<!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 29.9. - 5.10.03</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<P><U><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="Arial">GMOs are not immoral, says the Vatican</FONT></U>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Hallo, anbei die Wochenschau, in Brasilien und Neuseeland sind sie gerade dabei,<BR>
den Anbau von GM-Food zu erlauben. Die so erzeugten Lebensmittel können dann ja<BR>
bald auch nach Europa eingeführt werden, wo sie gerade über Fragen der Koexistenz<BR>
Uns Haftung diskutieren und die</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Gen-Maissorte NK 603 von Monsanto durch das<BR>
Zulassungsverfahren schleusen. 18 weitere Marken wurden bereits vor 1998 zugelassen<BR>
und benötigen nur noch die "Sortenzulassung" (Was auch immer das ist) und 22<BR>
weitere Marken warten schon in der Schlange. Der Lebensmittelhändler Metro hat<BR>
sich bereits bereit erklärt, bei der Vermarktung der GM-Lebensmittel eine Vorreiterrolle </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Zu übernehmen.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Es ist fast als führten die GM-Konzerne ihre letzte entscheidende Schlacht. Vielleicht<BR>
weil es ihnen wirtschaftlich schlecht geht. Vielleicht weil sei einfach noch mehr Profit<BR>
machen wollen. Letzendlich können uns die Gründe egal sein. Langfristig wird die Folge<BR>
sein, dass es die von den Grünen so hoch gepriesene Wahlfreiheit für Verbraucher bald<BR>
nicht mehr gibt. Bereits kurzfristig werden die Preise für Non-GM-Food steigen. (Selbst<BR>
schuld, wer selbst entscheiden will, was er isst).</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Aber das ist noch nicht das Ende, denn genmanipulierte Tiere warten nur darauf, in Kürze<BR>
die Marktreife zu erlangen.<BR>
</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Save our seeds</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> bittet darum, wegen der Saatgutreinheit Postkarten mit folgendem Text an<BR>
Schröder zu schreiben: "...Bitte sorgen Sie dafür, dass herkömmliches Saatgut auch in<BR>
Zukunft frei von Gentechnik bleibt. Die Europäische Kommission will gentechnische<BR>
Verunreinigungen zwischen 0,3% und 0,7% im konventionellen und Bio-Saatgut ohne<BR>
Kennzeichnung zulassen. Da Saatgut sich vermehrt, macht "das Bisschen Gentechnik"<BR>
einen großen Unterschied. Wir wollen ein eindeutiges Reinheitsgebot (technisch: 0,1%).<BR>
Die deutsche Stimme entscheidet bei der Abstimmung in der EU. ...Schützen Sie uns<BR>
und die Umwelt vor möglichen Gefahren…."</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Postkarten-Motiv unter: </FONT><A HREF="http://zs-l.de/saveourseeds/Download_Centre/plakat_A4_300dpi.jpg"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">http://zs-l.de/saveourseeds/Download_Centre/plakat_A4_300dpi.jpg</FONT></U></A>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Alles weitere unter </FONT><A HREF="file://www.saveourseeds.org"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">www.saveourseeds.org</FONT></U></A>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Lest doch den Artikel vom 3.Okt. aus der Aberdeen American News, dann wisst Ihr, warum<BR>
Genfood alle unsere Probleme löst. Gruß, Sabine</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">__________________________________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The Associated Press.<BR>
October 4, 2003<BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="Arial">Food companies want to move with caution dealing with<BR>
transgenic animals</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">By EMILY GERSEMA, Associated Press Writer<BR>
WASHINGTON<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The food industry has waited a long time for biotech products aimed at<BR>
giving consumers better health and a cleaner environment</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">. Genetically<BR>
engineered animals, however, are not what the industry has in mind.<BR>
<BR>
So far, the biotech products in the marketplace resist pests and tolerate<BR>
chemicals, clearly offering benefits to farmers, not consumers.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Still, consumers have come to accept food from genetically engineered<BR>
plants.</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">They buy tacos, nacho chips and tofu without thinking twice that<BR>
many of them are produced with genetically modified corn and soybeans.<BR>
Farmers now devote three-fourths of the nation's soybean acreage and 40<BR>
percent of their corn plantings to biotech varieties.<BR>
<BR>
But gene-altered animals? Well, that's a different animal….<BR>
"Animals are a different issue," said Stephanie Childs, a spokeswoman for<BR>
the Grocery Manufacturers of America. "Consumers want to know what the<BR>
benefits are."<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Polls</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> show that the public is much more skittish about tinkering with the<BR>
genes of livestock than crops.<BR>
<BR>
Nonetheless,</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">transgenic salmon</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">could hit the market within five years. The<BR>
fish, developed by Aqua Bounty Technologies Inc. of Waltham, Mass., are<BR>
designed to grow bigger and faster, and produce less waste than their wild<BR>
cousins….Aqua Bounty's fish is spliced with a Chinook salmon growth gene<BR>
and an antifreeze gene from an ocean pout.<BR>
<BR>
Environmental groups argue</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">that transgenic animals and fish are<BR>
ecologically risky because the animals could escape into the wild</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> and take<BR>
over food supplies and habitats of their conventional counterparts. The<BR>
groups also fear the animals would breed with conventional ones,</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">passing on<BR>
their mutant genes, which would phase out whole species.<BR>
</FONT></B><BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">In February, the FDA discovered</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">that some pigs that were supposed to have<BR>
been destroyed after a biotech study may have entered the food supply<BR>
After being sold to a livestock dealer</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">. The pigs, developed at the University of<BR>
Illinois, were offspring of genetically engineered pigs. </FONT>
<BR>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Hoban...cited</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">some biotech experiments that involved transplanting genes<BR>
from humans into pigs.</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">If those animals were to get into the food supply,<BR>
it would be difficult for the food industry to recover, he said.<BR>
<BR>
FDA officials maintain the approval process is stringent enough to protect<BR>
the public. The biotech industry agrees, saying it is taking appropriate<BR>
