine Altmann<BR>
Attac Marburg</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Email:</FONT> <A HREF="mailto:altmann.tent@t-online.de"><U></U><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">altmann.tent@t-online.de</FONT></U></A>
</P>
<BR>
<P><U><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Gentransfer von GMOs</FONT></B></U><B></B>
<UL>
<LI><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Roundup Ready soybeans contain DNA that its creators did not know they had introduced into it.</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">A study has shown that genes move reasonably readily from wheat to jointed goatgrass,<BR>
a major</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">weed</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">in wheat-producing areas of western US.</FONT></LI>
<LI><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Weeds</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> that have acquired resistance to more than one herbicide have been reported in Canada.</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Experimental studies confirm that genes passing from crops to</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">weeds</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> can persist for generations,<BR>
rather than disappearing quickly due to the lack of any positive selective pressure.</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Commercial transgenes, or parts of them, have found their way into</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">native maize</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">in remote locations<BR>
of Mexico despite a ban on their cultivation.</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The direct transfer of genes from bacteria to</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">mammalian cells</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">has been demonstrated.</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Differences have been found</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> in soil microbial communities</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">around GE canola and conventional canola.</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">It has been found that some Bt-resistant</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">insects</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">are actually able to digest and utililise the toxin protein,<BR>
potentially increasing the fitness of resistant populations.</FONT></LI>
<BR>
</UL>
<P><U><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Vergiftung von Insekten durch BT Mais</FONT></B></U><B></B>
<UL>
<LI><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The Bt toxin exudes from the roots of plants and accumulates in soil, and</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">retains insecticidal activity</FONT></B><BR>
<B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">for at least 6 months</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">, bound to particles in the soil.</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Bt corn, especially one that expresses toxin at high levels, appears to damage non-target</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">monarch and</FONT></B><BR>
<B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">black swallowtail caterpillars</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">in the wild. </FONT></LI>
<BR>
</UL>
<P><U><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Verunreinigung von Lebensmitteln</FONT></B></U>
<UL>
<LI><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">A British study has reported GE material found in</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">honey</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> two miles away from GE crops.</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">In 2000, a variety of GM maize called StarLink, designed by GM company Aventis as an animal feed and<BR>
not allowed to be fed to humans, was found to have contaminated taco shells in the USA. Aventis had to<BR>
buy the whole harvest in the US, at estimated cost of $100m.</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">In May 2000, conventional non-GM oilseed rape imported from Canada and sold in the UK, France,<BR>
Germany and Sweden by seed company Advanta was found to be contaminated with GM oilseed rape.</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Commercialisation of GM oilseed rape and maize would increase costs of non-GM and organic farmers<BR>
by up to 41 per cent.</FONT></LI>
<BR>
</UL>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">From the Summary of the report by Dr Peter Wills, a theoretical biologist in the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Department of Physics at the University of Auckland, on recent problems found with GM crops: </FONT>
<BR><A HREF="http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1510"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1510</FONT></U></A>
<BR><A HREF="http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1525"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1525</FONT></U></A>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">_________________________________________________<BR>
28. Sept.03 Dresdner Neue Nachrichten</FONT><B></B><B></B><B></B>
<BR><B><FONT FACE="Arial">Pillnitzer Bürger protestieren gegen Gen-Äpfel</FONT></B><BR>
<FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> </FONT><A HREF="http://www.dnn-online.de/regional/regional_bilder/onl_23_apfelprobe.jpg"></A><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> </FONT><A HREF="http://www.dnn-online.de/pic_dnn/pixel.gif"></A><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Noch in diesem Herbst wollen Pillnitzer Obstforscher im Herzen der Obstbauzüchtung auf einer Fläche<BR>
von einem Hektar Land an der Oberpoyritzer Straße gentechnisch veränderte Apfelbäume auspflanzen.<BR>
Es wäre der erste Freilandversuch gentechnisch veränderter Pflanzen im Dresdner Raum. Anwohner,<BR>
Öko-Bauern und Grüne befürchten unkalkulierbare Risiken und wollen einen solchen Versuch in Pillnitz<BR>
nicht dulden. Auf einer von Bürgern angeregten Informationsveranstaltung gestern Abend in Pillnitz -<BR>
über 100 Anwohner und Interessenten waren gekommen - gab es viele Fragen und zum Teil sehr<BR>
emotionale Kritik an dem Vorhaben.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">"Wir haben Gene verwendet, die die Apfelbäume resistent machen sollen gegen Schorf, Mehltau und<BR>
Feuerbrand", erklärte Prof. Viola Hanke, Direktorin des Instituts für Obstzüchtung Pillnitz. …<BR>
Gegenwärtig müssten sächsische Obstproduzenten jährlich zehn- bis zwölfmal Fungizide spritzen,<BR>
um dem Apfelschorf beizukommen. Und um den Feuerbrand zu bekämpfen, gäbe es keine Mittel.<BR>
Denn Antibiotika dürften vom kommenden Jahr an gegen die von Bakterien verursachte Krankheit<BR>
nicht mehr eingesetzt werden. ...</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">So haben die Forscher zum Beispiel das Gen einer Schmetterlingsart transformiert. " … Sie sind in<BR>
der Lage Proteine zu bilden, die die Zellwand des Bakteriums auflösen. Diese Eigenschaft wollen wir<BR>
auf die Apfelbäume übertragen", so Hanke.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Die ersten 500 Apfelbäumchen stehen ...schon bereit. Insgesamt sollen im Verlauf des für 20 Jahre<BR>
geplanten Versuches 10 000 Apfelbäume ins Freiland gesetzt werden. ...</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Catrin Steinbach</FONT>
<BR><A HREF="http://www.dnn-online.de/regional/39569.html"><U></U><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">http://www.dnn-online.de/regional/39569.html</FONT></U></A>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="Arial">_____________________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="Arial">Hard Realities: Brazil Drops Resistance to Genetically Altered Crops</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">By LARRY ROHTER<BR>
<BR>
Published: September 28, 2003<BR>
New York Times<BR>
RIO DE JANEIRO, Sept. 27 — In barely 36 hours, Brazil's left-leaning<BR>
government first announced that it would allow farmers to plant genetically<BR>
altered soybean seeds, then reversed course, before changing yet again,<BR>
late on Thursday.<BR>
The result is that Brazil, a bastion of global opposition to genetically<BR>
modified organisms, has given in.<BR>
From the time President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva founded the Workers'<BR>
Party more than 20 years ago, environmentalists have been an important<BR>
constituency and their programs part of the party's platform.<BR>
Those commitments, though, have had to give way to the hard realities of<BR>
politics and to Brazil's drive to increase exports. The country wants to<BR>
become an agricultural superpower.<BR>
Brazil is the world's second largest producer of soybeans, but it is<BR>
expected to surpass the United States to become the largest soybean<BR>
producer as early as the coming harvest. The Southern Hemisphere's planting<BR>
season is just starting, ...<BR>
...<BR>
Nevertheless, the decision is a significant victory for large biotechnology<BR>
companies like Monsanto, which stands to gain the most from the policy<BR>
change. Since the mid-1990's, Greenpeace and other international and local<BR>
consumer and environmental groups have been battling in Brazilian courts<BR>
and the corridors of Congress to prevent Brazil from following the path of<BR>
Argentina and other large agricultural producers that have already<BR>
legalized the genetically modified crops.<BR>
...<BR>
The government's about-face is also likely to provoke tensions in the warm<BR>
relations between Mr. da Silva and his allies and admirers in the Green<BR>
movement in Europe. His Workers' Party has been the main sponsor of the<BR>
annual World Social Forum in the southern state of Rio Grande do Sul, which<BR>
has emerged as a magnet for antiglobalization groups, whose agenda includes<BR>
strong opposition to the genetically modified foods.<BR>
But many small farmers affiliated with the landless movement have also been<BR>
clandestinely planting their own fields with genetically modified soy seeds<BR>
smuggled across the border from Argentina. They justify that contradiction<BR>
by arguing that they have lower production costs with these seeds and have<BR>
complained that they will be driven into bankruptcy if the Brazilian<BR>
government continues to ban them.<BR>
Monsanto has tried unsuccessfully to collect royalties from Brazilian soy<BR>
producers using its genetically modified seeds. The government decision<BR>
includes a provision that requires farmers planting such seeds to<BR>
acknowledge that they, and not the government, are responsible for any such<BR>