measures to prevent the worst from happening,</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">designing animals that cannot<BR>
reproduce</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">and that would be raised in confinement.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">______________________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The Economist<BR>
October 4, 2003<BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="Arial">An amber light for agri-business</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">SaO PAULO<BR>
<BR>
JOSE ALENCAR, Brazil's vice-president, was feeling sorry for himself last<BR>
week. His boss, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, was abroad...That left Mr<BR>
Alencar …with the unpleasant task of signing a decree that for the<BR>
first time allows the planting of genetically engineered crops in Brazil.<BR>
<BR>
The vice-president was caught between two juggernauts. One is an alliance<BR>
of activists and politicians who regard biotechnology as a dangerous<BR>
novelty foisted on Brazil by malign multinational companies. Many are close<BR>
to President da Silva's Workers' Party, which dominates the government. The<BR>
other is Brazil's increasingly powerful agri-business lobby, which sees<BR>
biotech as a competitive tool. The decree...is a victory for the planters. It will<BR>
reverberate from the floor of Brazil's Congress</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">to the shelves of European<BR>
supermarkets.<BR>
</FONT></B><BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">In soyabeans, Brazil is a superpower (see chart). Within five years, it<BR>
could</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">become the world's biggest producer</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">, reckons the United States'<BR>
Department of Agriculture. Soya products already account for about</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> 5% of<BR>
Brazil's total exports.</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">…</FONT>
</P>
<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Europeans, accustomed to eating GM-free food without paying<BR>
much extra for it</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">,</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">may have to choose between their phobias and<BR>
their wallets.</FONT></B><BR>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">...Foes of GM farming think they have an irresistible argument:</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> the world does<BR>
not want it.</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">So say politicians in Parana state, Brazil's second-largest<BR>
soya producer, where the seeds are conventional. The state governor is<BR>
pushing a local law that would ban GM soya from the state and close its<BR>
port to GM crops.<BR>
<BR>
Inconveniently for the antis, though, "many Parana farmers want to produce<BR>
biotech soya," says Carlos Augusto Albuquerque of the local farmers'<BR>
federation. The important thing is to segregate GM from non-GM varieties,<BR>
which will be easier if Monsanto soya is legal. ...<BR>
<BR>
The</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">reason for</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Mr Albuquerque's stance</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> can be found in European<BR>
kitchens. In Britain, where consumers are especially fussy</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">, supermarkets<BR>
sell Pork and chicken raised on non-biotech soya for the same price they once<BR>
Charged for Monsanto-fed meat. They can do so in part because Brazilian farmers,<BR>
the main source of non-GM soya, are paid little extra for it.<BR>
<BR>
If Brazil shifts largely to biotech soya, non-GM farmers may at last gain<BR>
the leverage to extract something more than the derisory premium they are<BR>
accustomed to. For Europeans, that will come on top of the costs of<BR>
complying with new regulations, which are about to mandate</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">labeling of GM<BR>
animal feed (though not of the meat itself)</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">and an expensive paper trail to<BR>
certify the purity of non-GM ingredients. If supermarkets pass such costs<BR>
on, consumers' appetite for GM-free food could wane.<BR>
<BR>
Thanks to Mr Alencar's one-year decree,</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> the premium for non-GM soya in<BR>
Brazil is rising already.</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">...</FONT><BR>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">______________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Aberdeen American News (South Dakota)<BR>
October 3, 2003 Friday<BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="Arial">Balancing debate concerning GM products</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">By LARRY GABRIEL Sec. of the; Department of Agriculture<BR>
<BR>
Will "Franken foods" become "green foods?" ...<BR>
<BR>
Some people fear the changes without knowing why. Others oppose them merely<BR>
because large corporations own the patents. Still others think GM crops are<BR>
the only way we can possibly feed the predicted 40% increase in the world<BR>
population during the next fifty years.<BR>
<BR>
… The environmental community and some farmers have joined forces in opposing<BR>
GM crops. That could change.</FONT><BR>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I recently read an article in the Atlantic Monthly predicting that within<BR>
ten years the environmental community will reverse its current position on<BR>
genetically modified foods, because of environmental benefits from GM farming.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The theory is that the "greens" will give up their emotion-based fears<BR>
And eventually support GM farming, when they realize the environmental<BR>
benefits.</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The claims are that no-till farming combined with new<BR>
biotechnology can: </FONT>
<UL>
<LI><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">feed the hungry of the world; </FONT></B></LI>
<LI><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">reduce demand for more</FONT></B></LI>
<LI><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">arable land; </FONT></B></LI>
<LI><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">restore salty irrigated lands; </FONT></B></LI>
<LI><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">reduce grassland and forest</FONT></B></LI>
<LI><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">conversions; sequester carbon; </FONT></B></LI>
<LI><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">enrich soil biodiversity (because insects and worms will till the soil); </FONT></B></LI>
<LI><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">reduce fertilizer and fossil fuel consumption; </FONT></B></LI>
<LI><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">reduce herbicide use, </FONT></B></LI>
<LI><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">and nearly eliminate farm run-off problems which pollute our waters</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">.<BR>
<BR>
I don't know if GM farming can deliver on all these promises. ...<BR>
It is difficult to know whether long term economic benefits will outweigh<BR>
the short-term loss of world market share for a product like GM wheat. All<BR>
those economic predictions are based on past market prices, which are less<BR>
than the current market price of wheat.<BR>
<BR>
Emotions may prevail over logic and economics in our ultimate decision, but<BR>
fear should not be the controlling factor.</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">For those who make emotion-based<BR>
decisions, I suggest they consider this: six million children under the age<BR>
of five die every year from hunger or disease related to malnutrition.<BR>
</FONT></B><BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Can genetically modified crops change that? I don't know.</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">But, I don't need<BR>
to know the answer to "feel" that we must do all we can to feed the starving.<BR>
</FONT></B><BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The only way to guarantee failure is to not try.<BR>
</FONT></LI>
</UL>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">_______________________________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The Guardian (London)<BR>
October 2, 2003<BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="Arial">GM crops fail key trials amid environment fear: Two out<BR>
of three strains 'should not be grown':<BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">BY Paul Brown Environment correspondent<BR>
<BR>
GM oil-seed rape and sugar beet are more damaging than conventional crops,<BR>
scientists will tell ministers next week after three years of field-scale<BR>
tests Photograph: David Levene<BR>
<BR>
Two of the three GM crops grown experimentally in Britain,</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">oil-seed rape<BR>
and sugar beet</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">,</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">appear more harmful to the environment than<BR>
Conventional crops</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">and should not be grown in the UK, scientists are<BR>
expected to tell the government next week.<BR>
<BR>
The Guardian has learned that the scientists will conclude that growing<BR>
these crops</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> is damaging to plant and insect life.</FONT></B><BR>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The judgment will be a serious setback to the GM lobby in the UK and<BR>
Europe, reopening the acrimonious debate about GM food.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The third crop, GM maize, allows the survival of more weeds and insects<BR>
</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">And might be recommended for approval, though some scientists still have<BR>
reservations.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The results of the three years of field scale trials - the largest<BR>
scientific experiment of its type on GM crops undertaken anywhere in the<BR>
world</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">- will be published next Friday by the august Philosophical<BR>
Transactions of the Royal Society. The results have been a closely guarded<BR>
secret for months, and will be studied by scientists, farmers, food<BR>
companies and governments across the world….<BR>
<BR>
The overwhelming public hostility in the UK to GM crops has not been shared<BR>
by scientists or the government but the results of the field scale trials<BR>
are expected to be a jolt to the enthusiasts. ….<BR>
<BR>
A three-year moratorium on the commercial introduction of crops was<BR>
negotiated with the GM companies Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer Bioscience<BR>
while the experimental field trials took place. Despite repeated attacks by<BR>
anti-GM protesters that destroyed many of the fields, the scientists<BR>
decided they had enough results to be scientifically valid. ..<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The numbers of weed species and various types of spiders, ground beetles,<BR>
butterflies, moths and bees in fields of GM crops and the adjacent<BR>
conventional crop fields were counted to see if they showed marked<BR>
differences</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">. All were treated with herbicides to kill weeds but the GM<BR>
crops were modified to survive special types made by Monsanto and Bayer.<BR>
<BR>
The papers accepted for publication by the Royal Society</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">show that in GM<BR>
sugar beet and oil-seed rape the weeds and insects were significantly less<BR>
numerous.</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Spraying with the</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Monsanto herbicide glyphosate</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">had taken a heavy<BR>
toll in the beet fields and the</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Bayer product glufosinate ammonium</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">had<BR>
wiped out many species in the rape fields.<BR>
<BR>
For maize the reverse appears to be the case. The reason seems to be that<BR>
maize fields are normally sprayed with</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">atrazine</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">, which kills weeds as they<BR>
germinate, and is</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">an even more sav age killer than the Bayer product</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">. But<BR>
the result may be controversial because maize is particularly sensitive to<BR>
competition from weeds and yields may be down. Farmers in America found<BR>
glufosinate ammonium was not enough to kill competitive weeds and used a<BR>
second herbicide, further damaging biodiversity.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The political fall out from the trial results is potentially enormous. It<BR>
would give the government every excuse to refuse permission outright for<BR>
two of the three crops on environmental grounds.</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> One of the two legally<BR>
watertight reasons for such a refusal is the environment, the other is<BR>
health.</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Almost all of northern Europe, with similar farming conditions,<BR>
would be expected to follow any British ban.<BR>
</FONT></B><BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">GM maize, grown in the UK as a fodder crop, may be given the green light<BR>
under strict guidelines…</FONT>
<BR>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The government has other minefields to negotiate before GM crops can be<BR>
introduced.</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission is<BR>