payments.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">_______________________________________________________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">vwd</FONT></B><BR>
<B></B><B><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="Arial">AUSBLICK/EU-Agrarminister beraten über Reform und Gentechnik</FONT></B><BR>
<I><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Freitag 26. September 2003, 16:26 Uhr</FONT></I>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Brüssel (vwd) - Die europäische Agrarreform und der Einsatz von Gentechnik sind die beiden Schwerpunkte, </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">wenn sich am Montag die 15 Landwirtschaftsminister der EU in Brüssel treffen. …</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Deutschland beispielsweise will das Regionalmodell für die künftigen einmaligen Pauschalzahlungen an<BR>
Landwirte vorstellen. Ab 2005 könnten dann die einzelnen Bundesländer</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">je nach Gesamtfläche in Hektar</FONT></B><BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Agrarbeihilfen aus Brüssel erhalten. Bislang werden die EU-Subventionen in Höhe von rund 40 Mrd EUR<BR>
abhängig von der Produktion an die Agrarbetriebe ausgezahlt. Nach der Reform sollen die Zahlungen an<BR>
Landwirte für Getreide und Ölsaaten mindestens zu 75 Prozent von der Produktion abgekoppelt werden.<BR>
<BR>
...Darüber hinaus müssen sich die EU-Minister mit dem umstrittenen Einsatz von Gentechnik beim<BR>
Pflanzenanbau auseinandersetzen. Ungeklärt ist die Problematik der</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Koexistenz</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> von herkömmlichen<BR>
Feldern mit Gen-Anbauflächen, bei der es zu einer Verunreinigung der konventionellen und ökologischen<BR>
Agrarerzeugnisse kommen könnte. Im Mittelpunkt steht vor allem die</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Haftungsfrage,</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">bei eventuellen<BR>
Schäden durch Kreuzung von genveränderten Organismen (GVO) mit traditionellen Lebensmitteln.<BR>
Fischler lehnt eine EU-weite Regelung dazu ab, da die regionalen Unterschiede und Gegebenheiten<BR>
keine harmonisierten Vorschriften ermöglichten. Daher überlässt es die Kommission den EU-<BR>
Regierungen, wie sie mit der Koexistenz umgehen.<BR>
<BR>
Die italienische EU-Ratspräsidentschaft hat dazu einen Fragebogen an die Mitgliedstaaten verteilt,<BR>
der während des Agrarrats beantwortet werden soll. Italien will etwa die Frage erörtern, ob die anderen<BR>
EU-Staaten gemeinschaftsweite Haftungsregeln für den Fall einer Kontaminierung von konventionellen<BR>
mit GVO-Kutluren fordern. Ferner soll darüber diskutiert werden, ob bestimmte geografische Gebiete<BR>
als</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">GVO-freie Zonen</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">oder</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Obergrenzen für GVO-Vorkommen in Saatgut</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">festgelegt werden sollten.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Deutschland, Österreich und Italien setzen sich bei der Koexistenzfrage für strikte EU-weite<BR>
Rahmenvorschriften ein</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">. Da Gen-Saatgut nicht an den Landesgrenzen halt mache, sei eine rein<BR>
nationale Gesetzgebung nicht sinnvoll, heißt es zur Begründung. Eine eventuelle Gesetzesinitiative<BR>
der EU-Kommission zur Regeln der GVO-Koexistenz und den daraus resultierenden Haftungsfragen<BR>
müsse spätestens bis November vorliegen, damit das Parlament in der laufenden Legislaturperiode<BR>
noch über den Vorschlag beraten könne, hieß es weiter aus diplomatischen Kreisen. Allerdings<BR>
müssten die EU-Staaten gemeinsam auf eine Initiative der Kommission drängen. +++ Ali Ulucay<BR>
vwd/26.9.2003/ul/ptr</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="Arial">_____________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#666666" SIZE=1 FACE="ms sans serif">Samstag, 27. September 2003 / 06:48:26, News.ch</FONT><BR>
<B></B><B><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="Arial">Brasilien legalisiert Anbau von umstrittener Gen-Soja</FONT></B>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Brasilia - Die Regierung Brasiliens hat trotz zahlreicher Proteste von Politikern, Bauern, Umwelt- und<BR>
Verbraucher-schützern den Anbau des umstrittenen Gen-Soja freigeben.</FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"></FONT> <FONT FACE="Arial">…</FONT>
<BR><A HREF="http://www1.news.ch/detail.asp?ID=152140"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">http://www1.news.ch/detail.asp?ID=152140</FONT></U></A>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">______________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">26. September 2003<BR>
</FONT><B></B><B><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="Arial">Brasilien lässt Gen-Soja wachsen</FONT></B><BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Heftige Proteste von Gegnern - Umweltministerin stellt sich gegen ihren Präsidenten</FONT>
<BR><A HREF="http://derstandard.at/"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">http://derstandard.at/</FONT></U></A><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> </FONT><A HREF="http://derstandard.at/img/dot_clear.gif"></A>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> Brasilia - Die Regierung Brasiliens hat trotz zahlreicher Proteste von Politikern, Bauern, Umwelt- und<BR>
Verbraucherschützern den Anbau der umstrittenen Gen-Soja freigeben. Die Legalisierung der gentechnisch<BR>
veränderten Soja-Pflanze trat nach der Unterzeichnung einer so genannten "provisorischen Maßnahme"<BR>
durch Vizepräsident Jose Alencar am Freitag in Brasilia sofort in Kraft. Sie gilt demzufolge bereits für die<BR>
am Dienstag beginnende Anbausaison im gesamten Land.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Die betroffenen Produzenten werden den Angaben nach die Gen-Soja für den Verbraucher deutlich kennzeichnen<BR>
müssen. ...</FONT>
</P>
<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Proteste</FONT></B>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Die Gegner der Legalisierung hatten seit Wochenanfang mit scharfer Kritik und mit Kundgebungen vor dem<BR>
Landwirtschaftsministerium protestiert. Gegen die Maßnahme hatten sich unter anderem auch Umweltministerin<BR>
Marina Silva, die Umweltschutzgruppe Greenpeace und die mächtige "Bewegung der Landlosen Bauern" ausgesprochen.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Mit der Freigabe der Gen-Soja mache sich die linksgerichtete Regierung von Präsident Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva<BR>
einer der "schlimmsten Aggressionen gegen die Bürgerrechte der Brasilianer" schuldig, erklärte die<BR>
Verbraucherschutzgruppe Idec. Es wird auch Widerstand seitens der Justiz erwartet, die in verschiedenen<BR>
Instanzen den Anbau gentechnisch veränderter Pflanzen mehrfach untersagt hatte.</FONT>
</P>
<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Gen-Lobby</FONT></B>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Beobachter meinten, die Regierung sei vor allem von Großbauern des wohlhabenden Agrarlandes Rio Grande do Sul<BR>
unter Druck gesetzt worden. Dort ist die große Mehrheit der bislang illegal arbeitenden "Gentechnik-Bauern" tätig.<BR>
Die transgenen Samen für den brasilianischen Schwarzmarkt stammen vermutlich aus dem benachbarten Argentinien,<BR>
wo der Anbau von Gen-Pflanzen zulässig und weit verbreitet ist. (APA/dpa)</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="Arial">_________________________</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="Arial">Brasilien erlaubt Gen-Soja</FONT></B><BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">26. Sep 12:12 Netzzeitung</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Der brasilianische Präsident Lula hat die Aussaat von gentechnisch manipuliertem Soja genehmigt. Die Kritik kam<BR>
prompt; auch aus den eigenen Reihen. ...</FONT>
<BR><A HREF="http://www.netzeitung.de/spezial/gentechnik/256055.html"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">http://www.netzeitung.de/spezial/gentechnik/256055.html</FONT></U></A><BR>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">__________________________________________________________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">26.9.03 Tiroler Tageszeitung</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="Arial">Brasilien legalisierte trotz Proteste Anbau von umstrittener Gen-Soja</FONT></B><BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">"Schlimmste Aggression gegen die Bürgerrechte"</FONT>
<BR><A HREF="http://news.tirol.com/politik/international/artikel_20030926_233798.html"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">http://news.tirol.com/politik/international/artikel_20030926_233798.html</FONT></U></A>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="Arial">___________________</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="Arial">GM crops? No thanks </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Britain delivers overwhelming verdict after unprecedented public opinion exercise</FONT></B>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">By Michael McCarthy Environment Editor</FONT><B></B>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The Independent´s, 25 September 2003</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The title of the debate was "GM Nation?" But that is precisely what the British people do not want<BR>
their country to be, according to the official report from the national consultation on genetically<BR>
modified crops and food presented to the Government yesterday.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The unprecedented test of public opinion, which over six weeks this summer involved 675 public<BR>
meetings and elicited more than 36,000 written responses, revealed a deep hostility to GM technology<BR>
across the population.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Alongside fears that GM crops and food could be harmful to human health and the environment, the debate<BR>
threw up widespread mistrust and suspicion of the motives of those taking decisions about GM - especially<BR>
government and multi-national companies such as Monsanto.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">On a whole series of questions GM-hostile majorities were enormous, with 85 per cent saying GM crops<BR>
would benefit producers not ordinary people, 86 per cent saying they were unhappy with the idea of eating<BR>
GM food, 91 per cent saying they thought GM had potential negative effects on the environment, and no<BR>
fewer than 93 per cent of respondents saying they thought GM technology was driven more by the pursuit<BR>