still wrestling with the vexed question of distances required between GM<BR>
and conventional crops</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> to avoid cross contamination and compensation<BR>
schemes for injured farmers if all goes wrong.<BR>
<BR>
If contamination above</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> 0.9%</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">occurs in conventional crops it will have to be<BR>
declared and will be virtually unsaleable to food companies and all UK<BR>
supermarkets. For organic farmers the threshold is even lower at</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> 0.1%.<BR>
</FONT></B><BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The majority of the commission members believe that the biotech industry<BR>
should</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> set up a fund</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">with a levy on farmers growing GM crops</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">to compensate</FONT></B><BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">any conventional farmers whose crops lose value because of<BR>
cross-contamination. The biotech industry is wholly opposed to this.<BR>
<BR>
The commission is also set to recommend</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">a second statutory fund</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">paid for by<BR>
the government</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> to compensate farmers who lose organic status</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">for the same<BR>
reason.<BR>
<BR>
New legislation would be required to set up the schemes and enforce the<BR>
separation distances between crops. The legally enforceable separation<BR>
distances could be made larger or smaller in the future in the light of<BR>
experience.<BR>
<BR>
The commission meets again in December by which time a draft of proposals<BR>
will be circulated.<BR>
</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">________________________________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Associated Press Worldstream<BR>
October 2, 2003<BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="Arial">Protest grows as end nears to ban on biotech plants and animals</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">BY RAY LILLEY; Associated Press Writer<BR>
WELLINGTON, New Zealand<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">As the end of a two-year ban on planting genetically engineered crops in<BR>
New Zealand</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">looms, this nation that prides itself on its pristine<BR>
environment is turning into a hothouse of opposition to manipulated plants<BR>
and animals.<BR>
<BR>
>From eco-warriors threatening to tear up crops to concerned mothers<BR>
stripping to their bras in Parliament, people across this nation of 4<BR>
million are boldly seeking new ways to articulate their opposition.<BR>
<BR>
A group calling itself</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> Mothers Against Genetic Engineering, or Madge</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">, this<BR>
week posted billboards around major cities portraying a naked "genetically<BR>
engineered" woman with four breasts attached to a milking machine.<BR>
<BR>
It was the same group who disrupted Parliament three weeks ago when members<BR>
stripped off their tops to reveal pink bras in an anti-GE protest.<BR>
<BR>
Environment activist group, the</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">"Wild Greens,"</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">has already torn up fields<BR>
and wrecked hothouses of laboratory-modified potatoes and are threatening<BR>
more of the same if GE crops are allowed in fields.<BR>
<BR>
A recent nationwide opinion poll revealed that</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">68 percent of people want<BR>
the moratorium</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">, due to end Oct. 29,</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">extended for five years</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">and</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">38 percent<BR>
said they want biotech plants and organisms permanently banned.<BR>
</FONT></B><BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Despite the numbers and the protests, the Labor-led government of Prime<BR>
Minister Helen Clark remains on course to lift the ban.<BR>
<BR>
The Green Party, which has nine lawmakers in the 120-seat parliament,<BR>
warned that New Zealand</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">has no rules in place to fully protect food and<BR>
seed crops from contamination by genetically engineered plants.<BR>
</FONT></B><BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This same issue Monday split the European Union as ministers disagreed over<BR>
rules to prevent cross-contamination of organic and conventional crops by<BR>
biotech seeds.<BR>
<BR>
...The country's law to control hazardous substances and new organisms "does<BR>
not deal with cross-contamination of crops at all," Fitzsimons added.<BR>
<BR>
...But Fitzsimons said the strategy allows a 1 percent contamination level,<BR>
which will enrage groups like organic farmers and "anyone who wants to<BR>
market their produce as GE-free."<BR>
<BR>
On the Net: </FONT><A HREF="file://www.madge.net.nz"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">www.madge.net.nz</FONT></U></A><BR>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">____________________________________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="Arial">Seed industry chief rips new Brazilian GM soya policy</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Date Posted: 10/2/2003<BR>
English IPS News via NewsEdge Corporation : RIO DE JANEIRO, Sep. 30<BR>
(IPS/GIN) -- The Brazilian government's decision to temporarily allow<BR>
farmers to plant genetically modified soya seed that was smuggled into the<BR>
country "is our death sentence," says Narciso Barisn Neto, head of a seed<BR>
producers' association in the southern state of Rio Grande do Sul.<BR>
...<BR>
Cultivation of GM seeds is banned in Brazil according to a 1999 court<BR>
decision, but the area planted with transgenic soya has expanded steadily<BR>
since 1997, especially in Rio Grande do Sul. There, 70 percent of soya<BR>
planted last year had originated from seed smuggled in from Argentina,<BR>
according to the state's seed producers' association APASSUL.<BR>
...<BR>
The Brazilian seed industry, which helped the country to double its<BR>
agricultural output since 1990 while cultivated land increased just 15<BR>
percent, is also threatened in other states, he said.<BR>
...<BR>
by: Mario Osava, Copyright ©2003 Global Information Network</FONT><BR>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">__________________________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Financial Times (London,England)<BR>
September 30, 2003<BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="Arial">Fischler urges EU states to lift modified-crops ban</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">By TOBIAS BUCK, BRUSSELS<BR>
<BR>
Franz Fischler, the European Union farm commissioner, yesterday pleaded<BR>
with member states to lift their moratorium on the approval of new<BR>
genetically modified organisms, although</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">some countries insisted further<BR>
legislation was needed</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">to shield consumers and farmers from potential<BR>
hazards linked to the technology.<BR>
<BR>
His call comes as Brussels faces strong international pressure to restart<BR>
...following its five-year de facto ban on new approvals, imposed by a coalition<BR>
of member states....The European Commission has pushed hard to make sure<BR>
the moratorium is lifted before a WTO panel rules on the case, which could<BR>
be next year at the earliest.<BR>
<BR>
However, the Commission's efforts have run into opposition from some member<BR>
states ....The EU this year passed two tough laws dealing with the labelling and<BR>
traceability of GMOs…</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">However, countries such as Austria and Luxembourg said at a meeting of farm<BR>
ministers in Brussels yesterday they would not back any new GMO<BR>
authorisations without</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">EU-wide rules on the "co-existence"</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">of conventional,<BR>
biological and GM farming.<BR>
<BR>
Such rules would include measures aimed at preventing cross-pollination of<BR>
GM and non-GM crops and would establish</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">under what circumstances farmers<BR>
would have to pay damages</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">in case of such contamination. The Commission<BR>
wants such rules to be established at a national level, to prevent any<BR>
further delays.<BR>
<BR>
Mr Fischler told the ministers yesterday: "It is important to note</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">that the<BR>
co-existence debate should not be misused</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> for causes that will further<BR>
delay the authorisations of new GMOs."<BR>
<BR>
... EU officials ...said Austria and Luxembourg had failed to win broad<BR>
Support... Josef Proll, Austria's farm minister, said<BR>
there were "several countries leaning towards our position". Germany, for<BR>
example, had backed Vienna's call for EU-wide rules...<BR>
<BR>
Despite Mr Proll's remarks, Commission officials said they remained<BR>
optimistic that the ban would be lifted in time. "Austria has not caused a<BR>
domino effect," said a spokesman for Mr Fischler.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">________________________________________________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Der Standard.at, 02. Oktober 2003 14:09 MEZ </FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="Arial">Debatte läuft, Ergebnis keines in Sicht</FONT></B><BR>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Brüssel -</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Agrarkommissar Fischler</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">warnte am Montag anlässlich des EU-Agrarrates<BR>
in Brüssel eindringlich davor, die Debatte über das Nebeneinander von Gentechnik, klassischer und<BR>
biologischer Landwirtschaft zu "missbrauchen, um die Genehmigung neuer gentechnisch veränderter<BR>
Pflanzen weiter hinauszuzögern". Er</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">plädierte dafür, die Koexistenz und damit verbundene<BR>
Haftungsfragen national zu regeln.</FONT></B>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Im Gegensatz zu Fischler fordert [der österreichische]</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Agrarminister Josef Pröll</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">eine</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">gesamt-<BR>
europäische Lösung</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">, wie es sie für Biobauern sowie für die Kennzeichnung und die Rückverfolgbarkeit<BR>
gentechnischer Produkte gebe. Pröll sagte am Montag in Brüssel, dass er aus Deutschland, Frankreich<BR>
und Luxemburg Unterstützung für seine Positionen gespürt habe.</FONT>
</P>
<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Vorgelegt zur Zulassung</FONT></B>
</P>
<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Schon im November dürften wieder gentechnisch veränderte Organismen (GVO) zur Zulassung<BR>
Dem wissenschaftlichen Ausschuss der EU vorgelegt werden</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">, erwartete EU-Umweltkommissarin<BR>
Margot Wallström am Donnerstag.</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">"Anfang 2004" werden dann wohl die ersten Produkte unter dem<BR>
neuen EU-Recht aus dem Jahr 2001 genehmigungsreif sein</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">. Innerhalb des kommenden halben<BR>
Jahres werde man daher sehen, wie die EU-Staaten wirklich zur Gentechnik stehen.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Denn es liege nun an den Mitgliedsländern, sich für oder gegen GVO zu entscheiden, sagte Wallström<BR>
am Donnerstag im Gespräch mit Journalisten. Im wissenschaftlichen Ausschuss sind Experten der<BR>
EU-Staaten vertreten. Gibt es dort keine Einigung, wird die Zulassung von den Umweltministern der<BR>
Mitgliedsländer behandelt. Aber aus ihrer Sicht hat die EU mit den Gesetzen zur Kennzeichnung und<BR>
Rückverfolgbarkeit nun einen Rahmen geschaffen, wie mit GVO umzugehen sei. Nun müsse die EU "<BR>
der Welt zeigen, dass es funktioniert" und nicht nur die Hände in den Schoß legen und warten, sagte<BR>
Wallström.</FONT>
</P>
<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Grenzwerte</FONT></B>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Parallel zur Diskussion über die Koexistenz verschiedener Kulturen läuft auch die Debatte über<BR>
Grenzwerte für die unbeabsichtigte Beimischung gentechnisch veränderter Samen ins traditionelle Saatgut.<BR>
Hierfür werden derzeit</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> je nach Pflanzenart Grenzwerte zwischen 0,3 und 0,7 Prozent</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">vorgeschlagen.<BR>
Bei einer so hohen Beimischung im Saatgut könnte aber die Ernte den schon beschlossenen Grenzwert<BR>
von 0,9 Prozent Gentech-Anteil überschreiten, warnt Pröll. Ein Bauer, der gentechnikfreies Saatgut<BR>
angepflanzt hat, könnte dann eine kennzeichnungspflichtige Ernte einfahren.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">In die Gentechnik-Diskussion fließen auch Überlegungen zur Schaffung gentechnikfreier Zonen ein.<BR>
Für Pröll ist es "nicht sinnvoll", wenn einige Bundesländer jetzt auf eigene Faust versuchen, sich zu<BR>
gentechnikfreien Zonen erklären zu lassen. Dafür sei es "zu früh". Man sollte lieber warten, bis<BR>