of profit than the public interest. Figures in support of GM were, by contrast, tiny.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Even special focus groups, deliberately selected from people who were uncommitted one way or another,<BR>
to tease out the views of the "silent majority", and whose members were initially prepared to admit the<BR>
technology might have benefits, opposed GM technology more the more they learnt about it, the report<BR>
discloses.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The extent and the unequivocal nature of the hostility revealed by "GM Nation?" will represent a substantial<BR>
political hurdle to those who wish to bring the technology to Britain as soon as possible - led by Tony Blair<BR>
and his Environment Secretary, Margaret Beckett, and the giant American and European agribusiness<BR>
companies such as Monsanto and Bayer.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Yesterday Mrs Beckett reaffirmed a promise that the Government would "listen" to the views the debate<BR>
has highlighted and respond to them publicly, although she made no such pledge that it would take<BR>
account of them in deciding its course of action.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">But that was what the Government had to do, said green groups, the organic agriculture movement and<BR>
others sceptical of the values of GM, who warmly welcomed the report. "The Government will ignore this<BR>
report at its peril," said Pete Riley, the GM campaigner for Friends of the Earth. "The public has made<BR>
it clear that it doesn't want GM food and it doesn't want GM crops. There must not be any more weasel<BR>
words from the Government on this issue."</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The umbrella body for the GM companies in Britain, the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, rejected the<BR>
report's findings, saying that "public meetings do not equal public opinion," although the ABC's chairman,<BR>
Paul Rylott, had been a member of the debate steering group and issued no dissenting opinion in the<BR>
report itself.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Criticising the debate's methodology, the ABC claimed that nearly 80 per cent of the debate response<BR>
forms "can be clearly identified by cluster analysis as being orchestrated by campaigning groups".<BR>
The chairman of the debate, Professor Malcolm Grant, rejected the accusation.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The report is indeed likely to be widely seen as reflecting public opinion, and Mrs Beckett herself<BR>
legitimised it yesterday by saying it had been "a new way of engaging the public in the policy-making<BR>
process."</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The embarrassment that "GM Nation?" will cause to Mr Blair and his like-minded colleagues is all the<BR>
greater in that it is the third such in as many months, after two other GM reports, both commissioned<BR>
by ministers and published in July.</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">One final report is now due before the Government decides<BR>
whether to give the go-ahead to the commercial growth of GM crops in Britain</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">. This is on the<BR>
farm-scale evaluations of GM crops, a four-year trial designed to see if the deadlier weedkillers<BR>
used with them cause new harm to the environment. It is due</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">to be published on 16 October</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">and<BR>
will be the crucial document in the debate, because the decision to go ahead is taken by the EU<BR>
in Brussels, and the only way the Government can countermand it is by finding new evidence<BR>
of harm to human health or the environment from GM technology - such as crop trials may provide.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The general mood, the report said, "ranged from caution to doubt, through suspicion and scepticism,<BR>
to hostility and rejection." Professor Grant said: "I now look forward to the Government's responding<BR>
to the points raised in the debate, and taking these into account in the future formulation of policy on GM."</FONT>
</P>
<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">GM NATION? BY NUMBERS</FONT></B>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">* 20,000 people attended 675 meetings across Britain</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">* The public sent in 1200 letters and e-mails</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">* The website received 2.9 million hits in just six weeks</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">* 70,000 feeback forms were downloaded; 36,557 were returned</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">* 93% of respondents believed GM technology was driven by profit rather than public interest</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">* 85% thought GM crops would benefit producers, rather than ordinary people</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">* 84% believed they would cause "unacceptable interference" with nature</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">* 54% never want to see GM crops grown in Britain</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">* 86% were unhappy with the idea of eating GM food</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">* 93% said too little was known about health effects</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">* 2% were happy with GM foods in all circumstances</FONT>