gesamteuropäisch die Grundlagen beschlossen seien und dann gemeinsam vorgehen. (APA)</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT FACE="Arial">_______________________________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="arial">Mittwoch 1. Oktober 2003, 15:54 Uhr</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="arial">ots-Originaltext: Greenpeace e.V.</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE=4 FACE="arial">Metro bestätigt Kampagne für Gentechnik im Essen / Greenpeace<BR>
weist Vorwürfe des Handelskonzerns zurück</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="arial">(ots) - Hamburg/Düsseldorf, 1. 10. 2003 – Greenpeace weist den Vorwurf der Verbraucher-<BR>
täuschung zurück, den Metro heute hinsichtlich des Konflikts über Gentechnik in Nahrungsmitteln<BR>
verbreitet hat. Die Behauptung von Metro entspricht nicht der Wahrheit.<BR>
<BR>
So unterstellt Metro, dass bereits jetzt 60 bis 70 Prozent der Nahrungsmittel mit Gentechnik<BR>
verunreinigt wären und beruft sich dabei auf Zahlen aus dem Bundesministerium für Verbraucherschutz<BR>
(BMVEL).</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="arial">Richtig ist: Das BMVEL hat nie eigene Schätzungen veröffentlicht. Das Ministerium nimmt vielmehr an,<BR>
dass Zutaten aus genmanipulierten Pflanzen heute deutlich weniger verbreitet sind. Große Markenhersteller,<BR>
wie Unilever, Kraft und Coca-Cola, die wie rund 170 weitere Lebensmittelfirmen Greenpeace schriftlich<BR>
Versichert haben, keine Zutaten aus Gen-Pflanzen zu verwenden, werden von Metro indirekt der<BR>
Verbrauchertäuschung bezichtigt.<BR>
<BR>
Seit heute morgen protestieren Greenpeace-Aktivisten vor einem Real-Markt in Düsseldorf gegen die<BR>
Allianz des Metro-Konzerns mit der internationalen Genfood-Branche. Diese geplante Zusammenarbeit mit<BR>
der Gentechnik-Industrie hat die Metro-Gruppe inzwischen bestätigt. Danach will Metro eine Informations-<BR>
kampagne für Gentechnik starten, die von der Industrie bezahlt wird.<BR>
<BR>
„Metro lässt sich von der Gen-Industrie als Türöffner für Genfood bezahlen und behauptet gleichzeitig,<BR>
die Verbraucher ‚wahrheitsgemäß‘ zu informieren. Verbraucherwünsche und Lebensmittelqualität bleiben<BR>
auf der Strecke“, sagt Alexander Hissting, Gentechnikexperte von Greenpeace. Auch durch massive<BR>
Pestzidrückstände ist die angebliche Metro-Qualität ins Zwielicht geraten. Greenpeace hatte Proben von<BR>
Obst und Gemüse der Metro-Verkaufsstätten real, extra und Kaufhof untersuchen lassen. Rund jede<BR>
fünfte Probe erreichte den zulässigen gesetzlichen Grenzwert für Pestizide oder lag sogar darüber. Nur vier<BR>
von zehn Proben enthielten keine Rückstände.<BR>
<BR>
Das EinkaufsNetz ist die Verbraucherorganisation von Greenpeace. Bislang beteiligen sich rund 30.000<BR>
Mitmacher an Aktionen gegen Gift und Gentechnik im Essen. Das EinkaufsNetz fordert Lebensmittel, die<BR>
gut für Verbraucher, Landwirte und die Natur sind. Angesichts der Tatsache, dass Metro ohne Probleme<BR>
auch künftig auf Gentechnik im Essen verzichten könnte, wird das Greenpeace-EinkaufsNetz die<BR>
Verbraucher weiter informieren. Metro hat zugegeben, schon von 6000 Kunden Protest-Postkarten<BR>
erhalten zu haben. Die Kunden wollen wegen Gift und Gentechnik in Nahrungsmitteln nicht länger in<BR>
Supermärkten der Metro-Handelskette einkaufen.<BR>
</FONT><A HREF="http://de.news.yahoo.com/031001/27/3o7dz.html"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="arial">http://de.news.yahoo.com/031001/27/3o7dz.html</FONT></U></A><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="arial">, </FONT><A HREF="file://www.greenpeace.de/einkaufsnetz"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="arial">www.greenpeace.de/einkaufsnetz</FONT></U></A><BR>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="arial">___________________________________________________________________________________<BR>
Mittwoch 1. Oktober 2003, 15:09 Uhr</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE=4 FACE="arial">Greenpeace und Metro streiten um gentechnisch veränderte Nahrung</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="arial">Düsseldorf (AP) Zwischen der Umweltschutzorganisation Greenpeace und dem Handelsriesen Metro ist es<BR>
zum Streit um den Umgang mit gentechnisch veränderten Nahrungsmitteln gekommen. Greenpeace warf<BR>
dem Konzern am Mittwoch vor, er wolle «im Gegensatz zu den meisten deutschen Lebensmittelherstellern<BR>
genmanipulierte Nahrung durchsetzen». Metro-Sprecher Albrecht von Truchseß hielt dagegen, schon<BR>
heute seien nach Schätzungen des Berliner Verbraucherministeriums höchstens 40 Prozent der<BR>
Lebensmittel nicht in irgendeiner Weise mit Gentechnik in Berührung gekommen….</FONT>
<BR><A HREF="http://de.news.yahoo.com/031001/12/3o6yj.html"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="arial">http://de.news.yahoo.com/031001/12/3o6yj.html</FONT></U></A>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="arial">_____________________________________________________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="arial">Mittwoch 1. Oktober 2003, 10:24 Uhr</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE=4 FACE="arial">Greenpeace deckt auf: Metro-Konzern will Genfood für Alle /<BR>
Internes Metro-Papier belegt Kooperation mit Gen-Industrie</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="arial">(ots) - Hamburg/Düsseldorf, 1. 10. 2003 – Der Metro-Konzern will im Gegensatz zu den meisten<BR>
deutschen Lebensmittelherstellern genmanipulierte Nahrung durchsetzen. Das geht aus einem internen<BR>
Papier hervor, das dem EinkaufsNetz, der Greenpeace-Verbraucherorganisation, zugespielt worden ist.<BR>
Nach diesem Protokoll eines Treffens von Metro und den Gentechnik-Konzernen Monsanto und Bayer<BR>
sollen auch Tengelmann und Aldi in die Pro-Gentechnik Kampagne einbezogen werden. Bislang<BR>
erklärt Metro öffentlich, den Verbraucher über Gentechnik im Essen "wahrheitsgemäß zu informieren,<BR>
damit er eigenverantwortliche Auswahlentscheidungen treffen kann"….</FONT>
<BR><A HREF="http://de.news.yahoo.com/031001/27/3o610.html"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="arial">http://de.news.yahoo.com/031001/27/3o610.html</FONT></U></A>
</P>
<P><FONT FACE="Arial">_______________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="arial">Montag 29. September 2003, 17:31 Uhr</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE=4 FACE="arial">Fischler für raschen Anbau von Gentech-Pflanzen</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="arial">Brüssel (AFP)</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="arial">EU-Agrarkommissar Franz Fischler will die Genehmigung für den Anbau von<BR>
Gentech-Pflanzen vorantreiben. Landwirte, die weiter konventionell oder ökologisch<BR>
anbauen, dürften zwar nicht behindert werden, sagte Fischler in Brüssel. Die Debatte<BR>
über die Koexistenz mit der Gentech-Landwirtschaft solle aber nicht dazu missbraucht<BR>
werden, die Genehmigung weiterer Gentech-Sorten hinauszuzögern.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="arial">Landwirtschaftsministerin Renate Künast (Grüne) sah in der Diskussion mit ihren<BR>
EU-Kollegen keine neuen Bedingungen aufgestellt, um die Zulassungsverfahren für neue<BR>
Gentech-Sorten wieder aufzunehmen. Der Schutz der Landwirtschaft vor unbeabsichtigen<BR>
Verunreinigungen sei aber unerläßlich…</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="arial">Umstritten sind auch die von der EU-Kommission vorgeschlagenen Schwellenwerte für<BR>
die Verunreinigung von Saatgut, die je nach Pflanze zwischen 0,3 und 0,7 Prozent liegen<BR>
sollen. Unklar ist zudem, inwieweit Mitgliedstaaten den Anbau von Gentech-Pflanzen in<BR>
bestimmten Regionen ganz verbieten dürfen.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="arial">....Der vorgesehene Schwellenwert von 0,3 bis 0,7 Prozent Verunreinigungen, unterhalb<BR>
dessen Saatgut nicht als Gen-Saat gekennzeichnet werden soll, mache es Landwirten<BR>
und der Lebensmittelindustrie nahezu unmöglich, gentechnikfreie Produkte anzubieten,<BR>
argumentierte Greenpeace. Verunreinigungen der gesamten Produktionskette seien<BR>
unvermeidlich. Insbesondere Bio-Landwirte wären davon besonders betroffen.</FONT>
<BR><A HREF="http://de.news.yahoo.com/030929/286/3o1ni.html"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="arial">http://de.news.yahoo.com/030929/286/3o1ni.html</FONT></U></A>
</P>
<P><FONT FACE="Arial">__________________________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="arial">vwd</FONT></B><BR>
<B></B><B></B><B><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="arial">EU-Staaten fordern harmonisierte Regeln für GVO-Anbau</FONT></B><FONT FACE="Arial"><BR>
<I></I></FONT><I><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="arial">Montag 29. September 2003, 15:58 Uhr</FONT></I>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Brüssel (vwd) - Mehrere EU-Staaten, darunter Deutschland, fordern ein EU- weites Regelwerk<BR>
für die Koexistenz von Gen-Pflanzen mit traditionellen Anbaukulturen. "Die Leitlinien der EU-<BR>
Kommission dazu sind begrüßenswert, aber das Ziel müssen</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">EU-weite Regeln</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">sein, um<BR>
auch</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> Wettbewerbsverzerrungen zu verhindern</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">", sagte Bundesagrarministerin Renate Künast<BR>
nach dem Treffen der EU-Agrarminister am Montag in Brüssel. ...<BR>
<BR>
Die Kommission will ...keine Gemeinschaftsvorschriften vorschlagen. Fischler überlässt es<BR>
den EU-Regierungen selbst, wie sie die Frage der Koexistenz von genveränderten Organismen<BR>
(GVO) und konventionellen Pflanzenarten regeln. Problematisch bei der Koexistenz ist<BR>
laut Künast eine mögliche Kontamination von traditionellen Anbauflächen mit GVO.<BR>
Geklärt müsse vor allem die</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Haftungsfrage bei finanziellen Schäden</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">durch beispielsweise<BR>
GVO-verunreinigte Felder.<BR>
<BR>
Darüber hinaus plädierte die deutsche Agrarministerin für GVO-freie Zonen in ökologisch<BR>
sensiblen Gebieten. In diesen Naturschutzregionen könnten beispielsweise spezielle<BR>
Genehmigungen für den GVO-Anbau verlangt werden, führte Künast aus. Auch die<BR>
italienische EU-Ratspräsidentschaft sprach sich am Montag für eine Harmonisierung<BR>
der GVO-Anbauregeln aus.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">"Die Koexistenzfrage hat nichts mit Risikomanagment oder Zulassung von GVO zu tun",<BR>
betonte EU-Agrarkommissar Fischler.</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Die Union könne sich dem Einsatz der Biotechnologie<BR>
in der Landwirtschaft nicht verschließen. Dabei solle es möglichst viele Freiheiten geben<BR>
und keine Eingrenzung durch Regeln. "Die Koexistenzdebatte sollte nicht dazu missbraucht<BR>
werden, die Genehmigung neuer GVO weiter hinauszuzögern", sagte Fischler.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Ali Ulucay/vwd/29.9.2003/ul/hab</FONT>
<BR><A HREF="http://de.biz.yahoo.com/030929/11/3o1iw.html"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">http://de.biz.yahoo.com/030929/11/3o1iw.html</FONT></U></A>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">_______________________________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="arial">Montag 29. September 2003, 14:35 Uhr</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE=4 FACE="arial">EU-Staaten suchen Regelungen für Gen-Saatgut</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="arial">Brüssel (AP) Die EU-Staaten suchen nach einheitlichen Regelungen beim Anbau von gentechnisch<BR>
verändertem Saatgut. Bei einem Treffen der EU-Agrarminister am Montag in Brüssel wurde deutlich,<BR>
dass mehrere Mitgliedstaaten, darunter auch Deutschland, von der EU-Kommission entsprechende<BR>
Vorschläge erwarten. Im Kern geht es darum, konventionelle und Bio-Landwirtschaft vor einer<BR>
Verunreinigung mit gentechnisch veränderten Organismen zu bewahren. Zudem muss die<BR>
Haftungsfrage in einem solchen Fall geregelt werden….</FONT>
<BR><A HREF="http://de.news.yahoo.com/030929/281/3o164.html"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="arial">http://de.news.yahoo.com/030929/281/3o164.html</FONT></U></A>
</P>
<P><FONT FACE="Arial">________________________________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="arial">Montag 29. September 2003, 11:49 Uhr</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE=4 FACE="arial">Greenpeace: Gentechnikfreies Saatgut schützen</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="arial">Brüssel (AFP) Die Umweltschutzorganisation Greenpeace hat die EU-Landwirtschaftsminister<BR>
aufgefordert, strikte Vorschriften zum Schutz von Saatgut vor einer Verunreinigung durch genetisch<BR>
veränderte Organismen zu verhängen. Da konventionelles Saatgut generell frei von Gen-Saat sein<BR>
müsse, dürfe auch kein Schwellenwert für eine erlaubte Verunreinigung eingeführt werden, forderten<BR>
Greenpeace-Vertreter in Brüssel vor einem Treffen der EU-Agrarminister.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="arial">Greenpeace überreichte Bundesverbraucherschutzminister Renate Künast (Grüne) und einer Reihe<BR>
ihrer Kollegen vor dem Ratsgebäude Proben mit zertifizierter gentechnikfreier Mais-Saat.<BR>
Insbesondere Fragen nach der Haftung für nicht vorsätzliche Verunreinigungen mit Gen-Produkten<BR>
sind im EU-Recht noch offen….</FONT>
<BR><A HREF="http://de.news.yahoo.com/030929/286/3o0iw.html"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="arial">http://de.news.yahoo.com/030929/286/3o0iw.html</FONT></U></A>
</P>
<P><FONT FACE="Arial">______________________________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="arial">Montag 29. September 2003, 08:12 Uhr</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE=4 FACE="arial">EU-Agrarminister über Anbau von Gentech-Pflanzen</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="arial">Brüssel (AFP)</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="arial">Probleme für die Landwirtschaft durch den Anbau gentechnisch veränderter Organismen beschäftigen<BR>
heute in Brüssel die EU-Agrarminister. Der italienische Ratsvorsitz will von den Mitgliedstaaten<BR>