<BR><A HREF="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=446787"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=446787</FONT></U></A>
<BR><A HREF="http://www.gmnation.org.uk/ut_09/ut_9_6.htm"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">http://www.gmnation.org.uk/ut_09/ut_9_6.htm</FONT></U></A>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">__________________________________________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="Arial">Brazil to Lift Ban on Crops With Genetic Modification</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">By TONY SMITH<BR>
New York Times<BR>
September 25, 2003<BR>
PORTO ALEGRE, Brazil, Sept. 24 - Brazilian farmers, the world's No. 2<BR>
producers of soybeans, got the go-ahead today to plant genetically modified<BR>
seeds this season after the country's vice president said he would lift a<BR>
ban on transgenic crops.<BR>
Vice President José Alencar, standing in for President Luiz Inácio Lula da<BR>
Silva who is visiting the United States, Cuba and Mexico, said that he<BR>
would sign a decree ending the ban, despite resistance from environmental<BR>
advocates and their supporters in the government.<BR>
The decree effectively extends a temporary decree legalizing the sale of<BR>
genetically modified soy from this year's harvest, but officials said they<BR>
expected it to pave the way for legislation that would be sent to Congress<BR>
this year. The extension comes just in time for the October planting.<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Until last year, Brazil was one of the world's last main exporters of farm<BR>
goods to ban the planting or sale of genetically altered crops or foods</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">,<BR>
although an increasing number of farmers, especially in the southern<BR>
farming states Rio Grande do Sul and Paraná, have flouted the ban in recent<BR>
years by planting transgenic seeds smuggled in from neighboring Argentina.<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">...</FONT></B><BR>
<BR><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="Arial">__________________________________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="Arial">The Cartagena Protocol to boost the African Model Law in Biosafety<BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Wednesday 24 September 2003 5:24 pm<BR>
Biotech activists<BR>
From: "Guy Patrick"<BR>
<BR>
The global voice for consumers<BR>
PRESS RELEASE<BR>
The Cartagena Protocol to boost<BR>
the African Model Law on biosafety<BR>
<BR>
15 September 2003 - The coming into force of the Cartagena Protocol on<BR>
Biosafety on 11 September 2003 puts in the spotlight efforts by consumer<BR>
organisations towards the implementation of biosafety regulatory frameworks<BR>
in Africa, says Consumers International Office for Africa (CI-ROAF).<BR>
<BR>
"This Protocol will boost our campaigns and actions for safety in<BR>
biotechnology", Amadou Kanoute, Regional Director for CI-ROAF, said.<BR>
<BR>
The Cartagena Protocol is the first legally binding international agreement<BR>
governing the movement of GMOs from country to country. It aims to ensure an<BR>
adequate level of protection regarding the safe transfer, handling and use<BR>
of GMOs, and to make sure that GMO shipments have appropriate identification<BR>
documentation.</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">In Africa, 16 countries have ratified the Protocol to date:<BR>
Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Djibouti, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia,<BR>
Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Tunisia and<BR>
Uganda.<BR>
</FONT></B><BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">On the day the Protocol took effect, Dr. Tewolde Egziabher, Chief Negotiator<BR>
in the Biosafety Group for the African Group called "on the African states<BR>
that have yet to ratify the protocol to do so as soon as possible, and on<BR>
all African states to make their biosafety laws based on the African Union's<BR>
Model Law on Safety in Biotechnology".<BR>
<BR>
Consumers International Office for Africa (CI-ROAF) believes that the African<BR>
Union's Model Law on biosafety in biotechnology is an Africa-specific<BR>
version of the Cartagena Protocol and it represents a comprehensive approach<BR>
to the introduction of GMOs in the continent.<BR>
<BR>
Currently, genetically modified cotton experiments are conducted in Kenya,<BR>
Uganda, South Africa, Burkina Faso and Mali without prior consultations with<BR>
farmers or consumers. In reaction, farmer organisations and consumer<BR>
associations have teamed up to sensitise consumers on the hazards and risks<BR>
associated with GMOs.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The strategy of GM proponents seems to be "contaminate then regulate",</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">said<BR>
Amadou Kanoute. That is why, "there is urgent need to adopt high standards<BR>
of safety by subjecting all GM products and related activities to rigorous<BR>
safety assessments in Africa", he further asserted. CI-ROAF recommends that<BR>
African countries base their national biosafety laws on the African Union's<BR>
Model Law on Biosafety in Biotechnology.</FONT>
<BR>
<BR>
</P>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>