beispielsweise wissen, ob einzelne Anbaugebiete für den Anbau von Gen-Pflanzen gesperrt werden<BR>
sollen, um deren ungewollte Ausbreitung zu verhindern. Auch sind Fragen des Haftungsrechts noch<BR>
ungeklärt. ...</FONT>
<BR><A HREF="http://de.news.yahoo.com/030929/286/3nzlb.html"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">http://de.news.yahoo.com/030929/286/3nzlb.html</FONT></U></A>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">_______________________________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Gazeta Mercatil Online (Brasil)<BR>
September 29, 2003<BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="Arial">Farmers want to plant transgenic cotton</FONT><BR>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">After the polemic with soybeans, Brazilian cotton farmers and exporters<BR>
also want to cultivate genetically modified cotton seeds, following the<BR>
expamples already set by countries like India, China, Australia, the United<BR>
States and Bolivia. Farmer Jorge Maeda, president of the Brazilian Cotton<BR>
Producers Association (Abrapa), made the request directly to vice-president<BR>
Jose Alencar, during an audience in Brasilia. "We need this tool to be<BR>
competitive," he said. According to Maeda, planting transgenic cotton<BR>
promises economies of 25% for farmers. He said also that the genetically<BR>
modified cotton dispensed the use of most insecticides. (Riomar Trindade,<BR>
Gazeta Mercantil - Translated by James Bruce)<BR>
__________________________________________________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Agence France Presse<BR>
September 29, 2003<BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="Arial">Church nod good for genetically modified food in Philippines</FONT>
<BR>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Use of genentically modified organisms (GMOs), including seeds will get a<BR>
boost in the Philippines following a Vatican explanation that they are not<BR>
sinful, President Gloria Arroyo said Monday.<BR>
<BR>
Arroyo said this was clarified to her in a talk with Vatican State<BR>
Secretary Cardinal Angelo Sodano after her audience with Pope John Paul II<BR>
at the weekend.<BR>
<BR>
In in a statement in Rome which was released in Manila, Arroyo said, "we<BR>
have our policies on GMOs and I think what's important now for opposers is<BR>
that the Vatican said that GMOs are not immoral."<BR>
<BR>
She said</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">this explanation would be used in government information<BR>
Campaigns on GMO seeds in this largely-Roman Catholic country.<BR>
</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">...<BR>
Arroyo said Cardinal Sodano clarified that while the Vatican considers<BR>
human cloning as immoral, it does not condemn GM agricultural products.<BR>
...</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">______________________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="Arial">Top GM food company abandons British crop trials</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Robin McKie, science editor<BR>
Sunday September 28, 2003<BR>
The Observer<BR>
<BR>
A key GM crop developer, Bayer, has decided to halt UK trials of genetically<BR>
modified plants. .. Bayer was the last company carrying out GM trials in the<BR>
UK...The company blamed Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett for its<BR>
decision...</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">that the locations of all trial sites be made public</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">…</FONT>
<BR>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Until last week, Bayer CropScience, …believed it was close to a deal that<BR>
would allow GM crop test sites - which are regularly destroyed by protesters<BR>
- to be kept secret. Instead of having to publish exact map references for fields,<BR>
companies would only have to name the county in which it was holding a trial.<BR>
...But at the last minute the Department of Environment, Food and Rural<BR>
Affairs (Defra) told Bayer it would not support this change in regulations.<BR>
<BR>
...'It is disappointing the criminal activities of a small minority of people have<BR>
prevented information on GM crop varieties being generated.' [said the official]<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Most GM crop trials carried out over the past few years have been<BR>
sabotaged</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">, not only those of Bayer. ...as long as test GM trials are exposed<BR>
to sabotage...</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> 'This is a back-door moratorium</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">,' said an industry source.</FONT>
<BR><A HREF="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1051262,00.html"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1051262,00.html</FONT></U></A>
<BR>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">__________________________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">September 10, 2003<BR>
Center for Science in the Public Interest, USA<BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=4 FACE="Arial">Insects May Become Resistant, Warns CSPI</FONT>
<BR>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">New government data show that farmers' violation of rules governing the<BR>
planting of genetically engineered (GE) pest-resistant corn is more<BR>
widespread than previously thought. ...<BR>
At issue is whether farmers are planting required amounts of<BR>
non-genetically engineered corn alongside plantings of GE corn. Those<BR>
"refuges" are planted so that any insects that do develop resistance to Bt<BR>
corn are likely to mate with those insects that haven't--resulting in<BR>
offspring that will continue to be susceptible. …<BR>
"It is distressing to see that a relatively easy requirement is being<BR>
ignored by so many farmers," said CSPI biotechnology project director<BR>
Gregory Jaffe. "Clearly farmers, the seed industry, and the government<BR>
Are</FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">not doing an adequate job of safeguarding</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">the environmental<BR>
benefits of agricultural biotechnology."<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">4.2 million acres of Bt corn</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"></FONT><B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">were planted without</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">the required refuges of<BR>
20 percent non-Bt corn, according to the latest data. ..<BR>
80 percent of the noncompliant acres were planted by large farms.<BR>
"When huge corn farms don't plant enough of a refuge, it becomes more<BR>
likely that insects will breed resistance to Bt corn," Jaffe said.<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Bt corn is engineered with a gene from a bacterium, Bacillus<BR>
thuringiensis, which produces a toxin that kills European Corn<BR>
Borer pests</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">...</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>